Mr Speaker : \tOrder. I wish to inform hon Members that under the provisions of Standing Order No 102, I have on 27 August 2012 nominated Dr Janil Puthucheary and Mr Png Eng Huat to be Members of the Estimates Committee in place of Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim and the former Member Mr Yaw Shin Leong respectively. The nominations took effect from 27 August 2012.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Singapore Interbank Offered Rate-setting Regime","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"1 Dr Lily Neo askedthe Prime Minister (a) how is the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate (SIBOR) set by Singapore banks; (b) whether the system is robust and whether it requires better governance; (c) what is the possibility of a SIBOR-rigging incident happening in Singapore; and (d) what is the impact of the London Interbank Offered Rate on financial institutions in Singapore.
Page: 583
2 Ms Tan Su Shan asked\tthe Prime Minister what is the Ministry's position on the appropriateness of the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate being used as a benchmark in the setting of loan pricing in Singapore.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Education and Information, Communications and the Arts (Mr Lawrence Wong)\t(for the Prime Minister) : \tMr Speaker, Sir, I am taking this Question on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and Chairman of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). And with your permission, I will take Question Nos 1 and 2 together.
Mr Speaker : \tYes, please.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: The London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) is an important interest rate benchmark that is used by market participants globally, including in Singapore, to directly price financial products or, indirectly, as a reference when setting interest rates. As an international financial centre, we host many global banks that trade and offer financial products that are referenced against LIBOR. The process for setting the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate (SIBOR) is similar to that for interbank offered rates in several other jurisdictions. The basic model for most jurisdictions has followed that for LIBOR, which is set by the British Bankers' Association (BBA).
So, for us, the SIBOR is currently set by 12 participating banks, and published by the Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS). Prior to 11.00 am every business day, each participating bank submits the interest rate at which it could borrow Singapore Dollars in the interbank market, at tenures ranging from one month to 12 months. These rates are then collated and ranked. The middle two quartiles – the middle band – of six submitted interest rates which are in the middle of the range – are then averaged to determine the official SIBOR, which means that the outliers, or the rates that are at the bottom and top end of the range, are not included in the computation of SIBOR. ABS publishes the SIBOR at 11.30 am daily.
As SIBOR is a measure of the cost of borrowing Singapore Dollars in the interbank market, banks have found it to be an appropriate benchmark to price their Singapore Dollar-denominated loans. Such loans include commercial term loans and residential property loans. Besides SIBOR, it is possible to peg contracts to other benchmarks of similar tenures, such as the Swap Offer Rate (SOR), central bank bills or Government bills and bonds. However, each benchmark will have its own unique characteristics so banks can decide. In 2009, ABS reviewed its rate-setting procedures and adopted several improvements. These included the establishment of a Financial Markets Committee to oversee the governance and procedures for daily rate setting; and establishing a minimum number of participating banks – 12 of them – and a minimum number of contributed rates for each daily setting – six rates. ABS also appointed an administrator to review the rates contributed by participating banks, including checking for consistent outliers and comparing with broker rates.
Page: 584
In line with the investigation into LIBOR, regulators in several jurisdictions are looking into how key market interest rate benchmarks have been set by banks. MAS is doing the same in Singapore, and has directed banks that are on the ABS' rates contributing panels to conduct independent reviews to verify the integrity of their rate-submission processes. Pending the completion of these reviews, it is premature to draw conclusions about the impact on financial institutions in Singapore.
MAS is also working with ABS and the Singapore Foreign Exchange Markets Committee (SFEMC) to review the SIBOR-setting process more fundamentally. The review will take into account what SIBOR is used for, how it can be strengthened, whether proposed changes are resilient to future changes in market structure, as well as the impact on the existing stock of contracts that are already pegged to SIBOR. We are mindful that any change will impact lenders and borrowers. Other jurisdictions are also reviewing their benchmark setting processes, and we will study those closely as well.
\tDr Lily Neo (Tanjong Pagar): \tMr Speaker, Sir, three supplementary questions, please. May I ask the Senior Minister of State whether SIBOR should be left to the Association of Banks Singapore (ABS) to decide, or should it be overseen by MAS instead? Secondly, is the Senior Minister of State concerned that the rates may be skewed in view of the fact that fewer than 12 banks are contributing to submissions to ABS presently, instead of the 17 banks in the past? Lastly, should the rates be the actual price at which banks can borrow, rather than the price at which they think they might be able to borrow on the market?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for the questions. I think these are very relevant questions which we are studying. The first point to make is we should look at the broader context of how SIBOR came about, or how LIBOR came about. These are price-discovery mechanisms for lending and borrowing between banks, and so the way these rates were fixed or set were done by associations, because these were inter-bank rates. That was what happened in the case of LIBOR and that is also how our SIBOR rates have evolved. These were inter-bank rates relevant between banks and so the Association of Banks got involved in setting these rates.
That was the historical context of how these rates evolved. Over time, these inter-bank rates also came to be used for other purposes – for loans to corporates, to individuals. And so, there is a case for stronger governance or for strong supervision over how these rates are being set. That is why we are now in the process of reviewing the SIBOR-setting process, looking at how the SIBOR can be more fundamentally strengthened. Pending the outcome of the review, I do not want to speculate on the sort of recommendations or the framework that we will end up with. It is something we are studying and MAS is, indeed, looking at it more fundamentally to see how SIBOR can be strengthened. We are also studying what other jurisdictions are doing because this is not just a matter for Singapore alone. Many other jurisdictions are also having similar reviews and studies. It is also a discussion happening at international forums, and so we are keeping track of these. As these reviews in other jurisdictions are taking place, we will also see whether there are implications and whether there are aspects which we can adapt and apply to our context.
Whether the rates may be skewed, whether we should use actual rates rather than nominated rates – these are all part of the considerations which we want to look at to see how fundamentally SIBOR can be strengthened. How can there be better transparency in the rate-setting process? How can there be use of actual data? It is something we have been studying and will continue to study. As I have said, it is something that many other jurisdictions are also looking at. They are all looking at similar issues: transparency, better price discovery so that the rate-setting process can be more robust and more rigorous. We share the same interests and we are studying. Once our review is completed, we will be able to have a more robust SIBOR-setting process.
Page: 585
\tDr Lily Neo: \tThank you, Mr Speaker. May I ask the Senior Minister of State whether it is correct to say that the method used to set SIBOR is similar to the one used for LIBOR? The US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has said that the LIBOR system is structurally flawed and is a major problem for financial systems and for confidence in the financial system. May I seek the views of the Senior Minister of State on Mr Bernanke's remarks?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Sir, the system is similar. We evolved in a similar way, and so our rate-setting system and processes are similar. But we have, over time, strengthened our own processes. As I mentioned, in 2009, ABS did a review and we did strengthen our own governance process. So, I would say that in the case of SIBOR, we have some confidence that we have a good system. It is robust. But can it be improved? Certainly so. Would I want to comment on Mr Bernanke's remarks that LIBOR is structurally flawed? Well, he made the remarks about LIBOR, so that is his view on the LIBOR process, not on SIBOR. SIBOR has shared some similarities with the LIBOR processes, as I mentioned earlier. But we have strengthened our SIBOR-setting processes over time, and we will continue to do so.
Page: 585
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tender and Evaluation Process for Bicycles Purchased by NParks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked\tthe Minister for National Development regarding NParks' recent purchase of bicycles (a) whether the tender for the purchase of the bicycles was widely publicised; (b) why the Tender Committee did not reject the offers and call for a re-tender when options from only one vendor were received; and (c) whether the tendered price was within the budget allocated.
4 Mr Pritam Singh asked\tthe Minister for National Development (a) whether the Government discovered any discrepancies in the recent purchase of Brompton bicycles by NParks; (b) whether the Ministry has investigated the purchase for possible breaches of procedures and possible conflict of interest between the sole tenderer and NParks officers and, if so, what are the results of the investigation; (c) what was the urgency in purchasing the bicycles which accounts for the unusually short tender window; and (d) whether the Ministry is reviewing its procurement procedures to introduce greater oversight of tender evaluations.
5 Mr Pritam Singh askedthe Minister for National Development with regard to the purchase of the Brompton bicycles, (a) what prompted the Ministry to initiate audit proceedings on the procurement process; and (b) what role did the online media, particularly the blog post on therealsingapore.com, play in (i) the Ministry's decision to report the matter to CPIB; and (ii) the Ministry's press statement on 24 July 2012.
Page: 586
6 Ms Foo Mee Har asked\tthe Minister for National Development regarding the recent purchase of the Brompton foldable bicycles by NParks (a) what budget was established for the purchase; (b) whether it was benchmarked to any reference price points; and (c) what was the variance, if any, between the budget and the eventual cost of the Brompton bicycles chosen.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 3 to 6 together, please?
Mr Speaker : \tYes, please.
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: I first knew of the NParks' purchase of 26 Brompton foldable bicycles on 22 June after reading an article in the Lianhe Zaobao. That day, I asked NParks to explain and address two key questions. First, why the need for foldable bicycles; and second, whether the procurement had been conducted properly. NParks replied to me on 30 June.
On the first question, NParks explained that the use of bicycles would enable the park officers to cover more ground and complete more work each day than they could otherwise manage on foot. Their work-load has increased significantly over the last two years. For instance, an additional 50 km of newly-completed park connectors have become part of the area for them to inspect. Furthermore, they have increased the frequency of tree inspections by more than 30%, in response to changing weather patterns.
They decided on foldable bicycles to give the park officers greater flexibility as they can use public transport to reach their various work locations. The alternative is for an office van to fetch them and the bicycles to and from their deployment sites each day, and that will be more costly. Moreover, some of the inspection tracks require them to cross roads using overhead bridges. A foldable bicycle is easier for the park officers, especially our female officers.
NParks conducted a market study of foldable bicycles which would be durable enough to meet the demands of heavy usage of up to 40 km for each field inspection and have multiple gears to manage rough terrains. They also tried out several models, bringing them on public transport to assess their portability, compactness and weight. A proposal to acquire 26 foldable bicycles at a budget capped at $2,200 per unit was then submitted to and subsequently approved by the NParks top management.
I was satisfied with NParks' explanation on their decision to introduce foldable bicycles for some of its park officers, to do their work more productively.
On the second question pertaining to the procurement process, NParks explained that they had followed the Government procurement procedures. An open invitation-to-quote (ITQ), based on a set of general specifications, was published via the Government Electronic Business (GeBIZ) system. All Government agencies are required to publish quotations and tenders on the open platform of GeBIZ. It is to ensure equal opportunities to all suppliers in the market. This is an open transparent system which is well established and well-known in the industry.
NParks set aside a four-working day opening period for the ITQ, in line with the prevailing Government procurement rules then. When the quotation closed, NParks received two offers from one bidder: Brompton at $2,200 each and Bike Friday at $2,500 each. NParks proceeded to award the contract to the sole bidder for the less costly Brompton model.
Page: 587
While NParks had adhered to the procurement rules, I had some misgivings on the procurement outcome. Whenever a quotation or a tender attracts a single bidder, my instinct is to ask \"why?\" There must be many bicycle dealers out there. Why did they not take part? Will a longer opening period attract more competitive bids? Although a single bid can be accepted under the public service procurement rules, I thought NParks could have recalled the quotation with a longer opening period to try and get more bids. With greater competition, I feel that NParks might have gotten a better deal.
That day, on 30 June, I tasked the MND Internal Audit Team to scrutinise this transaction to see if there were shortcomings and whether there were lessons which we could learn from this episode. The MND Internal Audit Team concluded its investigation on 20 July. It went through NParks' internal investigation report, interviewed the relevant officers and external parties. It discovered several discrepancies and other evidence which collectively pointed to the possibility of bias in the procurement. As the findings were materially significant, we decided to report the matter to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) on 23 July. The next day, we issued a press statement to keep the public informed.
Mr Pritam Singh asked about the role of the online media in our investigation. In any investigation, we look at all inputs, regardless of the source or the medium through which they are expressed. We, hence, welcome information, wherever they come from. In this specific case, the online media discussion made two observations. First, some netizens shared information on the various types of foldable bikes and their price range. This was helpful as it added to the body of information that the MND Audit team had collected as part of their investigation. Second, some netizens observed that the NParks officer involved in the purchase and the successful bidder were Facebook \"friends\". This piece of information was not new as the MND Audit Team working with NParks management had earlier examined the officer's Facebook and had noted over 300 Facebook \"friends\", among whom was not only the successful bidder but the other bike suppliers as well.
What was material to our decision to refer the case to the CPIB investigation were some disclosures by certain parties interviewed by the Audit Team. These critical facts were duly reported to the CPIB.
The CPIB investigations are still on-going. We should observe the due process of the law to allow all facts of the case to be surfaced in due course before passing any judgement.
Meanwhile, MND has tightened its procurement controls and introduced new measures to enhance oversight. In line with the procurement changes announced by Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam last month, we have set seven working days instead of four, as the minimum opening period for the quotations called by our Statutory Boards in GeBIZ to encourage participation from more suppliers. Departments are also free to recall the quotations with a longer opening period if they feel that this would help secure more competitive bids. In addition, for quotations resulting in single bids, MND now requires any such awards to be cleared in person by the CEO or Deputy CEOs of our agencies. MND has also updated its internal procurement guide to sensitise and guide all our officers in their purchases.
Page: 588
Let me stress that we do not and will not condone any wrong-doing. When we discover it, we will not flinch from taking the right course of action. But we must do so in a measured and reasonable way. In the pursuit of justice, we should always act and conduct ourselves in a manner that is dispassionate, balanced and fair to all parties.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): \tSir, I would like to ask two supplementary questions. First, how was the budget of $2,200 determined? In my view, this is high. Second question, are there any other cheaper bicycles that can equally do the job?
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: As I have explained in the reply, the NParks officers involved in this purchase did some market research, checked out various models and ascertained their retail prices. And based on that, they made their decision or made a judgement call that $2,200 as the upper-bound of the budget would be adequate. Whether it is high or low depends on needs, which really is the second question. Are there cheaper bikes? Of course, there are all kinds of bikes. I used to cycle as a kid. I remember my bicycle, at that time, was less than a hundred dollars, but the market price of such cheap units now is probably a couple of a hundred dollars. So, there is a wide range.
Members may have read in the newspapers that I have been cycling, picking up an old hobby but with a purpose because I wanted to check out our park connectors. I have covered many stretches of park connectors by now. My sense is this – the different stretches of park connectors are of different nature and the needs for bicycle type vary. For example, when I cycled with my Bruneian counterpart at the Punggol Waterway, it was an easy stretch. I think a low-cost, simple bicycle without gears, costing maybe a couple of hundred dollars, would suffice. But unfortunately, our NParks officers do not have a choice. We do have park connector stretches which the Hokkiens say \"teruk\". [Interruptions] Not Hokkiens. The Malays call it \"teruk\". [Laughter]
I had problems with some of those stretches myself. But, more importantly, what convinced me about the need for foldable bikes is that I have seen some stretches where we actually had to carry the bicycles up the overhead bridges. It might be temporary but whatever it is, that is part of the design of the park connectors at this point in time. It is not easy. If the Member would like to join me in some of my cycling trips, she is most welcome. Carrying all those bicycles, as I have said, is challenging, especially for our female staff.
So, I am convinced of the need for foldable bikes. Once we go in to foldable bikes, then again, there is a wide range. In fact, as I have cycled with my NParks colleagues, what I noticed was that many of them used their own bikes and when I checked with them, looked at their bikes, I found that their bikes are not cheap at all. Several thousands of dollars, but they buy it on their own. The question is, should an employer continue to take advantage of this – just because your staff have their own bicycles? The management decided that they should provide bicycles to some, not to everyone, but to some, depending on needs, and then the requirements will vary as to the requirements of the jobs.
I have deliberately tried out various models of bicycles. I have tried simple bicycles. I have tried a fixed frame bicycle, unfoldable. I have tried two different brands of foldable bikes by now, with different capabilities. As I said, if the tender has attracted many more bids, the outcome might have been very different. That is the reason why I posted that first blog comment to express some misgivings, in fact, unhappiness, that I think if we had attracted a wider range of bids, even for foldable bikes, we might have received a better deal.
Page: 589
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): I would like to thank the Minister for his reply. According to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, in his reply to Member of Parliament Cedric Foo in this House last month, Deputy Prime Minister stated that competency in procurement procedures amongst civil servants has been a problem, and that delegation and supervision are also concerns. Can the Minister please elaborate on how the procurement of assets and expendables has been tightened in his Ministry since the Brompton bicycle scandal broke out?
What action has the Ministry taken to ensure that a similar incident will not occur in future? I ask this because Deputy Prime Minister Tharman mentioned that \"the core of the clean and functioning procurement system lies on the active oversight and supervision within each Ministry and agency\". It will be helpful if the Minister could inform the House what changes have been made in the Ministry of National Development.
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: Sir, I thought that was already in my reply.
Page: 589
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Funding Sources for Malay/Muslim Organisations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked\tthe Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts & Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) what are the sources of funding currently available to the Malay/Muslim organisations (MMOs); (b) how are the funds allocated to the various MMOs; and (c) whether there are plans to review the funding allocation in order to support the growing and evolving priorities of the community.
\tThe Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim): Mr Speaker, Sir, Malay/Muslim Organisations (MMOs) play an important role in uplifting and raising the achievement level of the community. One key source of funding for MMOs comes from the monthly contributions to the Mosque Building and Mendaki Fund (MBMF) via the CPF check-off scheme. Of the estimated $17.8 million collected in MBMF every year, Yayasan MENDAKI receives approximately $4 million, the Association of Muslim Professionals (AMP) $0.4 million and the other Malay/Muslim Organisations, $0.4 million. The remaining amount, Sir, is channelled to the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) in support of the Mosque Building Programme and madrasah education.
MMOs, like any other charitable organisations, also rely on donations to run their programmes. The Government provides dollar-for-dollar matching grant for donations raised by Mendaki, AMP and the MMOs up to a yearly ceiling of $4 million. The matching cap to Mendaki is up to $2 million, AMP $1 million and the other MMOs $1 million.
Page: 590
Donations and matching grant to Mendaki and other MMOs are channelled to the Malay/Muslim Community Development Fund (MMCDF) to support Mendaki and MMO-initiated projects. The MMO component of MMCDF is managed by Mendaki on behalf of the MMOs. The MMCDF Committee plays the role of ensuring that the funds are channelled to projects and programmes that meet the key priorities of our community in areas of education, youth, family and employability. The funded programmes are reviewed on a regular basis on their performance and outcomes.
Sir, the current funding arrangement was put in place since 2001. Given the evolving and growing needs of the community, it is timely to undertake a review of the policy on the funding allocation for MMOs, with the objective of ensuring that funds continue to be channelled to priority areas and to MMOs that undertake work in these areas. We will carry out the review over the next few months.
\tDr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): \tSir, I thank the Minister for the reply. The Minister mentioned in his reply that there are reviews that will be made. Can the Minister please elaborate on the reviews that will be carried out, and how can it be ensured that the funds that are disbursed to the MMOs are really used according to the intended purposes?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, on the second question, there is a committee chaired by a Member of the Board, Mr Salim Kader, that will review every project proposals by the MMOs, and to ensure that the project proposals fit into the overall thrust of Mendaki's work. Thus far, we have seen no reason to deny any of the project proposals because they have kept the proposals in line with the overall objective of Mendaki.
On the review, Sir, we recognise that many Malay/Muslim organisations, such as PPIS, 4PM, Muhammadiyah, have initiated many programmes and services to uplift the community and we recognise that these initiatives are commendable and are aligned with Mendaki's key thrust in the four areas that I have mentioned – education, youth, family and employability. The purpose of the review is really to identify the areas in the community which we require more support because, obviously, nothing is static and the MMOs can continue to build on their good work. We want to ensure that they are in a position to tackle the community's challenges and that they have a sufficient and steady flow of funds to help the community progress even further.
\tMr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh): \tSupplementary question, Sir. Beyond the allocation of resources and funding, what else are we looking to strengthen the MMOs? And will capabilities and capacity building be looked at to meet with future challenges for the community? Also, about the renewal of leadership within the MMOs, is there anything for us to assist them to upgrade and improve the leadership?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, the MMOs are independent organisations. So, we are in no position to suggest otherwise how the leadership renewal should take place. But, obviously, in line with other renewals which are taking place in the overall Singapore society, we would encourage the Malay/Muslim organisations to review their own long-term plans in terms of ensuring that there is a continuous flow of young, talented Malay/Muslim individuals that can take up leadership positions.
On the first point raised by the Member, apart from financial resources, Mendaki since 2002 or 2003 has started what we call the \"policy forum\" to allow a greater sharing of information and data with the Muslim organisations, so that they are in a better place to make an assessment of our challenges and, therefore, reflect further on the kinds of programmes. Apart from that, as and when it is necessary, Mendaki has undertaken training programmes at our expense. As an example, in 2005 or 2006 – I cannot remember the exact year – we conducted a training programme for youth counsellors because there was a lack of youth counsellors in the Malay/Muslim community, where we commissioned an expert from New Zealand to come down to Singapore, and we organised a two-week programme for the Malay/Muslim organisations. So, we will continue to explore other ways to strengthen the Malay/Muslim organisations.
Page: 591
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"National Strategy to Promote Safe Cycling on the Roads","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong –
8 To ask\tthe Minister for Transport (a) whether cycling is included in the Ministry's transport and infrastructure policy; (b) whether the Ministry has planned for the rising number of cyclists on the roads; and (c) whether a comprehensive and coordinated national strategy to promote cycling as a mode of transport will be introduced, including developing bike-friendly infrastructure and a regulatory framework for cycling.
9 To ask the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry has conducted a systematic study on how other developed cities with busy roads have integrated cycling into the traffic system with a coordinated network of lanes, road signages, road markings and traffic signals and, if so, what practical lessons have been drawn that can be implemented in Singapore.
10 Dr Janil Puthucheary asked\tthe Minister for Transport (a) what measures does the Ministry intend to adopt to increase the safety of cyclists and reduce the risk of accidents on the roads; (b) whether the Ministry foresees a greater proportion of Singaporeans utilising cycling primarily as a means of transport; and (c) if so, how does the Ministry intend to plan for this shift in behaviour.
11 Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked\tthe Minister for Transport (a) what is the outcome of the $43 million pilot programme undertaken by the Ministry since 2009 to design and construct dedicated cycling paths in the five selected HDB towns of Tampines, Pasir Ris, Taman Jurong, Sembawang and Yishun; (b) whether there will be a detailed public report on the outcome of the programme; (c) what are the lessons learnt that can be applied to having similar cycling paths or cycling lanes in the rest of Singapore; and (d) what other lessons have the Cycling Facilitation Committee learnt that may be applied to improving safety for both cyclists and other road users.
12 Mr Nicholas Fang askedthe Minister for Transport given the current regulations requiring motorists to undergo training and testing before being licensed to go on the road, whether it is possible to (a) put in place a similar requirement for all cyclists to undergo training and education on safe road use before being allowed to take to the roads; and (b) increase information for motorists on how to drive safely in relation to cyclists in order to reduce the number of accidents involving cyclists on Singapore roads.
Page: 592
13 Ms Janice Koh asked\tthe Minister for Transport (a) what is the number of reported traffic accidents between pedal cyclists and motorists each year since 2008; (b) how many such fatalities have resulted each year since 2008; (c) what are the main causes of such accidents; and (d) whether there is a need to re-consider calls for bicycle-lane markings or dedicated cycling lanes on our roads to better protect our pedal cyclists.
14 Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked\tthe Minister for Transport given the increasing number of cyclists on the roads (a) what are the Ministry's plans for improving road safety for cyclists; (b) whether a campaign will be mounted to change the attitudes of motorists towards cyclists and to condition motorists to look out for them; and (c) whether the Ministry will review the penalty framework for driving offences that cause death to pedestrians and cyclists.
15 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked\tthe Minister for Transport in view of the recent spate of traffic accidents including fatalities involving cyclists and motorists on Singapore roads (a) what measures have been taken in the last five years; and (b) what additional measures are in the pipeline to curb such injuries and loss of lives.
16 Dr Janil Puthucheary asked\tthe Minister for Transport (a) how many cyclists were killed in the last five years as a result of traffic accidents; (b) of these accidents, in how many cases were the cyclists deemed to be at fault; (c) whether the Traffic Police will consider publishing a list of cycling accident black spots; (d) how does the usual punishment for a driver causing the death of a cyclist compare with other criminal offences where a death was unintentionally caused; and (e) whether the Ministry will consider reviewing the $20 composition fine on errant cyclists who are found to have flouted rules.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Question No 8, Sir.
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim)\t(for the Minister for Transport) : \tMr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 8 to16 together?
Mr Speaker : \tYes, please.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank Members for their questions on cycling. In recent years, recognising its increasing popularity, my Ministry has taken active steps to facilitate cycling as a mode of transport, starting with a $43 million pilot programme in 2009 to construct dedicated cycling paths in five selected HDB towns − Tampines, Pasir Ris, Taman Jurong, Sembawang and Yishun. We have since expanded it to seven towns with Bedok and Changi-Simei coming on board. Now, under our National Cycling Plan and with the support of our partner agencies, we will also be rolling out basic cycling infrastructure in all new developments − in the new Marina Bay area, new housing estates, as well as during major estate upgrading programmes under the Remaking our Heartland (ROH) initiative by HDB.
These plans take time to roll out but, already, we have provided 6.4 km of dedicated cycling paths in the first five cycling towns. By 2014, this will increase to well over 50 km in our HDB towns. In addition, LTA has recently provided 1.5 km of cycling paths along the perimeter roads of the new Gardens by the Bay, and the plan is to provide up to 16 km of cycling paths in the Marina Bay downtown area as the area develops.
Page: 593
These cycling paths that we are building are dedicated off-road paths, allowing us to segregate cyclists from on-road vehicles, as well as separating pedestrians from cyclists. We are investing in such cycling paths as they are safer for cyclists of all proficiencies, cater to the most number of users, and are generally planned to cater to short intra-town cycling trips, for example, to key amenities and transport nodes like MRT stations and bus interchanges.
We recognise that some cycling commuting trips are made between towns. For these less prevalent trips, we will look into linking up the intra-town cycling paths. Where appropriate, we will capitalise on the Park Connector Network, which will eventually allow us to achieve a larger, safe cycling network that can cater to longer-distance travel.
There have also been calls for the Government to do more for on-road cycling. In Singapore, land is a scarce commodity and, I dare say, road space is even scarcer. Most of our roads today are optimally sized for traffic conditions, and adding a dedicated lane for non-motorised traffic would require additional land, or the narrowing of existing vehicle lanes, with attendant adverse traffic impact. Given our circumstances, we have, therefore, prioritised off-road cycling, which is safer and can cater to greater numbers of people. I hope that Members and Singaporeans will understand that there will be these trade-offs, and that the Government is unable to accommodate all the wishes of all cycling communities, but must think of larger, overall needs. However, within reasonable limits, we can see if there are specific locations where we can do more for on-road cycling.
LTA has studied many cities that have attempted to integrate cycling as part of their traffic systems. Every city has a different approach, influenced by factors, such as population density, quality of public transport, land availability, cycling culture, traffic speed, and so on. Some cities in China, Denmark and the Netherlands take a similar approach as us where cycling lanes are essentially separated and protected from vehicular traffic, while cities in the US and UK have implemented unprotected cycling lanes, which are regarded as being less safe. We will continue to study other cities' approaches, and are prepared to pilot some of their ideas, where feasible, in Singapore.
Ms Janice Koh, Dr Lim Wee Kiak and Dr Janil Puthucheary expressed concerns about traffic accidents involving cyclists. I share their concerns. The total number of reported fatal and injury accidents where cyclists are involved has declined by 17% between 2008 and 2011. Cyclists were found to be at least partly at fault for about half of these accidents. The number of cyclist fatalities averaged 18 per year over the same period from 2008 to 2011. Since the beginning of this year, there have been 11 cyclist fatalities.
Every fatality – cyclist, pedestrian or otherwise – is one too many, and I share Members' sentiments that we should minimise them. All road users, be they cyclists, motorists or pedestrians, need to play their part in this. The common causes of accidents attributable to cyclists or other road users include: failing to keep a proper look-out, disobeying traffic light signals, and failing to give way to traffic with the right of way. The Cycling Facilitation Committee (CFC), started by Minister of State Mr Teo Ser Luck, recognised that public education is key in shaping cyclists' behaviour. The CFC advocates a community-led approach to do so, and the volunteer cycling wardens that you see in some HDB towns are part of this approach.
Page: 594
Mr Nicholas Fang asked if the Traffic Police should require cyclists to undergo training and education on safe road use before being allowed to take to the roads. Since the profile of cyclists ranges from school children to senior citizens, from foreign workers to persons who pursue cycling as a sport, the Traffic Police's approach is to engage cyclists within the different groups and impart relevant knowledge on safe roads use to them through targeted platforms, rather than instituting a formal training and licensing regime. Efforts have been stepped up to educate the community on safe cycling practices and road rules. In the first half of 2012, 150 sessions of road safety talks in schools, workers' dormitories and at community-level events have been conducted, and 15 safe cycling exhibitions were held. At these events, \"Safe Cycling Guides\", containing information on proper riding apparel, safe cycling and road sharing tips are distributed to participants. A recent collaboration between the Traffic Police and the Singapore Sports Council included the production of a 10-minute safe cycling video entitled \"Gear Up! Safety begins with me\". LTA will also be producing an \"Intra-Town Cycling\" handbook as a reference for good cycling etiquette and to share safety tips. I am taking a personal interest in this area and will work with key stakeholders and relevant Government agencies to see if more can be done to improve safety.
