1 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Education why the recently announced change in the Gifted Education Programme is not designed into a system where students can elect their choices of subject levels based on their ability, gifting and interest.
2 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the average class size for primary school students in the same cohort (i) enrolled in the existing Gifted Education Programme (GEP) (ii) enrolled in schools offering the existing GEP but are not part of the GEP; and (b) how are average class sizes expected to change with the changes made to the GEP.
\tThe Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, my response will cover the questions raised by Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Louis Chua, as well as those raised by Ms Denise Phua, Dr Wan Rizal, Ms Foo Mee Har, Ms Mariam Jaafar, Mr Leong Mun Wai for the Sitting on 9 September 2024, and by Mr Mohd Fahmi, which is scheduled for the subsequent Sitting on 13 September 2024.
If need be, I invite Members to seek clarifications following my response.
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Leong Mun Wai asked about the lessons learnt and outcomes of the Gifted Education Programme, or GEP. The GEP has generally delivered good student outcomes in the past 40 years, with many students being stretched intellectually and developing holistically. GEP alumni have made significant contributions in diverse fields such as public service, medicine, academia, arts, entrepreneurship and technology. Many GEP alumni are also active leaders in the community and social sectors. However, there were also some students who felt weighed down by the expectations to excel, or could not cope with the rigour of the programme and lost interest in learning. There were also students who were selected for the programme but decided not to join.
Over this time, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has gained useful lessons and experiences in developing higher-ability learners. We have observed that while some students showed high abilities in multiple areas, there are also some students who showed passion and strength in specific single areas, such as in English or Mathematics. Students may also present strengths and potential at different points in their educational journey, rather than at a single point in time. These observations are in line with international research.
Concurrently, over the years, our primary schools have expanded their capacity in nurturing high-ability learners. Today, all primary schools have teachers trained to identify and develop high-ability learners in both cognitive and social-emotional domains.
Hence, it is timely to update our approach to develop higher-ability learners. Instead of a uniform GEP for selected students based on their general abilities in multiple areas, we can now also offer opportunities for those with higher abilities in specific areas. And instead of being selected at a single point, students can join these programmes at any time during their upper primary years.
We want to work with parents to have the proper mindset to allow students to blossom at their own pace, rather than be hot-housed or rushed to be admitted at a particular entry point. The new approach also gives students the option to exit the programme or modules at any time, if they find them unsuitable or wish to pursue other interests, without the stigma of having failed to meet the expectations after being labelled as gifted.
Ms Denise Phua, Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Mariam Jaafar asked about different aspects of our new approach. From the Primary 4 batch in 2027, higher-ability learners will remain in their schools and benefit from school-based development, without having to disrupt their learning environments and the social bonds they have formed. Students who can benefit from further stretch beyond school-based programmes can attend after-school modules at nearby schools. These after-school modules will bring like-minded peers together to interact and inquire more deeply on selected topics. We will ensure a good geographical spread of schools offering these programmes, so that they are accessible to all eligible students regardless of where they study.
Together, these programmes will provide higher-ability learners a more customised suite of development opportunities according to their interests and strengths. They aim to cultivate curiosity, creativity and a love for learning in students. They are not designed to help students perform better in mainstream examinations. Neither is the aim to introduce higher subject levels ahead of time, which would still be bounded by the core curriculum and examination requirements.
I wish to assure Mr Leong Mun Wai, Ms Mariam Jaafar, Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Mohd Fahmi that MOE will support schools and teachers to deliver this new approach effectively and consistently. MOE will guide them in using multiple sources of information to identify higher-ability learners. These holistic assessments will include the students’ academic abilities and social-emotional readiness for the programme.
MOE will continue to support our primary schools by providing more curriculum resources and professional learning for teachers to support the cognitive and social-emotional development of our higher-ability learners. For example, we will continue to train teachers to understand the cognitive and affective traits of higher-ability learners, establish a classroom climate that encourages exploration, creativity and personal reflection for these students. There will be platforms for schools to share best practices on how they design, implement and monitor their school-based programmes.
With the broadening of access to programmes for higher-ability learners in all schools from 7% to 10% of each cohort and after-school modules being accessible to eligible students from all schools, students will be able to benefit from the new approach regardless of the school they attend.
Dr Wan Rizal asked about resource allocation and Mr Louis Chua asked about class sizes. MOE will continue to resource schools according to the learning needs of their students. While the typical class size in primary schools can go up to 40, the pupil to teacher ratio of 15 is comparable to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. Today, schools already have the flexibility to group students for learning based on their needs. For example, Foundation-level classes are typically smaller, with between 10 and 20 students. With this new approach, while there will be no change in the typical class size in schools, schools are able to size classes accordingly for the school-based programmes and after-school modules for higher-ability learners, as well as for learners who need more learning support, to ensure that the programmes achieve the intended outcomes.
Dr Wan Rizal also asked about strengthening access to quality education and support for all students regardless of their backgrounds. These changes to the GEP will indeed broaden the support for higher-ability learners and provide more opportunities for them to maximise their potential, regardless of their background.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Thank you, Speaker. I want to thank the Minister for the courage to look into changing the GEP. It has been a sacred cow for many years in our MOE system. It is also aligned with the Minister's vision, which I fully support, of making education pathways to be more student-centric and to bring out the best in each student.
My question to the Minister is: why not go all the way out to let students pick the subjects in which they can have most passion and ability for, at the highest level that they can pursue and attain? Why is there still a need for labelling a programme as for gifted or not gifted, especially if we have the concept that giftedness could be in academics, sports, arts, leadership and so forth? Why not go all the way and scrap all these labels and let each perform to his or her best, and study to his or her best?
I am just concerned that if we continue to now decentralise the GEP to every school for the top 10%, then, would it be possible that it would get back to the old situation where there is a so-called elite class, and families and students will chase that class, and there is this Express stream possibility and the rest?
My question to the Minister is: why not go all the way, according to his vision that many support?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will make three points in response to Ms Denise Phua's comment. I thank her for her support for what MOE is doing.
First, why do we not allow students to pick their subjects? In fact, we actually do. In the new approach, what we are saying is that we look at the students, we look at what they are interested in, where they have strengths in. We want to combine their areas of strength with their areas of interest, in order for them to be enrolled in certain classes. This is to have our education system, where possible, tailored to the respective needs of our students. But, of course, it would not be possible for us to run some of these classes just on the basis of interest, without an assessment of the ability – which brings me to my second point.
For all of us familiar with teaching and teaching pedagogies, we know that it is actually very tough to teach to the average where you have a class of very diverse abilities, from very high-needs students to very high-ability students. What we want to do in our vision going forward is that we are able to cluster the students of generally the same abilities in the same domain for more effective teaching and learning. This will also help to alleviate the workload of our teachers instead of having them to teach to the average across a class with very diverse abilities in a finite period of class time.
Having said that, we come to the third point – which is, we all know that when our children develop, it is not just about learning academically in one area or another area. We also want them to develop holistically. We want to make sure that their social-emotional development commensurates with their academic development. This is why in Singapore, we have moved away from either of the extremes: one extreme is where we mix people of all abilities together and put them in the same class, regardless of abilities and interests; the other extreme is to segregate everyone just according to their specific interest and they never mix with other people with different interests.
We want the best of both worlds and this is how we have organised the MOE system – which is that for selected topics and subjects, we will group the students of similar abilities together so that it is easier and more manageable for the teachers to teach in a much more focused way. At the same time, beyond those subjects and areas, there will always and there must always be opportunities for them to mix with students with diverse backgrounds, with different abilities so that as they grow up, they also learn to live and work with people with different abilities.
This is the approach that we are adopting to make sure that on one hand, we want the benefits of focused teaching and learning; on the other hand, we want a diversity of backgrounds, of people so that our students can mix and grow up together. We will certainly take into consideration the students' interests and abilities in assigning them to the classes that will best bring out their potential.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Minister. In relation to the new higher-ability programme, can I check again with the Minister if there will be a change in the form class size for those who are in this programme and those who are not in this programme? One of the learning points or points highlighted by many GEP students, past and present, and even parents, is that they shared that the smaller class size of the GEP is one of the key features. I think many educators themselves have also expressed a desire for a smaller class size so that they would be able to, as the Minister said, develop each child to his or her highest potential holistically and I think having that smaller class size will enable them to better do so.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I make the following points in response to Mr Louis Chua's comments?
First, I think many of us talk about class size. I want to lay out the context of what we mean by class size in today's Singapore education context. It is true that we organise our class sizes generally on average between 30 and 40 people, depending on primary school to secondary school levels. But actually, if we visit our schools, as I do regularly, you will find that in today's Singapore's education system, we have class sizes, from a few like five, all the way to 40. It all depends on the needs of the students. For the higher-needs students on both ends of the spectrum, we will tend to have smaller class sizes in order to cater to their diverse needs.
That is the first point. Today, we have a range of class sizes, there is no one-size-fits-all class size because it all depends in the needs of the students. In fact, for some of the very high-needs students, we have pull-out classes for one-to-one or one-to-two. Those are for the higher-needs students.
Having said that, let me take a step back and explain how we manage this issue of class size with the finite resources that we have. If we look at the OECD reports and if we look at many of the studies overseas, the main determinant of the quality of our education system, as I explained yesterday during the Adjournment Motion, is not necessarily the class size. The main and most important determinant of the quality of our education outcome is the quality of our teachers and how we support them to enable them to use the most effective pedagogical tools for the different types of classes.
\t
Assuming that this is the average class size that we have resources for the entire system, how do we resource it? We cannot change the average very much because, in every society, there are only so many quality teachers that we can recruit. If we expand the numbers, we do not want to compromise the quality. So, if we cannot change the average, what we need to do is what I call, we \"tilt the curve\". How do we \"tilt the curve\"?
For the higher-need students, we have smaller class sizes to cater to their needs. But on the other hand, we must learn to leverage technologies to allow other class sizes that are not so high-needs, in order for the students to do learning on their own to complement what the teachers are teaching them. So, today, actually, there is no such thing as an average class size in our school system.
That is a mathematical concept. But in reality, we have a range of class sizes, from the smaller class sizes to the bigger class sizes, according to the specific needs of our students. And, of course, I would like to thank everyone for your support for MOE to have more resources to support our teachers. But we are very cognisant that the quality of our education outcome is much more dependent on the quality of our teachers and the support that they get, rather than just a class size issue alone.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you for your indulgence, Mr Speaker. My question actually follows up on this. I am very sensitive to the Minister's response that the class size alone is not a determinant and it is imperative that we also allow quality teachers to address our students. That said, as he acknowledged, it is, and I quote, \"difficult to teach to the average\".
While we have dedicated significant resources to both ends of the distribution, the lower-ability as well as the higher-ability end, effectively, what we are saying when we have a large class size is that we do not believe that there is enough diversity of ability within the middle of the distribution for us to actually need to have smaller class sizes.
I am wondering if the Minister would agree with me that, actually, if we have smaller class sizes, there can be greater tailoring also for the needs of the middle-ability students.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think that is the wrong way to characterise what I have said. Let me explain once again and let me share what MOE is trying to do. We can all agree that the quality of our teachers is most important. We can also all agree that there is a finite number of quality teachers within any system.
MOE will be very happy to be able to recruit many more quality teachers if we can do so and we will continue to do so and expand our recruitment, whether it is from the young graduates to the mid-career people, to expand our teaching pool. But no matter how many teachers we have, it comes back to this concept – we are not applying all the teaching resources evenly to all classes.
Which class requires what class size depends on the needs of the students. It does not matter whether it is one end of the spectrum or the other end of the spectrum or in the middle. The same concept applies. Then the question is: how do we break what I call the \"trilemma\" of any public education system: achieve quality at scale, achieve speed of innovation and achieve affordability?
Why is it a \"trilemma\"? Because you can go through it in your mind, in most public education systems, you can, at most, get two out of three. If you have quality and speed, chances are that it is not so affordable. If you have quality and it is affordable, chances are that you cannot scale. If you have scale and you are affordable, chances are that the quality is not very good.
But there is a way for us to break this conventional trilemma and, that is, how we leverage technology to use an adaptive training system. Adaptive training system will be the way that we can break the conventional trilemma, where we want to achieve quality, speed and affordability. What is an example of an adaptive training system? Look at the world of gamification today.
Young people play games up to the level that they are comfortable with and they can be repeatedly stretched until they reach the next level. These same technologies are available today on the market where students with high abilities to high needs can all be taught at a level with the aid of the computer. I will give a simple example: English language learning.
In NorthLight School, there are higher-need students. They need time, they need many more practices in order to get some basic fundamentals right. In the past, it was one teacher to one child in NorthLight School. Today, the teacher can supplement his or her abilities with technology.
The child can repeat the same exercise multiple times without overly taxing the teacher, who has to focus on other students and, yet, at the same time, the child does not have to feel pressurised that he is impinging on the teacher's time nor the stigma that he is repeating the lessons. That same technology can be used for the middle- or the high-end students, where people use the same technology to improve their language proficiency, according to the levels that they are at.
So, for us, I think we need to transcend this debate about whether class size or not class size. In fact, in one of my speeches recently, which I have shared with the National Institute of Education (NIE), we give ourselves this challenge: if in medicine, in the future and now, we can produce a batch of one, that means medicine customised to the one person; in education, can we, one day, asymptotically, arrive at the holy grail, whereby our students can have the pedagogy of one?
Actually, it is not so far-fetched because the pedagogy of one means mass customisation according to the diverse abilities of our students, complemented by technology using artificial intelligence, data science and the science of learning. This is the vision of how we want to go forward to break the conventional trilemma, whereby we have finite numbers of quality teachers that will allow us to scale, achieve quality and make sure that it is affordable.
So, whether it is one end of the curve or the other end of the curve or somewhere in the middle, we will try our best to complement our best teaching resources with the best technology in order for us to mass customise accordingly to bring out the best in each of our students.
\tMr Speaker: We are only at Question No 2. So, I would request for questions to be succinct and answers to be succinct as well. Mr Leong Mun Wai.
\tMr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Speaker. Allow me to have a little bit of a preamble.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Leong, try to keep it short in the interest of time.
\tMr Leong Mun Wai: Yes. An ideal education system is one that allows a child to learn over time at his own pace, based on his ability and interest. A high-ability child should be given more stimulation, while a slow-learning one should be given more time to develop. I acknowledge that MOE has slowly moved towards that in recent years. But like what Member Ms Denise Phua had said just now, I think we can do more.
The problem with our current education approach is that it is still very much focused on sorting out the students and labelling them. That has a lot of implication on the subsequent academic advancement of the child. As a result, parents play to the rules and pressure their kids, often at a very young age. So, my question to the Minister is: does the Ministry have plans to reduce the sorting and examination pressure currently experienced by our students?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think if Mr Leong Mun Wai has listened to what I said in the last half an hour, he will understand why there is a need for us to group our students of diverse abilities into groups of roughly similar abilities, in order for us to ease the load and to provide better focus in our teaching.
Our aim to allow different students to be in different groups of roughly the same ability is not to stigmatise them. It is to enable them to be in a learning environment that best suits them. Every examination – and we have been repeating this – is not a competition to compete with other people. I said in my Adjournment Motion yesterday, we want our students to keep having the mental model to surpass themselves, rather than surpass other people in an exam. To surpass themselves in life, rather than to surpass other people in an exam. How we respond, as a society, will complement what MOE is teaching. Whether a student feels stigmatised or not, we all each have a responsibility.
If we do not change our mindset, if we label our students because of the classes that they go to, then we have failed our students and no amount of policy or structural change will help us. The reason why we have Full Subject-based Banding (FSBB) is because we have moved away from grouping students of average abilities together. We do not look at people and say: you are gifted, means you are gifted in everything; you are average, means you are average in everything.
We know that different people have different strengths and this is the spirit behind FSBB. This is the spirit behind what we do in the education system: allow every student to understand each and every of their strengths and weaknesses; know and have in them the mindset that, \"while I may be strong in something, I need not be strong in everything and I must respect other people who are strong in other things that are different from me\". Together, with our diversity of strengths, we can build a better Singapore.
\tMr Speaker: Last supplementary question. Apologies to Mr Liang, I will give it to Mr Darryl David.
\tMr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to just ask a supplementary question on a very important point that the Minister made in his opening answer. The Minister mentioned that the students who are going to be selected for the enhanced abilities stream, we should not see this enhanced abilities stream in a way as a kind of streaming that will allow them added advantage for their mainstream subjects. I think this is key.
So, could the Minister share how MOE would design the curriculum of the programme, such that the students who are selected for this programme, that it will not be a programme that will allow them to have added advantage, say, in their English and Mathematics at the Primary School Leaving Examination, should they be selected for the English and Mathematics enhanced stream, or the enhanced programme for these two subjects?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, indeed, the selection of all these higher-ability programmes is not to help the students to better prepare for the conventional exams. So, let me say that again. The purpose of selection for these higher-ability, or differently-abled students, is not to better prepare them for the conventional exams. They, on their own, would have done very well for their conventional exams. Our role is to provide them with more opportunities to stretch their abilities in different dimensions.
Let me give an example. If someone is selected for the English programme, that person may be highly, more able in languages and we would like to expose them to different genres of literature, expose them to different kinds of linguistic issues that might challenge them, might stretch their abilities. Likewise, for Mathematics, we may expose the student to different kinds of concepts, different kinds of challenges to see how they respond to these.
We want to make sure that the student understands that when they join a module, there is no stigma to leave the module if they find it unsuitable for themselves or if they want to go and take time to pursue other things during that phase of their life. We want everyone to understand that when you are chosen, you have certain abilities in certain areas. But that does not mean that they have abilities in all areas. So, neither should the student feel, \"I must excel in all areas just because I have been chosen\".
Finally, I might say this. I have thought very hard and I have not come to an answer yet, because I think whenever we use the phrases \"higher-ability programme\", \"gifted programme\", there seems to be a suggestion that, somehow, if there is a high, there must be a low. If you are gifted, there must be a non-gifted. Maybe we should just reframe our mind and say there are different types of abilities, different dimensions of abilities; not whether it is high, whether it is low, left, right, front, centre.
Those are not very helpful. Let us help our children understand and appreciate their diverse abilities, find confidence in developing those abilities so that, in time to come, they can make the best use of those abilities to make a contribution to Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improving Well-being-related Resources for Special Education Teachers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Education whether there are any plans to improve existing well-being-related resources for special education teachers to address stress and burnout risks.
\tThe Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, Sir, many of us know that the work of our special education (SPED) teachers is emotionally and physically taxing, and we are thankful for their strong commitment. The Ministry of Education (MOE) works closely with the social service agencies (SSAs) running SPED schools to support our teachers' well-being.
In the immediate term, SPED schools will implement the Journeys of Excellence Package. This package was developed by MOE in collaboration with SPED schools and includes funding support for competitive salaries and professional development support to enhance the professionalism of teachers. SPED schools will also appoint a school staff developer to look after the learning needs of our teachers. This package will strengthen the hiring and retention of teachers to help address the high workload in our SPED schools.
SPED schools are also implementing measures to further improve teachers' workload and well-being. Parents are reminded to respect teachers' personal time outside of working hours. During the school holidays, teaching staff are given protected time to recharge. Teachers can also reach out to their school leaders directly for support, including to raise concerns or seek advice.
More importantly, in the medium to longer term, MOE is working with the SSAs and SPED schools on the following efforts, as they may be more effective at the sector level, rather than the individual school level.
First, MOE will work with SSAs and SPED schools to deepen the professional capabilities in our SPED teachers and leaders with deep knowledge and practice in curriculum and some specialisation in the various disability profiles. To be effective, this will be done collectively across the SSAs and SPED schools, rather than each school developing its expertise on its own. This is also a more systematic approach to support the professional development of our SPED teachers and leaders. I look forward to the various SPED schools, serving the same segment of special needs, coming together to lead these Communities of Practice and share their best practices.
Second, SPED educators have told me that it is not easy to take time off work to go for training and professional development. MOE will work with our SPED Schools and SSAs to jointly develop a pool of relief teachers who can step in when needed, so that SPED teachers can go for training and be supported when they need to be away for other reasons such as medical or urgent leave.
Third, to strengthen their manpower resourcing, MOE will explore working with SPED schools to do joint marketing as a sector to better recruit teachers and improve their human resource management and processes. I look forward to working with our SSAs and SPED schools to make the career of our SPED teachers as respected, as professionally enriching and as personally satisfying as being a mainstream teacher. Where SPED teachers and leaders can have the confidence that their progression and development will parallel that of our mainstream teachers as a system at the sector level, rather than just within a SPED school.