Motorists, during learner-driver training, are taught various safety considerations towards cyclists on the roads. Drivers are taught to give ample room to cyclists, especially when passing them. Drivers are also taught not to make sharp turns at corners, and to slow down and give way to vulnerable road users, which include cyclists. It is a strict requirement for learner-drivers to check their blind spots before making a lane change or a turn. This is to ensure that drivers are aware of any motorcyclists and pedal cyclists who might be riding alongside. We have noted the suggestions raised by Ms Irene Ng and Mr Nicholas Fang and are studying further education measures with MHA and the Traffic Police to inculcate a safe road sharing mindset amongst motorists and cyclists alike.
On the enforcement front, the Traffic Police will continue to maintain ground presence to ensure that cyclists and motorists abide by traffic rules. Firm action will be taken against those who display dangerous road behaviour, such as driving or riding without due regard to the safety of others. We also urge cyclists to recognise their own vulnerability in relation to motorised traffic.
Ms Irene Ng and Dr Janil asked about the penalties for errant motorists and cyclists. A driver who unintentionally causes the death of a person in a road traffic accident may be charged under the Penal Code or the Road Traffic Act, depending on the circumstances of the case and the degree of culpability. A convicted driver will be punished with an imprisonment term of up to five years, or with a fine, or both. These persons will also be disqualified from driving for a period of time.
Similar considerations are applicable to other types of criminal offences where a death was unintentionally caused and where the person is also charged under the Penal Code. The Police periodically reviews its penalty framework for all offences, and will continue to monitor the situation carefully.
Cyclists who flout traffic rules will be issued summonses. Depending on the circumstances, a cyclist may be offered a composition amount of $20 for the offences. In the case where a person was hurt, the cyclist may be prosecuted in Court under the Penal Code for endangering the safety of others by rash riding, and they will face larger fines or even imprisonment. MHA and the Traffic Police are reviewing the cycling penalties to ensure that they are commensurate with the severity of the respective offences, and will announce the findings when their review is completed.
Page: 595
To sum up, we will continue to give priority to our efforts to develop off-road cycling paths to facilitate intra-town cycling. We will also review if we can do a little more on the infrastructure front to facilitate on-road cycling. Beyond infrastructure, it is also important for us to inculcate good cycling habits and responsible driving through public education supplemented by an effective regulatory regime. It is my hope that, over time, we will be able to engender a good cycling and driving culture that allows for mutual understanding, basic courtesy and, more importantly, a safe environment for all road users.
In the coming months, I intend to meet more of the different stakeholders to better understand their viewpoints and to see whether we need to review the approach that we have taken so far and the provisions that we have made to facilitate cycling in Singapore.
\tDr Lim Wee Kiak (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me thank and congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary for his maiden reply in this House.
I would like to ask a simple supplementary question regarding whether his Ministry would consider designating certain roads, especially on weekends and public holidays, for cycling. At least to reserve one lane, especially on roads that are less used in the catchment areas, such as Mandai or even in the Changi area. These are the frequent haunts of recreational cyclists. I do not think that recreational cyclists will want to cycle on cycling tracks, so I hope the Ministry can consider that.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I would like to thank the Member for the suggestion. As I am doing my engagement process today and beyond today, I will take that as feedback and suggestion. I will take note of this when we review our plan.
But, Sir, beyond providing space for our cyclists, motorists and pedestrians, what is important is for us to have a caring attitude, to develop a caring attitude amongst Singaporeans. Since my Facebook posting, I have received many views and suggestions from Singaporeans to improve road safety. I have also met cyclists, motorists and pedestrians. One issue that resonates deeply amongst us is the need to care for one another.
I mentioned earlier one death is one too many. In fact, I find that one injury is also one too many. Any death and accident affect that individual as well as their friends and families. It may affect their physical abilities. At the same time, it will also affect their friends, their livelihood, the way they live with their family. I remember one of my friends who was paralysed from a traffic accident. He was a money-changer. His livelihood just changed totally. At the same time, his family was affected badly. Sometimes, when I travel around along the expressway, I see this message \"Drive safety, think of your loved ones\". This connects very well with me and connects with many Singaporeans. It reminds us to be careful, to take care of one another, to take care of the person driving in front of you, beside you, behind you and those who are walking along the pedestrian walkway and the motorists that are sharing the road with you. Wherever possible, we should care for one another.
Page: 596
With this attitude, it is important for us to see how we can develop, continue this journey of caring for one another. Sometimes, I think the people who are next to me are going to visit their loved ones, the person who is behind me going to visit their friends, meet their friends to have a good time, or to visit their aged parents. Thus, it is important for us to continue this effort to develop a caring community, and I feel, with this effort, we can keep our roads safer day after day, month after month and year after year.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: I would like to echo the congratulations to the Parliamentary Secretary, and ask a number of supplementary questions. In the engagement and the review of the process of looking at cycling, going forward, I wonder whether the Ministry might consider the priority. The framework, as explained, is to essentially segregate traffic cyclists and pedestrians, but no matter how many cycle paths we build, there will always be on-road cycling. There is just no possibility of building enough cycle paths. And given that no cyclists have killed any pedestrians and pedestrians have not been killed on cycle paths, perhaps rather than trying to significantly change the existing behaviour by building more and more cycle paths and doing a little bit more for on-road cycling, could the Ministry consider the priority might be to map funding and resources to the existing behaviour and the existing risks – which is for cyclists who are being killed on the road – for consideration.
The other question I have is with respect to fines. I do not advocate an increasingly strict enforcement regime to drive behaviour but I would ask if the Ministry would consider that some consistency in terms of the enforcement framework would be necessary. I give one particular example. The Parliamentary Secretary said errant cyclists flouting the rules would be fined about $20 if it was a minor infringement. Just outside Parliament House in the walkway along the river, as the walkway extends under the bridge, there is a large sign saying that cyclists have to dismount and push and, if one does not, the fine is $1,000. There is a significant discrepancy for an on-road risk flouting the Highway Code and off-road courtesy and safety to pedestrians. Would the Ministry consider looking at cycling in a more holistic way to rationalise the enforcement framework?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the good questions. As Members mentioned, cycling behaviour is affected by many, many things. We feel that one of the factors to provide safe cycling is to have separate off-road cycling lanes. Beyond that, we will continue to educate the public, not only the cyclists, but the motorists and beyond, to see how we can care for one another. We will continue to educate the public and, in fact, we have engaged the community widely during the community events and beyond to see how we can share cycling safety tips among the cyclists, as well as for children and the elderly, when they walk along these pathways, how they can detect some of the dangers coming on board in front of them.
With regard to the enforcement regime, I take the suggestion by the Member and, as I mentioned in my answer, the Traffic Police and MHA are reviewing the enforcement regime. We are going to see how we can make it commensurate with the severity of the offences.
\tMr Nicholas Fang (Nominated Member): I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the answers. I would like to raise three supplementary questions. One of the first issues that we should look at that is affecting the discussion between cyclists and other road users today is the view of what cycling is meant to be. So far, in all your answers, you make it quite clear that cycling is viewed as a way for either recreation or very short intra-town journeys. I would like to ask if the Ministry would ever consider pushing for cycling to be adopted as an alternative way of transport, especially in the CBD area. For example, I personally know a lot of people who would be happy to cycle from their homes to work if they do not live prohibitively far away. This will actually help to alleviate congestion and pollution within the CBD area. Singapore, as an environment, is very well suited. We do not have winter. We have heavy rains sometimes but, by and large, we have an environment that is suitable for cycling as a mode of transport.
Page: 597
I would also like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the answers on the regulatory measures that can be implemented. I understand that the varied groups of cyclists mean that trying to put in place a cycling licence, for example, may not be ideal. But if you look at the amount of regulation that is put in place for road users in cars and the kind of strict testing that we have, it seems to me at odds with the fact somebody exposed on a bicycle, sharing those same roads with vehicles that could cause much greater damage, are not required to undergo any form of certification or systemised education. I hope that the Ministry would consider looking at that a bit more in-depth because it seems out of place. Somebody in the car who, if involved in an accident is protected by the car, has to go through much more stringent requirements than somebody who is exposed on a bicycle.
And, thirdly, safety requirements, such as mandatory helmets or, perhaps, reflective vests or bands, could be put in place as mandatory for all cyclists. I understand they are not at the moment. Would the Ministry consider such a measure?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I would like to thank the Member for his supplementary questions. He asked if we view cycling as an alternative mode of transport. Indeed, it is an alternative mode of transport, especially for the first and the last mile travel. We are encouraging intra-town travelling. And, in fact, if you look at the trend, there is a development that cycling has increased in terms of intensity in the last few years. If you go to the interchanges, MRT stations, and you look at the bicycle racks that have been provided, they are full, especially when you come to Yishun. I can see that they are highly utilised.
We are also looking at how cyclists can travel from one town to another town – inter-town. In fact, yesterday, I just met a grassroots leader who shared with me that he cycles to work from Yishun to Loyang, even though he takes one hour. But he is a different type of cyclist in the sense that he said he uses all the intra-town connections – the park connectors to Lorong Halus and all the way to the Punggol Waterway, all the way to Loyang.
We recognise such a phenomenon and, as I have mentioned earlier, in time to come, we will develop more cycling paths in the whole of Singapore. With new estates coming on board, it will be an integrated one, and we would certainly like to see how we can make it a more sustainable transport system in Singapore. We want to encourage that and, in fact, cycling is something that allows families to bond. The essence of cycling is that it has multiple purposes. Some use it for leisure, others use it for travelling within their town – to go marketing, to go to the MRT station, to work – and also there are those who do it for sports.
Page: 598
With regard to the rules and requirements for cyclists, we are reviewing that, as what I mentioned earlier. We understand your point and it is important for us to understand that, if you look at cyclists, they range from the small kids to senior citizens, foreign workers and those who use it for sports. We are very mindful of that and we want to make sure that we reach out to the relevant segments, and different segments would have a different kind of educational process. To do so, it will require us to continuously work with the community and see how we can further improve the safety as well as the infrastructure for the cycling community. The safety requirements that the Member mentioned – the helmet and the reflective bands – we have deliberated this time and time again, even during Minister of State Teo Ser Luck's time, and the CFC is aware about this. As in my reply to the hon Member Lim Wee Kiak, we will take on this suggestion. We will relook at it to see how we can make cycling a safer mode of transport in Singapore.
Mr Speaker : \tMr Nicholas Fang, last question.
\tMr Nicholas Fang: \tThank you, Mr Speaker. Just one clarification, as to my first question: so, would the Ministry ever consider advocating cycling as an alternative form of transport, not just intra-town but from town to CBD, and actually encouraging that? That would change a lot of the way other road users view cyclists. People look at cyclists now as people who are doing it for recreation or only for short distances and, hence, they are not used to the idea of more cyclists on the road in the CBD and, hence, adjusting their behaviour accordingly.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, we could look at it as a natural phenomenon, such as when I shared with you how my resident cycled from Yishun all the way to Loyang. We recognise that there are not many people doing this, possibly due to our weather and because we have an efficient public transport system whereby the MRT and the buses provide a better transport mode for our people, for the majority of us. Nevertheless, we will provide the infrastructure for cyclists who may want to travel from one town to another town. It is important for us to give this choice to Singaporeans. We do not want Singaporeans to be forced to take a certain mode of transport. Most importantly, we want to encourage people to use our public transport system.
Page: 598
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Further Refinement of Primary 1 Registration Exercise","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked\tthe Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider a further review of the Primary 1 Registration Exercise to set aside at least half the number of available places in each school to cater for pupils registering under Phases 2B and 2C.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Education (Mr Lawrence Wong)\t(for the Minister for Education) : The current Primary 1 (P1) Registration Framework seeks to allocate P1 places based on several considerations, including proximity to the school, presence of siblings, parental ties to the school and community involvement. The Ministry of Education (MOE) regularly reviews the P1 Registration Framework, taking into consideration the feedback received after every exercise. We need to carefully weigh these considerations before deciding on any changes.
Page: 599
Currently, although not everyone can be admitted to their preferred choice school, MOE ensures that there are sufficient school places on a regional basis so that no child will have to travel long distances to his or her Primary school.
Aside from reviewing the P1 Registration Framework, it is more important for every school to be a good school, so that every pupil receives a good quality and holistic education, regardless of the school which he or she attends. In this regard, MOE has been resourcing all our schools with well-trained teachers, investing in suitable education facilities, and ensuring adequate financial support for good school programmes.
We will also continue to encourage parents to make more informed school choices. For example, through the MOE Parents' Seminar and the open houses organised by our schools, parents can learn more about the programmes of different schools. MOE has also developed a video on the key factors parents could consider when selecting Primary schools. By doing so, we hope to encourage parents to select schools that best fit the needs of their child.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): \tSir, may I ask the Senior Minister of State whether he would agree that young children attending Primary school should not have to travel long distances to their Primary schools? Secondly, in such a case, would the Ministry of Education consider making changes to the P1 Registration Scheme such that children under Phase 2A, which takes into account parents' ties, should not have priority to a Primary school unless they live within a reasonable proximity to the school? Sir, to give an illustration: if I live in Jurong and I am an alumni of the school in the East, I get priority to that school even though I live a long distance away. It would go against the spirit of encouraging parents to recognise that within their own neighbourhood, one of the schools is a good school.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for the suggestion. I agree with him that we do not want children to travel long distances to their Primary schools. That is one of the primary considerations when we designed the Registration Framework. The Member has given a suggestion on how the framework can be further refined. As I said, we look at feedback all the time. After every registration exercise, we receive feedback. For every rule that we have, we always have feedback for and against it because there will be parents who want the rule to be maintained and there will be parents who want the rule to be taken away. And you see that in some of the discussions and the letters in the newspapers as well.
That is not to say that we should not change. We continually review, as I said. After every exercise, we will do a review and we will see what can be improved. We will certainly take the Member's suggestion into consideration as part of our regular reviews. But as I mentioned earlier, it is not a problem that can be resolved by tweaking our registration framework. I should emphasise that the bigger emphasis should be to ensure that we resource every school well, so that every child going to any school in Singapore will be assured of a good quality education. That is where the weight of our emphasis is – to make every school a good school, to assure every child going to a school in Singapore that he or she can get a good quality education.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, at each year's P1 registration exercise, it always pains me to see the disappointment in the parents' and children's faces when they are not able to get into the school that is located just a couple of 100 m away from their flats. Instead, they have to go to a school that is much further away and have to incur transport costs, school bus and travelling time. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether for perhaps non-GEP schools, would MOE consider higher allocation to those who live within one km so that they have a higher chance and have a shorter distance to travel to school.
Page: 600
\tMr Lawrence Wong: \tJust to understand the question better. There already is the priority for those who live nearer.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa: \tSir, I am asking about higher allocation because, right now, we are still seeing children who are only 50 m away from the school, and they cannot get into the school of their choice.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Now, I understand the question. I thank the Member for the suggestion. These are feedback that we get from time to time. I would say, as I mentioned, there are also concerns raised that if you were to give even more priority, the impact on property prices, for example. Would that then force out more parents who may not be able to afford living within that area? Would that be a fairer way of allocating? So, there are different considerations which we have to weigh. It is complex. It is not going to be resolved just by tweaking the formula alone.
The best long-term approach in terms of looking at this issue is not just in terms of tweaking the Primary 1 registration formula but really in investing resources so that every school is a good school. And also reaching out to parents, engaging the community, helping parents understand that whatever school their children go to, there will be resources, there will be good infrastructure, there will be well-trained teachers and their children can be assured of getting good quality education.
I appreciate the suggestions that have been given on tweaking or changes to the Registration Framework. We will review this regularly, as I said. But let us also look at strategies that are going to be sustainable and that will yield more impact. The strategy that we have in terms of investing in every school is the right one.
Page: 600
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Worksite Accident at Downtown Line Bugis Station","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"18 Mr Arthur Fong asked\tthe Acting Minister for Manpower what were the causes that led to the collapse of a concrete roof at the worksite of the Downtown Line Bugis station and whether any safety measures were breached.
19 Mr Arthur Fong asked\tthe Acting Minister for Manpower with regard to the recent work accident at the Downtown Line Bugis station (a) whether the workers, including the two deceased foreign workers, were working beyond the prescribed working hours; and (b) whether the company that employed the foreign workers had breached any employment regulations.
\tThe Acting Minister for Manpower (Mr Tan Chuan-Jin): Mr Speaker, if I may take this and the next Question together?
Mr Speaker : \tYes, please.
\tMr Tan Chuan-Jin: We are all saddened by the news that two workers had to lose their lives as a result of the accident at the worksite of the new Downtown Line Bugis station. This is a stark reminder that accidents can happen at any time which can result in the loss of lives, injuries or even damage to public and private properties. We must, therefore, be on our guard and take the necessary precautionary measures to ensure that work is carried out without risk to our workers.
Page: 601
The Ministry of Manpower will not tolerate employers who contravene safety regulations. If employers are found to be endangering the lives of their workers, firm enforcement actions will be taken.
We are currently investigating the cause of the Downtown Line accident. As such, I will only share some preliminary findings. A group of workers were concreting the roof slab of a linkway to connect the existing East-West line to the Downtown Line at Bugis station. Most of the concreting work had been completed when sometime between 6.00 am and 6.50 am on 18 July 2012, the formwork collapsed. Two workers who were working underneath the structure at the time of the accident died, while the eight workers who were working on top of the structure suffered minor injuries.
Following the accident, BCA conducted the necessary checks to ensure that the structural safety of the surrounding buildings and the road above were not affected. My Ministry ordered all formworks and concreting works at the accident worksite to cease so that risk assessments and work procedures at the worksite could be reviewed. At the same time, the company was required to devise and submit a recovery plan to remove the collapsed formwork structure and its associated material safely. After a thorough review of the company's work procedures as well as their submitted recovery plan to ensure that all necessary safety precautions were in place, we lifted the stop-work order on 28 August 2012.
One of the areas that we are investigating is whether fatigue and extended working hours could have contributed to the accident. If the employer is found to have breached any regulations on hours of work under the Employment Act, relevant action will be taken.
Other areas of investigation that we are focusing on include the adequacy of the formwork structure design, the conformity of the erected formwork to the approved design and the quality of formwork structure material. In the course of our investigation, we will continue to share, where appropriate, the findings that may have an impact on formwork processes at worksites to ensure work safety.
\tMr Arthur Fong (West Coast): \tSir, I thank the Acting Minister for his response. A couple of supplementary questions. One is, we learned that two Disaster Assistance and Rescue Team (DART) officers suffered chemical burns. How did this happen because, apparently, the workers were found to be covered with wet cement, but the DART officers had chemical burns? Second question is, going forward, would MOM, LTA, SCDF and the employers look into improving the rescue plans and rescue operations? Apparently, this is a seven-hour complex operation. What have they learned from that?
\tMr Tan Chuan-Jin: I would like to thank the Member for the supplementary questions. I do not have the specific details. But what I would say is that I would like to just take the opportunity again to place on record our thanks for the DART officers who performed admirably. As mentioned, it is a complex operation. As with all operations, I am quite sure that SCDF will conduct its own after-action review to see how the operation was carried out and if any lessons were learned, and to continually improve. That is something that I am quite confident that they will be doing.
Page: 602
Similarly, in terms of the chemical burns suffered by the officers, I am quite confident that that is something that they are looking at as well and they will follow up, in terms of future adjustments or procedural change if need be. I do not have the specific details with regard to that. But I believe those would be the steps that would be taken by SCDF.
\tMr Alex Yam (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, with regard to the Workplace Safety and Health Act, Part IX, clause 58, there is a requirement that formwork pouring of cement be able to hold up two times the weight of cement that it is designed to hold. However, there is also an understanding within the industry that this requirement is not usually followed. If it is in the Act and if the investigations find that in this particular case the formwork factor weight is not taken into consideration, will the Ministry look into further strengthening of the Act as well as enforcement of the requirements under that?
At the same time, the Institute of Engineers of Singapore had issued a statement saying that with regard to the accident, the workers should not be under the scaffolding in the first place. This is not covered under the Workplace Safety and Health Act. Would the Ministry also similarly consider strengthening the Act in this area?
\tMr Tan Chuan-Jin: I would like to thank the Member for the follow-up questions. If he has specific details about how contractors are deliberately contravening the regulations, we will be quite happy to look into the details. But as mentioned, the investigations will take place and if the company is found to have violated any of the requirements, we will take the necessary actions. Similarly, this would also apply to the latter point raised about workers under the formwork structures. Let us allow the investigation to run its course. We will take note of the findings, and we will carry out adjustments and actions accordingly.
Page: 602
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Qualifying Tests for Foreign-trained Medical Professionals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"20 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked\t\tthe Minister for Health (a) how frequently does the Singapore Medical Council run the qualifying examination for foreign medical graduates from medical schools that are not listed on the list of recognised schools for practice locally; and (b) on average, how many candidates take these examinations annually and what is the passing or qualifying rate.
\tThe Minister of State for Health (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan)\t(for the Minister for Health) : The Qualifying Examination (QE) was made available in 1999 as an examination for graduates from foreign non-recognised medical schools who sought medical registration with the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) to practise in Singapore. This is necessary to ensure that registered medical practitioners are competent and fit to practise medicine.
The qualifying examination is held once a year. Currently, only Singapore citizens with non-recognised degrees returning to practise in Singapore are eligible to apply and sit for the qualifying examination. For the past three years, an average of 10 candidates per year take the qualifying examination and the pass rate is around 17%, or five out of 30 candidates.
Page: 603
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): \tI thank the Minister of State for the response. Can I just find out what will happen to a Singaporean student who has completed a medical degree overseas in a non-recognised university or medical school, and then returns, and because of the timing of the qualifying examination, has to wait at least for a period of one or one-and-a-half years before he can get employment or to be qualified to be recognised to practise in Singapore? What can we offer these graduates for that one to one-and-a-half year period because they are looking for something productive to do. I have seen quite a few of these cases.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I want to thank the Member for her question. Just to put this in context. Let me first note that the QE is only for the few Singaporeans who choose to study in the schools not listed in Schedule 2 of the Medical Registration Act (MRA) and who then return and appeal to practise here.
Most foreign-trained doctors who are employed in Singapore can be provisionally or conditionally registered without going through the QE as they have graduated from recognised foreign medical schools. In 2010 and 2011, for instance, the number of such doctors trained abroad who were provisionally and conditionally registered without having to sit for the QE was 403 and 454 respectively. This is in contrast to the five and 14 in the same two years that applied to sit for the QE.
The QE is actually the final MBBS examination that is taken by our final-year MBSS students and is conducted by the Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine in NUS. It is a very labour-intensive examination requiring concurrently the efforts of many clinician examiners and is actually a stress to our hospital services. We understand that NUS presently does not have the resources to accommodate a large number of QE candidates with the increasing number of its own final-year medical students. We will monitor the number of applicants and ask SMC to work with NUS' Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine to shorten the waiting time by allowing more candidates in one sitting, as much as possible.
As regards these candidates who may have to wait – and the waiting time depends on the number of candidates who apply to sit for the QE as well as the number of places available; it can be up to two years but not necessarily so – I would also like to highlight that these candidates are not without recourse. They can take an SMC-recognised post-graduate examination, like the Membership of the Royal Colleges of Physicians of the United Kingdom (MRCP (UK)) or fellowship of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore. In fact, a number of doctors with these non-recognised basic medical degrees have been recognised by SMC for conditional registration through a pass in such exams. Again, we will get SMC to let the candidates know that they can take these post-graduate exams, like the MRCP (UK), if they are eligible to do so, and that will also allow the candidates to look for and attempt other options.
Mr Speaker : \tAssoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, last question.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef: A clarification, Sir. Post-graduate exams are only open to graduates who have at least completed a stipulated period of training. For these Singaporean students who are from unrecognised medical universities and have graduated, they will not be able to qualify to sit for any post-graduate exams because it requires a period of at least 24 to 30 months of training before they qualify. Thus, they are still in a fix.
Page: 604
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I would also like to clarify with the Member that it is true that in order to sit for the post-graduate exams, they will have to undergo some prescribed training. First, we really do not encourage Singaporeans to take degrees from non-recognised medical schools, and then come back here and appeal repeatedly to sit for the local QE exams. But having said that, in fact, we do encourage them to get attachment training either in other jurisdictions where they come from and then take the post-graduate exams, if they are able to, or to get temporary registration in Singapore if they can get employment here, and then take the post-graduate exams within a stipulated time-frame so that they can get conditionally registered.
Page: 604
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore's Pull-out from 2013 Venice Biennale","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"21 Ms Janice Koh asked\tthe Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (a) what are the reasons for pulling out Singapore's participation in the 2013 Venice Biennale; (b) how does the National Arts Council intend to spend the budget initially set aside for the 2013 event; and (c) whether the views of the visual arts sector were taken into consideration before the decision was taken and, if so, what was their response.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, Singapore has participated in six editions of the Venice Biennale since 2001. The cost of participating in each edition averaged more than three-quarters of a million dollars. The last edition in 2011 cost the National Arts Council (NAC) $850,000 to showcase one artist and one curator. As a comparison, the grants budget for the whole visual arts sector in FY2011 was only $1.78 million, but benefited more than 135 artists and visual arts groups. For FY2012, NAC has increased this grants budget by more than 20%, with the intent of helping even more artists.
Sir, as I had mentioned in my written reply to Members in July this year, the Venice Biennale has been one of the platforms at which the NAC has profiled Singapore's artistic talent globally. However, despite the millions of dollars spent on the Venice Biennale, only a handful of our artists and curators have been able to capitalise on the opportunities and prestige that their participation has brought. For the vast majority of our artists, there is still much room to improve the basic level of support.
NAC's budget for supporting the entire visual arts sector in Singapore is only about $7.3 million this year. This budget, which was increased by 10% from the previous year, funds a range of visual arts platforms and a variety of grants to visual arts groups and artists. The Government is mindful of the need to periodically review and ensure that public funds are well-spent, and that benefits to our local arts community are maximised. Having taken part at the Venice Biennale for over 10 years, it is timely for the NAC to undertake a stock-take. In view of this on-going review, the NAC has decided not to participate in Venice Biennale 2013.
Sir, the impetus for the review stems from the need for the Government to improve its long-term strategy for international profiling and exposure of our arts talent. Given the limited resources and competing needs, we must strive to maximise outcomes for all our artists. Based on our previous models of participating at the Venice Biennale, only 20% goes towards benefiting artists directly, with 80% of our funds going towards venue rental in Venice and associated logistics and administrative costs. A review, Sir, will help us determine how these funds can be made to work harder for our artists; for instance, through creating more commissioning opportunities for our arts practitioners, whether in Venice or at other platforms such as the Art Stage Singapore and the Singapore Biennale.
Page: 605
Sir, while the review is on-going, the NAC will invest in more strategic developmental opportunities for the local visual arts community. Among the initiatives being explored are:
(i) ramping up support and presence at a variety of major international events, including the Venice Biennale curated section;
(ii) ramping up support and participation in international residencies for our artists;
(iii) profiling local artists at international platforms held in Singapore, such as the Singapore Platform at the international art fair, Art Stage Singapore;
(iv) supporting the commissioning and curating of more ambitious local works that can reach both domestic and international audiences;
(v) growing the capabilities of independent visual arts institutions, as intermediaries for international showcasing of Singapore talent; and
(vi) working with visual arts groups to offer more experimental platforms for artistic development and professional practice.
As part of NAC's on-going consultation for its long-term Visual Arts masterplan, NAC had sought feedback from Visual Arts stakeholders in the public sector and arts community. In arriving at the decision not to participate in Venice Biennale 2013, NAC had also taken into consideration key findings and observations from our previous involvement in Venice, including, Sir, feedback from the Venice Biennale Selection Panel.
The NAC received mixed views from the various stakeholders regarding Singapore's participation in the Venice Biennale. On balance, we decided that it would not be prudent to proceed with participation in the next Venice Biennale without first addressing the concerns of how public money is best used to maximise benefits for all our artists. As part of this review, NAC will consult its visual arts advisors and seek the views of members of the arts community and the public, including the hon Member Ms Janice Koh.
Sir, in conclusion, let me assure the House that the Government is committed to helping develop our visual arts sector. The key issue is how public money should be spent to achieve the greatest impact, and to benefit the most artists.
The NAC recognises that the Venice Biennale continues to be a desirable platform for international profiling of our artists. Besides some countries' independent efforts to rent a space and present a \"Country Pavilion\", an important focal point of the Venice Biennale is the high-profile curated section where artists are selected and presented by the Biennale's curator that year. In this respect, even as NAC reviews our participation via a \"Country Pavilion\", NAC will extend strong support and facilitation to Singapore artists who are selected to participate in the curated section of the upcoming and future editions of Venice Biennale.
Page: 606
Sir, the on-going review allows the Government to carefully map out a longer term strategy and approach to visual arts, that will best support our local talent and maximise the benefits for Singapore's visual arts development.
\tMs Janice Koh (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for his reply. I have three supplementary questions. The first is, if the concern is about return on investment, then can we look at it this way? Each time a Singapore artist is successfully showcased at the Venice Biennale, we promote Singapore, we promote arts businesses, the very ones that we want to market including Art Stage, Affordable Art Fair and the upcoming Gillman Barracks. If we are concerned about whether or not our participation in the Venice Biennale will make a systematic and effective contribution to arts development, then may I have the Ministry's view on how they measure this value of our participation?
The second supplementary question is the Venice Biennale is not just one of many international biennales around the world. It is the oldest and the most prestigious art platform. If Singapore is going to continue participating in other biennales, including Gwangju and dOCUMENTA, then why are we pulling out of the most prestigious and important one?