Fourth, MOE is also in discussions with SPED schools and SSAs on how we can provide mainstream and SPED teachers with the opportunities to learn from each other, either through attachments or possibly even rotations, so as to appreciate other student profiles and contexts. This is similar to the current arrangement where we have teachers from MOE schools seconded to SPED schools.
Fifth, MOE will work with the SSAs to see how we can better achieve economies of scale in administration and infrastructure support, without losing the nimbleness required to cater to the unique needs for the respective SPED schools.
Just as in the mainstream education sector, teachers are key in the SPED sector. We must continue to take care of our SPED teachers and strengthen the professional capabilities in SPED so that SPED students can grow up to be active in the community or the workplace and valued by society. Achieving this will require the collective effort of the SSAs and SPED schools, which MOE is committed to support.
The key to managing the workload must be our ability to grow and work together, not just on the quantity of our SPED teachers, but also the quality of our SPED teachers, beyond the respective SPED school level. I am glad to share that we have gotten in-principle support from our SPED school community to work towards these collective goals as a sector.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Thank you to the Minister for sharing on how we can upgrade the SPED fraternity. Just two supplementary questions. Firstly, many of our SPED teachers are exposed to a lot of risks, including physical risks. How is MOE stepping to mitigate that? Secondly, is MOE already working with mental health, trained professionals to better look after the mental well-being and stress burnout of our SPED educators?
\t
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me address the two supplementary questions from Mr Patrick Tay. On the second issue, yes, MOE is making available and expanding our resources available to all our teachers from both mainstream and SPED schools to see how we can better help them manage their mental health, because only with well-balanced happy teachers, will we have well-balanced and happy students.
On the first issue, yes, we acknowledge that for some of the SPED schools, the physical risks to our teachers can be much higher than the rest. And we will have to tackle these issues in various ways. First, it will be the kind of teaching support that we give to our teachers. Second, it is the kind of training that we give to our teachers and the Allied Professionals. And third, it is the kind of infrastructure design that we have in order to allow our teachers to have the comfort and the peace of mind that should something happen, there are ways that we can support them. This can range from rooms for the child who is having a meltdown to calm down, to places whereby our teachers can also have a respite from their duties, taking care of the special needs children, who are also very high-needs children.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): I need to declare that I am a volunteer helping two special schools. It is true that burnout, physical risks are quite common amongst the SPED schools. And, in fact, a number of the staff are female; so, where physical risk is involved, they are, indeed, at risk. So, we need to make sure that we protect them.
My second point is, the Journeys of Excellence Package that was mentioned by the Minister, covers mostly SPED teachers. But within the SPED schools setting, there are speech pathologists, occupational therapists, coaches and psychologists. Many of them work in the exact same setting. In fact, they handle even higher risk or more challenging cases. So, we must include them in whatever we come up with, in terms of the excellence for SPED schools.
My third point is also with the increase in parental leave, maternity leave and so forth, which we must support at the national level, we have also increased the workload of many of the SPED staff, because it is not easy to just create or develop a relief pool who can just move into the class and replace the usual staff. So, there are issues which are of concern in the SPED school setting.
I know it is important and I thank the Minister for saying that you have formed a group to look into these, but can this group who looks into these issues include the other non-teachers, the other staff as well. And also, look at the best in the world, best in class resources and hear from the staff themselves as to what might be useful when developing these packages of help.
\t
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Ms Denise Phua for the three points. We agree with the three points. The first point is that we are indeed looking at the non-teaching staff as part of the entire ecosystem. So, I want to assure everyone that it is not that we are just looking at the SPED or the mainstream teachers alone. Both the SPED and the mainstream sectors, both the teachers and the non-teaching staff, we are looking at it holistically, because they all form the collective community who take care of our children, SPED or otherwise. That is the first point.
Second, indeed, one of the reasons why we want to form these Communities of Practice is because the SPED specialisations are much more finely calibrated than in the mainstream schools. This is where a different SPED profile will require teachers with different background and training. We have collective agreement with all the SPED schools and the SSAs that we must come together. We can no longer just operate as a fragmented sector, where each and every one of us are just trying to do the best for ourselves. That, in itself, is necessary, but not sufficient. We need to come together as a sector and ask ourselves, how can we share the best practices and also learn from other countries where there are better or different practices from us.
For example, even just within autism, Ms Denise Phua will know that there is a wide spectrum of different needs, from mild to serious. There are also different intervention techniques. We want to be able to level up the professional competencies of our SPED school teachers and community, and this is why coming together, having each other as partners in the journey is so important to levelling up the competencies and professionalism of our SPED sector.
Last but not least, the third point. MOE, both for the mainstream schools and in the SPED schools, is keenly aware that the increase in shared parental leave and other leave schemes will have an impact on our workforce because many of the people at the child-bearing age are with us in MOE and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF). I think we are the largest shareholder in this segment of the population.
Having said that, that is why we need to make sure that we put in place measures, particularly, in the SPED schools, to make sure that we have a pool of relief teachers who can come in and help our SPED teachers when they need to go on leave – if they go on maternity leave, on urgent medical leave, or if they just have to take some time off to go and attend courses.
But I must say this, and we need the support of everyone here, because finding relief teachers to come into the SPED schools is one order of magnitude more difficult than finding relief teachers for the mainstream schools. A Math teacher can go in and teach Math in a larger number of mainstream schools. A SPED teacher that specialises in a special needs profile is more likely to only be able to cater to that profile of students and their needs. So, for us to build up that pool, it is not something that is easy, but it is something that MOE is committed to working on with MSF, the SSAs and our SPED schools, to build this up progressively. I look forward to everyone's support.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of Capacity and Earnings in Point-to-Point Transport Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Transport what is the Government’s assessment on whether the Point-to-Point Transport sector’s current capacity is sustainable in the long term.
5 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Government monitors the trend in the number of drivers in the Point-to-Point (P2P) sector on the road in the past year; and (b) if so, what is its assessment on how the supply of P2P drivers compares with the demand for their services.
6 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry monitors the earnings of point-to-point (P2P) taxi and private hire car drivers; (b) if so, what is the average trip fare earned by such drivers in the second quarter of 2024; and (c) how does this compare to previous quarters in 2023.
\t
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 4 to 6 in today's Order Paper together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please do.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Thank you. The point-to-point transport, or P2P, sector complements our public transport network, with an average of 606,000 daily trips made by some 67,000 taxis and chauffeured private hire cars, or PHCs, in 2023. We watch developments in this sector closely, but the Government does not set fares for the P2P sector, as these are determined by the P2P operators, based on market competition.
We also do not cap the number of P2P drivers, but instead allow the supply of P2P drivers to move in tandem with commuter demand and price signals. The appropriate level of supply for the sector depends on the level of commuter demand and the fares that they are willing to pay. When demand is higher and fares increase, we can expect more drivers to enter the market. Conversely, when there is an excess supply of drivers, fares will drop and some drivers may decide to exit the market.
Following the easing of COVID-19 measures in March and April 2022, demand for P2P services rose along with other transport services, which led to higher fares from surge pricing. In the past two years, P2P operators had also adjusted fares to help drivers cope with higher operating and fuel costs, such as the temporary driver's fee implemented by ride-hail operators and the increase in taxi fares and surcharges by street-hail operators.
In response to higher fares, more drivers entered the market. Between the second quarter of 2023 and the second quarter of 2024, the number of active PHCs and taxis increased by 8%. However, the average daily number of P2P trips increased by only 1% during the same period.
As a result, P2P fares and consequently drivers' earnings have moderated. From a peak at the start of 2023, average surge prices and net ride-hail fares had declined in the first half of 2023, back to levels we saw in the first half of 2022.
P2P fares are also subject to seasonal fluctuations in demand. In months where there are major events, such as the Taylor Swift and Coldplay concerts in the first quarter of 2024, or during festive seasons, such as Chinese New Year, there tends to be an increase in travel among locals and visitors, which leads to higher P2P demand and higher fares. Conversely, demand tends to decline during the school holidays where many Singaporeans are abroad. These seasonal effects are another source of fluctuations in drivers' income.
\t
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) understands the concerns of the affected P2P drivers. As part of the ongoing P2P review, we will continue to look at ways to support the smooth and efficient functioning of the market. These include measures to reduce operating costs, such as the extension of the statutory lifespan for taxis, which we announced earlier this year. The operators should pass through these cost savings to drivers via lower rentals. Some drivers have also voiced concerns about foreign vehicles providing illegal P2P services which affect demand. LTA has stepped up enforcement against these errant drivers in recent months and will continue to do so.
For drivers who are considering alternative forms of employment, we will also work with the operators and the Labour Movement to assist them. These drivers can tap on various Government programmes to support their career transition, such as the SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme.
Mr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for her very comprehensive reply. I have two supplementary questions.
The first is on the feedback from taxi and PHC drivers. They have told the Labour Movement that over the last six months especially, their earnings and bookings have dropped by more than 30%. They certainly understand that market forces are at work, but they also hope to have the Ministry's view on how it can support the P2P drivers during times of protracted low fares. How do we balance between adequate supply and the livelihoods of these drivers? And secondly, in establishing the optimal capacity for P2P vis-a-vis other public transportation modes, what are the key considerations by the Ministry?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. On the first question, as I have said earlier in my reply, the supply of drivers has increased much faster than the increase in the number of trips over the last one year till the second quarter of this year. That obviously means that some drivers will see a decline in earnings.
But we need to take this in context in terms of the P2P market trends since the end of the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, in the middle of 2022, the situation was reversed. That was a time when the demand for P2P services increased significantly, when many of the P2P drivers had not returned back to the market. So, we saw higher fares and hence, higher drivers' earnings, and commuters actually faced difficulties in getting a ride. But as more drivers enter the market, the mismatch between demand and supply has moderated. P2P is fundamentally a demand-responsive transport mode and changes in fares are a reflection of the market forces at work.
While average fares have declined in recent months, there are fluctuations across the year. So, there are times when fares do peak, as I have said, when there are major events or during festive seasons. Even during the day itself, there are periods when demand is high and drivers see higher surge prices. Hence, it is important to look at total earnings across time instead of just lower fare periods.
Having said that, as I have noted, we understand the concerns of the drivers. So, what the Ministry of Transport (MOT) and LTA do are to make sure that we enable the drivers to be able to make informed decisions, decide on when to drive and what rides to take. And to do that, our regulations on the operators in terms of transparency for commission as well as fares charged on the drivers and commuters, that is important. Also, our rules regarding multi-homing are to ensure that the drivers are not locked into any operators' platform. Therefore, they can then decide which platform to use to maximise their earnings, based on their driving preferences. That is the way we ensure that fares really reflect the value of P2P services and that the drivers are paid fairly for their efforts.
In our ongoing P2P review, we will continue to look at ways to see how we can ensure the smooth and efficient functioning of the market and reduce friction, so that existing as well as new drivers can stay in the sector to match evolving demand.
With regard to optimal supply, as I have said, we do not limit the supply of drivers or the number of drivers that come into the market. So, the optimal supply will depend on evolving demand. In our case, when there is an ageing population, because P2P actually complements the mass public transport sector, one of the options or demands that P2P can meet is, like taking the elderly patients for medical check-ups and so on. We think that demand could rise from seniors and caregivers for P2P services as the population ages.
But at the same time, because we will continue to improve and expand on our public transport system, and if more households are within a shorter distance from an Mass Rapid Transit station, that could negatively impact on P2P demand within that area. So, instead of pre-determining supply, again, what we want to do is to ensure that the P2P sector remains open and dynamic so that the market remains contestable for new and innovative players so that there is competition.
Also, if drivers wish to enter the market, they will be subjected to very reasonable vocational licensing requirements as well as access to vehicles. And as I have said, coupled with our regulations about transparent commissions and fares as well as multi-homing rules, that will help to ensure that supply will adjust to demand.
Mr Speaker: Ms Jean See.
\tMs See Jinli Jean (Nominated Member): I just wanted to touch on the point on the projection of demand. One of the things which is quite challenging is relating to projected demand. As drivers tend to rent vehicles and for the vehicle rental contracts, for these to be sustainable, it is typically for a six-month period or longer. I have two supplementary questions.
One, what measures can MOT introduce to help P2P drivers have better visibility of projected demand?
The second is relating to the vehicle leasing contracts, they are sometimes crafted in a way that makes it difficult for the drivers to exit the contracts. So, would the Government consider providing affordable mediation to assist drivers who are locked into such unfair leasing contracts?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. As I have said earlier in my reply, we do not pre-determine supply. It is a market-based approach. What we do is to help the market function, as much as possible, efficiently and smoothly, so that supply responds to demand based on price signals.
For the drivers, we have constant dialogue with the associations, the Labour Movement as well as the operators, and also look into information that is provided by the P2P operators to see how we can help to ensure that supply will match evolving demand.
As I have said, we are undertaking a P2P review and one of the things that we are looking at is how to ensure that supply will continue to match evolving demand, including, for instance, looking even at our regulations and rules about how operators can make sure that their commissions and fares are transparent, and how we can ensure that the drivers are not locked into any platform of the operators, whether these rules and regulations need to be refined, as well as those that we have already announced earlier at the Committee of Supply.
With regard to vehicle contracts, indeed, we have also been talking to the associations and operators to look at how we can assist, educate and enlighten prospective drivers to be aware of the contracts that they take up with the car rental companies, for instance,. And we will continue the conversation and see how we can assist.
Mr Speaker: I am moving things along. Sorry, Mr Ang Wei Neng. Next question, Ms Hany Soh.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Drive Support for New Shared Parental Leave Scheme and Commencement Date for Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Ms Hany Soh asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance with regard to the new shared parental leave scheme (NSPL) announced on 18 August 2024 (a) what is the rationale for commencing the NSPL on 1 April 2025; (b) whether the Government will consider bringing forward the NSPL commencement date to 2024; and (c) if the commencement date cannot be brought forward, whether there are alternative support measures available to prospective parents who will otherwise miss out on the NSPL benefits.
8 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what are the planned efforts with the tripartite partners to drive support for the new shared parental leave scheme, especially on the utilisation of paternity leave.
\tThe Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Parliamentary Question Nos 7 and 8 together?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Thank you. The new Shared Parental Leave (SPL) scheme is a significant enhancement of our parental leave provisions, providing 10 additional weeks of paid leave that can be shared between both parents to care for their infant.
The implementation date of 1 April 2025 was set after extensive consultation with the tripartite partners. We had considered implementing the new scheme earlier so that more parents can benefit. However, employers had requested for a longer lead time to prepare for this change, as companies need to update their administrative processes and to put in place new measures to manage their employees’ extended absences. This is especially so because the new SPL scheme involves a leave-sharing feature, which requires coordination between both parents and their respective employers. Time is also needed for the Government to effect various legislative and operational changes.
We fully understand that parents who miss out on the enhancements could feel disappointed. However, the deferred start date is necessary to ensure that all stakeholders involved are ready to implement the changes. Implementing the new SPL from 1 April 2025 strikes a balance between giving employers sufficient time to make the necessary adjustments in this tight labour market and allowing parents to benefit from the enhancements as soon as possible. As such, we are not able to bring forward the implementation date.
Parents whose babies are born before 1 April 2025 will still be eligible for comprehensive support under the Marriage and Parenthood package. These include the recent enhancements to the Baby Bonus Scheme that provides for higher financial support, as well as the doubling of Government-Paid Paternity Leave, on a voluntary basis, and Unpaid Infant Care Leave since 1 January 2024 to give parents more time to care for their newborn or to settle caregiving arrangements.
During this transition period, before the new SPL takes effect, we encourage employers to update their manpower and business approaches to facilitate more progressive workplace practices and to foster a more family-friendly culture. Employers who can provide more than the current legislated provisions, whether in the form of leave or other support, are encouraged to do so as this can position them as employers of choice.
The Government will continue to work closely with the tripartite partners to support the implementation of the enhanced parental leave provisions. We will organise webinars for employers to understand the operational details of the scheme and to provide more information on existing grants and resources employers can tap on to strengthen their manpower planning capabilities and to support their operational and system adjustments.
Our research has shown that utilisation of parental leave is often dependent on workplace support. We will work with the tripartite partners to shape workplace norms and culture, including to establish the norm of fathers taking leave to care for and bond with their infants.
We will also emphasise the need for good communication and responsible behaviour on the part of both employers and employees. Employees should be mindful of their employers’ operational needs and act responsibly by informing their employers as early as possible once they know that they are expecting a child. Employers, on their part, should be facilitative and supportive of employees’ parental leave plans. Employers and employees should work together to put in place covering arrangements that best meet the needs and constraints on both sides.
We need to work together as a society to create a culture that embraces families and children, and supports fathers in playing a greater role in child-raising while meeting employers’ needs. Together, let us build a Singapore Made For Families.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
\t
\tMs Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): I thank Minister Indranee for the response. I believe there are a lot of employers out there who welcome these ideas and are thinking of ways on how to adopt them. But on the other hand, there will also be employers who adopt a wait-and-see situation to see how the situation develops by the time the implementation is in place next year.
So, I am thinking, whether the Government is working closely with the tripartite partners to identify the good practices of current and existing employers or those who are already ready to adopt these practices to share and amplify such good practices, so as to encourage more employers to come onboard and embrace this in time and ahead of the timelines?
\tMs Indranee Rajah: I thank Ms Hany Soh for her supplementary question. The answer is, yes, we are working with the employers and the unions on this. In fact, I think the point Ms Soh made was that some employers may not be acting proactively, they may adopt a wait-and-see approach. But what employers should bear in mind is that come 1 April 2025, it is mandatory, it comes into effect.
So, they should use the time between now and 1 April 2025 to get their processes in place. In fact, that start date of 1 April 2025 was at the request of the Singapore National Employers' Federation and the other employers that we spoke to – because they needed the time to put this in place. We are also, as I mentioned earlier, conducting webinars for the employers because many of the employers do have questions. In the engagements that I have had with them, I found that many of the questions are actually operational ones. They are the detailed, technical ones and sometimes, they ask what happens in this situation, what happens in that situation. We thought that the best way to deal with that is to have these webinars for them, so it allows all the employers to come, ask their questions and share their best practices with each other.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines): I thank the Minister for her reply. Just one supplementary question. Across the Labour Movement, both the younger workers appreciate the move and the older workers similarly understand the reason why this has to be done. For a workforce that is ageing and could shrink over time, the worry among the older workers or those who already have children and do not intend to have more, their worry is, \"I have to cover more duties and I might need to do this for many more years to come if the Government policies work as well as they are supposed to\".
So, would the Ministry provide guidance on how employers can better support these workers, the existing ones, in carrying the additional load? How can some of the support from the Government be better shared with the workers and can we expect further support for these workers?
\tMs Indranee Rajah: I thank Mr Desmond Choo for his supplementary question, which is a very valid concern. Because in the post-announcement engagements that we have done, a number of employers have asked us how will they cope. Mr Choo is representing the viewpoint of the older employees; or maybe not older, because it could also be the single employees who will have to take up some of the slack.
So, there are a few things. The first thing to remember is that this is Government-Paid Parental Leave, or Shared Parental Leave, which means that the employers do not have to bear the salary for the period when the employee is on Shared Parental Leave. That means that frees up the money that they would otherwise have had to pay. With this money, you could hire other workers to come in as substitutes. That is one possible solution. Another possible solution would be, those who have to cover for their colleagues, you could pay them extra, which is fair, because they are carrying an additional load. And you remunerate and you compensate them for that. So, yes, for the period of time when their colleague is away, they have to work harder but at least you are compensating them.
We also encourage employers to continue to invest in technology and systems that would help with automation, digitalisation – anything that lightens the workload. For those, they can tap on things like the Productivity Solutions Grant and all the other grants that the Government has made available.
Finally, this is more under the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) than the Prime Minister's Office, but MOM has been putting aside training and packages that employers can tap on, for their human resource departments to know how to do this better and to plan for this. Because it is not just the Shared Parental Leave; do not forget, there is also the flexible work arrangements – all of which have a common feature, which is this flexibility and how do you replace people or cover in their absence. So, these are resources and tools which the employers can tap on.
\tMr Speaker: I am trying to get as many Parliamentary Questions (PQs) to be answered today as possible. So, I will only allow Members who filed PQs to ask supplementary questions for today.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Investigation and Security Measures following Mobile Guardian App Breach","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Education in respect of the recent cybersecurity incident involving the Mobile Guardian Device Management Application which has affected students in Singapore (a) what is the Ministry doing to help students who have had their study notes wiped out; (b) whether the Ministry has reviewed such software installed in tablets used by students to ensure that similar incidents do not recur; and (c) what necessary action will the Ministry take against the supplier of the software.