My third supplementary question is whether or not the Ministry can undertake its review while we continue to participate in the 2013 55th edition of the Venice Biennale, especially in view of the fact that despite MICA's consultation, there is still widespread concern amongst art-makers in Singapore – over 200 have signed an open letter to the Ministry – about having to have this four-year gap if we intend to participate in 2015, and the difficulty of having to restart our engines again if we have this gap. Can we not build on our previous success from 2009 and 2011?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: I thank the Member for the three supplementary questions. I will try my very best to answer as much as I can, given the limited time.
First, we have consulted widely and the feedback that we have received from the artistic community is mixed, as I mentioned in my reply. It is very difficult for us to do two things at the same time. The Member would know, and I think all Members would know, that the Venice Biennale is the oldest and the most prestigious biennales, and we have to do a proper job at it. We have done this for 10 years, and so having looked back at how we have performed and consulted not only the artistic community but also the Selection Panel, we realised there was no clear indications one way or another. As I mentioned in my reply, there were mixed reactions and mixed reviews. So, we took a judgement call, if I can say so, to say, \"Let us suspend this while we do a deeper study.\"
As the Member rightly mentioned, we want to come back by 2015 – which is when we celebrate our Golden Jubilee – and we hope that when we have done the review thoroughly and when we re-enter Venice Biennale, we can enter with perhaps a lot more pomp and grandeur that will bring the kind of success that the Member mentioned in her first question. We are looking towards how Singapore is looked at internationally. We have a vision to build Singapore into a dynamic and artistic hub for people to come here and for our artists to be recognised.
I think the Member must recognise that it is also very difficult for us to give a quantum to that particular success. A particular artist, after he was showcased in one of the Venice Biennales, in fact had received a lot of offers after that, which is great for him and great for Singapore. But as I mentioned in my reply, we have to relook at this not just based on one artist but for the experience over the last 10 years. How do we therefore measure the best use of the resources that we have which is somewhat limited?
Page: 607
I agree with the Member that Venice Biennale, being the oldest, and compared to the other biennales, we should take a very, very careful look before we make that decision. Bear in mind that for the other biennales, we do not spend a lot. In fact, some of the artists are invited by the biennales. Our commitment to the artists is that when they are invited to other biennales, we will continue to support them. The Venice Biennale is where we actively participate in it. We spend a lot of money. We spend a lot of resources not just over there but over here. And we bring a very large team over there. So, the resources are tremendous.
Given all that has to take place for us to be able to mount a very successful campaign in Venice, we think it is timely for us to take a very hard look. I am confident that we can come back with a big bang because I think we need the inputs of the artistic community to tell us how best we can use those limited resources so that we can achieve the bang that we want for our investment in Venice.
The answer is that we are not pulling out entirely at one go. We are going to study this. We want to re-enter at some point in time. The most important thing is let us take a good look at this over the longer term rather than a shorter horizon. I empathise with her and other members of the arts community that there could be a sense of loss of momentum. As I mentioned in my reply, there are other opportunities that we are creating to increase the international profile of our artists. So, we will continue with our other efforts. But I hope that she can support this process entirely because really we want to be able to do this properly and correctly because the image of Singapore is very important for us too.
Mr Speaker : Order. End of Question time.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 22, 25, 32-33, 35, 37-39, 41, 43, 45-46, 48, 50-54, 57, 61-65, 67, 70-73 and 77 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix (Pg 652 to 672). Question Nos 23-24, 26-31, 34, 36, 40, 42, 44, 47, 49, 55-56, 58-60, 66, 68-69 and 74-76 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 11 September 2012.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No 2) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"\"to \tamend certain statutes of the Republic of Singapore in connection with the re-distribution of the portfolios of certain Ministries\",
\tpresented by the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Personal Data Protection Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"\"to \tgovern the collection, use and disclosure of personal data by organisations, and to establish the Personal Data Protection Commission and Do Not Call Register and to provide for their administration, and for matters connected therewith, and to make related and consequential amendments to various other Acts\",
\tpresented by the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Civil Law (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"\"to \tamend the Civil Law Act (Chapter 43 of the 1999 Revised Edition) and to make related amendments to the Public Trustee Act (Chapter 260 of the 1985 Revised Edition)\",
presented by The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Ms Sim Ann) read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Voluntary Sterilization (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"\"to \tamend the Voluntary Sterilization Act (Chapter 347 of the 1985 Revised Edition\",
\tpresented by the Minister for Health (Mr Gan Kim Yong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Parliamentary Pensions (Abolition) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"3.02 pm
[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Sir, the Parliamentary Pensions (Abolition) Bill seeks to put into effect the recommendation in the White Paper on \"Salaries for a Capable and Committed Government\" to remove pensions for office holders and Members of Parliament. This will be done through amendments to the Parliamentary Pensions Act, or PPA in short, and other related Acts, as well as the eventual repeal of the PPA.
In January this year, this House had an extensive debate on the White Paper which contained the recommendations of the Ministerial Salaries Review Committee chaired by Mr Gerard Ee. This House endorsed all the recommendations in the White Paper as the basis for setting the salaries of the President, office holders and Members of Parliament. This included the recommendation to remove pensions for new office holders and freeze pensions for eligible office holders and Members of Parliament with effect from 21 May 2011.
Page: 609
The PPA contains the pension provisions for office holders and Members of Parliament. The PPA was first introduced in 1969 to establish a pension scheme for office holders and Members of Parliament who have devoted a considerable portion of their working lives to public service. Then Deputy Prime Minister Dr Goh Keng Swee had explained that the pension scheme aimed to help encourage future leaders of calibre to take up positions by lessening the financial sacrifice in pursuit of a political career. Since then, there had been periodic amendments of the PPA to refine the scheme. One important amendment made was that Members of Parliament elected after 1 January 1995 ceased to be eligible for pensions.
Under the pension scheme, an office holder is required to serve at least eight years before he can be eligible for a pension. The pension amount depended on the length of service. The maximum pension would be reached after 18 years of service. The pension is based not on the total monthly salary, but only on the pensionable component of monthly salary, that is the Basic Salary and Monthly Variable Component. To contain pension costs, all salary increases since 1994 have not been pensionable. Therefore, the maximum annual pension is about 11% of an office holder's salary prior to retirement. The value of the pension that an office holder may receive upon retirement is fully taken into account when ministerial salaries are compared against the benchmark. These are not new points; these points have been made several times in Parliament already.
Members from both sides of the House supported the removal of pensions for office holders and Members of Parliament when this issue was debated in January this year. This will bring their remuneration framework in line with the current practice where the Central Provident Fund is the basic retirement scheme for Singaporeans.
After Parliament endorsed the White Paper, the recommendation on the removal of pensions has been administratively put into effect. The pensions for eligible office holders and Members of Parliament, who by their service prior to 21 May 2011 had become eligible for pensions, have been frozen since 21 May 2011. They will only receive a pension when they step down, for the period of service prior to 21 May 2011. Since 21 May 2011, no serving office holder has begun receiving pension upon turning age 55.
As pensions for office holders and Members of Parliament are provided for under the PPA, this Bill formalises the White Paper recommendation through legislation. The Bill will first amend the PPA and other related Acts to remove pension provisions retrospectively from 21 May 2011. The PPA will eventually be repealed, through a Notification published in the Gazette, after all office holders and Members of Parliament, who by their service prior to 21 May 2011 had already become eligible for pensions, have been granted these frozen pensions. The Schedule of this Bill will then be brought into effect to set out saving and transitional provisions.
Let me now elaborate on what the Bill sets out to do. Clause 3 of the Bill provides that no pension or gratuity under the PPA can be granted for service as a Member of Parliament or office holder on or after 21 May 2011. Clause 5 (a) of the Bill also amends the PPA to this effect. The impact of these two clauses is as follows:
a) New office holders appointed on or after 21 May 2011 will not be pensionable;
Page: 610
b) Serving office holders who had less than eight years of service before 21 May 2011 will not be eligible for pensions; and
c) Serving office holders with eight years or more of service before 21 May 2011 and serving MPs elected before 1 January 1995 will not be able to accrue additional years of pensionable service for service on or after 21 May 2011.
Clauses 5 (e) and (i) further amend the PPA such that pension benefits will not be enhanced by any future increases in the pensionable components of salaries, if any. Taken together, these amendments freeze the pensions to the value as at 20 May 2011.
The existing PPA allows office holders to start receiving their pensions at the age of 55 so that those who continue serving in public office will not be worse off than their colleagues who step down from office earlier.
Clause 4 of the Bill removes this provision, by prohibiting the grant of pensions or benefits under the PPA unless the person ceases to be a Member of Parliament or office holder. Clauses 5 (j), (k) and (l) also amend the PPA to the same effect. Serving office holders with frozen pension entitlements who turn 55 years of age on or after 21 May 2011 will not be able to draw their pension unless they step down from office. For those who have already been drawing a pension upon turning 55, the pension will stop with effect from 21 May 2011, and only be drawn after they step down from office.
Clauses 5 (d), (f), (g) and (m) of the Bill also make a number of amendments to the PPA to remove provisions which are no longer relevant, as there are no Members of Parliament or office holders who are affected by these provisions as they have all exceeded the age or length of service specified in these clauses.
I now move on to a non-pension related provision in the PPA. The PPA provides for a death gratuity for office holders and Members of Parliament, regardless of whether they are pensionable. Unlike a pension scheme, the death gratuity is a service benefit for office holders and Members of Parliament who die in office or within one year of drawing a pension. The death gratuity provision should be retained as it recognises the contributions of those who pass away while in service. As the PPA will be repealed eventually, the provision for the death gratuity will be transferred to the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.
In transferring the death gratuity provision to the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, no office holder or Member of Parliament will be better off compared to the current provision in the PPA. Specifically:
a) The death gratuity for a non-pensionable Member of Parliament will continue to be 12 months of the Basic Salary and Monthly Variable Component. The death gratuity for a non-pensionable office holder will become the same; and
b) The death gratuity for an office holder or a Member of Parliament who has frozen pension benefits will be 12 months of Basic Salary and Monthly Variable Component or the commuted pension gratuity, whichever is higher. There is no minimum service period for a death gratuity to become payable.
To conclude, this Bill puts into legal effect the recommendation to remove pensions for office holders and Members of Parliament, as contained in the White Paper on \"Salaries for a Capable and Committed Government\" which was endorsed by this House. The removal of pensions will further strengthen the principle of clean wage and align the retirement scheme of office holders and Members of Parliament to the Central Provident Fund system. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
Page: 611
Question proposed.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. Before proceeding to discuss the substantive changes proposed by the Bill, I would like to highlight how these changes are a culmination of a deliberate and widely debated, consultative process between the Government and the many stakeholders involved, as reflected in the White Paper titled \"Salaries for a Capable and Committed Government\".
I would like to highlight this as I believe the process evinces an attitude of responsiveness and the willingness to be persuaded by rational, well-thought-out views put forth by our citizens. This falls in line with broader principles of public administration, such as that of transparency and accountability, and is to be lauded. The changes proposed today must thus be appreciated in this light.
Prime Minister Lee appointed a committee to review the basis and level of existing political salaries. The report of the committee was itself a result of seven months of deliberation with feedback garnered from a spectrum of stakeholders. Therefore, I rise today, not just in support of the substantive changes proposed by the Bill but also in support of the Government's sincere efforts in engaging our citizens.
The effect of the Bill being debated today is such that the pension scheme for political appointment holders, including Members of Parliament, will be removed. The rationale for the pension scheme was to reflect the role and impact of political office holders, and encourage appointment holders to serve longer periods of time so as to develop instincts and an understanding of how the Government works with the objective of serving Singaporeans even better.
The scheme has been refined over the years with a 2007 review ensuring that pensions were part of, and not an addition to the total remuneration package of office holders. This brings politicians in line with the current practice where the Central Provident Fund (CPF) is the basic retirement scheme for Singaporeans, and, more importantly, strengthens the principle of clean wage by adequately paying political appointment holders during their time in office, as was pointed out in the White Paper.
The abolition of the pension scheme is part of a series of more broad-based changes recommended in the White Paper, with concrete changes being made to existing policies and pay structures. Members of Parliament are affected by these changes. I am glad the Government has paid attention to the people's call for review, as it shows that we want to engage Singaporeans, we want to hear their views on the matter. We are committed to partnering them in steering Singapore's future together. This is the essence of public service, and it is this fundamental notion of public service that of serving the people that is the crux of today's debate.
Page: 612
I believe most, if not all of us, present at today's debate will agree with me that political office is a calling. Those who want to serve must have that sense of duty to the nation as well as the desire to contribute to public good in Singapore. For Members of Parliament, we are in this business because we believe in the ethos of sacrifice the public service entails to serve our residents. Meeting with residents, listening to them, caring for them, offering encouragement in times of difficulty and mapping out real ways of progress for themselves and their children − that is fulfilling, and that is politics. This was echoed by Deputy Prime Minister Teo at the opening of the parliamentary debate on political salaries at the start of this year, where he said that the most important criterion for anyone seeking political office is, first and foremost, the motivation to serve our country and our people.
The White Paper has highlighted three principles in relation to salaries. First, the Government will continue to maintain competitive salaries. This is to ensure quality of talent and to take into account the opportunity cost incurred by potential office holders in leaving at the prime of their careers to enter politics and dedicate a substantial part of their lives to service in public office. Developing and nurturing a committed and capable government is especially crucial given Singapore's unique contacts as a small nation in a competitive and uncertain world. This is balanced out by the other two principles that of the ethos of public service which entails the making of sacrifices and the objectives of making and maintaining a clean wage without any perks. A debate on the lowering of ministerial salaries is ultimately about mediating between these objectives. The decision we have arrived at or tempered by the above practice is essentially undergirded by a sincere desire to hold true to the calling of public service. For indeed, politics is not a job or a career promotion, but a calling to serve the larger good of Singapore. It is in recognition of this that I rise in support of this Bill today.
Mr R Dhinakaran: Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. The Bill comes at a good time as it reflects the commitment of the Government to continue with its restructuring efforts of the compensation structure of Members of Parliament and office holders. This process was initiated last year when the Government presented the White Paper on \"Salaries for a Committed and Capable Government\".
I commend the Government for having seen this through and I hope Singaporeans will see this as a sign of sincerity of a responsible government. While the Government undertakes this process, it is also timely to use this opportunity to strengthen the tenets of transparency, accountability and also integrity, which are entrenched in our highly regarded system of governance.
Sir, I agree with the position that our office holders and Members of Parliament need to be paid at a level that continues to attract top talent, and that helps deter an individual in that position of power to abuse the position to seek financial or economic gains. Moreover, our Members of Parliament and office holders earn a clean wage that is free of various add-ons that their counterparts in many countries, including in developed political regimes such as the UK and the US, have. When all of these benefits and allowances are compounded, parliamentarians in many of these countries earn far more than the incomes accrued to our office holders and Members of Parliament. So, from that perspective, the salaries of Singapore parliamentarians can be justified.
Page: 613
However, the Government also needs to take into account the sentiments of the country and there is a substantial number of Singaporeans who feel that there should be an inert value and pride attached with the sanctity of public office and that this should not be equated in monetary terms. They also believe that public servants such as office holders and Members of Parliament should come forward to serve to answer the call of national duty and so monetary incentives should not be the carrot, or feature significantly in the equation to attract talent in this regard.
There is merit in this argument as well and so the Government must balance carefully between both perspectives. This Bill is the right step in that direction. I would like to make a few suggestions as to how this Bill could help draw further balance between both perspectives.
Accountability and equity – Sir, I would like to highlight clause 4 of the Bill which stipulates that pension will not be paid to Members on or after 21 May 2011, unless the person has not less than the minimum number of years of reckonable service and refers to the Parliamentary Pensions Act as reference of this duration of service. Under the Parliamentary Pensions Act, the minimum number of years of reckonable service as defined in section 3 of the Act is nine years for Members of Parliament, and under section 4 of that Act, this minimum period of service is eight years for office-bearers. I would like to suggest that this distinction be done away with and that the minimum period or reckonable service be made uniform for both Members and office holders, be that eight years or nine years. I do not see the need to differentiate on this and that if a Member of Parliament has served the same number of years as an office holder, that is eight years, then there is no reason for him to be deprived of a pension payment in the instance that his service ceases. This principle of equating the length of minimum service for both Members and office holders should also be upheld in other sections of the Bill including the payment of gratuity upon the death or incapacity of a Member.
Upholding the Integrity of Service − clause 6 of the proposed Bill also includes the terms of payment of death gratuity for a non-pensionable Member and stipulates that such a payment could be transferred under a court order for the payment of periodical sums of money towards the maintenance of the person's minor child, whether legitimate or not. While I recognise and support the intention to support a minor, I do not think this should be extended to any person's illegitimate children as we should not be seen to be condoning such behaviour through the availability of monetary support. I believe this is an important contribution towards helping to ensure the integrity of the position of public service.
In this regard, clause 3 of the schedule in the proposed Bill details the treatment of pension payment should a Member be found guilty of a corruption charge. While I understand the clause conferring the President with the power to reduce or withhold pension payment to any Member found guilty of corruption, I find that section 3 of that clause allows the President to exercise the discretion to direct all or any part of that pension to the accused person upon serving his sentence.
I believe that the Government and this House have zero tolerance for corruption and despite more high-profile cases surfacing this year, Singapore is generally a corruption-free society and certainly one of the most corruption-free countries in the world.
Page: 614
We should continue to uphold that and while attractive incentives can reduce the need to turn towards corruption, we should at the same time also ensure that there are enough deterrents. I would like to suggest that the clause reflects that a Member, who is found guilty and convicted of corruption or a related charge, has his rights to any pension payment from thereon be taken away from him. That is a permanent suspension and no possibility of a transfer or reinstatement thereafter. I believe this is a strong deterrent and as Members of Parliament, we should send a clear message of intolerance towards corruption. Sir, on the whole, I support the Bill.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all I would like to thank Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr R Dhinakaran for speaking in support of this Bill.
Now, on the specific matters that Mr Dhinakaran spoke on, perhaps I could respond. Mr Dhinakaran suggested that the minimum periods of reckonable service be made uniform for both office holders and Members of Parliament and set at either eight or nine years. Sir, his proposal, while there are some merits from an equity point of view, actually will have no practical effect now, or in the future, because only Members of Parliament who were elected before 1 January 1995 are eligible for a pension, that is, those who started service 17 years ago, and that far exceeds the minimum period required for eligibility for pension. So, all of such Members of Parliament who are still serving today would already have exceeded the current minimum reckonable service required for a pension and hence Mr Dhinakaran's proposal to shorten the minimum required service period to be eligible for pension would have no practical effect on any Member of Parliament now or in the future.
I also mentioned in my speech earlier that there is no minimum period of service for the payment of the death gratuity. So, Mr Dhinakaran need have no concerns about that.
Mr Dhinakaran also suggested that the provision that allows for death gratuity to be transferred to satisfy a court order for the payment of maintenance of a minor child, whether legitimate or not, be changed to exclude illegitimate children. This clause is part of the existing death gratuity provision in the PPA. This is because section 68 of the Women's Charter imposes an obligation on a parent to maintain or contribute to the maintenance of his/her child whether legitimate or not, and section 69 of the Women's Charter further provides for a court order to be obtained to enforce this obligation. Hence, the PPA allows for such a provision to be put into force, should a court so order.
Finally, Mr Dhinakaran also called for the removal of the discretion by the President to transfer the pension of a Member of Parliament or office holder who has been imprisoned for corruption, to his family where the pension has been withheld or reinstate the withheld pension to the person after his imprisonment. Sir, I wholeheartedly agree with Mr Dhinakaran that there is no tolerance for corruption in this country. This is why in 1975 the PPA was amended to provide the President with the discretion to decide whether the whole or part of any pension should be withheld for any office holder or Member of Parliament convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act or of any crime involving corruption under any other written law, even if he has only been fined and not imprisoned. Prior to that, under the Pensions Act, the pension gratuity could only be withdrawn in the event of imprisonment or the death penalty.
Page: 615
As for the part of this provision which allows for possible transfer or reinstatement, it is entirely a matter of discretion whether any such transfer or reinstatement should be made, and it is not automatic. This is the same approach as a similar provision for civil servants in the Pensions Act and is meant to provide discretion during circumstances when transfer or reinstatement may be warranted. Thus far, there have been no cases that have warranted the exercise of this discretion under the PPA.
\tOnce again, Sir, I thank Mr de Souza and Mr Dhinakaran for their support for the Bill and for upholding the very important principles that underline this Bill.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Teo Chee Hean]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
\tPage: 615
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Civil List and Pension (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Sir, this House had endorsed the White Paper on \"Salaries for A Capable and Committed Government\" in January this year. The Civil List and Pension (Amendment) Bill seeks to put into effect one of the recommendations in the White Paper, by removing the power of Parliament, provided for in the Civil List and Pension Act, to grant a pension to a former President.
Allow me to first run through the history of the provision we are seeking to repeal. The Civil List and Pension Act was first introduced in 1970. Other than to provide a Civil List for the President, it also provided for the grant of a pension or gratuity of such amount and under such circumstances to a former President as Parliament may determine. This discretion was left to Parliament to give it flexibility to determine an amount based on the individual circumstances and needs of each former President. No former President has ever been granted a pension by the State.
Sir, to give effect to the White Paper recommendation, the provisions in the Civil List and Pension Act which provides Parliament with the discretion to grant a pension to a former President will need to be removed.
The Act currently also contains a provision that allows Parliament to grant a pension, in the event of death, to the widow and surviving dependants of the President and former Presidents. Although the White Paper did not make reference to this provision, this Bill seeks to remove this provision as well, which will be in line with the spirit of the recommendation to discontinue pension benefits for the President. Parliament can still separately resolve to grant a gratuity to surviving dependants of deceased Presidents and former Presidents if the need arises.
Page: 616
The Amendment Bill contains a saving provision to ensure that any pension or gratuity that has already been granted under the existing Act remains unaffected and continues to apply.
With the removal of pension benefits, the Civil List and Pension Act will be renamed, more aptly, as the Civil List and Gratuity Act. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Teo Chee Hean]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Order.\tBefore I call the next Bill, I propose to take a break. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.05 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.37 pm until 4.05 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.05 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
\tPage: 616
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Finance (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill 2012, or the GST Bill for short, comprises seven amendments. The first amendment gives legislative effect to a GST initiative announced in Budget 2012. The remaining six amendments arise from our ongoing review of the GST system. The draft Bill was released for public consultation in July 2012. It incorporates relevant feedback and suggestions from the public.
Let me first touch on the provisions in the Bill that give legislative effect to a GST initiative announced in Budget 2012, namely, GST exemption for investment-grade gold and precious metals.
Clauses 3, 6 and 14 of the Bill provide for GST exemption on the import and supply of investment-grade gold and precious metals. This move supports IE Singapore to develop a new gold refining and trading cluster in Singapore. The exemption means that actively traded investment-grade gold and other precious metals will enjoy the same GST treatment as other financial instruments that do not attract GST. Clauses 2, 7, 11, 13 and 15 of the Bill are consequential amendments to administer the change.
In addition, to facilitate precious metal refining, a new GST scheme will be introduced for qualifying refiners of precious metals and consolidators of scrap materials for refining. The new scheme confers two benefits. First, it eases cash flow by suspending the payment of GST on the import and purchase of scrap materials for refining. Second, it allows claiming of input tax incurred for consolidating and refining scrap materials into investment-grade precious metals.
Page: 617
Clauses 4 and 10 of the Bill give effect to the scheme.
The remaining six amendments to the GST Act arose from our on-going review of GST policies and administration.
First, we will extend the scope of GST zero-rating of prescribed financial services relating to goods for export. Currently, GST zero-rating is applicable to prescribed financial services, such as export credit and trade credit insurance, in relation to goods for export from Singapore. Clause 5(b) of the Bill extends GST zero-rating to the same financial services in relation to supplies involving goods that are located outside Singapore. This is in line with the existing policy of maintaining the competitiveness of our international services.
Second, we will allow the Comptroller and Minister to set conditions when granting remission. Currently, the Minister and the Comptroller of GST have powers under the GST Act to grant remission of GST on grounds of poverty or where it is just and equitable to do so. Clause 12 of the Bill provides clarity on the Comptroller's and Minister's powers to impose conditions when granting such remissions so as to prevent potential abuse. Clause 12 also provides for the tax remitted to be recoverable in the event of the taxpayer's failure to comply with the conditions imposed. The provisions in clause 12 are similar to those in other Acts, such as the Income Tax Act and Stamp Duties Act.
Third, we will extend the Temporary Removal Scheme to goods removed temporarily from approved warehouses for repairs. Currently, the Temporary Removal Scheme allows qualifying goods, such as art pieces, to be removed temporarily from approved warehouses under Singapore Customs' control for auctions and exhibitions without the payment of import GST. This scheme aims to promote auctions and exhibitions and use of specialised storage facilities in Singapore. Clause 8 of the Bill extends the scheme to cover goods removed temporarily for repair, conservation and restoration. This is because it may not be practical for all repairs to be done within the Approved Specialised Warehouses.
Fourth, consistent with the third amendment, we will allow GST zero-rating of repair services performed on qualified goods outside of Approved Specialised Warehouse. Currently, repair services performed inside Approved Specialised Warehouses to restore and conserve the qualifying goods are GST zero-rated. Clause 5(c) of the Bill extends the GST zero-rating to repair services performed on the qualifying goods when they are temporarily outside the Approved Specialised Warehouses.
Finally, the Bill makes two technical amendments with no change in policy. The first is to align the general provision on zero-rating of exports and international services with that for the Approved Marine Customers Scheme and Specialised Warehouse Scheme. The second standardises the text used in the different subsections for the Approved Contract Manufacturer and Trader (ACMT) Scheme. Sir, I beg to move.
Question proposed.
\tPage: 618
Mr Teo Siong Seng (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to declare that I am the President of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry; and the Singapore Jewellers Association and Diamond Exchange of Singapore are among our trade association members.
I rise in support of the Government's efforts to promote Singapore as a global investment precious metal trading hub, with the amendments to the Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill. Exempting the import and supply of investment-grade gold and precious metals from GST would bring gold and other investment-grade precious metals like silver and platinum on par with other financial instruments like stocks, bonds and commodity futures.
The introduction of a new Approved Refiner and Consolidator Scheme will also ease the cash flow of qualifying refiners and consolidators of precious metals in the payment of input GST on the import and purchase of raw materials, as well as to relieve input tax on precious metal refining. This would provide the right incentives for Singapore to compete with Hong Kong and other bullion trading centres in the region. Singapore was once a gold trading hub in the 1980s, but refiners had unfortunately been put off by Singapore's taxes, choosing instead to mould and sell gold bars in Hong Kong which does not impose duties on bullion, and Japan where the consumption tax on gold is 5%. The changes may thus be significant enough to lure refiners to open up factories in Singapore, and to have more gold traders set up their offices here to store bullion.
Having said that, before Singapore can compete with other gold trading hubs like Hong Kong and Dubai, perhaps an equivalent of the London Bullion Market Association needs to be set up. This could help gold-related industries, such as refiners. If more were around, it would help to boost the gold industry in Singapore.
In tandem with the Government's aspirations to develop Singapore into a regional gold trading hub, we look forward to seeing the introduction of certain incentives which could uplift the entire local jewellery manufacturing and retail scene. Such measures could be complementary and propel Singapore into a dynamic jewellery hub, in addition to being a gold trading hub.
Following the implementation of GST in 1994, the Singapore jewellery landscape has been dealt a rather big blow. As jewellery is a luxurious item, the additional cost burden attributed to GST is very significant. It has made us uncompetitive in pricing, with the result that Singapore has trailed far behind Hong Kong. Traders and buyers also find the GST to be a deterrent.
Hong Kong does not have a GST scheme, as we all know. The Hong Kong jewellery scene continues to be very vibrant and its jewellery shows are excellent examples. Of course, part of the reason for this dynamic growth is due to the vast China market and natural hinterland of Hong Kong.
Hong Kong holds a few large-scale international jewellery exhibitions every year. The HKTDC Hong Kong International Jewellery Show attracted 3,200 exhibitors, while the Hong Kong Jewellery and Gems Fair had a total of 3,500 exhibitors. The Singapore International Jewellery Show, on the other hand, is of a much smaller scale, with only 190 exhibitors.
Page: 619
We would strongly urge our Government to provide more relevant incentives for the local jewellery industry so that Singapore may reinstate its status as a jewellery hub. This would supplement our efforts to grow Singapore into a regional gold trading hub. Sir, with that, I support the Bill.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Member Mr Teo Siong Seng for his support of the GST (Amendment) Bill.
As Mr Teo has noted, the Bill will boost efforts to attract refiners and gold traders to set up factories and offices in Singapore. Mr Teo has suggested that an equivalent of the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) be set up. It turns out that there is already a Singapore Bullion Market Association which we understand has been inactive for some time. And, in fact, with the introduction of GST exemption for investment-grade gold, the major industry players have decided to come together as a body for the gold industry to revive the Association. According to the Association, informal consultations were held in March this year and an Executive Committee was formed in April. The Government welcomes the opportunity to work with the Association to promote growth of gold-related industries.
As for the London Bullion Market Association, I would like to share with Members that it was formerly incorporated in 1987 in close consultation with the Bank of England. Accreditation, however, may have started as early as 1934, which was when the LBMA's predecessor, the London Gold Market, compiled its earliest list of approved refiners. This is perhaps the reason why the LBMA good delivery lists are widely recognised by the industry as the de facto assurance of bullion bar quality and determine whether the bullion bars can be capable of being traded on the international market, particularly to be readily accepted for delivery on many international commodities exchanges, such as the Singapore Mercantile Exchange and the New York Commodities Exchange. On the other hand, non-LBMA gold bars may be traded internationally but are not accepted for delivery on commodities exchanges. So based on this industry feedback, we have decided to leverage on the LBMA accreditation for GST exemption for a start, but we will be very happy to discuss with the Singapore Bullion Market Association what else they see as potential for creating conditions for growth of these industries.
The Member has called for the introduction of certain incentives which could uplift the entire local jewellery manufacturing and retail scene. The Government is committed to helping our local SMEs, including jewellery manufacturers and retailers, and has put in place many schemes primarily through SPRING Singapore. Firms, the local jewellery manufacturing and retail sector, are very welcome to take advantage of them as many have already done so.
Mr Teo has referred to the vibrant jewellery scene in Hong Kong which does not have a GST scheme. In Singapore, we have a broad-based GST system with few exemptions. Nonetheless, our retail scene remains competitive and attractive to international retailers. As an example, according to Global Blue, a world leader in tax refund services, Singapore is now the top destination in the world for Chinese tourists to shop for luxury watches and jewellery, beating even Switzerland, a country known for its traditional stronghold in upmarket timepieces.
Page: 620
I would like to assure Mr Teo that the Government will continue to work with the industry associations, such as the Singapore Retailers Association and the Singapore Bullion Market Association, to grow their respective industries.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mrs Josephine Teo]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
\tPage: 620
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Building Control (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Lee Yi Shyan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
This Bill aims to introduce measures to improve the energy efficiency in the building sector and to update existing provisions in the Building Control Act.
Our building sector accounts for about one-third of Singapore's total electricity consumption, second only to the industrial sector. Typically, energy cost constitutes 20% to 40% of the total operating cost of a building. Hence, it makes economic sense for our buildings to be more energy-efficient. The more building owners and tenants conserve energy, the lower will be their operating costs and the cleaner our environment.
Since 2005, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) has been championing the green building environment in Singapore. It introduced the holistic Green Mark rating scheme which, in addition to measuring buildings' energy efficiency, also measures water efficiency, indoor environmental quality and environmental protection. Today, upon certification, Green Mark new buildings at the lowest certified level can be at least 28% more energy-efficient compared to the non-Green Mark buildings which were built in 2005 and before.
Working with the industry stakeholders, BCA launched the first Green Building Masterplan in 2006 to encourage, enable and engage the industry to increase their efforts in environmental sustainability, with the focus on \"greening\" our new buildings. In 2009, we launched the second Green Building Masterplan with greater emphasis on greening existing buildings. The latter makes up about 95% of Singapore's building stock.
To date, we have achieved some success. More than 1,200 green building projects have achieved Green Mark certification. Singapore is also recognised internationally for its leadership in the Green Building movement in this region. However, we still have some way to go before we achieve our ambitious target of greening 80% of our buildings by 2030 under our Sustainable Singapore Blueprint.
We have adopted a suite of measures comprising incentives, legislation and public education to encourage more building owners to achieve higher energy efficiency.
Page: 621
For new buildings, BCA introduced the Green Mark Gross Floor Area Incentive Scheme for new buildings whereby developers enjoy bonus gross floor area (GFA) if their new buildings achieve Green Mark GoldPlus or Platinum ratings.
We also mandated that new building works involving GFA of more than 2,000 square metres must achieve a minimum Green Mark certified rating via the Building Control (Environmental Sustainability) Regulations in 2008.
For existing buildings, the challenge is a different one. Let me explain. To green an existing building, one basic upgrading that a building owner needs to do is to retrofit his existing building cooling system. A building that is retrofitted will enjoy savings in the form of lower energy bills and operating costs. It would typically take three to seven years for a building to pay off its retrofitting investment – three to seven years' payback time.
But some building owners are reluctant to undertake retrofits, citing high upfront costs of retrofitting and the cost of energy-efficient equipment. They also feel that the payback period is too long. To address this, we launched the $100 million Green Mark Incentive Scheme for existing buildings in 2009. Building owners can tap on it to offset their retrofitting costs. This scheme has just been enhanced in July this year, in response to industry feedback.
BCA is also working with financial institutions to provide loans to building owners, especially the smaller companies or individuals, and energy services companies to carry out retrofitting works. BCA and financial institutions co-share the risk of loan default on this pilot project.
Sir, besides incentives, we propose to amend the Building Control Act to mandate building owners to achieve higher energy efficiency as and when they decide to retrofit their buildings. Let me now highlight the new Part IIIB of the Bill.
Firstly, the Minister for National Development will be empowered to prescribe what types of buildings would be subject to minimum Green Mark standard and related Regulations. These building owners will be obliged to meet the standard as and when they install or replace their buildings' cooling system. Let me explain why.
Of a building's total energy use, typically 30% to 50% is consumed by its cooling system. Further, the cooling system has a lifespan of 15 to 20 years. With the advance of technology and design, today's cooling plant system when properly implemented can save as much as 40% compared to the typical cooling system installed in our existing buildings today. Thus, introducing a minimum Green Mark standard for existing buildings at the point when the building owner changes the cooling system will enable up-to-date systems to be installed, saving expenses for the building owners while reducing energy consumption at the same time.
For a start, BCA will focus on large hotels, retail buildings and office buildings with a minimum GFA of 15,000 square metres. There are about 850 such buildings, but they consume up to 50% of the total energy used by the building sector.
Page: 622
With the new legislation, the building owner will have to engage a professional mechanical engineer to ensure that the overall building design, taking into account the change to the cooling system and any other retrofitting necessary, achieves the minimum Green Mark standard. The building owner will be given three years to complete the retrofitting works – a reasonable timeframe by industry standards.
Second, the Bill proposes to require building owners to conduct three-yearly audits on the building cooling systems to ensure that the efficiencies of the systems are maintained to the minimum regulatory standards. Installing energy-efficient equipment is a good start, but to achieve the intended energy saving, the equipment must be properly operated and maintained. To ensure that the building owners regularly maintain and operate their cooling systems at optimum performance levels, we would introduce an audit requirement for building owners.
This audit requirement will be applicable to two categories of buildings. The first category is new buildings whose application for planning permission is submitted on or after 1 December 2010 which, by virtue of the Building Control (Environmental Sustainability) Regulations, are required to meet the raised minimum Green Mark standard. The second category is existing buildings which have had their cooling system changed and have retrofitted to meet the minimum Green Mark standard, as required by the current amendments.
The building owners will need to engage energy auditors to carry out the audit and ensure that the cooling systems meet the minimum system efficiency standards. These auditors are professional mechanical engineers, or other suitably qualified personnel registered as energy auditors with the Building and Construction Authority (BCA).
Third, the Bill proposes to require the annual submission of building information and energy consumption data. For a start, we will implement this requirement for office, hotel and retail buildings.
BCA intends to obtain the needed data from two sources: first, from utilities suppliers, the annual electricity consumption data of these buildings; and, second, from building owners, the building data such as tenant profile and certain technical details of their building cooling system. Data submission will be simplified through the use of online portal. After the first time data-filling, building owners only need to update the database if there are changes.
To commence the process, BCA will inform the affected building owners in the office, hotel and retail sectors in advance, by way of notice in writing on when they need to submit the data. The data collected will be put to good use. BCA will analyse the data collected, and share with building owners their electricity consumption patterns compared to the aggregated average, such as industry and national benchmarks. We hope that with such information, building owners can proactively improve their buildings' energy efficiency over time.
Sir, BCA has consulted the industry on these proposed legislative changes. The industry generally welcomed the measures as they will set an objective and level-playing field for the building sector to improve its energy efficiency. We expect to implement these measures in the second half of 2013.
Page: 623
The legislative amendments, together with our incentive schemes and public education, demonstrate our commitment to create an environmentally friendly and sustainable built environment. We can achieve a win-win outcome for building owners, tenants and businesses.
Sir, now, I shall briefly outline other amendments of the Bill that do not pertain to energy efficiency of the building sector. Clause 2 clarifies and refines certain definitions in the current Building Control Act. Let me cite two such examples. First, \"underground building works\" has been renamed \"geotechnical building works\" to include earthworks and building works for constructing or stabilising a slope. Such works may take place above ground and hence, to avoid confusion over the term \"underground\" in the current definition, we propose to use the term \"geotechnical\" instead.
Second, the definition of \"owner\" is amended to make clear that BCA may identify the owner of a building or land by relying on the information in the land register maintained by the Singapore Land Authority or in the Valuation List prepared under the Property Tax Act.
Under the Building Control Regulations, approved designs have to comply with prescribed objectives and performance requirements. For new designs to comply, a Qualified Person, as defined by the Building Control Act, may either follow approved methods, called acceptable solutions, that are set out by the Commissioner of Building Control, or use an alternative solution. Where an alternative solution is used, the qualified person may get a specialist to certify that the alternative solution meets the prescribed objectives and performance requirements.
Currently, only a Qualified Person is allowed to be a specialist for alternative solutions in the preparation of plans for building works. Clause 4 removes this restriction on the specialist because specialists for such alternative solutions may not practise as Qualified Persons. This amendment will also make available a greater pool of such specialists. We will, however, still require these specialists to have the requisite knowledge or qualifications as approved by the Commissioner of Building Control.
Clause 5 of the Bill proposes to formalise the current \"gate-keeping\" administrative role of BCA by empowering BCA to require the owner to have obtained the respective approvals of technical agencies before it issues the temporary occupation permit (TOP) or certificate of statutory completion (CSC).
The technical agencies' requirements include those pertaining to fire protection, sanitation and drainage. Even though they do not fall under the ambit of the Building Control Act, these also form the basic and essential aspects of occupation of the building.
Current provisions in the Building Control Act allow BCA to require the owner of a land with the dangerous slope to take steps to make the slope safe, only if there is also a building built on that plot of land in the vicinity of the slope. Clause 11 will add a new provision in Part IV of the Building Control Act to allow BCA to regulate the safety of slopes which become dangerous as a result of building works or slopes which endanger buildings in close proximity to them. BCA will be able to require the owner of the slope to carry out investigation and repairs on the slopes and to order the closure of the slope.
Page: 624
Clause 15 formalises the administrative process to subject buildings without TOP and CSC to periodic structural inspections. Currently, these inspections are mandatory for non-residential and residential buildings every five and 10 years respectively after they have obtained their TOP or CSC. This requirement, implemented following the Hotel New World collapse, ensures that the building structure continues to remain sound and is not subject to undue loading.
However, for some buildings without TOP or CSC such as pre-war buildings or buildings built prior to the implementation of the TOP/CSC regime, BCA has been relying on administrative means to ensure that these buildings are being regularly inspected within the periodic structural inspection framework.
Clause 17 removes an unintended restriction in the current provisions on buildings licensing from the Building Control Act. When builder licensing started in 2009, the intent was to ensure that the various types of building works are carried out by the builders with the right competencies. That is, general building works would be carried out by licensed general builders while specialist building works, such as precast concrete work and structural steelwork, will be carried out by licensed specialist builders.
However, the industry practice is for the main contractor, who is normally a licensed general builder, to tender for all the works in a project, including specialist building works. This does not adhere to the current definition in the Building Control Act that a person acts as a specialist builder if he submits a tender for specialist building works. Hence, the removal of the restriction will allow this industry practice of the calling of tenders by a licensed general builder to proceed. During actual works, if there are specialist building works within the project, the main contractor is required to engage a licensed specialist builder to carry out those works.
Next, Service of Documents. Currently, the Building Control Act provides for service of notices, orders and documents by delivering them personally, leaving them at the usual or last known address, or by registered post. Clause 20 provides for additional modes of service by facsimile transmission, ordinary post and electronic mail for the service of notices and documents. For service of orders, the additional mode of service is through facsimile transmission. Sir, I beg to move.
Question proposed.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: Mr Speaker, Sir, firstly, I would like to declare my interest as a passionate engineer and a Board Member of Professional Engineers Board. The Minister of State has taken a long stride in the right direction in implementing policies that make our buildings more environmentally sustainable. In line with our continuous nationwide campaign to encourage and embrace the green revolution, this amendment has come at a timely moment.
In recent years, we have observed in the global news, and experienced firsthand, nature's wrath in the form of extreme, unpredictable climates that are largely attributed to global warming and other environmental problems.
Page: 625
Singapore has done reasonably well over the years in advocating a green building culture. Industry stakeholders by and large have been quite receptive towards the green buildings and energy efficiency movement.
I believe that some small form of legislation could be inevitable. However, I hope that BCA would continue to work rigorously towards and without let up on incentives and education to facilitate and encourage stakeholders to embrace Green.
Imposing a requirement on building owners to conduct a three-yearly energy audit on the cooling system of their buildings is a wise move. However, I note that the energy auditors may be conducted by a non-Professional Engineer, so long as he is a suitably qualified personnel registered with BCA. Based on my experience, energy auditing qualifies as engineering work and it should be carried out by a Professional Engineer in accordance to the Professional Engineers (PE) Act in Singapore.
My question is, if an auditor seeks registration, should this be done through the Professional Engineers Board (PEB), or at least approval be obtained from PEB so that the PE Act is not infringed? For that matter, any agency that wishes to form any registers to accredit any person to perform engineering services should consult and obtain approval from the PE Board according to the PE Act, rather than each agency sets up their own register and bypassing the PE Board. Then, what is the use of the PE Act?
Another issue I would like to raise is clause 4 which amends section 9 on the removal of the requirement to be a practising Qualified Person to assess an alternative solution. A Qualified Person is either a registered architect or professional engineer. While I understand that an alternative solution need not have any relevance to engineering, but if it does, then such specialist person should be registered by the Professional Engineers Board again.
The PE Act requires that only persons who are registered with the PE Board are allowed by the PE Act to practise professional engineering and conform to the ethics and conduct like any other professional engineers. I suggest that the Minister look into this compliance.
The BCA has always been highly efficient and persistent in getting building owners to conduct periodic structural inspections of their buildings. I commend BCA for their effort and dedication for the safety of the building occupants. In the meantime, I believe more can be done to ensure that all building owners are getting their notices through the most convenient and practical channels. I know building owners can claim that they did not receive the documents sent to them by the BCA via normal post and were only aware when they received fax copies later. We have a reliable postal service, but it is not faultless, and there have been complaints every now and then that people do not receive their mail on time, or mail delivered to the wrong address. I receive that feedback very often from my residents as well.
Fax transmission is another popular mode for serving notices, yet it is not entirely reliable. In the past, companies would leave their fax machines switched on 24 hours. These days, as people begin embracing the importance of saving energy, they stop allowing their fax machines to run for the entire day. Many companies are now phasing out fax machines, which are replaced by emails and express couriers. So, is serving notices by fax still relevant? Is BCA going to charge the building owners if they did not receive the fax message from BCA?
Page: 626
Talking of phasing out, I would like to reinforce my point on qualified persons, namely that of registered professional engineers. People often mistake engineers to be some sort of scientist or technologist. They are not completely wrong in identifying the relevance, but they are also not entirely right. The work of an engineer does not stop there.
Allow me to quote Sir Eric Ashby, a British academic who has described the work of an engineer with great accuracy, and I quote, \"The engineer is the key figure in the material progress of the world. It is his engineering that makes a reality of the potential value of science by translating scientific knowledge into tools, resources, energy and labour to bring them into the service of man. To make contributions of this kind the engineer requires the imagination to visualize the needs of society and to appreciate what is possible as well as the technological and broad social age understanding to bring his vision to reality.\"
Engineering to society is like collagen to our body. Engineering races alongside technology to keep society mobile and progressive. Without engineering to strengthen the health and sustainability of our environment, we will eventually experience a slowdown and lots of problems.
We need engineering to cushion the consequences of technology, just as we need collagen to cushion the consequences of our daily activities. As such, given the essential role that engineers play, I am disappointed to learn that none of the five President Scholars awarded this year will be studying engineering. This is the sixth successive year that no engineering student has received a President Scholarship.
Mr Matthias Chew made a sound observation on the online political wing of The Straits Times Singapolitics. Young Singaporeans are less interested in engineering. Engineering faculties are now populated by foreign students and have even lowered their admission grades. This is a worrying trend. It would be too late if we wait until one generation later when we discover the consequence of lacking leaders who truly understand technology and engineering.
I quote a Chinese saying, \"十年树木，百年树人\". It takes a very long time to nurture our own pool of talents. We cannot be dependent on foreign students, nor can we expect to import foreign engineers to fill the important need when it arises. We need to encourage local students to take up engineering. We need to impress upon our youngsters the career prospects and satisfaction of serving mankind that comes with engineering. We need to embrace the indispensable nature of engineering. We can start by acknowledging that professional engineers are irreplaceable in the Building Control Act and I would like to suggest to the Minister to work with the Professional Engineers Board for any engineering related registers to ensure consistency and that engineers' efforts are truly recognised. With that, I support the Amendment Bill.
Dr Teo Ho Pin (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. Sir, I am a Chartered Builder. I wish to declare my interest as a Board Member of the Singapore Environment Council and also my family is involved in the construction and development business.
Page: 627
Sir, in 20 years' time, Singapore's built environment will be dense comprising skyscrapers in the business district, 20 to 40 storeys high-rise residential buildings in HDB towns and private estates, big and complex shopping centres, and extensive road networks. Buildings will be closer to one another and more buildings will be installed with high technology communication, mechanical and electrical, and air-conditioning and heating systems. Older simple buildings will be upgraded or rebuilt into high-rise complex buildings for different purposes. Together with new buildings, the intensity of our built environment will increase further thus posing risks of the \"heat island\" effects in Singapore.
Sir, skyscrapers and tall buildings will affect cross wind ventilation of our built environment. Exhaust fumes and haze will be trapped in our built environment. Extensive road networks will have more vehicle emissions into our built environment. More complex buildings with higher capacity or more air-conditioning, thus emitting exhaust hot air into our built environment.
Sir, buildings consume about 30% of Singapore's total electricity consumption, and contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. Although BCA has implemented the BCA Green Mark Scheme in 2005, the take-up rate has been slow.
As at today, very few new buildings have attained the highest energy efficient and environmentally-friendly award, that is, the Platinum Award. Similarly, the BCA Green Mark Scheme for existing buildings did not see a surge of building owners applying for the incentives or Green Mark certification.
Sir, as highlighted by Senior Minister of State, Mr Lee Yi Shyan, and I quote, \"We still have some way to go before we achieve our target to green 80% of our buildings by 2030 under our Sustainable Singapore Blueprint.\"
Sir, the proposed Bill is a step in the right direction in greening our built environment. But I am concerned that the take-up rate by building owners will be slow thus increasing our energy security risks and \"heat island\" effects.
Sir, we need to understand why developers and building owners are not taking up ownership to implement sustainable and environmentally-friendly features into our buildings? I wish to highlight three barriers faced by developers and building owners in going green and propose some suggestions for the Minister to consider.
First, lack of Government incentives. The existing BCA Green Mark Gross Floor Area (GFA) incentive of 1% and 2% for GoldPlus and Platinum Awards are inadequate to increase take-up rate to build more green buildings. I would propose to the Ministry to revise the GFA incentive scheme.
In addition, the authorities should also consider providing more flexibility for change of use to further incentivise existing building owners to upgrade or develop their environmentally inefficient buildings. Sir, I would like to propose that the Government revise the plot ratio of older buildings so that owners can be encouraged to redevelop their buildings to meet Green Mark standards.
Page: 628
Sir, as the initial capital outlay for environmentally-friendly buildings is high; there is a greater need for Government to provide more support in terms of financial incentives, services, or legislations. For example, many states in the US have tax benefits for green buildings.
In Japan, the Osaka government provides advice to developers on energy efficient measures from pre-design to construction stage. In Tokyo, the government provides subsidies to homeowners to purchase solar panels. Thus, I would urge the Government to revise the incentive schemes for Green Mark Schemes.
Two, difficulty to get Subsidiary Proprietors' consent. Sir, in strata titled buildings; it is often difficult to get consent from subsidiary proprietors to invest in green features during upgrading or retrofitting works. Many subsidiary proprietors cannot see the value of green buildings, and thus are unwilling to pay for environmentally-friendly features.
Therefore, if we were to wait for \"major energy-use change\" as proposed by clause 8 of the Bill, it may take many years to convert these existing buildings into green buildings. As the lifespan of cooling systems of buildings varies due to different make, maintenance and usage, the pace of greening existing buildings will be slow.
Thus, introducing a mandatory requirement for cooling system may not expedite the growth of green buildings in Singapore. I would urge the Ministry to consider providing a \"green grant\" based on per metre square for existing owners to attain the BCA Gold or higher awards, instead of the existing 50% cash incentive for installing energy efficient cooling equipment and professional services. In addition, tax incentives can be granted to owners who carry out retrofitting works to green their buildings. In this way, building owners can introduce more green features to their buildings, including adopting green lifestyle among its users.
Three, lack of sinking fund. Sir, some owners of existing buildings may not have sufficient sinking fund to undergo green building retrofitting or upgrading works. This is another barrier which owners must overcome. Furthermore, many banks may not understand the value-add or yields of green buildings, and offer limited retrofitting loan, thus restricting the scope of works for greening. Thus, it may be useful if the Government can adopt a risk sharing scheme to secure higher retrofitting loans for green buildings.
Sir, I support that the Bill will empower the Minister for National Development to prescribe the types of buildings to be subject to the minimum Green Mark standards as and when building owners install or replace their buildings' cooling systems. As mentioned by the Minister, BCA will first focus on hotels, retail and office buildings with a minimum Gross Floor Area of 15,000 square metres.
Sir, I wish to ask the Minister two questions. First, why start off with three building types with a minimum GFA of 15,000 square metres only? I understand that hospitals, universities and some mixed developments also consume large amount of energy. In fact, the 1.1 million residential dwelling units in Singapore also consume a significant amount of electricity and thus warrant attention too.
Page: 629
Thus, I would propose to the Minister to include all building types with floor area above 2000 square metres to comply with the minimum Green Mark standards when they carry out any major retrofitting works, instead of any \"major energy-use change\" works. This will align the BCA Green Mark Scheme for both new and existing buildings.
Sir, why only conduct three-yearly audit on the cooling system? Although the cooling system of buildings consume the most electricity, other electrical and mechanical components of the buildings, such as lightings, mechanical pumps, lifts and electrical appliances, also account for a significant proportion of electricity consumption.
Besides the mechanical and electrical components of the buildings, there are many other green features which can be incorporated into existing buildings to make them more energy efficient and green. These include energy efficient lightings, control blinds or sun shading to reduce heat transfer through building facades, air tightness of rooms to reduce air-conditioning leakages and insulation of walls to reduce heat transfer, thus reducing air-conditioning loads of buildings. All these features will enhance the energy efficiency performance of buildings.
Sir, recently HDB implemented the pilot Grid-tied Solar PV system in a few housing estates. Based on actual electricity bill readings, the Town Councils experienced about 30% in saving in their bills. The use of renewable solar energy will reduce the use of power generated electricity, thus indirectly reducing carbon footprints in Singapore.
Sir, many retail malls installed many types of lightings which are not environmentally-friendly. Thus, I would urge the Minister to adopt a more holistic approach to green our buildings, instead of the proposed piece-meal, that is, cooling system only method.
At this juncture, I wish to share that the 14 PAP Town Councils have already replaced 350,000 common area light tubes to LED lightings, and are in the second phase of replacing the remaining 500,000 light tubes. This project will reduce the electricity consumption by 40% to 50% and contribute towards greening our HDB flats. In addition, the 14 PAP Town Councils have taken the initiative to apply for Eco-office certification by the Singapore Environment Council. To date, 10 Town Councils' offices are Eco-office certified.
Sir, we must encourage building owners to take ownership and continue to green their buildings. They must also make concerted and continuous efforts to educate their users to adopt green habits. I hope the Minister will amend the Bill to mandate three-yearly Green Mark certification of the entire building instead of just certifying the cooling system. This will ensure that green buildings will always stay green. Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Lee Yi Shyan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to first thank the Members Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Dr Teo Ho Pin for speaking on the Bill. They shared our vision for a greener and more sustainable built environment. They both commented that with this Bill, we are heading in the right direction. I would also like to thank them for their very thoughtful suggestions, some of which we would need to further study their implications.
Page: 630
Before I address their specific questions, let me just make a few general points. To realise our vision, all our stakeholders must play their roles and work together. Members of the public at large must understand the need to care for our environment. Building owners must also own the initiatives to adopt energy efficient and green solutions in their buildings. Engineers, architects, facility managers and other professionals must constantly look out for and present cost-effective, technically advanced and commercially viable green solutions. The Government can come in to provide an overall conducive environment, one that would encourage the adoption of best practices, implement innovations and support standard-raising efforts. We do so by public educations, appropriate incentives and regulations.
Let me now address some of the specific points that the Members have raised. Er Dr Lee has highlighted the importance of incentives and education in encouraging industries' stakeholders to green their buildings. Dr Teo suggested that MND enhance the Green Mark Gross Floor Area scheme and consider other incentives like a green grant, tax incentives, green-sharing loans to help remove barriers faced by building owners.
Sir, we already have several incentives for building owners to cap on in greening both new and existing buildings. For instance, we enhanced the Green Mark incentive scheme for existing buildings in July – just two months ago this year – in response to industry feedback. Previously, the scheme covered only 20% to 35% of the cost of energy efficient equipment. Since July, we have raised the co-funding level to 35% to 50%, and expanded the funding scope to include the supply and installation cost of energy efficient equipment. In return, building owners have to meet higher energy efficiency standards that is Green Mark Gold and above, to enjoy these incentives. BCA is also piloting a Building Retrofit Energy Efficiency financing scheme, which involves co-sharing of the risk of loan default by BCA and the participating financial institutions. This will help tackle the barriers cited by Dr Teo and unlock more commercial loans to building owners for their retrofitting purposes.
I thank Dr Teo for suggesting different types of incentives. As I said, we will study them further. I want to emphasise that under this Bill, the building owners are only required to meet the minimum Green Mark standard as and when they install and replace their buildings cooling systems. As even if there were no incentives available there is an inherent motivation for building owners to install more energy efficient equipment when they retire the old equipment, in order to enjoy energy savings for the next 15 to 20 years the life span of the new equipment.
For buildings going on to achieve higher Green Mark ratings, we have deliberately calibrated the incentive levels to speed up Green Mark adoption. Under the Green Mark Incentive Scheme for existing buildings, the incentive levels would be correspondingly enhanced. For Gold buildings, building owners will enjoy 35% of co-funding, GoldPlus is 40% and for Platinum buildings, up to 50% co-funding.
Dr Teo asked why we are starting the minimum standards only for buildings in the three sectors, office, hotels and retail. My short answer is prioritisation is to achieve the most impact for the staff. We have adopted a phased approach starting with these building types because they collectively consume up to 50% of the total energy used by the building sector. By targeting these buildings in Phase 1, the sector would have solved half its problems.
Page: 631
Next, developments where commercial components have Gross Floor Areas of 15,000 sqm or more, are also included in Phase 1. We have also taken a pragmatic approach so as to ensure a smooth implementation of the new legislation. There are different energy conservation considerations for different building types and sizes. Experience from implementing Phase 1 will help us calibrate our policy and requirements for the subsequent phases which could cover other building types as well as smaller buildings below 15,000 sqm, as mentioned by Dr Teo.
BCA will be collecting energy and building data from Phase 1 buildings as well as other energy intensive buildings, including the smaller hotels, office and retail buildings not covered in Phase 1 to better understand these buildings' energy use patterns. The data then would guide us in determining the possible approaches to address their energy efficiency. BCA will enlarge the scope of data collection to other building types at a later stage. Dr Teo also mentioned that 1.1 million residential dwelling units should warrant our attention. This, we agree. For the household sector, the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources and the NEA have put in place awareness programmes to inform and educate households of different types of ways to save energy. There are also regulatory measures, such as mandatory energy labelling schemes and the minimum energy performance standards, to ensure the use of energy efficient appliances in the households.
On the proposed energy audit, Dr Teo asked why we imposed a three-yearly audit on the cooling system only. From BCA's experience in assessing the performance of green buildings, the system efficiency of central air-conditioning plants can deteriorate quickly if it is not operated and maintained properly. Hence, it is critical to conduct regular audits on the efficiency of air-conditioning plants. We are mindful that other electrical and mechanical components, such as lightings and lifts, do consume a significant portion of the buildings' energy. But the efficiency of such equipment is not likely to deteriorate significantly during actual usage. For instance, a 28-watt fluorescent lamp would continue to draw 28-watt of electrical energy over its life-cycle. While it would still be a good practice to audit the efficiency of other building components, we must balance this with the cost and benefits, and the burden imposed on building owners. This is why we propose to start with the audit of the cooling system. We could consider extending these to other building components in future.
Er Dr Lee asked whether the registration of energy auditors should be approved or carried out by the Professional Engineers Board (PEB). Let me first explain the duties of energy auditors. The energy auditor is responsible to verify that the building's cooling system is performing in accordance with its design specifications, which meet the minimum system efficiency standards. This is done by taking readings from the instrumentations installed and preparing the audit reports to be submitted to BCA. As you can see, the energy audit does not involve any upgrading, design or professional engineering work. The audit has no direct impact on public health or safety such that it warrants a degree of supervision by a Professional Engineer.
Energy auditing is also not a new concept in Singapore. Many building owners engage facilities managers to manage and maintain the performance of their premises. Some of their functions, such as monitoring the performance level of the cooling system, are similar to what we are proposing the energy auditors to do. In fact, for many years, energy service companies whose personnel may not be Professional Engineers are already providing energy audit services to building owners. These personnel are Singapore-certified energy managers by NEA.