10 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Education (a) why was Mobile Guardian's device management app continued to be used after its data security breach in April 2024 which caused the exfiltration of personal data of parents and staff from 127 schools; (b) whether contingency plans were instituted prior to the loss of Internet access and classroom materials from students’ personal learning devices in July 2024 and the cybersecurity incident causing students’ devices to be remotely wiped in August 2024; and (c) whether affected students are adequately supported.
11 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Education with regard to the recent cybersecurity incident involving the Mobile Guardian Device Management Application that has affected students in Singapore (a) whether an update can be provided on how the Ministry is helping students who have been affected; and (b) what steps are being taken to ensure that similar incidents do not occur again in the future.
12 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Education following the cybersecurity incident involving the Mobile Guardian application (a) what targeted support is being offered to affected students experiencing distress, particularly those with existing mental health conditions; (b) for students whose data is unrecoverable, how is the Ministry assisting them to prepare for their upcoming examinations and ensuring their access to adequate learning materials; and (c) whether examination grades for the affected students will be moderated this year.
13 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Education whether there will be a review of the usage of technology by our students after the global cyber-security breach of the Mobile Guardian Device Management Application that affected our secondary students.
14 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Education whether there will be a review done of our students' usage of technology for learning to assess if there has been an over-reliance on technology to the detriment of our students, including losing learning notes that the students have recorded and kept on their school-issued devices.
15 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Education (a) on what date did the Ministry first become aware of security vulnerabilities in the Mobile Guardian system; (b) what immediate steps were taken within the first 24 hours upon discovery; and (c) whether the vulnerability was immediately verified and patched, bearing in mind its critical nature and ease of exploitation and, if not, why not.
16 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Education (a) whether there is an update to the number of students in Singapore who had their devices wiped remotely as a result of the Mobile Guardian cybersecurity breach in August 2024 and, if so, how many; (b) how many students were unable to recover their data; (c) what impact did this incident have on these students’ preparation for weighted assessments and examinations; (d) whether the Ministry has any backups of students’ data; and (e) if not, why not.
17 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education (a) how are schools managing the devices of students after the Mobile Guardian Device Management Application was removed from their devices following the security breach in August 2024; (b) whether the Ministry has plans to involve parents more in the management of their children's devices; and (c) what specific steps will the Ministry take to empower parents with the knowledge and tools to effectively manage their children's devices.
18 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Education (a) whether there is an update on the efforts to restore devices that are affected by the Mobile Guardian system glitch and cybersecurity breach; and (b) in particular, whether students taking their national examinations have all been able to restore their devices.
19 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Education (a) how many students are unable to recover data from their devices following the Mobile Guardian cybersecurity incident in August 2024; (b) how will the Ministry assist these students; and (c) how will the Ministry manage mobile device security to prevent future incidents.
\tThe Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take the next 11 Parliamentary Questions (PQs) together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, go ahead.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, my response will cover the Oral PQs raised by Dr Tan Wu Meng, Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Darryl David, Dr Lim Wee Kiak, Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Gerald Giam, Ms He Ting Ru and Ms Hazel Poa.
In addition, I will also address two Written PQs by Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Gerald Giam, and I invite Members to seek clarifications, as needed.
Mr Speaker, Sir, Members have asked for the reasons behind the continued use of Mobile Guardians' Device Management Application, or DMA, after the data breach incident in April this year; details of the technical issue in July; the cybersecurity incident in August; and the support provided to affected students and our approach to using technology for teaching and learning following this episode.
Sir, let me, first, recap the purpose of the DMA.
The DMA supports students, as they learn, to use their personal learning devices (PLDs) safely and responsibly. For example, DMA blocks students' access to undesirable Internet content, such as gambling or pornography, and sets screen time limits. I will now share what happened in April and the actions taken by the Ministry of Education (MOE).
The incident in April was due to poor password management practice within Mobile Guardian, allowing the attacker to gain unauthorised access to Mobile Guardians' Management Portal, which led to the data breach. To ensure continued safe use, Mobile Guardian immediately locked down its admin accounts and mandated all account holders to change their passwords. As I had told this House in May, Mobile Guardians' Management Portal is used for administrative purposes and does not have the ability to change any configuration on students' PLDs. The Mobile Guardian app was, thus, not affected during the April incident.
MOE immediately registered strong dissatisfaction to Mobile Guardian over the incident and asked that an independent forensic investigator be appointed to evaluate Mobile Guardian systems and processes, and make recommendations to prevent a recurrence. Subsequent findings from the forensic investigator pointed to poor password management practices and Mobile Guardian responded by implementing additional security measures, such as strengthening authentication controls and fixing vulnerabilities.
These enhancements were deployed on 31 May. On the night of 30 May, a member of the public reported a potential vulnerability in the Mobile Guardian app to MOE. Our information technology (IT) security team immediately investigated the report in the morning of 31 May. However, as explained earlier, because Mobile Guardian had rolled out a patch just before, attempts to replicate the vulnerability disclosed by the member of public was not successful.
An independent certified penetration tester engaged by Mobile Guardian to conduct additional penetration tests in June further confirmed that this vulnerability reported by the member of the public, had been closed. The independent test uncovered new vulnerabilities, which Mobile Guardian had committed to fix. However, before it could complete the work, some schools started reporting, on 30 July, that some PLDs had lost the ability to connect to the Internet and, in some cases, total loss of usage.
We quickly established then that this glitch was not related to the April data breach incident, neither was it a cyberattack. Instead, it was due to a human error by a Mobile Guardian engineer, who configured a wrong expiry date, causing the app to stop working. To rectify the misconfiguration, an online update to the Mobile Guardian application was immediately deployed to all iPad users.
Five days later, on 4 August, Mobile Guardian suffered a cyberattack, which remotely wiped out the iPads of some of their global customers, including 13,000 PLDs in our schools or approximately 8% of devices used by our secondary school population. To contain the breach, Mobile Guardian immediately shut down their servers.
As a precautionary measure, MOE embarked on the systematic removal of the Mobile Guardian app from all iPad and Chromebook PLDs the next day. Our priority was to help affected students, particularly those sitting for national examinations, so that learning and revision could continue. We deployed over 300 additional IT engineers and staff to schools to help students restore their devices as well as provided instruction sheets to those students who wanted to troubleshoot their own devices.
All devices have since been restored for use last month. About one in six of the 13,000 affected PLDs lost some degree of data and less than 5% were unable to recover all their data, as their devices had previously not been backed up. During this period, schools made available hard copy learning resources while supporting students who were emotionally affected. Deadlines for assignments were extended and weighted assessments postponed, where needed.
Students can continue to access learning resources on the Singapore Student Learning Space, or SLS. Through this episode, it was most heartening to see many of our students step forward and proactively share their personal notes with classmates and organise study sessions to do revision for their tests and examinations together.
We thank the vigilant members of the public who had flagged the potential vulnerability, our colleagues in the Government Technology Agency (GovTech) and the Cybersecurity Agency (CSA), and also the media community, who rallied around MOE to give the much-needed support, which helped our students learn the positives during this incident.
MOE requires our IT service providers to keep our systems and data safe. Our forensic investigations with GovTech and CSA into the 4 August incident, found a new vulnerability in the Mobile Guardian system that could allow an individual to carry out the attack. This is a timely reminder that cyber threats can evolve quickly. While no security test can be entirely exhaustive, MOE expects its contractors to regularly assess and strengthen their system's security posture.
Due to this incident, MOE has decided to cease the use of Mobile Guardian in all PLDs. MOE has also taken legal actions against the relevant contractors. MOE is currently studying options for an alternative DMA solution for iPad and Chromebook PLDs. We will work towards rolling out the new DMA solution by the new school year in January 2025.
Until the new DMA solution is in place, schools have instituted additional processes to ensure that the PLDs are used safely and responsibly during school hours. MOE has activated web filtering through the Google Admin Console or Chromebook PLDs and through Parents Gateway, shared instructions on how to activate Apple's built-in parental controls on iPads. This way, parents can set boundaries, like screen time, routines and restrict access to unsavoury sites.
While the recent spate of incidents was highly unfortunate, this must not deter us from delivering education through technology as they enrich our students' learning experiences. We must learn to embrace educational technology in our teaching and learning so that our students grow up to be digitally savvy, able to navigate digital environments and take on the opportunities and challenges of the future.
All of us can learn from this incident. It is an important reminder for all of us to practise good digital hygiene, including the regular backing up of information.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Thank you to the Minister for the sharing. In light of the Mobile Guardian incident, what is MOE's plan moving forward, particularly, whether the Ministry is going to require or mandate students to re-install a DMA moving forward?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is yes. We would like to re-install a DMA for all devices and the reason is very simple. With the experience that we have gained, a DMA has been very helpful in helping us to deter people from entering unsavoury sites, maybe intentionally or unintentionally.
Every year, every month, not an insignificant amount of sites or attempts at entry to such sites were blocked. So, there is a need for the cybersecurity, the cyber hygiene and the cyber wellness of our students that they have such a DMA. Having said that, I would also want to say that a DMA also provides a range of options that MOE can work with parents on their desired and appropriate level of controls.
By and large, about three quarters of all parents will adopt the baseline default settings of a DMA for the devices. The other 25%, or one quarter of them, are split between some who wanted stricter controls; and some who want less strict controls. We are able to cater to the different needs of the parents.
\t
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Minister for his detailed answer. I can declare that there are Clementi students who are affected by this and a number could not recover some of their lost data. Can I ask the Minister two supplementary questions on behalf of these Clementi students and their parents?
Firstly, following the data breach in May 2024, the Minister in his answer mentioned that MOE required Mobile Guardian to have an independent forensic investigation. Can I ask if the forensic investigation contractor was nominated by Mobile Guardian or nominated by MOE? Did MOE have any say in the choice of the contractor to do the audit for the May 2024 data breach incident?
Secondly, Mr Speaker, in an era of outsourcing to vendors, we of course must be mindful that the cyber threat surface is no longer within just the Government domain, but also the sub-contractor domain. Can I ask the Minister if MOE is working with CSA and the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) to ensure that the same standards of cybersecurity for Government networks that face the public, these same standards are also being applied to contractors such as Mobile Guardian or whatever replaces it in the future, so that the attack surface for cyber threats is contained and has the same level of safety, regardless of whether it is a contractor or whether it is Government's own device management technology?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, one short answer to the first supplementary question and a slightly longer elaboration to the second.