Page: 632
Thus, in our view, it is not necessary for the PEB to approve or to carry out the registration of the energy auditors since no Professional Engineering services are involved in all these. More importantly, by allowing suitably qualified professionals to carry out the energy audits, we will be able to expand the pool of energy auditors available to the building owners, which can help keep the audit costs competitive in the long run.
Going forward, BCA will consult the professional bodies, such as PEB, Association of Consulting Engineers and the Institute of Engineers, to draw up the registration criteria for energy auditors, which we made into regulation under the Building Control Act. The principal consideration behind BCA's registration of the energy auditors is to ensure that they are competent in carrying out the audits. To this end, some registration criteria could include the relevant engineering or building related degree and work experience.
Er Dr Lee also asked whether the specialists in the alternative solutions should be registered by PEB if there are Professional Engineering works involved. Let me first reiterate the intent of clause 4 of the Bill. Currently, if there is a technology or knowledge which is new to Singapore, it is not possible to deploy it as an alternative solution if we were to insist that a Qualified Professional (QP) who is either a Registered Architect or Professional Engineer is allowed to design and certify this solution. So, the only choice left is to abandon the alternative solution. This is not good for the industry's development and progress.
Clause 4 would give the QP flexibility to get a specialist in the alternative solution but who is not a QP to certify it. The QP can, of course, continue with the current arrangement to get another QP who is a specialist in alternative solutions to certify it as well.
Let me illustrate it with an example. In a multi-storey car park, due to height constraints, it may not be possible to install ducts all over the car park to remove carbon monoxide from car exhaust, which is the standard method to comply with the requirements under the Singapore standard. In this situation, a QP may seek a specialist who is not a QP or one who is a QP to design and certify an alternative ventilation system for the car park. I would like to assure the Members that when the specialist is not a QP, he will not be allowed to practise in his own right, but can only work under the direction or supervision of the QP.
Er Dr Lee asked if serving notices by fax is still relevant as a way of serving notices under the Building Control Act. I believe facsimile is still one of the communication tools used by businesses and building owners. In other Acts, such as the Amusement Rides Safety Act and the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act administered by BCA, the service of notices by facsimile is allowed.
As for Er Dr Lee's concern whether BCA would take action against building owners if they did not receive the fax from BCA, I would like to point out that by providing their fax numbers as a means of contact, the building owners should be prepared to receive fax. Notwithstanding this, the primary mode of serving notices will still be by mail. Service of notice by facsimile will be a secondary mode when necessary, for instance, when the mail is returned.
Page: 633
Lastly, Er Dr Lee has expressed concern on the lack of interest among young Singaporeans in studying engineering. Trained as an engineer myself, I fully agree with her on the important roles played by engineers in our society. I would like to thank Er Dr Lee for raising this issue as it gives me an opportunity wearing my other hat in the Ministry of Trade and Industry to share with Members that the Economic Development Board's efforts have been to promote the study of engineering. EDB has reached out to students of secondary schools and junior colleges to shape positive perceptions about engineering and encourage them to pursue this course of study. It has also profiled engineers in various industries to highlight their versatility and empowerment in their jobs to contribute and make changes. These efforts have resulted in higher first-choice applications for engineering courses at our Polytechnics in their recent enrolment exercise.
EDB, together with the Manpower and the Education Ministries, also worked with the National University of Singapore, Nanyang Technological University and the industry to review our engineering curriculum. The aim is to improve the structure and the relevance of the courses such that graduates are equipped with the skill-sets that meet both students and employers' needs, taking into account global trends in engineering education.
Similarly, our construction sector plays a critical part in attracting more into the engineering profession. BCA works with the industry to jointly offer undergrad scholarships to young people interested in a career in the built environment. Just last month, BCA launched its first diploma scholarships. In total, about half of the scholars under the undergrad and diploma schemes are taking up engineering courses. BCA also engages the industry to offer internship programmes to graduating \"A\" level students to expose them to diverse career options within the construction industry. In addition, BCA organises career talks involving successful industry young leaders sharing the exciting engineering career and achievements in the built environment industry to inspire the students. Hopefully, this will spur the young's interest in the engineering profession.
Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, let me say that the proposed amendments will further enhance our existing standards in mandating and promoting Green Mark and Best Practices. While we are ahead of many countries in adopting Green Standards, we certainly can and should do more. Let us work together to achieve our vision of a more sustainable and even greener built-up Singapore.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Lee Yi Shyan]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
\tPage: 634
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Acting Minister for Manpower (Mr Tan Chuan-Jin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Sir, this Bill will amend the CPF Act to effect changes to the Minimum Sum Topping-Up (MSTU) Scheme, refine the CPF housing refund policy, introduce a minimum age to make CPF nominations, as well as streamline the administration of CPF matters. These changes have been made in response to feedback or in response to the operational experience of the CPF Board. They will keep the CPF system efficient and relevant to the needs of Singaporeans.
Let me begin with the changes to the MSTU Scheme. This is a scheme that was introduced to help Singaporeans contribute to the retirement savings of their loved ones by topping up their CPF Special Account (SA) or Retirement Account (RA). Singaporeans who wish to save more for their own retirement can also make voluntary contributions to these accounts under the MSTU Scheme. Tax relief is given to those who make cash top-ups to their own CPF accounts or that of eligible recipients.
To encourage more support within families, we widened the group of eligible recipients over the years. The MSTU Scheme now covers parents, grandparents, spouse and siblings. With a wider reach, the number of MSTU top-ups has increased from about 8,800 in 2007 to more than 38,000 in 2011. The total top-up amounts have also increased from $69 million to $216 million over the same period.
Many members have found this scheme useful in boosting their retirement savings or those of their loved ones, and we have received many suggestions to extend it so that they can also provide for their parents-in-law and grandparents-in-law.
We have taken on board this request. In April this year, I announced that we would expand the MSTU Scheme to include parents-in-law and grandparents-in-law. We will make a provision in section 2 of the CPF Act so that the Minister may specify through regulations who are eligible to receive top-ups from CPF accounts under the MSTU Scheme. We will then amend the CPF regulations later this year to specify that parents-in-law and grandparents-in-law will be amongst this list of eligible recipients to receive CPF top-ups.
The Income Tax Act will also be amended later this year to extend tax relief to members who make cash top-ups to the SA or RA of their parents-in-law and grandparents-in-law. Members who make cash top-ups to eligible family members will qualify for tax relief of up to $7,000. Members who make cash top-ups to their own SA or RA as well will qualify for an additional tax relief of $7,000.
With these changes, Singaporeans will be able to make cash or CPF top-ups to their own SA and RA, to those of their spouses, siblings, parents, grandparents, and now parents-in-law and grandparents-in-law as well. This change will take effect on 1 January 2013.
Page: 635
Another enhancement we are making to the MSTU Scheme is to simplify the channels for making top-ups to a member's own SA and RA. Currently, a member may top up his RA under the MSTU scheme. He may also top up his RA by making what is classified as a Voluntary Contribution or VC for short. For top-up to the SA, a member can do so using his Ordinary Account (OA) savings under the OA-to-SA Transfer Scheme, or he could make a top-up using cash through the MSTU Scheme.
Members have found the multiple channels confusing as they essentially achieve the same purpose. What makes things even more complicated is that the various schemes have actually different top-up limits for recipients and varying terms and conditions for the use of these top-ups.
Therefore, to simplify the processes for members making voluntary contributions to their own SA and RA, we will merge the following channels, namely, the VC to the RA, and the OA-to-SA Transfer Scheme, into the MSTU Scheme.
The merger of the schemes, in itself, will not require an amendment to the Act. However, we will amend the Act and the regulations to align the top-up limits and the terms and conditions of the various schemes.
Specifically, changes will be made to section 18A of the Act to provide for the top-up limits for top-ups to the RA to be specified in the regulations instead of in the Act. We will then amend the regulations later this year to align the top-up limits and terms and conditions for all top-ups to the RA. The same will be done for all top-ups to the SA.
With these changes, all top-ups to the SA or the RA, whether it is made to oneself or to one's family members, and whether it is made via cash or CPF, will now be made under the MSTU Scheme. This will simplify the topping-up process for members.
For members above 55, they may receive top-ups to their RA up to the difference between the prevailing Minimum Sum and the amount they have in their RA, excluding amounts such as the interest earned and any Government grants received, and excluding amounts that they have withdrawn. For younger members receiving top-ups into their SA, they will be able to receive top-ups up to the difference between the prevailing Minimum Sum, and the sum of their current SA cash balance and any SA investments that they have under the CPF Investment Scheme.
Sir, with these enhancements, the MSTU Scheme becomes an even broader and more accessible avenue for Singaporeans to boost their retirement savings. We certainly hope more Singaporeans will take advantage of the scheme.
Sir, I will now move on to the next amendment that will give effect to refinements that we are making to the CPF housing refund policy. CPF members may use savings in their CPF Ordinary Account (OA) to purchase a property. When members sell their property, we require them to refund the CPF savings that they have used for their property.
Members who sell their property before age 55 are required to refund into their CPF account the principal amount that they had withdrawn for the property, including the prevailing Ordinary Account interest that would have accrued on this amount, or what we call P+I in short. This refund aims to restore the member to the position as if he had not withdrawn his CPF savings for the property. Members may still use the refunded amounts towards the purchase of any next property.
Page: 636
The current housing refund requirements change when a member is past age 55. At age 55, a member is required to set aside the Minimum Sum (MS) from his existing CPF balances, and he may withdraw his CPF savings in excess of the Minimum Sum after having also set aside the required amount in his Medisave Account for his healthcare needs. So, when a member sells his property after age 55, only the amount needed to bring the member up to his MS must be refunded, since amounts above the Minimum Sum can be withdrawn anyway. In other words, for a member who sells his property after age 55, he will refund his Minimum Sum shortfall or his P+I, whichever is lower. Remaining proceeds from the sale of his property is received in cash.
While the current refund rules for members over 55 avoid collection of housing refunds in excess of MS, there may be certain scenarios involving more than one owner, where the refunds required of the co-owners may not match the amount of CPF each co-owner used to pay for the property. When this arises, co-owners can decide to distribute the cash proceeds among themselves such that the total of the cash proceeds and CPF refunds for each co-owner matches the amount that each co-owner had contributed towards payment of the property.
However, where the co-owners are no longer on good terms, the distribution of these cash proceeds becomes significantly more contentious and the co-owners may not always be willing to consider the amount that the other party has contributed towards the property. In cases where the property is sold at a loss, there may not be any cash proceeds for distribution at all. So, this is when the current housing refund requirements may create some unhappiness among members. Some of the Members of this House would have received appeals of such nature.
We are, therefore, refining the housing refund policy to address this issue. We will now require members aged 55 and above to refund their P+I. This means that the same refund rule will apply to all members regardless of their age. This refinement will ensure co-owners receive CPF refunds that are commensurate with their usage of CPF savings for that particular property. Sections 21, 21A and 21B of the Act will be amended to give effect to the new housing refund policy.
Where the P+I refund exceeds the Minimum Sum shortfall for members aged 55 and above, they need not worry that the new refund rule makes them retain in their CPF a higher amount than what is necessary. The refunded amount will first be used to set aside their cohort Minimum Sum in their RA and the required Medisave amount in their MA, and then the excess can be withdrawn. This is no different from the existing requirement that applies to all members past age 55 who wish to withdraw their OA and SA savings in excess of the Minimum Sum.
Under the new housing refund rule, for members aged 55 and above, any remaining housing refunds after setting aside the required amounts, in the RA and MA, will be automatically disbursed to the member in cash, unless he chooses to retain it in his CPF accounts. Changes will be made to section 15 of the Act to give effect to this policy. The majority of members can expect to receive the disbursed funds within one or two weeks of the crediting of the housing refunds into their CPF accounts.
Page: 637
Sir, the new housing refund policy will ensure that the distribution of proceeds from the sale of property reflects the CPF usage among the co-owners, while at the same time not require older members to retain in their CPF more refunds than are necessary. The new housing refund policy will take effect on 1 January 2013.
Let me move on to the next amendment relating to the introduction of a minimum age for making CPF nominations.
CPF members may make nominations to have their CPF savings disbursed to their nominees upon their demise. CPF savings belonging to members who pass away without having made a nomination will be distributed to their next-of-kin in accordance with intestacy laws.
CPF Board has, in the past, allowed CPF members of any age to make nominations. The absence of an age restriction meant that even very young CPF members could make a nomination. This is not common, since young CPF members would not have started work and would generally not have any CPF savings. But there were young CPF members who had CPF savings as a result of top-ups made by their parents, and thereafter made nominations.
CPF members should be of sufficient maturity when they make decisions with regard to their CPF savings. We have, therefore, decided to set a minimum age of 16 years for making CPF nominations. This is in line with the minimum age to work under the Employment Act. Section 25(1) of the Act will be amended to give effect to this change.
The amendment will take effect in the later part of this year. As for members who had previously made nominations when they were still minors, a related amendment will be made to ensure that their nominations remain valid, such that they need not come forward to make a new nomination. Nevertheless, should they wish to do so, they may approach CPF Board to make a new nomination anytime as all of them are already above the age of 16.
Sir, the amendments in this Bill will encourage members to make voluntary top-ups into the CPF for themselves and their loved ones. And we are encouraged to see the numbers growing. We also look at refining our CPF housing refund policy to ensure that CPF housing refunds are consistent with the amounts contributed by each co-owner to the property, and introduce a minimum age for making CPF nominations. Several other changes intended to clarify and streamline the administration of the CPF Act will also be made. Altogether, these represent our effort to ensure that the CPF system continues to be relevant in meeting the needs of Singaporeans. Sir, I beg to move.
Question proposed.
Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, I had already and often iterated the importance of CPF savings to our workers. Similarly, I had also voiced my support for the proposed amendments to the CPF Act that are meant to benefit workers and their families. First, I am happy to note that the Ministry has given considerable thought to the implementation aspects of the proposed amendments. The enhancement and streamlining of the top-up scheme that was mentioned by the Acting Minister just now is timely and necessary.
Page: 638
Sir, I think it is appropriate that a wider definition has been applied when identifying those who could benefit from the CPF top-ups. By including parents and grandparents-in-laws as beneficiaries of CPF top-ups, CPF members, especially those who are married, are more able to decide how to support both sets of parents and grand-parents. This goes some way in building familial bonds, and helps in the cash-flow of members who may have excess CPF savings, but not so much cash.
As for the proposed amendments to refunds on property transactions, I am also glad that the CPF Board will once again focus on its role as a custodian of members' CPF contributions. I think that the CPF is correct in proposing to return CPF savings used for mortgage and interest payments in accordance with the actual payments by individual members. I do not think that the CPF Board should take on the role of arbiter in case of disputes between joint owners of property. We can leave that role to our very capable legal system.
Sir, still on the subject of the primary role of the CPF Board, I wish to reiterate that CPF savings should be seen primarily as savings for retirement. While there is some merit in tapping on CPF savings for housing, investment and education purposes, we must constantly remind CPF members that for the majority, it is their CPF savings that will support them in their retirement. While there may be temptation to invest CPF savings through various schemes, the results, we all know, are hardly consistent, and certainly nowhere near as consistent as the returns guaranteed by the CPF Board.
Here, I once again urge the CPF Board to look for ways to enhance returns on CPF savings for two reasons: firstly, so that members can enjoy compound interest over the years to build up their CPF savings to fund a reasonable retirement; and secondly, a higher return would also serve to stave off the temptation among many, who today have suffered losses, instead of gains by investing their CPF savings. If the CPF Board could offer even a couple of percentage points higher than it does today, it will match the so-called target returns of many of the instruments under the CPF investment scheme. That would make it an absolute no-brainer, that is, leave your money in the CPF account and watch it grow!
Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to speak a few words in Malay concerning the CPF.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Pg 689 for Vernacular Speeches.] Mr Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity in this debate on the CPF Act amendments, to remind workers with CPF accounts, that the main role of their CPF savings is to take care of them during their old age as well as the retirement needs of Singapore workers.
I understand there are those who want to use their CPF savings for other purposes, including purchasing a bigger home. We should realise that any utilisation of our CPF savings comes with risks. If we have a job and stable income, it is all right for us to think of a bigger home or a second home. We need to assess and evaluate it better and more carefully. Do not rush into it.
I would encourage our workers to be careful when using their CPF savings. Every opportunity that we wish and hope for will carry a risk.
Page: 639
My experience at the MPS sessions shows that there are workers who commit themselves to purchasing bigger and more luxurious homes using their CPF funds. Sadly, they then faced all kinds of problems, such as health problems of their own or among their family members. And there are those also who lost their jobs or have some other problems.
If this happens, the problems facing the worker will be very complicated. It will put their homes and also their CPF savings at risk. It will be worse if this happens during an economic downturn. Many will be trapped in a very tight spot, even to the point where they lose their homes and most of their CPF savings.
Therefore, we must remind our workers that they should continue to be careful as well as think long term and thoroughly, before making the move to use their CPF savings. It is an important nest egg, built over the years through hard work, that takes care of us during old age and retirement.
(In English): With that, I would like to support the Bill. I think it is timely that we do these changes as they will benefit our workers in the long run.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Amendment Bill which will help to expand the Minimum Sum Topping-Up (MSTU) Scheme to cover parents-in-law and grandparents-in-law, to fine-tune the top-up process for members and to have the CPF housing refund policy regularised to ensure equitability. These are good measures that will help to enhance the CPF system for Singaporeans and to improve their nest egg for retirement.
With longer life expectancies and a greying population, there is an urgent need to review whether the present CPF scheme is sufficient to meet retirement needs. Only about 45% of active CPF members turning 55 in 2011 met the Minimum Sum requirements. In response, we have developed the CPF Life Annuity scheme and Silver Housing Bonus taking into cognisance that Singaporeans may not have enough CPF savings to cope with their future retirement needs. With a better educated populace and increasing number of PMEs (Professionals, Managers and Executives), there should be a fundamental rethink of how CPF funds can be further boosted for all Singaporeans.
Many ideas have been offered before. Financial experts will point out that building up investments is the positive route to grow savings in such a way that will beat inflation. While we have the CPF Investment Scheme (CPFIS), the majority of investors did not manage to exceed the risk-free rate from their returns. It is time that additional financial instruments be created for our citizens to participate in. For example, more sovereign funds can be further developed by the GIC or Temasek that will allow our citizens to invest from their CPF Special Account. This will allow each and every Singaporean to have a stake in our country's long-term success. Since this amount is drawn down from the Special Account, we can be sure that it will be mainly for meeting retirement needs.
One group of Singaporeans that I would like to specially highlight for future fine-tuning of the CPF system would be the home-makers and caregivers. As they have to take care of their children and/or the elderly, they are unable to work either for the short term or on a longer term basis. Hence, they would not be able to build up their CPF savings. This also has a direct impact on our young people's willingness to settle down to marry and to have children. At present, the maximum amount of top-up which qualifies for tax relief stands at $7,000. For husbands to provide a nest-egg for their wives who are home-makers and who have to stay at home to care for the young and/or aged parents, can I suggest that the maximum amount of top-ups for spouse's accounts which enjoy a tax relief be raised much higher than the current $7,000 limit?
Page: 640
I recently met a housewife in her 50s during my weekly house visits. I was sharing with her on the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) and she retorted and lamented on her huge hospital bill that very day while seeking outpatient treatment at one of the restructured hospitals. She shared that she incurred a bill of about $300 after the subsidy for her consultation and a huge bag of medication. She told me that the CHAS did not help as the bulk of her charges were on medication. I then asked her whether she had Medisave to use as she was having a chronic illness. She said she has been a homemaker since many years ago, and as such she has no CPF or Medisave for the longest time, except for Government top-ups which help in some ways to pay for her DPS and MediShield premiums. There is, therefore, a need to re-look at how we can better protect this group in our future policies and programmes. Perhaps, in future, the Government should consider an annual top-up to recognise their role in society and especially so when they have given birth to children and are looking after them.
Then, however, there is another female resident who is 49 years of age who had mortgage repayment difficulties for her HDB loan. In our desire to ensure a minimum sum in the Ordinary Account, she was told by HDB that she had reached the CPF withdrawal limits and not allowed to utilise her monies in her Ordinary Account to finance an HDB loan. HDB suggested for her to use cash and to sublet her extra bedroom to generate rental income to fork out that cash.
To conclude, I welcome these changes to be made to the CPF. However, I hope the Government can do more to allay the fears and worries of its citizens on the sufficiency of their CPF funds, come 20, 30 years down the road, taking into account the higher costs and standard of living.
Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, I support the Amendment Bill and will comment on the MSTU for in-laws and the minimum age for making CPF nominations.
First, the MSTU for the in-laws. With these amendments, members will be allowed to make CPF transfers to parents-in-law and grandparents-in-law and to make cash top-ups. And as we know, for any policy changes, there are always positive and negative views depending on one's perception of the policy and one's personal circumstances and preferences. For one who does not know about the changes, one, of course, has no views.
I support this amendment as it helps more seniors build up their CPF savings for their old age and, at the same time, promote family values. It also provides tax incentives if the top up is in cash. This is what I call positive views. However, we know that there are CPF members who belong to the middle and lower income groups and do not need to pay taxes. So, even if they top up a small sum for their in-laws, there is no incentive for them. Thus, if the CPF Board can provide other incentives to encourage the lower income group to also top up the Minimum Sum for their in-laws in cash, the amendment will be seen as more inclusive. Can the Government also top up a token sum to their in-laws for those who make cash top-up but do not enjoy tax incentive? I would also suggest that CPF Board steps up its marketing activities and be more focused in its communications to the target audience whenever there are policy changes. Thus, for this amendment, we may not need to inform those who are not married yet but to those who are married, the message can be more informative and creative.
Page: 641
Two, the Minimum Age for making CPF nominations. Sir, the Act is amended to specify that members who have attained 16 years of age can make a CPF nomination. We know that members can change their nomination from time to time and CPF Board does notify them that they have made their nomination. I would suggest that CPF Board take a more proactive approach by updating them of their nominations when they reach 21 years, at the time they get married and when they reach 55. It will serve as a reminder to them that they can review the nomination and make changes, if need be, to avoid future disputes.
Sir, CPF touches the life of every Singaporean in every aspect – be it housing, education, medical, retirement or investment. The agency can be more member-centric to different groups of members by engaging them and informing them and even educating them of the changes affecting them in different aspects so as the CPF Board is seen as a friend in need and also a friend indeed.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me thank Mr Zainudin Nordin, Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Seng Han Thong for their thoughtful speeches and for their support for the Bill. Some of the issues that have been raised pertain to general CPF policies. These are important points that they have raised.
Mr Patrick Tay shared with us several stories which we are familiar with. There are concerns or issues raised amongst them – returns to the CPF, providing more for those who have not saved enough, or, in some of the cases, for those who have not really been working, and housing withdrawal limits. These are important and we are looking into how we can better address these issues to continually improve the CPF system. But we will take these up separately at other forums as appropriate.
I will now address the specific comments that have been made on various aspects of the Bill. First, the expansion of the MSTU scheme. Now, all three Members who spoke on this topic have voiced their support for the changes to the MSTU scheme. We believe that this is the right way to go. An increasing number of members are tapping on the MSTU scheme to boost their family members' as well as their own retirement savings. I mentioned earlier that the number as well as the amount of top-ups made under MSTU scheme have increased over the years. This is encouraging and we hope that this continues.
Page: 642
But, more importantly, it also means that Singaporeans do see the CPF as a good way to save for their retirement. As Mr Zainudin has said, the interest rates offered by the CPF are higher than what you can find in the market, and also more stable and lower in risk. Furthermore, we pay an additional 1% extra interest (EI) on the first $60,000 of a member's combined CPF balances, which means that MSTU top-ups can earn up to a total of 5% interest. So while our lower income members who make MSTU top-ups may not be able to benefit from the tax relief offered as Mr Seng Han Thong mentioned, because they do not pay taxes, they can be assured that the top-ups to their loved ones' CPF accounts will go a long way in boosting their retirement savings through interest accumulation over the years.
Aside from benefiting disproportionately from the extra interest I mentioned just now, lower income members also receive larger GST Vouchers and various Government grants. Their CPF savings are also boosted by Workfare. This is the Government's way of helping the lower income build up their retirement nest egg.
Next, let me move on to another point that Mr Seng highlighted on the importance of actively reaching out to members in a targeted way, so that they can benefit from the improvements that we have made to policies such as the MSTU scheme. Let me assure you that the CPF Board is fully engaged in its member education efforts. Taking the MSTU scheme as an example, the Board taps on a range of channels to reach out to members to make sure that they understand how they can tap on this scheme. Through regular talks with members and outreach events in the community, CPF Board promotes awareness of the MSTU scheme. There is extensive information on the CPF Board website as well as brochures which are freely and widely distributed.
Over the years, we have also learned to tailor our communication to members. For instance, the Board's website carries comprehensive information packaged in bite-sized chunks for members going through different life events – for example, when they start work, when they get married, when they buy a house, when they turn 55 years old, and so on. Last year, the Board also launched the \"Are You Ready?\" campaign to encourage Singaporeans to kick-start the financial and retirement planning. As part of this campaign, the Board provides information through talks, webcasts, and other tools to help Singaporeans at different stages of their lives make better financial decisions.
I encourage all CPF members, young and old – it is never too young to start financial planning – to take full advantage of the information and tools provided by the Board. And the website itself is useful, comprehensive and has received a lot of good feedback from members. So, do use it.
On CPF nominations, Mr Seng Han Thong suggested that the Board should take a more proactive approach in informing members of their nominations when they reach certain important junctures in their lives, for instance, when they get married or when they approach old age. This would serve as a reminder to members, should they wish to review and revise their nominations when their individual or family circumstances change. I think it is a very good suggestion raised by Mr Seng. In fact, currently, when members get married, the nominations that they have made prior to marriage become invalid automatically due to the change in the family circumstances. We could explore whether it is possible to reach out to members at these significant milestones in their lives to get them to come forward more proactively to re-make or update their nominations, as the case may be.
Page: 643
Today, members are already informed yearly through their annual CPF Statement of Account, which is mailed to their homes, that they have made a nomination. While the Board promotes awareness that members may make or revise their nominations, they do not actively encourage members to do so. If a member does not make a nomination, his CPF savings will be distributed to his loved ones through the intestacy laws upon his demise. It is the personal choice of the member whether he prefers his CPF savings bequeathed to the nominees or distributed to his loved ones under the said laws.
While we work on educating members on the various aspects of CPF, we also listen keenly to members' feedback and make improvements to our policies. Hence, the changes made today. Many of the amendments we are making arose from members' feedback – the refinements to our housing refund policy, expansion of the MSTU scheme to include parents-in-law and grandparents-in-law and the merging of various channels for voluntary contributions to simplify the topping up process for members – just to name a few.
We will continue to listen to members' feedback on ways to improve our CPF policies and, indeed, appeals from Members of Parliament for their residents also play a big part. As we investigate these particular cases, we would also learn and see how best we can improve the process.
Sir, in closing, I would like to reiterate Mr Zainudin's thoughtful points on exercising prudence in the use of CPF savings. For the majority, the CPF will be an important source of savings for their old age. We must be careful not to over-extend when we decide how much CPF savings to use for housing, be drawn into investing them for higher returns if we are unable to bear the higher risks involved, or expect to dip into this nest egg when we find ourselves urgently short of cash. It takes discipline and careful planning to ensure a sufficient nest egg in retirement. On our part, the CPF Board will make sure that the system will do its best to support all our Singaporeans in their retirement needs. With that, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Tan Chuan-Jin]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
\tPage: 643
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Transforming the Childcare Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Heng Chee How): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
Question proposed.
Mr Yee Jenn Jong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, may I request for the printouts to be distributed?
Mr Speaker : Yes, please [\tCopies of handout were distributed to hon Members\t].
Mr Yee Jenn Jong: Sir, I would like to add my suggestions for reforms to the childcare industry, even as the Government is looking at how to boldly transform this sector. I wish to declare that a part of my business supplies products and services to pre-schools. I have also previously managed and owned childcare centres, but have no longer been doing so for the past seven years. This proposal is to improve the industry to benefit consumers. It will not benefit my business. I will first speak in Mandarin.
[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Pg 690 for Vernacular Speeches.] Childcare centres in Singapore first started in the 1970s. Back then, there were only a few private and non-profit operators in the business. Children between the age of four and six could be enrolled in childcare centres or kindergartens. However, because kindergarten school fees were much lower, kindergartens became the primary choice for parents looking for pre-school education for their children.
Then in the 1990s, childcare centres started to flourish because more double-income families appeared. In the past 10 years, the childcare industry has expanded at a very fast pace. Childcare centres became a common sight at the workplace.
In the beginning of the year 2004, there were 651 childcare centres. This number has increased to 987 by June this year. During this period, the number of children who enrolled in childcare centres increased from 38,000 to more than 75,000. So, you see more and more childcare centres in housing estates. There is a lot of demand for childcare centres in housing estates. In fact, the demand for childcare centres outstrips supply.
Inclusive of children under infant care, childcare centres currently take care of 90,000 children. This number is similar to 93,000 who are enrolled in kindergartens. Enrolment for kindergartens has been decreasing steadily over the past few years. If this trend persists, there will be more children enrolled in childcare centres instead of kindergartens. In fact, childcare centres now play a very important role in our society.
At the start of 2004, the average fee for full-day childcare services was $572, but this has increased to $699 by the end of 2008. Currently, the average fee is $831.