First, we asked Mobile Guardian to do the independent forensic investigation and we also did our own. That is the short answer. So that we can see the results of both and that is why I have explained in my answer that we have found new vulnerabilities. I want to explain that every time we do regular penetration tests, we will have to regularly update the app. It is not possible to say you do a test one time and you will be safe forever. That is not the concept in cybersecurity. Threats are emerging every day, every other moment and we have to just make sure we regularly do our checks to make sure that things are okay.
On the second question, I would rephrase what Dr Tan had said slightly differently. When you say same level of safety and security for all systems, I think that is not the right basis for us to work on. Let me explain.
The attack surface is wide in the cyber security domain. It is not possible for us to defend everywhere with the same resources, with the same level of focus. In the military, there is a saying that if you defend everywhere, you defend nowhere. In any system, whether big or small, personal or national, government or non-government, we will have to prioritise our resources to see where are the most critical areas that we need to defend against and invest more resources in.
For example, in our national framework – in a separate PQ answer, I think MDDI will share this – is that at the highest level, we have what we call the Critical Information Infrastructure, the CII. This is the type of systems we will devote the most resources to, to make sure that they are the most robust. Then, there are cascading, different levels of security required. It is a risk-based approach that we adopt. In managing our cybersecurity, from the highest CII level to the other levels, there will be different resources required, there will be different areas of focus required. We cannot be adopting the same defence posture for all the different systems. I just hope that we have a shared understanding in this House on this.
Having said that, while there might be differing levels of security and resources devoted to different systems, whenever there is an incident, it is in the collective interest of all of us to learn from it to see how the system might have been compromised or penetrated. This is why when something like that happens, we require any contractor to do their own independent forensic investigation, let us know the results. We will also do our own independent forensic to see whether the results match or whether there are blind spots that each of us may not have been able to detect prior to that.
It is a tiered and risk-based approach. I would not use the phrase that we have the same level of security and safety for all systems because I do not think that will be practical and I do not think that is the end goal of what we are trying to achieve.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, our students take examinations very seriously and an erasure of years of study notes on the eve of an examination date must have been horrifying for so many of them. Because the Mobile Guardian has full control over the devices, including to remote wipe the device, it is more akin to a corporate managed device which should be regularly backed up by MOE in case of a malicious data attack. Did MOE take back-ups of the data on student devices during the time that Mobile Guardian was installed?
Secondly, the Minister mentioned that there was a Vulnerability Assessment and Penetration Test (VAPT) conducted on 30 June, after the vulnerabilities were reported by the member of the public. Was this a full VAPT and were all the vulnerabilities discovered patched before the August cyber attack?
And was there a VAPT conducted on Mobile Guardian before it was first rolled out?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me answer the three supplementary questions in reverse order.
For any software as a system, before we acquire the system — and by the way, I think nowadays, all of us use software as a service, SAAS. Today, in all our mobile devices or otherwise, we have such things there.
Before we acquire a service, we do various tests and we make sure that the various systems are also up to the international standards. That is what we do, before we subscribe to any service. Similar to Mobile Guardian, similar to other services, we look at the price quality matrices to see which service meets our needs and is at a price that is reasonable for our needs.
The second one is that in any penetration test, be it the one in June or subsequent to it, whenever there is a penetration test and the results are found, then there will be a series of patches that will be implemented progressively to fix the issues. What we can say is that the issues that were found in June, July onwards, were progressively being fixed. Did any of this contribute directly or indirectly to the subsequent cyber attack? I will not be able to comment on this at this point in time, until the full forensic is out.
On his first supplementary question, I think it is an important lesson that in an era where we are all dependent on technology, to regularly back up our own systems. I would say that even before technology comes about, even once upon a time when we take notes with pen and paper, I think we also did the necessary back-up because it is just a good habit for us to do so.
Having said that, we also know just as how we manage our own personal devices and Government devices, there are two levels of back-up. Every one of us have to do our own individual back-up on certain parts of the notes that we want and there are also system level back-ups on the system level issues. But it will not be possible for the system to back up the individual one, all the time, because the individual, you need to decide what you want to back up. You will need to decide.
Take our smartphone as an example. I am quite sure all of us will store some things in our smartphones. We will back up what we want in a smartphone, be it photos or notes, but it would not be that Apple will back up everything for us, unless you do an auto setting for everything to be backed up onto the cloud storage.
This is the reason why most of our students, the vast majority of our students have been able to back up their notes and information on the cloud, and most of them were able to recover most of the information. There is only a very small percentage of students who were unable to recover data because they did not back up individually and those parts of the data were not backed up. The numbers, I have stated in my answer.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
\tMr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): This is a major issue and had major consequences. So, I would like to ask the Minister, are we over reliant on iPads and IT to the prejudice of our students and conventional teaching?
Point number two, so much is now being deflected to screen time for learning.
Point number three, I have been told that even some primary schools issue iPads to Primary 4 students.
Fourth supplementary question, I have studied this – over reliance on screen learning dulls the mind. The abacus or the calculator in the mind becomes slow. Even Minister Chan talks about doing mathematics in Cantonese in his mind.
No amount of parental guidance can stop gaming and possibly even pornography.
So, I wish to put on record these concerns as supplementary questions and before doing so, I declare that I am a parent of four children who are involved in iPad learning. It is my own view that too much learning is done on the screen, but as a matter of being a Member of Parliament, I will also state that the schools in the ward that I am responsible for, were affected by this shutdown and affected quite badly.
Mr Speaker: Minister Chan, if you can keep your answer short because I am trying to squeeze in a few more supplementary questions.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Okay. Mr Speaker, on the five supplementary questions that were asked, I will reply one at a time.
First, no, I think it is not about whether we are over-reliant or not over-reliant. We will have to learn to use technology, couple that with the best pedagogical practices, and that balance will continue to evolve as our society evolves. So, that is the first point.
Second, yes, we are concerned with screen time but we are also concerned with the type of screen time and the ages at which people are exposed to screen time. I have explained in this House before, that at different ages we are concerned with different types of screen time. For the very, very young, if they are watching a YouTube movie unsupervised, that has probably the greatest damage and is our greatest concern. When they are a bit older, it might be games. And when they are even older, it might be social media. So, it depends on what they use the screen time for. If they use the screen time for educational purposes and are supervised, and have constant interactions with adults, I think the effect is quite different from what we have described just now.
On the use of iPads and devices for primary school education, at this point in time, MOE has not made a decision to issue --- In fact, we have made a decision not to issue personal learning devices to all primary schools.
But having said that, we do allow our primary schools to use electronic devices for education purposes and they share the resources around. So, it is not a personal learning device; it is a group learning device and so forth. We had a few schools that have embarked on a trial to see the more intensive use of learning devices in schools with the supervision of the teachers. We are at the preliminary stage of looking at the experiences of these few schools.
So, that is why, going forward, we will have to see what type of screen time for what purpose, what amount and what age.
Mr Speaker: Dr Lim Wee Kiak. Please just ask your supplementary question.
\tDr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Yes, a quick one. Will MOE take a look at the impact of this episode on students, especially those who had all the data wiped out, and the outcome of their examinations? Will their examination results be moderated according to this incident?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: The answer is yes, but I want to put in context the scale of the issue.
I think I have shared how many students are involved – it is not as if all the students lost everything. The students actually do have access to various resources and so forth. So, at the local school level, where it is not national examinations, we have made the local adjustments according to the school's circumstances and needs. I think my school leaders have done that.
At the national level, for national examinations, the number of students where we need to make special adjustments because some of their work in preparation for the particular subject was done in the iPad, the numbers were less than 60.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
\tMs Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): I would like to ask the Minister whether are there any learning points from this episode with respect to the service provider assessment process?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, yes, there are various learning points. When we contract for software as a service, we all know that there will be certain risks involved when we subscribe to any of these software as a service. So, that is a given.
In the selection process, I think one of the things in any agencies, government or commercial, that we must be conscious of is that we can make a choice between two extremes. One is subscribe to a service that is generally available but not customised. It may not meet your needs but it may be more accessible. The other one is that you can try to make it much more customised according to your needs but you require a unique solution.
Somewhere between these two, you must find that balance because both sides have risks, whether you use a widely accessible software as a service solution, which has its pluses and minuses – you can change and evolve much faster because the subscriber base is much bigger, but you may not have all the services you require. If you go for customised service, you might not have all the services and the updates as quickly as you want because it is much more customised, according to your needs. So, somewhere between these two, we must always find the balance, according to the different risk profiles and the different needs.
Mr Speaker: Last supplementary question. Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Speaker. May I ask the Minister whether there was any vulnerability assessment and penetration testing carried out on the app prior to the deployment of the app, whether such testing was carried out regularly before the April incident? And moving forward, will MOE ensure that such testing should be carried out on a regular basis for such apps?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is yes. I have said in my answer that depending on the security level of the different systems, we have different tiers of vulnerability testing regularly.
\tMr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now read the Orders of the day.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Platform Workers Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [9 September 2024], \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\" – [Minister for Manpower]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, the Platform Workers Bill seeks to strengthen protections for platform workers. I stand in support of the Bill.
I thank the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) for conducting a public consultation on the proposed changes and for publishing its responses to the feedback received. I have three points of clarification to raise.
My first point is on the scope of platform services covered under the Bill. Currently, the Bill only covers self-employed persons who work with platform operators to provide two types of services, namely, delivery or ride-hail services. It does not cover self-employed persons who work with platform operators to provide other types of services. I understand that the Bill already protects more than 90% of self-employed persons who use online matching platforms through its coverage of delivery or ride-hail services.
That said, the number of self-employed persons who use online matching platforms to provide other types of services is also growing. These services include domestic cleaning, beauty, therapeutic and caregiving services. For example, when a domestic cleaning platform acquired a local cleaning company with 60 employees in 2021, it announced that it would be adding 1,000 more workers to its platform within one year. A chief executive officer (CEO) of a medical and caregiving platform service reported that between 2018 and 2021, the company observed a 10 times growth in demand for homecare, which would translate into a spike in the caregivers using its platform.
Given that the Bill already covers 90% of workers, can the Senior Minister of State share the rationale for not going further and covering all platform services? Is there a principled difference between workers on delivery or ride-hail services platforms compared to platforms of other services?