In 2008, the Government increased childcare subsidies. The monthly subsidy for full-day childcare services increased from $150 to $300. Now, based on the above statistics, we can see that average fees for childcare services has increased in tandem with the increase in Government subsidies. If we were to look at the fees of private childcare centres, I am sure that the fees have increased much more than the increase in Government subsidies, because their labour and manpower costs have gone up rapidly. Today, an article in Lianhe Zaobao reported on the rental woes faced by private operators of childcare centres.
According to a recent survey by Lien Foundation, 90% of users of childcare services feel that pre-school education is expensive or very expensive. The survey also pointed to a serious problem: childcare fees are so high that it is deterring many married couples from having more children.
Page: 645
Is it possible for us to have good, affordable childcare services for the masses? I believe it is possible. Now, let me elaborate in English.
(In English): In the childcare industry, there are many private operators, most with one or a few centres, while several run chain stores. We also have non-profit operators, dominated by NTUC First Campus and PCF Sparkletots. They are called Anchor Operators, so determined after an exercise in 2009. The criteria used included: (a) $5 million paid-up capital, (b) non-profit, and (c) without any religious or racial affiliation.
Anchor Operators function mostly from HDB void decks, at rents of between $2 and $4 per square metre, as disclosed by MCYS. For a typical centre of 400-500 sqm, this means monthly rent of $1,000 onwards. They receive generous set-up and furnishing grants for each new centre. In addition, they get recurrent grants for manpower development and learning programmes, estimated to go into $30 million per year.
MCYS publishes upcoming new centres from HDB and SLA. From its website, I see just a few centres available to private and non-profit operators. Yet, at the opening of the 100th NTUC centre in October last year, NTUC declared it will open 50 new centres over the next two years, which is one every fortnight. PCF, too, had been growing just as rapidly in the last three years. Just five years ago, PCF was a small childcare player. Today, it is number two with 90 centres, just behind NTUC. The many new centres by these two operators do not match the small number of published centres available to non-profit operators. Are they given unpublished quotas?
We are told that the role of non-profit and Anchor Operators is to bring cost down while maintaining quality. Sir, there is no magic in non-profit or in Anchor Operators. The lower fees they provide can be matched by private operators. I will now demonstrate that if private operators get the same benefits as non-profit and, indeed, Anchor Operators, they had shown that they could match the fees of non-profit peers.
Financial modelling for childcare is straightforward. The main start-up cost is renovation, fitting out, and investment in resources. Set-up cost can be high, running into a few hundred thousand dollars per centre.
In a typical centre paying competitive rents, manpower and rent account for some 80% of all on-going operating costs. Private operators function from landed houses, commercial and Government-owned buildings or purpose-built HDB void decks. Tenancy is often subjected to bidding. When tenancy expires, there is usually open bidding or adjustments to market rent. Competition has caused rents to be in excess of $10,000 to even as high as over $40,000 per month in recent tenders.
Anchor Operators get choice new sites regularly at highly subsidised rents. They receive start-up, furnishing, maintenance and recurrent grants. These give them huge operating benefits over competitors.
The difference in monthly rent between non-profit and private operators can be $15,000 per month or more. Divide $15,000 by a typical centre enrolment of 75 children, that works out to around $200 cost advantage per child per month. With setup grants, Anchor Operators need to provide less for amortisation of investments. They get ongoing grants to defray costs. Yet, with these cost advantages, non-profit's median fee is currently just two hundred over dollars lower than that of private operators. We can find private centres whose fees are not much higher than that of the Anchors. Are the Anchors, with these cost advantages, really doing enough to keep fees affordable?
Page: 646
Sir, there are other industry data to support my claim. In a parliamentary reply this year, MCYS disclosed that EtonHouse, a premium operator whose fee is $1,500 per month, charges only $728 at its Hampton Preschool. The centre is a collaboration with PCF. PCF secured the site at low rent, and can enjoy other grants. EtonHouse is responsible for programme delivery, set-up and pedagogy. According to a speech by Mr Wong Kan Seng in 2009, EtonHouse manages the centre and was selected because PCF wanted to work with a private operator who could deliver \"high quality programmes\". While there could be variations in operations compared to a typical EtonHouse centre, the fact is, EtonHouse could deliver \"high quality programmes\" at less than half of its usual fees when it operates in a void deck that enjoys subsidised rents and grants.
In the 1990s, Government buildings started to provide for workplace childcare. There was an interesting practice then to charge $1 or other token monthly rent for purpose-built childcare facilities which catered to children of staff working in the building. Bids were called. I noted that in open competition, these sites went to established private players whose own centres charged in the mid to upper price range. The condition for low rent then was that the fees for children of staff in the buildings must be kept low. Premium private operators could match the prevailing fees of non-profit operators.
Today, costs are escalating due mainly to rent and manpower. Manpower cost affects all in the industry. Anchors with recurrent grants can better retain staff, head-hunt from other centres and deal with rising costs. Rent is steadily rising in our competitive market. This has caused fees to rise. Out-of-pocket payments by parents in many private centres today are higher than before subsidies were increased in 2008. MCYS has no control over fees. Centres just need to give \"ample\" notice to parents, which MCYS recommends as three months, and then fees will go up.
The Government has announced new measures for the industry. While they may be initiated with good intent, I fear it could end up creating more unfair competition, destroying the diversity and innovation in our current system.
I have a proposal to bring costs down while pushing for quality and diversity – childcare as a public good with private partnership through contestability.
I noted that in delivering public goods such as transport, the Government has pumped billions in rail and bus investments without expecting payback from private operators or charging infrastructure at market rent to them. We are told this is to bring the cost of public transport to a level that the public can accept. If we wish for young working couples to be able to afford childcare and be encouraged to have more children, then we have a case to use a public good's approach for childcare.
Government can build and lease out centres at managed low rent. All existing centres can come under this model. Based on answers in Parliament, there are 290 void deck centres for non-profit and 176 for private operators in void decks and JTC buildings, and another 52 in Government buildings. That is 518 centres, roughly 52.4% of all childcare centres in Singapore. With 200 more new centres to be built mostly in Government-controlled spaces, the share of sites under Government control will rise.
Page: 647
Old schools, disused community centres and other SLA spaces can be purpose-built by the Government into mega childcare facilities, even housing different operators under one roof. Childcare generally should be within 2-3 km of workplaces or homes. Many small void decks in new HDB blocks are not ideal for childcare, limiting options in new towns. We can have mega childcare sites as long as we ensure it is within easy access by parents, with roads and parking well planned.
We can utilise unused land parcels next to primary schools. There are small plots around some primary schools which are not big enough for meaningful commercial projects. We can tap on the infrastructure of the schools to add new pre-school facilities. This will make use of unutilised space, save on infrastructure costs and cultivate exchange between Primary school and pre-school.
The Government can negotiate as main tenant with large private landlords for sites as a bloc to supplement their bank of childcare sites. It can work with property developers who get additional Floor Area when they set aside pre-school space at cheap rents and let the Government use the space for any type of operators. We should actively pursue all options to increase the State's childcare bank to cater to the mass market.
How do we allocate these centres? Rather than have more Anchors, I have another suggestion. The Anchor concept has skewed the market. It is like giving a boxer super gloves and energy boosters while tying the hands of the competitor and asking them to fight each other. The stated objective of the Anchor Operators was to \"develop childcare operators that would set the benchmark for quality and affordable childcare services.\"
It may have allowed Anchor Operators to achieve higher quality as they get resources, economy of scale, and certainty of their leases. Is it fair to expect other operators to keep pace? Other operators get little or no state funding. They hesitate to invest, worried if others will outbid them for their centres at each renewal, which will wipe out sunk investment. New HDB sites are so few compared to unannounced sites for Anchors. Anchor Operators could lure their staff away with scholarships. Instead of encouraging other operators to step up, it can cause some to think short term and extract as much out of their investment while they can.
We can apply contestability. Contest clusters of sites openly based on concept rather than on rent. This was done before, when Government building sites charged token rent and selection was on other factors, such as quality and fees.
There is no need for a one-time selection of new Anchor which will only strengthen a few selected ones and weaken everyone else. Worst, it may become impossible for new operators to enter the market, killing off future innovation. We need active and fair competition to raise standards and to continuously drive innovation.
Recurrent and other grants should apply to all qualifying participants as long as they meet strict selection criteria on fees and quality. There should be no differentiation between private and non-profit operators. We already know what the current Anchors can do with the support they had been given. Why have we been limiting ourselves to think only selected non-profit players can bring cost down? Let us open up and see how all others, including private operators, can benefit from that in terms of price and quality, if given similar support. I believe fair competition may even force current Anchor Operators to better their pricing, ultimately benefiting consumers.
Page: 648
New operators can surface from time to time. Small operators may band together into economic groups to better compete. Contestability will drive diversity and quality. Operators cannot increase fees without approval. The Government will regain control over the fee process to ensure affordability.
Government can better direct its key programmes. MCYS had found it hard to get private operators to go along with some of its programmes, such as SPARK. Last month, we were told only 115 pre-schools had attained SPARK accreditation, of which just 39 were private operators. This is way, way below the target of 85% of all centres to be SPARK-tested by 2013, a figure established by Minister of State for Education, Mr Masagos in November 2010. We can allow only SPARK-accredited operators to contest these sites.
There may not even be a need for state-run pre-schools. The call for nationalisation was made by many frustrated with differing standards and high costs. We can improve quality even at the low-cost segment by having a critical mass of centres available in this public-good model, and the state regulates to steer quality and pricing. It can designate some centres for the low-income group by packaging centres for different market segments in each tender exercise. While this proposal is in the context of childcare, it can also be used for kindergartens.
In summary, I am calling for childcare to be a public good with fair contestability of sites at managed rents for all types of operators, with tighter control of fees and quality by the state. This will benefit all Singaporeans as fees will drop industry-wide while preserving diversity and driving up quality and innovation. I hope the Government can carefully consider this proposal.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mdm Halimah Yacob.
The Minister of State for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Mdm Halimah Yacob): Mr Deputy Speaker, may I get your permission to distribute the handout? [Copies of handout were distributed to hon Members]. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would firstly like to thank Mr Yee for his views and suggestions for the childcare sector.
Obviously, this is an issue close to the hearts of Singaporeans. It is also an area where the Government – especially MCYS and MOE – has paid close attention and made significant efforts. Over the last few years in particular, we have invested in significant initiatives to provide parents with more accessible, affordable and quality childcare and kindergarten options. I think these are the three points raised by Mr Yee in his statement just now.
Allow me, Sir, to briefly share some examples. Through the Child Care Masterplan introduced in 2008, we have improved accessibility. More than 200 new childcare centres were set up. Today, we have close to 1,000 childcare centres across the island, providing up to 90,000 places. This is an increase of about 40% over four years. Over the next five years, we will be providing another 20,000 childcare places to meet the increased demand.
Page: 649
To make childcare more affordable, we raised the universal childcare subsidy in 2008 from $150 to $300. Sir, if Members could refer to the handout that I have distributed, they will get details of the enhancement that we have provided in supporting families for their childcare fees.
More recently, we have enhanced childcare financial assistance for families with household incomes up to $3,500 and we introduced a per capita income criterion to allow larger families to receive more subsidies. Parents can also utilise funds from the Child Development Account (CDA), for which Government provides a one-for-one matching grant, to offset the cost of childcare fees. With this combination of subsidies and financial assistance, a family earning $2,000 a month for example, may pay as low as $15 per month out of pocket at a typical childcare centre at a HDB estate.
Mr Yee's reference to the trend in average fees in the industry may not provide a very good picture of affordability for the majority of low- and middle-income families since average fees are skewed by high-end centres. May I, Sir, point to the handouts, which show the trend in median fees for the industry and for childcare centres that operate in HDB estates. As you can see, we raised subsidies by $150 in 2008, the industry median fee for childcare increased by $120. So, parents are still $30 better off. If they use a centre in the HDB heartlands, they are about $80 better off even after taking into account fees over the years. For the lower income groups, Sir, they would have received additional subsidies.
Nonetheless, we acknowledge that families face rising costs and there is room to do more. There is always reason for us to do more, whether in terms of accessibility, affordability or quality. This is not a sector where we want to say we have reached the peak. This is a sector where we want to seek continuous improvement, just like the education sector. As the Prime Minister has mentioned in his National Day Rally speech, we will look into ways to make childcare and infant care more affordable for low- and middle-income households.
Let me come to the issue of quality, Sir. To improve quality, we raised the qualification requirements for kindergarten-level teachers and edu-carers of younger children. We worked with training providers to increase training courses and places. Generous scholarships and bursaries were given out. Today, more than 80% of childcare centres have at least three out of four of their N2, K1 and K2 teachers with a diploma in pre-school education.
We have also extended curriculum and systems support to pre-school providers. MCYS' Early Years Development Framework, together with MOE's Kindergarten Curriculum Framework, provides guidance to centres on designing quality programmes. MOE's Singapore Pre-school Accreditation Framework (SPARK) also helps centres evaluate and improve the quality of kindergarten-level programmes.
Sir, Mr Yee has raised some concerns on our Anchor Operator scheme. Let me also take this opportunity to explain to the House how the Government extends support to the different operators in the childcare sector. Broadly, we adopt a three-pronged approach as follows.
Page: 650
First, significant support goes towards the entire sector as a whole. We support all centres with measures to help raise quality and to develop a steady supply of trained manpower. These come in the form of programme and curriculum guidelines, quality standards, subsidised consultancy, training and scholarships, and resources on good employment practices.
At the second level, Sir, we provide additional support to non-profit operators. We do this because non-profit operators have a social mission to provide affordable services to families and children and, in particular, extra help to those who have greater financial or other needs. This is in line with our objective of greater support for these groups of children and families. We do this through providing development grants to non-profit operators to set up centres in the HDB heartlands. Rental rates for these sites are also subsidised so that the operators can offer more affordable fees.
Third, we have an Anchor Operator Scheme – a point alluded to by Mr Yee – where we provide additional support to non-profits who meet additional criteria and who commit to stringent terms and conditions. The additional support is to enable them to significantly increase childcare places that are both of good quality and affordability for the mass market, that is, those from low-to middle-income families.
The basic entry criteria to the scheme are made known. In addition to development grants and subsidised rental rates, Anchor Operators also receive a recurrent grant to defray the costs of recruiting and developing good quality teachers for their new centres. In other words, whoever wants to take advantage of the Anchor Operator scheme and wants to receive additional grants and support, is entitled to do so. It is open to them, even if you have a commercial entity who feels that it wants to do that, can always set up a non-profit arm. And if they qualify and fulfil the conditions, they are also eligible to become an Anchor Operator and receive the additional support from the Government.
In return, Sir, Anchor Operators are held to higher quality targets than the rest of the sector, and must commit to delivering their childcare programmes at affordable fees. Anchor Operators also need to be inclusive and secular, not catering to any one ethnic or religious group. They must also be financially able to sustain their operations and achieve sufficient scale, in order to meet Government's objectives over the long term.
Since the scheme was introduced in 2009, there are now close to 200 childcare centres operated by the two Anchor Operators across the island. This is a three-fold increase and many of the centres are spread out across all the HDB estates. All Anchor Operators charge fees that are below the market median. Few of these would have been possible without the scheme.
Overall, Sir, this tiered approach has enabled us to improve the childcare landscape significantly. Today, we have a diverse range of operators, providing parents with choices. At the same time, we have a strong core of non-profit providers offering affordable, good quality services. We want to grow this core over time so that we can reach out to more low- and middle-income families, and ensure no child is denied access to good quality childcare.
Page: 651
Moving forward, the Implementation Committee for Enhancing Pre-school Education is reviewing the design of the scheme. We intend to expand the coverage of the scheme by attracting and admitting more operators so as to bring benefits to more parents and children. That is one point that Mr Yee raised, and that is with regard to the fact whether having Anchor Operators affects the ability of the commercial operators to grow.
Based on the statistics that we have, Sir, we have seen growth in both the Anchor Operator market, as well as growth in the commercial sector. But the Anchor Operator scheme is very important because we are using tax payers money. We have to make sure that we award it to those who are non-profit and provide a public service, who are able to contain fees and yet at the same time provide good quality childcare services to the public, particularly the low- and middle-income families.
Sir, I want to say that notwithstanding these improvements, we know we can always do better. And we want to do better, so as to provide even better support to parents and to better prepare our children for the future.
The Prime Minister's announcements at the National Day Rally are indeed a concrete reflection of this. They represent a new stage of development for our pre-school sector; a new milestone on a continuous journey which we have started years back. In navigating this journey, Sir, we value and take seriously feedback, and we will continue to do so. This includes inputs from parents, pre-school professionals, parliamentarians, members of the public and Mr Yee himself. We study and take them into account in setting directions, developing policies and implementing programmes.
Often, however, such feedback and views, including those from experts, are mixed. Just over the past few weeks, we can see that some Singaporeans are of the view that the Government should nationalise and standardise the provision of pre-school, while others prefer a diversity of programmes and players so that parents have more choices. Some parents want more structured curriculum and programmes, while others feel quite the opposite.
There is, Sir, no unanimous agreement on what is the best approach for Singapore. It is not an easy issue with clear solutions. We will consider the diverse feedback we receive and study other systems. We will decide based on our circumstances and the stage of development of the sector, and especially the interest and well-being of our children. That is of paramount consideration. This is what we have done in the past and will continue to do.
Mr Deputy Speaker : Order. Mdm Halimah, the time of 30 minutes allowed for this debate has expired.
The Question having been proposed at 6.00 pm and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at 6.30 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":"Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion","questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Waiting Time for BTO Flats from 2009 to 2012","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development (a) for each year from 2009 to 2011 and for the first half of 2012, what is the average waiting time for Build-to-Order (BTO) flats from the time of flat application to the Estimated Delivery Possession Date (EDPD); (b) whether HDB aims to reduce this waiting time; (c) what is the targeted waiting time that HDB is aiming for; and (d) when this target is expected to be achieved.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: We do not have the data as requested by the Member. This is because the time between application and legal completion date depends on many factors. For example, is the applicant a first-timer or second-timer? Is the applicant looking for a flat in a mature or a non-mature estate? Is the project a low-rise or a high-rise development? Are the flats of standard design or iconic in nature?
What we have are data pertaining to the construction times of projects. For typical Build-To-Order (BTO) projects of 20 storeys and below, the average construction time was 32 months in 2009. This fell to 30 months in 2010, and 29 months in the years thereafter.
We certainly hope to shorten construction time of projects. Some reduction is possible through greater use of standardised fittings, including doors and windows, which allow for easy fabrication. We are also using more pre-cast components for faster installation on site. In addition, since mid 2011, HDB has been bringing forward the preparation of building designs for tender so that construction can commence soon after project launch.
But often there are obstacles to our efforts to shorten construction time. For example, some projects are affected by local factors, such as poor soil conditions, site constraints, taller blocks or more complex design features.
HDB will continue to explore ways to further reduce the delivery time for our building projects, but we must not compromise construction safety and quality to reap time savings.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Student to Faculty Ratio at Autonomous Universities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Ms Ellen Lee asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the Ministry's guidelines on the minimum student to faculty ratio at our publicly-funded Autonomous Universities (AUs) for (i) tutorials and seminars; and (ii) laboratory and practical sessions; and (b) whether the Ministry conducts regular or random on-site checks on the key teaching quality parameters at our AUs and, if so, (i) how frequent are these checks; and (ii) how does the Ministry ensure that such checks are independent, comprehensive and credible.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Student to faculty ratios (SFRs) at the autonomous universities (AUs) vary according to the needs of the discipline and the pedagogical approach. For example, programmes such as Science, Engineering, Social Science, and Business have an average SFR of 20:1. Class sizes for lectures, tutorials, seminars and laboratory classes also vary as these serve different learning outcomes. Tutorials, for example, are meant to enable more interaction and discussion between students and tutors, and therefore have fewer students per session than lectures.
MOE does not impose a minimum SFR. As autonomous entities, the AUs are responsible for managing their own performance, including the quality of teaching. They conduct dialogue sessions with their students to receive feedback on the quality of the educational experience, and to take actions to continuously improve on this. MOE holds the AUs accountable through our performance management framework, which includes commissioning an independent external review panel made up of local and international industry leaders, professionals and eminent academics to review, among other things, the quality of teaching and learning in each university once every five years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Take-up Rate for Ultra-fast Fibre Broadband Network","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (a) to date, what has been the take-up rate for the ultra-fast fibre broadband network installed by OpenNet; (b) if the rate has been low, whether the Ministry will be taking action to improve the sign-up rate; and (c) whether the Ministry will advise OpenNet to allow for another round of installation for residents who missed the first round of installation.
Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: The take-up of OpenNet's offer of the free installation of fibre has been steadily increasing since OpenNet commenced the nationwide fibre rollout in 2009. About 63% of all households contacted by OpenNet have accepted its offer of free fibre installation in homes to date. In the less than two years since the launch of fibre services, more than 200,000 households, or some 17% of households, have taken advantage of the competitive pricing and innovative packages offered by retail service providers (RSPs) in the market and are now subscribers to fibre services. This is a result of the vibrant and competitive landscape afforded by the open access industry structure of the Next Generation Nationwide Broadband Network (Next Gen NBN).
The take-up rates of both installation and fibre services are respectable figures in view of the short span of time since the rollout commenced. Nevertheless, IDA has been actively working with various stakeholders, such as OpenNet, RSPs and grassroots organisations, to generate awareness of the Next Gen NBN, as well as to promote the adoption of the fibre services. Such efforts include the on-going Most Fibred-Up Constituency contests that encourage residents to take up free fibre installation as well as the showcase of possible innovative Next Gen services at the Infocomm Experience Centre.
To address the Member's query on whether we can advise OpenNet to allow another round of free installation, we need to understand the nature of the contractual relationship between OpenNet and the Government.
Under the Next Gen NBN Network Company (NetCo) contract between OpenNet and IDA, OpenNet is obliged to deploy fibre nationwide in accordance with the rollout milestones, and to make a one-time offer of free fibre installation for households as it carries out its rollout from area to area. OpenNet is eligible to apply for grants from the Government for areas covered and for each installation into homes, subject to OpenNet passing relevant checks and audits. The converse is true if OpenNet does not reach an area, or if fibre is not installed into a household, OpenNet will not be eligible to receive the relevant grants.
While we have consistently encouraged and urged OpenNet to accede to requests for free installations by households that missed out on the first round of free installations, OpenNet retains the liberty to decide on the outcome of such requests, given the nature of the contractual relationship. According to OpenNet, once it has completed works and moved off to another area, it will incur additional costs to mobilise their contractors to revisit previously covered areas to carry out ad-hoc installations. As such, there is an installation charge applicable for such ad-hoc requests. Notwithstanding this, we understand that OpenNet has acceded to a majority of the appeals. We also understand that households that had previously not signed up for installation can still get their homes wired up when they subscribe onto fibre services, and some service providers may even choose to waive the fibre installation charges.
Both MICA and IDA are closely monitoring the rollout of the Next Gen NBN by OpenNet and will ensure that OpenNet meets its contractual obligations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trend in Number of Permanent Residences and Singapore Citizenships Granted","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Ms Tan Su Shan asked the Prime Minister with the tightening in the grant of permanent residence and Singapore citizenship since 2008, what is the quantitative trend going forward and whether the same levels of decline can be expected as have been witnessed in the last three years.
Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): Since the tightening of our immigration framework in late 2009, the number of new permanent residents (PRs) has decreased from an average of 58,000 per year from 2004 to 2008, to 28,500 per year from 2010 onwards. The number of new Singapore citizens (SCs) has remained relatively stable at an average of 18,500 per year in the last five years. Fewer SCs were granted last year because of the introduction of the Singapore Citizenship Journey, which has lengthened the time taken for applicants to be granted citizenship by about two months.
The number of PRs and SCs granted in any given year depends on a combination of factors, including the number of applications received as well as the calibre and profile of applicants, such as their economic contributions, age, family profile and length of stay in Singapore. These are factors which are considered under the Government’s immigration framework, to holistically assess applicants’ ability to contribute, integrate well into society and their commitment to sinking roots.
We will continue to calibrate the immigration framework to address our population challenges and constraints. As part of the on-going review and public engagement on population issues, we are reviewing the number of immigrants Singapore takes in.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome amongst National Servicemen","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Defence (a) how many of our total full-time and operationally-ready National Servicemen are diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome currently and under which Physical Employment Standards (PES) category are they classified; (b) for each of the past five years, how many male Singaporeans or Permanent Residents diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome have been enrolled into National Service upon reaching eligibility age and under which PES category have they been classified; and (c) what are the professional support and facilities put in place to provide an environment conducive for the training of our National Servicemen with Asperger's syndrome.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: There are currently 41 full-time National Servicemen and 61 Operationally-Ready National Servicemen with Asperger's Syndrome. They were either diagnosed with this condition before enlistment or during full-time National Service when they were referred to the SAF psychiatrist for behavioural issues.
Over the five-year period from 2007-2011, a total of 55 pre-enlistees diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome were enlisted into full-time National Service. The number each year ranged from five to 15 and were assigned the appropriate Physical Employment Standards (PES) based on their ability to function socially and carry out vocational duties. They are usually assigned PES C or lower.
To enable SAF servicemen with Asperger's Syndrome to be meaningfully engaged and contribute during their full-time National Service, SAF psychiatrists, psychologists and counsellors work closely with these servicemen and their unit commanders to equip them with inter-personal and vocational skills.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Contract Variation to Allow for Immediate Wage Increase for Cleaners Hired to Work at Government Agencies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether a directive can be given to all Ministries and statutory boards to do a contract variation for their cleaning and security contracts to enable workers with a basic salary below $1,000 to receive a minimum of $50 increment in their salary as recommended by the National Wages Council.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: The Government does not generally stipulate in its contracts the wages payable to employees of contractors. When tendering for projects, contractors would have factored in their workers' wages in the contract price. Contractors with sound Human Resource practices should factor in expected wage increases over the duration of the contract, so that they can retain their staff.
A contract variation may be entered into by mutual agreement between the contracting parties. However, the terms of a contract variation may not be straightforward to negotiate, given that many cleaning contracts are integrated with facility maintenance and other services, and contractors may decide how many staff to deploy for a particular task, such as cleaning.
Furthermore, a contract variation could be perceived as unfair by companies that were unsuccessful in tendering for Government cleaning and security contracts. They may argue that they had lost the tender by putting in higher bids that factored in reasonable wage increases for their workers, and that they could have won the tender under the revised contractual terms now enjoyed by the winning contractor.
The Government, however, recognises the impact of contractors' management practices on the well-being of their workers, in particular low-wage workers. This is why we have made a commitment for the entire public sector to engage only accredited cleaning companies and well-graded security companies for tenders called from early next year. Such companies are expected to have higher service standards and better trained workers who can earn progressively higher wages.
The Government is working with tripartite partners to enhance the cleaning accreditation and security grading schemes. The details of these enhancements and how they will help increase standards, skills and wages, will be finalised and announced later.
As for existing cleaning and security contracts in the public sector, we are working with NTUC to explore how we can strongly encourage public sector contractors to adopt the recommendations of the National Wages Council to reward their workers for productivity improvements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Termination of MediShield Policies due to Non-payment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health for each year from 2006 to 2011 (a) how many MediShield policyholders have had their MediShield policies terminated due to non-payment of their premiums; (b) what are the main reasons for non-payment; (c) how many are refused re-enrolment due to medical conditions that developed after they were originally enrolled in MediShield; and (d) what does the Government do to assist policyholders with their MediShield premium payments before their policies get terminated.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: From 2006 to 2011, less than 1% of MediShield policyholders saw their policies lapse due to non-payment of their premiums each year as a result of insufficient Medisave balance.
For policyholders who have limited Medisave monies, CPF Board sends up to three reminders to ask them to top up their accounts or ask a working family member to pay for their premiums before their policies lapse. They are also given a two-month grace period to do so. We exercise some flexibility for this group to re-enrol in MediShield, provided their health status has not changed. We do not have available data on how many are unable to re-enrol. However, to date, fewer than 1% of the total resident population was unable to obtain MediShield cover due to pre-existing conditions.
The Government has in place various measures to help Singaporeans with the payment of premiums. MediShield policyholders enjoy premium rebates from their earlier contributions to partly offset the premiums payable in their old age. In addition, the Government provides Medisave top-ups for Singaporeans from time to time, when there is a budget surplus and for low-income Singaporeans regularly through the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme. These top-ups totalled about $2.6 billion from 2005 to 2011. From 2012 onwards, annual Medisave top-ups will also be given to elderly Singaporeans through the GST Voucher Scheme.
Those whose MediShield policies have lapsed and are facing financial difficulties can approach the medical social workers at our public healthcare institutions for financial assistance if necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Revenues Generated from Formula One Grand Prix Races since 2008","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether he will provide an update on the direct and indirect revenue generated for the local economy by the Formula One Grand Prix races from 2008 to date on an annual basis and in total.
Mr S Iswaran (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): The Singapore Formula One Grand Prix (F1) has attracted more than 150,000 international visitors to Singapore over the last four years. Many of these international visitors are from the non-traditional tourism source markets like Germany, as the race has also helped to broaden Singapore's reach as an international tourism destination. These visitors spent more than $560 million in total over the past four years, or an average of more than $140 million each race weekend. This sum is over and above the spending we would have seen on a normal weekend.
Cumulatively, more than 360 million television viewers worldwide have also followed the Singapore race. This extensive media coverage has boosted our image as a distinctive and vibrant global city.
Local businesses have benefited as well. Each year, the race promoter sub-contracts more than 80% of race organisation works to local SMEs. With more than 9,000 corporate attendees annually, the race weekend itself is a premier networking platform for local and international businesses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Foreign Spouses with Long-Term Visit Passes and Take-up Rate for Long-Term Visit Pass Plus","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the current number of foreign spouses of Singaporeans who are Long-Term Visit Pass holders; and (b) what is the number of Long-Term Visit Pass Plus passes that have been issued since it was launched earlier this year.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: As at 31 July 2012, there were 9,154 foreign spouses of Singaporeans who are Long-Term Visit Pass holders.
The Long-Term Visit Pass Plus (LTVP+) was implemented on 1st April this year. As at 31 July 2012, ICA has issued the LTVP+ to 2,334 foreign spouses of Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Factors in Determining Foreign Worker Dependency Ratios for Industries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Ms Mary Liew asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what is the basis for determining the dependency ratios for different industries; (b) how does the Government ensure that these ratios do not undermine the employment opportunity and career advancement of Singaporeans, particularly in respect of the S Pass policy which has a direct impact on fresh graduates from the Polytechnics and Universities.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Our purpose is to create jobs and to constantly ensure that there are better jobs with good wages for Singaporeans. For these to happen, our business environment must be attractive for companies to be here in Singapore and to stay here and not go elsewhere. They need to grow, prosper and achieve productivity gains.
Our foreign workforce policies – including the Dependency Ratio Ceiling (DRC), are instruments that help MOM attain these goals. The DRCs need to be open enough to give companies access to supplementary manpower to grow, start new ventures, obtain expertise not easily available. Yet, they have to be stringent enough so as not to compromise job and wage growth opportunities for Singaporeans.
At the same time, the needs of different sectors vary according to the way they operate, the willingness of Singaporeans to take up jobs offered, and prevailing economic conditions.
Hence, in determining the DRCs across sectors, we take into account both quantitative and qualitative factors. These include, but are not limited to, the mix of skills required in a sector, availability of local workers, the willingness of locals to do the job, and our overall need to manage foreign worker inflows. For example, the Construction sector has a more generous DRC given the physically strenuous nature of the work, while Services has the tightest DRC as many jobs there can be filled by locals.
Maintaining the right DRC is a delicate balance. It is not an exact science, and may have to be recalibrated from time to time. Most recently, we reduced the Services, Manufacturing and S Pass DRCs from July 2012 to moderate foreign workforce inflow and encourage companies to invest in productivity improvements, rather than rely on labour-intensive business models.
The DRC alone is insufficient in ensuring that locals enjoy good job opportunities and wage growth, and compete with S Pass holders on a level playing field. This is why we have other measures in place to complement the DRC. To compensate for the cheaper wage expectations of foreign workers, we are increasing Foreign Worker Levies until July 2013. To select quality candidates, we require S Pass holders to meet salary and other qualifying criteria, such as qualifications and work experience.
We are well aware of the need to carefully manage the balance between allowing businesses the foreign manpower they require to grow and safeguarding the interests of Singaporeans in the process. Over nine in 10 graduates from our polytechnics and universities last year found a job within six months from graduation1, while our overall unemployment rate remains well below that of most other countries2. Ultimately, our young graduates can only have good employment opportunities if our companies do well. Hence, we do not make changes lightly and will continue to monitor the impact of our policies closely.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enforcing Legislation to Reduce Air Pollution from Idling Cars","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Mr Nicholas Fang asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in light of measures aimed at improving air quality in Singapore, whether there are plans to enforce legislation that will reduce incidents of motorists leaving their cars idling while stationary which contribute to air pollution.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Under the Environmental Protection and Management (Vehicular Emissions) Regulations, it is an offence to leave the engine of a vehicle idling when the vehicle is stationary, other than due to traffic conditions. Leaving the engine running when the vehicle is stationary results in fuel wastage and unnecessary emission of exhaust gases. Offenders are liable for a maximum fine of $2,000 for the first offence and $5,000 for the second and subsequent offences if convicted in court. An average of 320 advisory notices a year has been issued in the last three years and to date 12 drivers have been offered notices of composition fine of $70.
The National Environment Agency (NEA) has adopted the approach of educating and advising drivers to switch off the engines when their vehicles are stationary. NEA has been working with large fleet operators, such as taxis and bus companies, the Singapore Transport Association, Singapore School & Private Hire Bus Owners' Association and National Association of Travel Agents Singapore (NATAS), to educate their drivers on this.
NEA has issued a total of 5,841 advisories in the last three years. We note a rising trend of feedback, with NEA receiving 2,021 feedback on idling vehicles in 2011, up from 1,902 in 2010 which shows that the public is becoming increasingly intolerant of inconsiderate motorists. Mr Fang can rest assured that my Ministry and NEA will continue to promote greater compliance through our educational efforts and enforcement actions against those who idle their engines. NEA will also continue with its dialogue sessions with fleet operators and the NATAS, to remind drivers to switch off the engines when their vehicles are stationary. Members of the public can also help us spread this message. The public can contact the NEA call centre at 1800-2255632, Contact_Nea@nea.gov.sg or \"myEnv\" mobile application to provide feedback on these issues.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Qualifying Criteria for Non-profit Anchor Pre-school Operators","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) what criteria are used to determine that the PAP Community Foundation and NTUC First Campus are non-profit bodies to qualify for recurrent grants as non-profit anchor preschool operators; (b) what lessons have been learnt from working with these two non-profit Anchor Operators (AOPs) including the impact of the support given to these AOPs on other industry players; and (c) how many voluntary welfare organisations and private operators applied to be AOPs but were not selected.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: To be eligible for the Recurrent Grant scheme, childcare operators should be not-for-profit bodies, have no religious affiliation and must have a minimum paid up capital of $5 million.
When the scheme was introduced in 2009, five operators applied3. Only PCF and NTUC were able to meet the full set of eligibility criteria. Being one of the largest childcare operators in the industry, they had the potential to meet the objectives of the scheme which was to significantly ramp up capacity of quality and affordable childcare programmes.
Since the scheme was introduced, there are now 196 PCF Sparkletots and NTUC My First Skool childcare centres across the island. This is a three-fold increase in the number of centres and has gone some way to meet the childcare needs of young parents. All PCF Sparkletots and NTUC My First Skool centres charge below the market median for childcare fees.
In addition to keeping fees affordable, anchor operators are required to meet quality targets that are set above the requirements for the rest of the sector. 85% of teachers in PCF and NTUC centres are diploma trained, compared to 76% in the general industry.
Our anchor operators have also been useful partners in our efforts to uplift quality standards across the wider sector, for example, by participating in the Ministry of Education's recently introduced Singapore Pre-school Accreditation Framework (SPARK). Of the 75 childcare centres that have achieved SPARK certification today, 27 (36%) are PCF and NTUC centres. More will be coming on board over the next few years.
Moving forward, the Implementation Committee for Enhancing Pre-school Education is reviewing the design of the existing scheme. We will work towards making enhancements to further improve the quality of programmes at existing anchor operator centres while expanding the scheme beyond PCF and NTUC to extend Government support to a larger segment of the market.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ban on Sale of Tobacco","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Dr Janil Puthucheary asked the Minister for Health in light of the recent consideration of a proposal to ban the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after the year 2000 in Tasmania, an idea originally conceptualised in Singapore, whether the Ministry will consider reviewing its stance on the matter.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Tasmania's Legislative Council (or upper house of parliament) passed a motion on 21 August 2012, calling on the state government to initiate and promote measures to \"support a tobacco-free generation of children born this century\".
I had earlier in April this year, put forth to this House, the reasons why MOH would not pursue the cohort ban. There are significant practical difficulties and risks in implementing and enforcing such a measure. Moreover, the ban might not result in the desired reduction in smoking rates, as it could be easily circumvented.
Although Singapore has one of the lowest smoking prevalence rate at 14.3%, we will continue to work towards further reducing smoking prevalence through a combination of public education and legislative measures, making smoking even less convenient and socially less acceptable.
We have also incorporated health promotion messages on smoking in the school curricula. Youth Advolution for Health (YAH) is a youth-led peer advocacy programme that promotes a healthy lifestyle, including smoke-free living. The \"Live it Up without Lighting Up\" (LIUWLU) movement also reaches out to youth outside the school environment to highlight the benefits of a smoke-free lifestyle.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Domestic Violence amongst Live-in Partners","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Ms Mary Liew asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) over the last five years how many reports of domestic violence perpetrated by unmarried live-in partners have been received from women; (b) what measures are in place to protect such women; and (c) whether there is a need to review the existing laws to accord better protection to such women, such as giving them access to Personal Protection Orders and Domestic Exclusion Orders.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: The Member has asked for a very specific statistic – the number of reports of domestic violence perpetrated against women by their unmarried live-in partners. As the Police does not track such cases as a distinct category, I am unable to provide the statistics requested.
The Government does not condone acts of domestic violence, regardless of the marital circumstances. The Penal Code criminalises acts of violence, ranging from criminal intimidation and voluntarily causing hurt, to rape. This applies equally to perpetrators of domestic violence who might commit such acts against their unmarried live-in partners.
Protection Orders (POs) were created under the Women’s Charter to send a strong signal that domestic violence within the context of the family would not be tolerated, while creating opportunities for families, victims and perpetrators to heal these relationships. The Government has adopted this approach in recognition that family ties are life-long and rehabilitation plays a crucial role in preserving these relationships. Hence, although Domestic Exclusion Orders are a possible condition within the POs, the PO may also require other measures, such as counselling for all parties involved.
In addition to legal recourse available to all victims of domestic violence, non-legal interventions are of equal, if not greater, importance in meeting the needs of victims of domestic violence. The National Family Violence Networking System, jointly administered by MCYS and SPF, coordinates interventions for both the victims and the perpetrators of family violence, regardless of marital status, in a holistic manner. A wide range of services is available through this system, including counselling, medical services and temporary crisis shelters.
Any victim of domestic violence in Singapore, including women facing violence from unmarried live-in partners, can seek assistance from this system by approaching the Police or a Family Service Centre, or by calling the ComCare Helpline.
While a range of legal and non-legal interventions already exist to help victims of domestic violence, the Government will monitor the situation to determine if additional measures are necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mapping ITE and Polytechnic Curricula to Industry Demands","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Mr Teo Siong Seng asked the Minister for Education (a) whether his Ministry has conducted any studies to map the current curriculum offered by the Polytechnics and Institute of Technical Education (ITE) against manpower demand by local companies for more Singaporeans to handle technical and industrial jobs; (b) whether the current education system has produced sufficient rank-and-file Singapore workers; and (c) how many ITE graduates are employed by local SMEs currently.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Every year, the Ministries of Manpower and Education, the economic agencies, as well as our post-Secondary institutions will come together to discuss the manpower needs for the Singapore economy in the coming years. The discussion will also include broad plans and indicative intakes for programmes and courses to be offered by our universities, polytechnics and the Institute of Technical Education (ITE).
Our Polytechnics and the ITE have a robust curriculum development and review process to ensure that their graduates have good employment prospects, including at local companies. Their Academic Advisory Committees comprising industry leaders and professionals advise them on wider trends and developments in the sector, so that curricula and teaching methods develop our students well for the demands of their chosen careers.
ITE graduates today enjoy good employment rates – over 87% of them are employed within six months of graduation. Although we do not have precise data on the number of ITE graduates in the small and medium enterprises, we know many are employed in local companies in various positions, ranging from frontline service staff to managerial roles.
While our ITE and Polytechnics have prepared our students well for their careers, there is currently a shortage of workers which is being met by a controlled intake of foreign workers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government's Target in Transport Mode Share","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the current public transport mode share; (b) whether the Government expects to meet its targeted public transport mode share of 70% by 2020 as stated in its 2008 Land Transport Master Plan; and (c) what measures will be put in place to ensure that this target is achieved.
Mr Lui Tuck Yew: In 2008, we launched the Land Transport Master Plan (LTMP), with an ambitious target to raise our public transport mode share to 70% during the morning peak by 2020.
Based on LTA's Household Interview Travel Survey (HITS) then, which was a comprehensive survey involving some 10,000 households, the public transport mode share was 59% in 2008.
After some four years of implementing the LTMP, it is timely to take stock of our progress. Public transport ridership has increased significantly during this period, with daily public transport journeys growing from 3.62 million in 2008 to 4.14 million in 2012, a 14.4% increase. Hence, LTA is now in the midst of conducting another comprehensive travel survey, HITS 2012.
With the results from HITS 2012, and our on-going public consultation to review the LTMP, we will provide an update to this House in due course on the current public transport mode share, as well as changes we intend to make to the LTMP to further improve this mode share, and to achieve our 70% target. This will include initiatives and projects to improve the coverage, capacity and reliability of our public transport system, such as expanding the MRT network, improving bus services and enabling greater public transport connectivity. I will announce our detailed plans after our review of the LTMP.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Claw-back on Past COE Over-supply","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Transport with the claw-back on past oversupply of Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) and increasing COE prices, how has the number of private vehicles on the road been affected in the last five-year period.
Mr Lui Tuck Yew: Between end-2006 and end-2011, our total vehicle population grew from 778,257 to 932,007, an increase of 153,750.
With these figures, it is easier to put into perspective the various changes we have made to our COE system in the past few years, including the claw-back of COEs.
Between 1999 and 2010, the quotas of COEs were determined by projecting vehicle de-registrations for the year ahead using past de-registration trends. If there was any over- or under-projection of the actual number of vehicles deregistered, the quotas for subsequent periods were adjusted to correct for this. In 2010, we changed to the current methodology of recycling COEs using actual vehicle de-registrations, which removed the need to do subsequent adjustments. However, 17,558 over-projected COEs in Quota Years 2008 and 2009, representing less than 2% of our vehicle population, still had to be clawed back.
As we had also brought down the annual allowable vehicle population growth rate from 3% to 1.5% starting from 2009, we decided to have this claw-back paced out over a few years. Between April 2010 and July 2012, 12,769 COEs, or about 73% of the 2008-09 over-projection, were recovered from COE quotas. The claw-back of the remaining 4,789 COEs was deferred for one year, till next August. Overall, the claw-back has been relatively modest, affecting the total vehicle population by about 1.4% in all so far.
Since we implemented these COE changes and adjustments from 2009, the vehicle growth rate has been brought down to 2.2% in 2010 and 1.1% in 2011, closer to the 1.5% annual allowable growth rate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Independent Research Firm to Collate Findings for Annual Graduate Employment Survey","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Ms Ellen Lee asked the Minister for Education if the Ministry will consider (i) appointing an independent vendor to conduct the annual Graduate Employment Survey (GES) for the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs); and (ii) mandating that response rates and sample sizes of the respective IHLs should be cited instead of overall figures.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The Autonomous Universities (AUs) and Polytechnics have employed rigorous survey methodologies to collect and analyse data for their Graduate Employment Surveys (GES), including selecting reputable and experienced independent survey companies to assist them in this exercise. From 2012, a single survey company will be commissioned to conduct the GES for the AUs, as has been the case for the Polytechnics since 2005.
MOE requires a response rate of at least 70% in the GES for every single institution, to ensure that both aggregated and institution-specific findings are robust. This requirement is imposed for both the GES done for the Polytechnics as well as the AUs, and is also in line with the accepted industry norms for such surveys.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of Funds under the Foreign Sporting Talent Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Mr Nicholas Fang asked the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports whether there are specific measures in place to encourage National Sports Associations which use the Foreign Sporting Talent Scheme to (i) have a long-term plan to develop local sporting talent while leveraging on the foreign athletes who have come to Singapore under the scheme; and (ii) ensure that local athletes are not disadvantaged when it comes to allocation of resources and funds relative to foreign athletes.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The development of local sports talent is a key tenet of our sport policy. We have invested significant resources and put in place various measures to further this goal. Let me cite some examples.
One key initiative is the Singapore Sports School, which was started in 2004. Local-born students make up over 95% of the school's population and their fees are heavily subsidised. Many of the Sports School students and alumni go on to become national athletes, representing our country and making us proud through their performances.
The Singapore Sports Council (SSC) also works with the National Sports Associations (NSA) in identifying and developing sports talent. NSAs that employ the Foreign Sports Talent (FST) Scheme are required to show long-term plans for the identification and development of local-born athletes. Many NSAs also leverage on the presence of FSTs to raise the standards of emerging sports talents, the vast majority of whom are local-born. The SSC puts significant weightage to these areas when evaluating NSAs' funding requests. In addition, SSC also provides additional funding for all Olympic sports to employ a dedicated youth coach.
At the highest level, support to national athletes is merit-based. Whether they are local-born or new citizens, they are all treated fairly. They receive funding and other forms of support based on their potential and actual achievements in international competition. Today, over 95% of our national athletes today are local-born.
We will continue to invest resources and efforts in developing local sports talent.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints on Bird Nuisance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for National Development (a) how are complaints and feedback on bird nuisance being handled at AVA now that the agency is tasked to coordinate the work of all agencies on this area whenever such problems arise; and (b) what long-term solution is AVA looking at to tackle bird nuisance and when can the public expect such initiatives to roll out.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Tackling bird nuisance requires a multiple-agency approach. AVA will coordinate the effort and front it. The public will only need to call one number: 1800-476-600, to report any bird nuisance.
In response, AVA will conduct site surveillance to better understand the situation. AVA will then coordinate a joint response with the relevant agencies to implement the appropriate solutions. For instance, NParks or the Town Council may need to prune the surrounding trees to reduce bird roosting sites. NEA may also have to work with nearby dining establishments to cut out the birds' access to food. In extremis, there may be a need to actively reduce the bird population through periodic culling. Finally, AVA will close the loop with the feedback provider and update him on the actions taken.
The bird nuisance is essentially caused by the large number of certain birds such as mynahs, pigeons and crows. This is a perennial problem, not easily eliminated, for the simple reason that it requires full cooperation from many parties food centres to keep their place clean, NEA to enforce against littering, Town Councils to maintain cleanliness and trees regularly pruned.
Meanwhile, AVA is conducting a study to determine the population of mynahs and the distribution of their roosts. The study will help AVA to develop a more comprehensive plan to tackle mynah nuisance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Overcrowding in Public Transport","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the public rail operators observe a Passengers In Excess of Capacity (PIXC) value and, if so, what is this value; (b) what are the plans to address the safety and health concerns of passengers travelling on overcrowded public transport; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider imposing a fine on the public transport operators if they fail to ensure that our trains are not dangerously crowded.
Mr Lui Tuck Yew: Sir, Passengers In Excess of Capacity (PIXC) is a crowding indicator for commuter rail in the United Kingdom which essentially measures train loading against intended capacity. In Singapore, we do not use the PIXC. Instead, operators must comply with Operating Performance Standards (OPS) for train loading. Today, they are required to keep train loading within the regulatory limit of 1,600 passengers per six-car train or 800 passengers per three-car train. This is determined based on the equivalent standing space of about five persons/square metre, which is comparable to or lower than crowding levels on other MRT systems around the world. If the operator breaches these standards, they can be fined up to $1 million under the Rapid Transit System (RTS) Act.
I assure this House that commuter safety is paramount in running our system. The regulatory limits are set well below the safety limit of trains, which are designed to carry around 1,900 commuters per six-car train. LTA is keeping a close watch on passenger loading along the busier stretches of our rail network, and working with the operators to proactively manage the crowding situation. We will certainly not allow the crowding situation to reach anywhere close to the safety limit of our trains.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Action Plans in Case of Flooding at Underground MRT Stations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether a study to look into the worst case scenario has been conducted to assess the impact of unforeseen flooding of underground MRT stations; (b) whether any contingency and evacuation plans have been put in place should such unforeseen flooding occur; and (c) whether there is a need to include such plans in the emergency drills conducted regularly by relevant agencies to ensure that Singaporeans are fully prepared and equipped to deal with such incidents.
Mr Lui Tuck Yew: All existing MRT stations are required to conform to minimum platform and crest levels stipulated under PUB's Code of Practice on Surface Water Drainage4 during the design stage. For MRT stations and associated structures that cannot meet these requirements due to site constraints, LTA would, in consultation with PUB, implement alternate preventive measures, such as floodgates and flood barrier walls, to ensure that entrances to MRT stations have flood protection of at least a metre above the surrounding land. For example, LTA installed a floodgate at the Chinatown Station entrance at Pagoda Street as the entrance height was not able to meet PUB's requirements for crest protection.
Notwithstanding the above, as minimum platform and crest levels are measured from surrounding ground and road levels, the flood protection of existing MRT stations has to be reviewed periodically to take into account changes in the surrounding levels of MRT stations and the associated structures. Following a joint review with PUB in 2011, LTA will implement additional flood protection measures such as floodgates and flood barrier walls in three phases. The first phase, which will include six MRT stations in low lying downtown areas – City Hall, Little India, Novena, Orchard, Raffles Place and Tanjong Pagar – is already being implemented. The second phase, which includes another 11 stations and associated structures, is scheduled to commence implementation by this year.
In addition to the above measures, LTA requires both Public Transport Operators (PTOs) to have robust flood management plans and procedures to effectively handle flooding situations in our stations should they occur. To this end, various exercises involving the PTOs, relevant stakeholders and Government agencies including the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and PUB, are conducted periodically.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review on Format of Singapore Youth Festival","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Ms Janice Koh asked the Minister for Education if the Ministry will (i) review the format of the Singapore Youth Festival so as to moderate any competitive pressure on students to perform for awards; and (ii) introduce some balance by looking at other holistic forms of measurement of a school's artistic achievement that also takes into consideration the students' arts engagement all year round.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Since its inception in 1966, the Singapore Youth Festival (SYF) has played a crucial role in promoting the development of the arts in schools. Over the years, the format of SYF has evolved in step with developments in schools.
In the early years, the SYF was used mainly as a platform for schools to perform publicly to promote the performing arts. In the 1970s, as more performing arts groups were formed, central judging was introduced for schools to benchmark standards. Two-tiered competitions were introduced in the 1990s, whereby schools would participate in a preliminary round of judging in April followed by a second round for selected top performing schools in the July festival.
In 2005, the format was revised to reduce the competitive element of SYF. In the current format, the central judging in April becomes a single-tiered benchmarking exercise. The July festival is non-competitive in nature and features a wide range of schools' performances.
The Ministry is currently reviewing the SYF to ensure that the format will have greater educational value for our schools, while retaining the element of benchmarking which is still useful. We also plan to moderate excessive competitive pressure through the review.
Beyond SYF, in helping schools improve arts education, MOE adopts a holistic approach that takes into consideration the processes and the impact on the student cohort, and not just the results. We collaborate with the National Arts Council on the National Arts Education Awards (NAEA). These awards focus on how schools build a vibrant arts culture by developing students' interest in different arts forms, and the sustained participation of the students in the arts. The outcomes which schools are encouraged to pursue are increased student interest in and appreciation for the arts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Availability of Autonomous Universities' Resources to Encourage Open Learning","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Ms Ellen Lee asked the Minister for Education (a) if the Ministry will consider encouraging local Autonomous Universities (AUs) to make education resources available online and free of charge to keep up with open learning initiatives of other world-class universities; (b) if so, how will the Ministry encourage this; and (c) how much resources will be offered to enable AUs to do so.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: MOE and our Universities recognise that universities around the world are piloting the use of free online course initiatives, such as Coursera (a Stanford spinoff) and edX (an MIT and Harvard initiative).
However, these initiatives are in the early stages and linked to the universities' broader plans to raise the quality and accessibility of teaching and learning. These should not be regarded as stand-alone initiatives.
Moreover, a university education is more than knowledge acquisition. The rich learning that occurs through face-to-face interaction among students, peers and professors goes beyond online teaching. Online platforms also cannot replicate the diverse experiences and rich interactions at the universities.
But we agree with Ms Lee that we need to harness the value of online learning, and more generally the skilful use of information communications technology, to enrich learning. Our Universities are, for instance, taking steps towards making their materials available online for free. Both NUS and NTU already offer some of their materials through the popular open courseware portal iTunes U on the Apple online store. This is an area where our Universities will continue to explore, in line with their strategic plans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Funds Given to Community Committees Supported by People's Association","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) to date, how many Citizens' Consultative Committees, Community Club Management Committees, Residents' Committees and Neighbourhood Committees are respectively registered under the People's Association; (b) how many paid staff are there in each of these committees; and (c) how much funding is given to each of these committees per year from 2005 to 2011.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: As at 31 July 2012, there are 87 Citizens' Consultative Committees (CCCs), 106 Community Club Management Committees (CCMCs), 567 Residents’ Committees (RCs) and 128 Neighbourhood Committees (NCs).
At the Constituency Office, one PA staff supports the work of between three and four Committees. This is on top of their core duties of managing CC operations seven days a week, planning and organising daily courses and programmes, and working with other Government and community partners on programmes to benefit the residents.
From 2005 to 2011, on average, each CCC received $152,872 per year in Grant funding, each CCMC $46,114, each RC $9,457 and each NC $4,043.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Roadside Parking along Public Roads in Private Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport whether LTA will consider regulating roadside parking along public roads in private estates so as to manage illegal and inconsiderate parking.
Mr Lui Tuck Yew: The issue of parking within private estates entails multiple and varied considerations and there is no \"one-size-fits-all\" solution. For example, some residents would like to park their cars outside their houses, or would like spaces for visitors to park on an ad hoc basis. Other residents may request parking restrictions, especially in estates where there are commercial establishments, to deter patrons from parking within the estate. LTA therefore adopts a consultative approach by working with the local communities to understand their needs and problems.
In estates where residents are willing to exercise tolerance and co-operation, LTA adopts a light touch enforcement stance. Nevertheless, LTA will still take strict enforcement action against vehicles parked indiscriminately or causing serious obstruction to traffic flow, or when there are persistent complaints from the residents.
In areas where the local community is supportive of paid parking as a more effective means to regulate parking, LTA will work with URA to implement it where feasible.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monitoring of Tuition Centres and Agencies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"71 Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider (i) active monitoring of tuition centres and agencies to ensure credentials of tutors are genuine; and (ii) working through an industry body to provide a database of tutors whose credentials have been verified by such an independent body.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Students are adequately guided and supported in schools as our teachers do their utmost to help every child. Many schools provide remedial lessons to help weaker students. Specific learning support programmes are given for those who have a weak foundation in the early Primary years.
For students who are coping well in schools, sending them for tuition can create unnecessary stress and detract them from holistic development. If parents should decide to engage tuition services, they will have to exercise their discretion and carry out basic checks, for example, by speaking to the tutors concerned and checking their credentials.
Tuition centres are regulated under the Education Act and tutors in these centres are required to be registered with MOE. In registering the tutors, MOE will check that their academic qualifications meet the minimum standards required to teach the proposed subjects.
Unlike tuition centres, tuition agencies do not directly provide instruction to students. They only provide matching services between tutors and students. They are not regulated under the Education Act or the Private Education Act. With such agencies, parents have to exercise even greater discernment.
The idea of an industry body to maintain a database of tutors may not be the answer as it may still not provide adequate information to parents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"More Primary Schools in Mature Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"72 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider building more Primary schools ahead of demand in mature estates like Mountbatten.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: MOE regularly reviews the trends in demand and supply both at the national and local levels to ensure that there are sufficient school places for every P1-going child. While MOE tries to ensure that every child of school-going age in Singapore has a place in a school reasonably near his or her home, it will not be possible to build a Primary school in every estate. Every new school needs to have a sufficient catchment of students to enable it to mount a range of activities for the benefit of the students, and to be run efficiently.
Our school planning takes into account the projected population and planned housing development programmes to ensure that there are sufficient school places to meet the current and future demands from each town.
There are currently two Primary schools, Kong Hwa School and Tanjong Katong Primary School, located in the Mountbatten constituency. There are also other Primary schools, for example, Geylang Methodist Primary School and Stamford Primary School, which are located just outside the Mountbatten constituency.
As there are sufficient Primary school places after taking into consideration the planned housing development programmes in this estate, we have no plans to build any new Primary schools in this area.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Publicity of Various Community Help Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Ms Mary Liew asked the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports with so many different funds and subsidies available across the different Ministries to help the needy, how are these schemes communicated and made accessible to Singaporeans.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The needs of the needy are not the same, and various help schemes and programmes have been put in place to help them. Each of these serves a purpose. Singaporeans who need help do not need to know all the schemes. What they can do is to approach one of the key touchpoints on the ground, such as the Community Development Councils (CDCs) and Family Service Centres (FSCs). These agencies will provide the necessary referrals and, where relevant, link up with other organisations to provide more holistic assistance.
We continue to work on improving this arrangement. To strengthen communication amongst social service agencies, ComCare Local Networks were institutionalised in 2006. In April this year, we launched the ComCare Starter kit to equip frontline staff of social service agencies with better knowledge of help schemes.
Apart from visiting the key touchpoints on the ground, Singaporeans who need help or who come across others who need help can also call the ComCare Hotline at 1800-222-0000. This was set up in 2008. More recently, we launched the ComCare.sg web portal, where we have made effort to present information in a more intuitive and concise manner.
Beyond providing information and touchpoints, we are also enhancing efforts to proactively reach out to the needy. For example, to improve the FSCs' outreach to vulnerable families, the Ministry has provided them with resources to hire additional staff. We have also lowered the FSC caseloads to enable their social workers to give more attention to families with complex needs. Over the next three years, we will build some 10 more FSCs to enhance the accessibility of family services.
We will continue to work with our partners to develop to improve awareness, accessibility and co-ordination of the different help schemes we have for needy Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Working Hours of Public Transport Drivers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"77 Dr Lam Pin Min asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the average working hours for our public transport bus drivers and MRT train drivers compared to other major cities; and (b) whether there are guidelines on the maximum allowable duty and driving hours for these drivers.