Will the Ministry look into expanding the definition of \"platform operators\" and \"platform workers\" in the Bill to cover all types of platform services at a later date? If so, does the Ministry have a timeline for reviewing the scope of the definition?
In light of the rising number of self-employed persons who use online matching platforms to provide other types of services, I urge the Government to extend the protections under this Bill to cover all types of platform services.
My second point is on remedies available for platform workers who encounter discrimination and unfair dismissal. I welcome the announcement of platform work associations which will have legal mandate to represent platform workers to address issues like fairer payment terms. While this is a good step, it may not go far enough to protect platform workers from unfair dismissal or discrimination by the platform operators.
Platform workers are not employees and do not receive the protections afforded by the Employment Act, the Tripartite Guidelines on Wrongful Dismissal, the Workplace Fairness Legislation and the Tripartite Guidelines for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP). This Bill does not appear to prohibit platform operators from unfairly removing a platform worker from the platform service or making decisions which discriminate against the platform worker.
Food delivery riders have complained about being unfairly penalised, warned or suspended for food spillage or other customer complaints. Private hire vehicle drivers have complained about wrongful forfeiture of incentives and wrongful removal from the platform.
The lack of a low-cost dispute resolution mechanism in the Bill, such as the equivalent of filing a claim at Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) or a mediation request at TAFEP, means that platform workers may have little or no viable options to dispute the platform operator's decision to remove or discriminate against the platform worker. This would result in a loss of income to the platform worker and this will, in turn, affect their housing and retirement adequacy.
Can the Senior Minister of State share whether the Ministry looked into the need for mechanisms for recourse against unfair dismissal and discrimination? If so, what were the considerations for excluding these mechanisms from this Bill? Will the Ministry study the possibility of including these mechanisms in the future?
My third and final point is on the transparency of decision-making by platform operators. Regulators in other states have introduced policies to make more transparent decision-making by platform operators. For example, in April 2024, the European Parliament adopted the Platform Work Directive, which required platforms to provide workers with written information about the automated monitoring and decision-making systems that it uses. For platform workers, this could mean transparency over key factors, such as the distance, destination and share of tips received, how their rating was derived, which, in turn, affects the jobs assigned to them and the amount that they earn.
Can the Senior Minister of State share if the Ministry looked into the necessity of introducing similar provisions under this Bill? If so, can the Senior Minister of State share why these provisions were not included? If such provisions were not studied, will the Ministry consider looking into provisions which require platform operators to improve the transparency of their decision-making systems and processes? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ong Hua Han.
Mr Ong Hua Han (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate. According to the latest labour force report by MOM, in 2023, there were 70,500 platform workers in Singapore. These are our taxi drivers, private-hire car drivers and delivery workers. They make up a significant population in our workforce. Under the proposed Platform Workers Bill, platform workers will now gain rights and legal protection they did not enjoy before. I support this landmark change.
On this Bill, I will speak on and raise clarifications around three key areas of the Bill, namely: one, the implications of Central Provident Fund (CPF); two, workplace injury compensation; and three, the scope of this Bill.
Sir, introducing CPF contributions for platform workers aligns with the comprehensive social security system that has long been in place for employees. CPF ensures that workers have a safety net to meet future needs. It encourages workers to start saving for a home at a younger age, sets aside a fund for healthcare and facilitates long-term financial planning for retirement. The change for platform workers brings them closer to par with employees, which is a good thing.
I also welcome the enhancements to the Platform Workers CPF Transition Support (PCTS), where the Government will fully cover platform workers' CPF payments in the first year. This means that platform workers’ take-home pay will not be impacted in 2025. Hopefully, this will alleviate the worries of workers about reduction in take-home pay and encourage more workers to opt in for CPF.
While the introduction of CPF coverage for platform workers is promising and should be commended, there are potential downside risks that should be addressed.
First, mandating CPF contributions may unintentionally frame platform work as a viable, long-term career path for younger workers. However,\tit\tis\timportant\tto\tacknowledge\tthat\tplatform\twork\trarely\toffers\tlong-term development. Unlike employees, platform workers do not have the same access to continuous learning or promotion opportunities. This limits their career progression, especially when they are often isolated from professional networks and not levelling up their skills over time.
Additionally, platform workers do not have the full benefits that employees enjoy. Platform work is subject to market forces and can be an unstable source of income. It is preferably not a long-term career plan for all, especially for people in the early stages of their working life.
Yet, full-time platform workers who want to switch careers often find it difficult to leave this line of work. On one hand, platform workers may be willing to spend their time upskilling and applying for jobs. But that time could be spent completing gigs to make more money. Simply put, upskilling comes at a cost. It is a luxury to some platform workers, a luxury most cannot afford.
Contrast this with lower-wage employees in sectors under the Progressive Wage Model (PWM). The PWM maps out a clear career pathway for wages to increase. Employees are required to attend training to improve their productivity and skills. Platform workers do not benefit from such structured support. Unlike lower-wage employees, there is no incentive to improve their skills within their ecosystem. Even if they do secure a job, it may be difficult for platform workers to get used to a more traditional working environment.
After all, while platform work offers for more flexibility and autonomy, traditional employees are usually under direct supervision at the workplace. Transitioning to this can be challenging and may discourage platform workers from seeking or staying in traditional employment.
We therefore need to proactively support our platform workers, especially the younger ones, to find and remain in a stable job. The Government currently has a range of support measures catered to lower-wage workers and unemployed individuals. These\tinclude\tthe\tWorkfare\tSkills\tSupport\tScheme\tand\tthe\tCareer\tConversion Programmes. More recently, during the National Day Rally, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong also announced the Jobseeker Support scheme, recognising the difficulties faced by the involuntarily unemployed. Perhaps, we can introduce tailored programmes to address the opportunity cost that platform workers face. Or could the Government calibrate existing schemes so that more are incentivised to prepare themselves for a long-term career.
Sir, we also need to ensure that the introduction of CPF does not give rise to discrimination against CPF contributing workers or result in undesirable profiteering behaviour. As these concerns have already been explored in detail by hon Members of the House yesterday, I will not be repeating them here. Instead, I would like to ask three clarifying questions.
First, how will the Government ensure that a platform worker's CPF contribution status is never a relevant factor in a job-matching algorithm?
Second and related to this, will the Government consider regulating the assignment of jobs by platform operators? Such regulation could come in the form of clear guidelines to ensure that there is no discrimination against CPF-contributing workers. These guidelines could be developed jointly with platform work associations, platform operators and the Government. Full transparency on how jobs are assigned will be key to ensuring fair and objective job allocation and maintaining the trust between platform operators and platform workers.
And third, platform workers are rightly concerned that platform operators might react to the need to make CPF payments by increasing the commission collected from them or reducing their incentives and bonuses. The introduction of CPF may therefore risk further shrinking the take-home pay of workers in the long run. in light of this, it would be helpful if the Government can share how it envisions this playing out in the long-term and how this risk will be mitigated.
Moving on from CPF, the Bill also covers workplace injury compensation for platform workers. This is a positive inclusion. Safety is a big concern for delivery riders, especially those who use bicycles or e-bikes. Long hours, rushing to complete orders on time and harsh weather conditions put them at a heightened risk of accidents. Similarly, ride-hail drivers face a higher risk of accidents than regular motorists, simply because they are on the road for longer. It is only right that we look after their safety and that we should be comprehensive in our approach.
Beyond addressing workplace injuries, we should also strive to support the overall health and well-being of platform workers to prevent serious injuries. This Bill does not provide platform workers with benefits common to employees, such as sick leave or annual leave. After all, platform workers are not employees.
As touched upon earlier, platform workers, especially younger ones, aged 30 and below, for whom CPF contributions will become compulsory, may worry about their reduced take-home pay. To compensate, they might work longer hours which, by the way, also limits significantly any time for exercise. They then fall ill eventually. After taking time off to recover, they may feel pressured to work even harder to make up for lost time, further adding stress and harming their physical and mental well-being. Over time, this creates a vicious cycle of overwork and exhaustion.
The issue of annual leave and medical benefits for platform workers has been brought up by other hon Members of Parliament (MPs) in the past. I note that Senior Minister of State Koh has shared the reasons for excluding these other benefits in his opening speech yesterday. I certainly understand the need to strike a fine balance. Yet, the risk of burnout remains real. I hope that the Government can carefully consider the inclusion of these benefits in future iterations of the Act or study specific measures to address this gap so that we take better care of platform workers.
Mr Speaker, harassment is yet another issue that drivers and delivery riders face. Platform workers may have to deal with unreasonable behaviour from platform users. For instance, if a restaurant takes too long to prepare food, the delivery rider may be unfairly blamed for the delay and receive lower ratings. Miscommunications between ride-hail drivers and passengers may also occur, such as when the pick-up point is in an unfamiliar spot or is difficult to locate.
These frustrations may result in disagreements, which have the potential to escalate. In 2023 alone, there were more than 200 reported cases of abuse against taxi and private-hire drivers. Ride-hail drivers have to maintain a minimum overall rating to keep their account and be eligible for incentives and bonuses. This is essential for their livelihood. It makes them less likely to retaliate or defend themselves when facing verbal abuse, for fear of poor reviews or complaints. Women drivers are also vulnerable to sexual harassment from passengers.
Yet, platform workers are not protected against harassment under the proposed Bill. They have no recourse. In comparison, some workers in other industries have protections in place. Security officers, for example, are protected from assault and harassment under the Private Security Industry Act. Such protections being legislated sends a strong signal that harassment will not be tolerated.
Given that harassment is a real risk in platform work, will the Government consider including protections from harassment in a future iteration of the Act?
Platform workers deserve to feel safe and have sufficient recourse in the event of harassment. In the healthcare sector, the Tripartite Framework for the Prevention of Abuse and Harassment in Healthcare was launched last December. The framework sets out, I quote, \"a standardised, zero-tolerance policy against all forms of abuse and harassment towards healthcare workers\".
If not through legislation, I hope that the Government could at least consider modifying and applying such a framework to platform workers too. In doing so, platform operators and platform work associations can collaborate to improve reporting and prevent situations that lead to abuse and harassment.
Let me now briefly touch on the scope of this Bill before I conclude.
I am heartened to know that platform workers will be supported in their retirement planning and in having workplace injury compensation. Under the proposed Bill, \"platform service\" means a service specified in the First Schedule that is provided through a platform, digital or otherwise, by a platform operator exercising management control in respect of the provision of that service by platform workers.