Mr Lui Tuck Yew: Our public transport bus drivers work an average of eight to nine hours daily, including overtime, over a six-day work week, which comes up to around 50 hours or slightly more a week. MRT train drivers work an average of 130 hours over a 21-day period, which averages around 44 hours a week, with overtime work typically arranged under exigencies of service. I understand that bus drivers in the United Kingdom work an average of nine to 10 hours daily5 while bus drivers in Australia work an average of 12 hours daily, including overtime6.
Our Public Transport Operators (PTOs) must adhere to the requirements under the Employment Act when scheduling duties for their bus and train drivers. For instance, the Act stipulates that the normal hours of work shall not exceed 44 hours per week. Employees must also not work for more than 12 hours a day, including overtime, with a limit of 72 hours of overtime in a month.
To ensure that our drivers have sufficient rest, regular breaks are scheduled in their duty rosters. For example, SBS Transit plans its bus driver rosters such that bus drivers do not work more than 12 hours per day, and no more than 72 hours of overtime per month. SMRT rosters its train drivers so that they do not drive a train for more than four hours without a break.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Actual Average Weekly Work Hours of Civil Servants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Prime Minister (a) what are the actual average weekly work hours of civil servants in executive positions and in non-executive positions in 2011 and in the first half of 2012; (b) whether the Government will consider (i) collecting and publishing quarterly figures of such work hours of civil servants in these respective positions; (ii) lowering such work hours to around 40 hours; (c) which Ministries and statutory boards practise \"Blue Sky Days\" and at what frequency; and (d) whether the Government will consider encouraging Ministries and statutory boards to practise \"Blue Sky Days\" on a weekly basis.
Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): Public officers are required to work 42 hours a week. According to MOM's survey, companies in various industries likewise require their officers to work an average of 43 work hours per week7.
Most of our Public Service agencies8 have moved away from the practice of tracking officers' actual work hours through a clock in/out system, except for some instances where it is required to support operations and to administer overtime payments for lower divisional staff. The shift away from clocking in and out is in line with a more progressive HR approach which focuses on work outcomes, and to facilitate a flexible work culture built on mutual trust, responsibility and staff empowerment.
In deciding whether to move towards a 40-hour work week, there is a need to study the impact of such a move on service levels to the public. In the light of increasing public demands for better and more responsive public services, such a move should be considered only if we are confident of reaping additional productivity improvements from our workforce, such that they can perform the same task or provide the same level of service in a shorter time. Such a move requires careful study.
The practice of \"Blue Sky Day\" is progressively gaining traction. To date, 35 Public Service agencies have introduced \"Blue Sky Day\", most of these on a weekly basis. Operational and enforcement agencies are less able to practise \"Blue Sky Days\" due to operational needs and exigencies of service. However, they have other means to help officers achieve work-life balance. The Public Service will continue to encourage more public agencies to adopt the practice of \"Blue Sky Day\", where applicable. In fact, public officers are encouraged to leave on time once their work for the day has been completed. They can do so every day and not just on the designated \"Blue Sky Day\", as long as doing so does not affect the service’s operational readiness and level of service to the public.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Licensed Armed and Unarmed Security Officers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) if he will provide a breakdown of (i) the total number of armed and unarmed private security officers licensed by the Police Licensing and Regulatory Department in the current year; (ii) the total number of armed and unarmed private security officers engaged by the Government in all its outsourced contracts in the current year; and (b) what is the estimated value of all security contracts outsourced by the Government in the current year.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: The total number of armed private security officers, known as Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs), and unarmed private security officers (SOs) licensed by the Police as of July 2012 is 6,408 and 65,679 respectively.
In March this year, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Home Affairs conducted a survey of public sector security contracts. Responses from contractors were sought on a voluntary, in-confidence basis via the respective Government agencies. Based on the returns, Government agencies engaged a total of about 1,200 SOs and 1,800 APOs. The estimated value of these security contracts was about $175 million.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Housebreaking and Thefts in Dwellings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether there is any rise or trend of concern in property crimes, particularly housebreakings and thefts in dwellings, recorded in the first half of 2012 compared to the previous year; and (b) what conditions will trigger the display of a police signboard at a location informing residents of the occurrence of a specified offence in the area, in particular, whether such a display indicates a prevalence or trend of concern.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: The number of property crime cases reported has shown a decreasing trend over the past three years, with 19,463 property crime cases reported in 2011 compared to 21,023 cases in 2010 and 22,221 cases in 2009.
For the first half of 2012, the number of property crime cases reported was 9,951. This was a 1.6% increase when compared to the 9,790 cases reported in the same period in 2011. Theft in dwelling cases increased from 2,010 reported cases for the first half of 2011 to 2,171 reported cases for the first half of 2012. Housebreaking and related crimes decreased from 381 to 297 reported cases in these two six-month periods. Police will continue to monitor the crime situation closely.
Police signboards displayed in public areas are an effective means of raising awareness about crime concerns within the area and reminding the public to remain vigilant. Such signboards may be put up in areas where multiple cases of a certain crime, such as housebreaking, are reported.
Police may also use such signboards to seek the public's assistance in providing information or in identifying a perpetrator.
The public should not be alarmed by such signboards. If they have any crime related information, or specific concerns, they should call the nearest Neighbourhood Police Centre as stated on the signboard.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Business Costs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Inderjit Singh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) if he can provide data on the trend of business costs over the last five years, particularly data showing the changes in labour costs and rental costs; and (b) whether this trend creates a problem for SMEs to remain viable in the Singapore economy.
Mr Lim Hng Kiang: During the period 2007-2011, nominal average monthly earnings (AME), as a proxy for labour costs, increased at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 3.5%. Rentals of factory space increased at a CAGR of 7.3%.
Although costs have increased, firms have coped through restructuring and improving productivity. Over the same period, the unit labour cost (ULC), which measures the labour cost required to produce one unit of output, for the overall economy grew at a more moderate pace of 1.5% (CAGR), while the ULC for the manufacturing sector declined 2.9% (CAGR).
The Government recognises that business costs have generally increased. Overall, Singapore is no longer a low-cost business location. The Government has put in place broad-based and sector-specific programmes to help businesses remain competitive through upgrading their capabilities and improving their productivity, thereby moderating cost concerns. SMEs which restructure by moving up the value chain and increasing their productivity will continue to remain viable in the Singapore economy. The Table below captures the statistics mentioned.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore's Participation at Venice Biennale over the Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Ms Janice Koh asked the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (a) how much does the Ministry spend to present our top artists at each edition of the Venice Biennale since 2001; (b) how many artists have been featured at each edition since 2001; (c) what is the Ministry's assessment of the national and international impact of Singapore's participation at this platform; and (d) how have our participating artists benefitted from showcasing at this event.
Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Singapore has participated in six editions of the Venice Biennale since 2001. During this period9, the National Arts Council organised the Singapore Pavilion, commissioned and provided funding for showcasing the works of 14 local artists and seven curators at the Venice Biennale.
Government expenditure to support our participation at the Venice Biennale has ranged from $500,000 to $850,000 per edition. The Table below lists the respective artists and curators which have represented Singapore since 2001.
As contemporary art is still in a developmental phase in Singapore, the impact of our participation has been varied. Our presentations were understandably weaker in the initial editions as our artists and curators were still coming to terms with the Biennale and the conventions and expectations of such an international audience and platform.
Over the last six consecutive participations at the Venice Biennale, Singapore has seen some successes. For example, Ming Wong received a Special Mention award in 2009. Individual artists and curators, such as Heman Chong, Ho Tzu Nyen, Eugene Tan and June Yap, have also benefitted from the prestige and international exposure that the Biennale has given them, to go on to illustrious careers and opportunities.
On the whole, however, despite the millions of dollars spent on the Venice Biennale, only a handful of our artists and curators have been able to capitalise on the networking opportunities and prestige that their participation in Venice Biennale has brought, moving on to other artistic achievements and platforms. In terms of overall increased international demand for the vast majority of our artists, there is thus still much headway for us to make.
The Government acknowledges the importance and merits of international profiling for Singapore’s art scene and talent, which goes hand-in-hand with building up a strong and vibrant arts landscape. Singapore's participation at the Venice Biennale has helped profile a few selected artists within the international mindshare. The proposed review of our participation will seek to broaden and deepen the impact of our involvement at international platforms such as the Venice Biennale, so as to best support all our local talent and visual arts development at both the domestic and international levels.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) for Blocks with Single Lift","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for National Development in view of HDB's Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) in blocks where there is only one serviceable lift during the entire upgrading process (a) what due diligence does the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) exercise before granting approval for LUP works for such blocks; (b) whether HDB is required to carry out a risk assessment especially in respect of high floor emergency rescue and, if so, what is the evaluation basis; and (c) what is BCA's recommendation to mitigate unforeseen circumstances involving high floor evacuation.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The design and construction of lift shafts and the installation of lifts are subject to approval by BCA to ensure the structural safety of the new lift shaft and that of the existing building.
In particular, for high-rise buildings exceeding eight storeys, the Singapore Civil Defence Force's (SCDF's) Fire Code will require one of the lifts to be operational at all times to function as a fireman's lift. HDB’s Lift Upgrading Programme fully complies with this requirement. It further requires that blocks with more than two lifts have at least two operational lifts during upgrading.
In cases where there is only one lift serving the block, HDB will work with the local Town Council and the lift companies to closely monitor the performance of the lift. The lift company will also be required to respond to any fault at a shorter response time than during its normal operation.
Nevertheless, in the event of an emergency requiring high floor evacuation when there is no lift service, for instance due to a lift breakdown, residents will evacuate via the staircases. SCDF will provide assistance to those who require help with the evacuation. This is similar to the procedure in an emergency such as a fire, where it is dangerous to use the lift. In medical emergencies, SCDF paramedics will similarly use the staircases to evacuate the patient. While this may take a slightly longer time, the paramedics are trained to ensure the safety and stability of the patient throughout the evacuation process.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review on Silver Housing Bonus Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for National Development (a) if he will provide an update on the review of the Silver Housing Bonus Scheme; and (b) if the review is still on-going, when will it be completed.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The review of the Silver Housing Bonus Scheme is still on-going, as we continue to seek the views and understand the concerns of the seniors. We should be able to complete the review and announce the details next month.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ownership and Rental of HDB Commercial Premises","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development for each year from 2006 to 2011 and for each of the HDB town regions (a) how many commercial premises are owned by (i) HDB; (ii) Singaporeans/Singaporean-owned companies; and (iii) PRs and foreigners/foreign-owned companies; (b) what is the average rental per square foot for HDB shops owned by (i) HDB; (ii) Singaporeans/Singaporean-owned companies; and (iii) PRs and foreigners/foreign-owned companies; (c) whether foreign and private ownership of HDB commercial premises has led to rising rentals; and (d) what is the Ministry doing to contain rentals of HDB commercial premises so as to keep costs down for small businesses operating in these premises.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: HDB manages about 5,900 rental and 8,700 sold shops. HDB owns all the rental shops, while Singaporeans and Singaporean-owned companies own about 95% of the sold shops. The remaining 5% of the sold shops are owned by PRs, foreigners and foreign-owned companies.
The rental rates for HDB shops depend on many factors, including location, population catchment size, the nature of business and the prevailing market conditions. One important factor is the extent of competition in a particular locality. Where the supply and demand are in balance, rental stability will likely be achieved.
HDB strives to ensure that there is a good supply of shops to meet demand. Periodically, HDB reviews its provision of commercial shops in HDB towns, taking into account changes in the population catchment, occupancy rate of existing shop spaces and shops’ business sales turnover.
HDB shop rentals have remained relatively stable over the last 10 years. The median rental for HDB rental shops has moved from $44 per square metre in 2001 to $48 per square metre currently.
As for sold shops, HDB does not collect data on their rental rates and is unable to assess the effect of foreign and private ownership of HDB sold shops on their rental trend.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applications under the HDB Fiance/Fiancee Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for National Development for each of the years from 2009 to 2011 and the first half of 2012 (a) how many applicants applied under the HDB Fiance/Fiancee Scheme; and (b) what percentage of the applicants forfeited their deposits because they decided not to proceed with marriage and, of these applicants, what was the average time spent waiting for their flats.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: In 2009, 14,682 couples applied for a new HDB flat under the Fiance/Fiancee Scheme. The corresponding figures for subsequent periods were 12,202 (2010), 13,640 (2011) and 7,936 (1H12).
Of these 48,460 couples who applied, 37,537 were invited to select and 26,174 booked a HDB flat. Subsequently, 1,135 couples, or 4.3% of those who had booked a flat, cancelled their bookings and had to forfeit their deposit. Amongst these, 367 cited relationship break-up, including annulment and divorce, as the reason for the cancellation.
Buyers of standard BTO projects, comprising five building blocks of 20 storeys high, will typically wait for two-and-a-half to three years to collect the keys to their flats.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government's Total Expenditure on National Day Parade","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Defence for each of the last 10 years, what is the Government's total expenditure on the National Day Parade, with an itemised expenditure breakdown including associated manpower costs for civil servants and soldiers on parade duty.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: The National Day Parade (NDP) is the most significant highlight on our national calendar and one that brings Singaporeans here and overseas, of all races and religions, together to celebrate our independence. Each year, 125,000 spectators10 watch the parade live at the Marina Bay Floating Platform and over 2 million view the show on television. Many more Singaporeans follow the parade around the world through Channel NewsAsia (International) and Live Web streaming.
Government expenditures on the NDP for the last 10 Financial Years are presented in the Table below.
In general, costs of the NDP rose substantially when held in venues like the Padang and the Marina Float as these sites required substantial preparatory work for the show and spectator stands. The NDP show accounts for about half the expenditure and includes costs of production and items such as costumes and props, lighting and effects, as well as rental of multi-media equipment. The remaining expenditure is on infrastructure development and improvement works, logistics and supplies, publicity and security operations. Manpower costs are imputed in all these items but as they are not directly costed, MINDEF is unable to provide an accurate figure.
On average, about 10,000 SAF and Home Team personnel are deployed for the NDP. Very few civil servants are directly involved. Another 5,000 participants from civilian organisations, private companies, schools and volunteer groups take part in various segments of the celebration. Participants are provided meals and transportation for the rehearsals. They are also provided props and costumes for their performances. They represent Singaporeans of all ages from all walks of life and background who spend many hours a week over several months preparing and rehearsing to perfect their drills and performances. The commitment and contributions of these participants are entirely voluntary and far exceed what they receive.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tracking and Reporting the Pollutant Standards Index (PSI)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in respect of the Enhanced Air Quality Reporting for the pollutant standards index (PSI) and particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5) (a) where are the monitoring stations in the town centres in each region and at what height are these stations situated; (b) how many roadside stations are there to measure kerbside pollution in view of vehicular emissions; (c) what are the justifications for the current reporting times of 8.00 am, 12 noon and 4.00 pm of each day and whether the Ministry will consider increasing the frequency of regular reporting; (d) whether the Ministry is studying more comprehensive Geographic Information System tracking of fine particulate pollution; (e) whether the Ministry will consider providing 24-hour forecasts of PSI and PM2.5 levels for public information; and (f) whether the report of the Advisory Committee on Ambient Air Quality will be made public.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: The National Environment Agency (NEA) currently has a network of 11 air monitoring stations on the mainland of Singapore to measure ambient air quality and another two stations to measure roadside air quality. All the air monitoring stations are located at ground level except for the station at Newton which is located at the roof (above 25th Floor) of the Environment Building. The 11 air monitoring stations are operated in accordance with international guidelines. The locations of the air monitoring and roadside stations are indicated in the Table and Map below.
As the state of air quality has an impact on our health and quality of life, we recognise the need for the public to have more frequent updates on air quality. Since 24 August 2012, the PSI and PM2.5 readings of the five regions (North, South, East West, Central) have been reported on the NEA website at http//app2.nea.gov.sg/psi.aspx or \"myENV\" mobile application three times a day at 8.00 am, 12.00 noon and 4.00 pm to help the public better plan their activities for the day. Health advisories for the five regions will be issued whenever necessary. NEA will also increase the frequency of reporting on air quality to hourly ones in the event of significant transboundary haze.
NEA is currently in the process of enhancing its air quality monitoring network. The enhancement will include the development of predictive modelling capability for tracking air pollution plumes and the forecast of air quality. The enhancement will also build capabilities to provide more frequent updates on our air quality for public information. These enhancements will be introduced in stages over the next three years.
The executive summary of the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Ambient Air Quality is available on the NEA website at http//app2.nea.gov.sg/topics_air.aspx.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Claims before Small Claims Tribunal","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Law whether the Ministry will amend the Small Claims Tribunal Act to provide that all claimants must establish proof of service of their claim against a respondent before the Tribunal makes any order against a respondent.
Mr K Shanmugam: Under the Small Claims Tribunals Act, it is the Registrar's duty to serve the claimant's claim on the respondent, together with a notice for consultation or a notice for hearing, as the case may be. The documents will be served at the last known address of the respondent as provided by the claimant. A record is kept in the case file when service is effected. The claimant is not responsible for effecting service.
If a respondent fails to appear for a consultation or a hearing, the Registrar or the Tribunal can make an order against him. This will only be done if the Registrar or the Tribunal is satisfied that the claim and the relevant notice have been served on the respondent. The claimant is not required to submit proof of service because he is not the person who effects service.
If an order is made against the respondent, he can apply to the Tribunal to set it aside, within a month of the date of the order, or such further period as the Tribunal may allow.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Qualifying Criteria for Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Health whether the Government will extend the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) by raising the qualifying criteria of annual value of residence to a limit above $13,000 so as to cover more economically inactive elderly citizens, including those living in non-premium private and landed properties.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) was expanded earlier this year to benefit more Singaporeans. Under the scheme, economically inactive households are subject to an Annual Value (AV) criterion of $13,000 to qualify for CHAS, to better target CHAS subsidies.
All HDB flats, as well as some non-premium private properties have an AV of $13,000 or less. More than 80% of all non-working households live in a property with AV of $13,000 or less.
Appeals from non-working households living in a property exceeding an AV of $13,000 and are facing extenuating circumstances are considered sympathetically, taking into account their specific circumstances. The Ministry of Health will review the CHAS eligibility criteria from time to time, to ensure that Government subsidies reach those who need it most.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expected Improvements in Sembawang Town under the Bus Services Enhancement Programme (BSEP)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Transport what improvements can the residents of Sembawang town expect under the Bus Services Enhancement Programme (BSEP) over the next five years.
Mr Lui Tuck Yew: LTA is monitoring bus services in Sembawang that experience high peak period ridership, for improvement as part of the Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP). Advisers and community leaders for Sembawang have also been consulted on the constituency's needs, and LTA will try its best to accommodate their requests within the resource constraints.
Over the next five years, we expect to roll out about 40 new routes island-wide, which is a 15% increase in basic bus routes. Existing bus services would also see significant improvements, in terms of shorter waiting times and less crowded buses, with at least one in three existing bus services being improved within the next one year. Let me assure the Member that his residents in Sembawang town will get a fair share of these improvements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adequacy of $1.1 Billion Bus Services Enhancement Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the $1.1 billion Bus Services Enhancement Programme is able to adequately fund the various urgent needs for bus service improvements; and (b) whether there is a need to increase the funding further so that more areas that are poorly served now can benefit from the service improvements.
Mr Lui Tuck Yew: With the Bus Services Enhancement Programme (BSEP), commuters can progressively expect new bus routes, shorter waiting times, less crowded buses and better bus network connectivity. It is still early days, but let me assure the Member that we are committed to making significant bus service improvements throughout the island. To this end, we will periodically review the rollout of the BSEP and assess the adequacy of the programme and funding. Our focus right now, however, is to get the BSEP implemented as quickly as possible, including to work with the Public Transport Operators to have enough bus drivers recruited and trained.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"ERP Gantries and Charges","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport (a) based on the Ministry's quarterly review of traffic conditions, how many vehicles pass through the ERP gantry on the CTE south of Braddell Road during the morning peak hours from 7.30 am to 8.30 am in each of the last four quarters of the year; and (b) how does LTA compute the speed of the vehicles in determining ERP charges.
Mr Lui Tuck Yew: The Table below provides the average number of vehicles passing under the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) gantry on the Central Expressway (CTE) south of Braddell Road from 7.30 am to 8.30 am in the past four quarters. Traffic volume has increased by about 15% since the completion of the CTE widening project in December 2011.
ERP rates are set based on traffic speeds. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) uses speeds obtained from Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) devices, such as the Expressway Monitoring and Advisory System (EMAS) cameras, along the priced stretch of expressway to review ERP rates. For a period of two weeks every quarter, speeds are measured over continuous half-hour intervals during peak hours. Since 2008, the 85th percentile of speeds measured has been used to trigger ERP rate changes. This will generally assure 85% of motorists of smooth travel on ERP-priced roads.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Degree Programmes offered by Universities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Minister for Education (a) whether there are plans to educate and enlighten stakeholders, especially students, employers, and parents, on the further differentiation of the university landscape to ensure that the distinct degree education offered by the Singapore Institute of Technology and SIM University will not be perceived to be inferior to the research-intensive courses offered by the Autonomous Universities; and (b) whether a university education counselling programme will be put in place to guide students in selecting degree programmes that are aligned to their abilities and interests.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: In the course of its work, the Committee on University Education Pathways Beyond 2015 (CUEP) engaged extensively with a broad range of stakeholders to highlight the unique strengths of the new applied degree pathway, which will be delivered by the Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT) and SIM University (UniSIM). What SIT and UniSIM will offer is different and distinct from the programmes available at the four existing autonomous universities.
Both SIT and UniSIM will build on the work of the CUEP and will continue to share the value of the applied pathway and its programme with students, their parents and teachers, through our Secondary schools, Junior Colleges and Polytechnics.
Given the increased diversity of the university landscape, MOE will also continue to emphasise education and career guidance in schools. Among other things, MOE's Education and Career Guidance programme will be enhanced and updated to reflect the new pathways as well as nurture the dispositions of lifelong learning. Polytechnics will also update their student advisory services resources. These will provide a current and relevant resource for students and teachers to help select programmes most suited to the students' dispositions and abilities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Collaborations between Singapore and Overseas Universities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Minister for Education what is the total amount of partnership and related fees expended or contractually agreed to for past and ongoing collaborations between (i) Singapore Management University and Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania; (ii) Singapore University of Technology and Design and Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Zhejiang University; and (iii) National University of Singapore and Yale University.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The scope of collaboration between our Autonomous Universities (AUs) and their overseas partners varies significantly.
Our AUs tap on the expertise of their overseas partners to develop new models of undergraduate education in Singapore. The range of activities covered by the partnerships includes curriculum and pedagogical development, advice on governance and organisational structures, faculty immersion programmes, and research collaborations. The collaboration fees pay for the resources committed by the overseas partners towards such efforts, and therefore vary according to the different models of partnerships between our AUs and the overseas partners. They also decrease significantly after the start-up phase of such collaborations.
As these agreements are covered by confidentiality clauses, MOE is not at liberty to divulge the collaboration fees. However, MOE closely scrutinizes the amount of funding required by AUs to enter into such partnerships, and ensures that such collaborations provide quality university education opportunities for Singaporeans, and positions us well for the future.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allocation of New Void Deck Childcare Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports over the past 24 months (a) how many new void deck childcare centres are allocated to PAP Community Foundation (PCF) and NTUC First Campus respectively; (b) what is the average set up and furnishing grant given to each of these two operators per new centre; (c) how does the Ministry decide on the allocation of new centres to these two operators; and (d) what recurrent and other grants have been given to these two operators.
20 Mr Yee Jenn Jong Page: 685 asked the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports over the past 24 months (a) how many new void deck childcare centres are awarded to non-profit operators other than PAP Community Foundation (PCF) and NTUC First Campus; (b) what is the average set up and furnishing grant given to these operators for these new centres; and (c) what are the criteria for deciding when a void deck centre is to be made available to these non-profit operators who are not anchor operators.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: There are currently more than 300 childcare centres operated by non-profit organisations in HDB void deck premises. One hundred and thirty-three (or 44%) of these centres are run by non-profit operators other than PCF and NTUC.
For a non-profit operator setting up a normal sized childcare centre for 100 children, it would receive about $100,000 in grants from the Government for the conversion of premises and purchase of furnishings and equipment. Anchor Operators (AOPs) receive similar conversion and furnishing grants. They are also eligible for additional recurrent grants under the Recurrent Grant scheme, which comprise largely of salary grants to enable them to attract, retain and develop quality teachers.
HDB sites are allocated to private, and non-profit operators, including AOPs, after taking into account the resident and housing type profiles, current mix of centres and views of the community and community leaders. Amongst sites that have been set aside for AOPs, the split between PCF and NTUC has been roughly equal.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Provision of Proper Accommodation for Foreign Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Acting Minister for Manpower for each of the years from 2005 to 2012, what is the number of employers who have been warned or fined because of their failure to provide proper accommodation for their foreign workers.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: MOM issues warnings, composition fines of up to $2,000 per charge, or prosecutes employers for housing their foreign workers in unacceptable accommodation. Employers convicted in Court face a fine of up to $5,000, or six months imprisonment or both, for each count of offence.
Since 2005 to June this year, MOM has taken enforcement action against 7,660 employers for failing to provide acceptable accommodation for their foreign workers. As a result of MOM's enforcement actions against these employers, over 50,000 foreign workers were relocated to acceptable accommodation. The Table below provides a breakdown of the number of employers taken to task each year.
Unacceptable accommodation takes the form of makeshift shelters, bin centres and illegally converted factory premises. In addition to taking errant employers to task, enforcement action may also be taken against dormitory operators if they are found to be responsible for the unacceptable conditions. They face similar penalties as the employers for abetting the offence.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Reduction of Foreign Workers on SMEs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) how is the Government gathering feedback from SMEs on the impact of the reduction of foreign workers on their businesses; and (b) how will the Government seek to mitigate against such possible negative impact on SMEs' businesses while attempting to also achieve the important goal of an increasing level of national productivity.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: MOM engages SMEs regularly, and on multiple levels, to understand concerns over their business and the operating environment, and gather feedback on the manpower measures. These engagement sessions include meetings with industry associations, such as the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (ASMEs), discussions with representatives from various sectors, such as F&B and retail; and meetings with individual companies themselves. Through these sessions, MOM has obtained a good understanding of the issues that SMEs face, and taken actions to address the concerns raised. One recent example is the extension of the Period of Employment (POE) for work permit holders.
Before 1 July 2012, every unskilled work permit holders was subjected to a POE of six years, which is the maximum period of time the work permit worker can work in Singapore. MOM had received requests from companies to extend the POE of their unskilled workers. These companies highlighted that these workers were valuable to companies as they were experienced and had gained tacit knowledge of the companies they work for. After conducting a review, MOM decided to extend the POE from six years to 10 years, with effect from 1 July 2012. This was to accord companies with greater flexibility to retain good and experienced work permit holders, and reduce the need for them to recruit and train new workers to replace work permit holders who reached their maximum POE. This flexibility in retaining workers enabled companies to save cost and increase their productivity.
The engagement sessions provided opportunities for MOM to explain the measures on foreign manpower. Companies realised the need to reduce the overall reliance on foreign workers and restructure their operations towards raising productivity. In this regard, MOM is aware that restructuring and readjustment are a gradual process. As such, the changes in manpower policies were taken in steps, with companies granted up to two years to transition and adjust to the new changes. For example, for the changes in the Dependency Ratio Ceiling (DRC) that have taken effect on 1 July 2012, companies have up till 30 June 2014 to adjust to the new requirement.
The Government has also provided various schemes to assist SMEs. On 23 August 2012, Minister of State for Trade and Industry, Mr Teo Ser Luck, has further announced a review on the current schemes. The objectives are to simplify the process through which SMEs can apply for existing schemes, and to intensify assistance to SMEs in innovation, branding and overseas expansion. Companies are also now able to apply for Innovation and Capability voucher online, instead of having to submit hardcopy documents.
In conclusion, the Government is committed to help SMEs grow and thrive, not just in Singapore, but in the region and internationally. The Government will continue to engage SMEs actively, work together to enhance current programmes and develop new schemes to ensure that SMEs continue to be a vibrant and important part of our economy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assistance to SMEs on Hiring of Locals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Acting Minister for Manpower with the restrictions on the hiring of foreign workers on SMEs (a) what percentage of work passes were rejected when they were submitted for renewal over the last one year; and (b) since its introduction, how many companies have tapped on ADVANTAGE! Scheme to help them hire more locals.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: The tightening measures on foreign work passes are not targeted at SMEs. All companies with foreign manpower are affected. Those who employ a larger proportion of foreign workers or a smaller base of local workers will be affected more.
From 1 January 2012 to 31 July 2012, 30% of Employment Pass (EP) and S Pass applications were rejected, an increase from 26% for the whole of 2011. And 29% out of the total number of rejected applications were for renewals, an increase compared to 21% for the whole of 2011. The higher rejection rates were due to
a) The increase in EP and S Pass qualifying salaries from 1 July 2011. To give companies time to adjust, existing EP and S Pass holders who were due for renewal before 1 January 2012 were given at least an additional year to meet the prevailing more stringent criteria;
b) The tightening of the educational qualifications for EPs, and with older applicants having to command a higher salary commensurate with their working experience and the quality expected of them, from 1 January 2012; and
c) The tightening of the S Pass sub-Dependency Ratio Ceiling (DRC) from 25% to 20% of the total workforce from 1 July 2012, which has taken effect for all new foreign workers. However to give companies time to adjust their strategies, their existing foreign workers will have up to 30 June 2014 to comply with the new DRCs.
Since its introduction in 2005, more than 3,000 companies have tapped on ADVANTAGE! to recruit, retain and re-employ more than 26,000 mature local workers. We will continue to work with tripartite partners to help employers tap on our valuable pool of older residents for their manpower needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[],"onlinePDFFileName":""}