The meanings of platform service, platform operator and platform worker are drafted broadly enough to potentially apply to a wide range of services, such as caregiving services and cleaning services. However, based on the First Schedule, the two platform services covered in the Bill are limited to delivery service and ride-hail service for now.
There are other platform workers who need to be safeguarded. As an example, I would like to call particular attention to locum nurses, especially those who find work through caregiving platforms. Locum nurses would fall within the definition of platform workers, as they are similarly subject to the management control of platform operators. They help plug the gap of providing home nursing services, especially with our ageing population.
All providers of caregiving services deserve to be recognised; so do other platform workers who provide services that keep us all going. They should be entitled to having their rights, protections and representation provided for. If the Government is considering expanding the scope of the Act in future to provide for more platform workers, it would be helpful to understand the timeline for such amendments.
Mr Speaker, I am glad that we are taking an active step towards looking after the under-served in our workforce. The proposed Bill aims to close the gap between platform workers and their counterparts in a traditional workplace. As we roll out the new measures, I hope that this is just the start of broader efforts to scale up protections and uplift more platform workers. Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.
Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, I rise today in support of our platform workers, who represent a sizeable and growing segment of our workforce and who have become essential to the convenience we often take for granted in our daily lives.
We have heard throughout this debate stories and statistics about the vulnerabilities platform workers face. This Bill seeks to address those vulnerabilities, providing platform workers with baseline protections and hope for a more secure future.
This debate is close to my heart because there are many platform workers living in my constituency, Woodlands. Indeed, when COVID-19 struck, our community centres (CCs) in Woodlands had the longest lines for Temporary Relief Fund grants in the whole country.
Mr Speaker, any reforms must consider the lived experience and needs of those directly affected, that is, the platform workers.
In truth, there is no one face of a platform worker. Our platform workers are a very diverse group with different situations and needs. Some turned to platform work after many failed attempts to land another job. Some turned to platform work to have the flexibility to manage their own time, to accommodate caregiving responsibilities, or simply to have more time with their families. For others, platform work is a side gig to a full-time job to boost their incomes. We have students, working part-time to supplement their family incomes, to pay for school or for additional pocket money.
We have those who struggle to make a decent income, living day-to-day on whatever income they make on any given day. We have heard several times of how for many platform workers, their expenses exceed their income. But we also have what I call the \"chiongsters\", who have mastered exactly where and when they should be active on which platform to generate the most income.
The two-wheeler segment is very different from the four-wheeler segment and the no-vehicle segment, and within the two-wheeler segment, the motorbike segment is different from the bicycle segment.
So, we must consider all these differences in designing and implementing these reforms. But I hope we can all agree on two basic tenets.
First, platform work should remain part of the landscape. It offers opportunities for thousands of Singaporeans who need or prefer to have the flexibility of setting their own schedules. As an industry, the platform economy must remain sustainable even if there may be some failures or consolidations among the operators.
Second, all workers, employee or self-employed, high-income or low-income, should be treated fairly and with dignity and should have basic protections and a secure future. All workers should be treated fairly and with dignity.
The question before us therefore is not just how to protect these workers, but how to balance their need for flexibility with the need for fairness, security and dignity.
It is clear from this Bill that the Government has captured this balance. This Bill proposes much-needed reforms, including mandatory CPF contributions, extending Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA) and requiring platform operators to take reasonable measures to ensure the safety and health of their platform workers. These measures are not about taking away flexibility but about ensuring that in their pursuit of a livelihood, platform workers are not left without a safety net, because flexibility should not mean insecurity. Flexibility should not mean insecurity.
The Bill recognises that the reforms are important, but so is the real financial impact on platform workers, platform operators and potentially consumers.
Thus, for example, the Bill staggers contribution rates over five years and is supplemented by the PCTS, enhanced a few days ago to fully cover the increase in platform workers' CPF contributions in 2025.
Similarly, a balanced approach will need to be adopted in the proposed safety codes so that they protect the safety and health of platform workers without taking away the flexibility and autonomy that some platform workers want, considering their own personal situations, for example, on scheduling and work hours, or stifling innovation on the part of the platform operators even while they meet the new regulatory requirements.
Mr Speaker, I would like to add my views regarding the concerns that these protections could lead to increased costs for platform operators and that some of these costs might be passed on to consumers or even to the platform workers themselves.
It may be expedient to place the burden on one party – specifically, for the platform operators to absorb all the costs. But a quick look at the numbers in the public domain suggest this could be untenable.
One ride-hailing platform operator, for example, charges 10% commission on trip fares. That means their revenues are 10% of the fares. With the fixed expense deduction ratio of 60% for drivers, the employers' contribution, which is 17% of the platform worker's income, would be 6.8%, or two thirds of the topline of the platform operator. Therefore, having the platform operator bear the full employers' contribution would mean reducing their revenue to about 3% of what it used to be.
Then, there are the WICA payments, plus the cost of compliance for all the new regulations. Is there enough left for this to be sustainable for the platform operator to bear all these costs?
So, yes, there will be costs and yes, some of these costs may indeed likely to be passed on. But let us not forget that we as a society benefit from the services these workers provide. It is only fair that the responsibility of ensuring their protection is shared among all stakeholders – the Government, platform operators and consumers. This will not be an easy balance, but this Government has shown that it will not shy away from doing the right thing. In this case, doing the right thing is making sure that our platform operators, who do so much for us, are not left behind without a safety net.
The Bill also provides a legal framework for platform work associations to represent platform workers. With the enactment of new laws, the platform work associations will play an important role in representing platform workers on these new laws and more broadly, giving platform workers a voice.
In considering the scope for what the platform work associations will intervene in, the associations should take a comprehensive approach, going beyond focusing on the new benefits, health and safety standards as well as prices and incentives schemes to address other things that impact platform workers' rights, well-being and long-term sustainability, including support in improving working conditions, resolving disputes with platform operators and customers, including abuse and harassment, training and career development, and promoting respect, dignity and societal recognition for the contributions of platform workers to society.
On speaking up for workers in their grievances, food delivery riders in Woodlands told me of a particular customer in Woodlands who frequently buys alcohol on the weekends. Every single time, he will report spillage or breakages, resulting in penalties for many, many delivery riders. They have even filed police reports. Yet, the platform has ignored their complaints and they feel there is no way for them to fight back.
Other delivery riders have told me about orders that are too heavy for one rider or stacked orders that force them to go in opposite directions and are impossible to complete within the time limit while private hire drivers have told me about how the cleaning fee given to them for cleaning their vehicles when a passenger throws up in the car barely goes to cover the actual cost of cleaning, let alone the loss of income for the period during which the driver cannot take on passengers while airing the car to eliminate odours.
These may sound like small things to us, but these small things add up and have a real impact on the lived experiences of platform workers and their feelings of fairness, respect and dignity. Platform work associations have a role to play in effecting positive changes in their lives.
Mr Speaker, the provisions of the Bill are both bold yet balanced and therefore should be supported by this House. What is probably more important is how we are going to go about implementing the provisions in a way that is inclusive for all stakeholders, engenders trust and advances long-term benefits for society as well as for the platform workers.
To that end, I have a few questions for the Senior Minister of State.
First, CPF contributions. Given the differences in CPF contribution rates by income and by age, how will the withholding of the platform worker's contribution by the platform operators work? Will it be standardised across all platform operators? Will consideration be given for minimising the burden on the platform worker while balancing efficiency? For example, will the platform operators withhold the maximum rate for everyone even if the platform worker consistently earns below the income thresholds for the maximum rate?
Second, while the phased implementation and enhanced PCTS will greatly help in mitigating the immediate burden on platform workers, will the Senior Minister of State be open to temporary relief measures or adjustments to contribution requirements in future for lower-income platform workers who simply cannot cope under the lower take-home pay?
Third, on WICA. What are the expected WICA costs? How will it take into account the different risk profiles of different platform worker segments? What will be the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that platform companies are full complying with new workplace safety and health codes and workplace injury compensation regulations? At the same time, how do we avoid a system of spurious claims?
Fourth, cost and cost sharing. How will the Senior Minister of State ensure that any passing on of costs to consumers by the platform operators is done in a way that is transparent and does not inadvertently create opportunities for profiteering, as well as in a way that is efficient, especially as the staggered roll-out of CPF contributions would lead to several rounds of this?
Fifth, representation. What is the scope of representation that will be undertaken by the platform work associations?
Sixth, financial literacy. Will the Government provide financial literacy programmes or advisory services to help platform workers understand the long-term benefits of CPF contributions and plan for their retirement?
Seventh, innovation. How can we ensure that Singapore remains a hub for innovation in the platform economy? How can the Government encourage platform companies to invest in technology to make platform work safer and more efficient and to develop new services that bring more value to the economy and can help to offset any share of the costs of this Bill that they may incur? How can the Government explore how technology can help platform workers to better track their working hours, manage their CFP contributions and access support services.
Finally, monitoring effectiveness. How will the Government monitor the effectiveness and impacts of these policy changes, including the take-up rate for CPF contributions, the impact on the number of gig jobs, the impact on flexibility for platform workers, the impact on business sustainability for platform operators and the impact on consumer cost? How will the Government ensure that these reforms genuinely improve the lives of platform workers without unintended consequences? What are the longer-term metrics, for example, for home ownership? Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Our Malay community is disproportionately represented among platform workers. Like those from other races, some become platform workers because they could not find another job, or another job that will pay them more. But many become platform workers, and remain platform workers, because they value the flexibility that the job allows for them to spend more time with their families, or to fulfil caregiving responsibilities for their children or aged parents.
A common issue among platform workers is that they have very little CPF. I often hear people say that they prefer to manage their own money and save on this own, that they don’t want their money locked away. Some say that they don’t make enough to set aside money in CPF.
For older workers who have paid off their housing loans, or workers who have spouses or other family members who have CPF, it is perhaps not such an issue. But for others, especially the younger workers looking to start or grow their families, they cannot leverage on CPF to buy a flat or to hold on a flat. Which make it that more difficult.
I met a resident in a desperate financial situation. Her husband, who was the sole breadwinner as a food delivery rider had recently passed away from illness, and she was on the verge of losing the HDB flat she lived in with her four young children. The arrears had started accumulating when he fell sick. Her late husband could not work and his medical treatments drained their savings as he had no insurance. Because he had not been making regular CPF contributions, he had not kept up with his Home Protection Scheme (HPS) payments, and the cover had lapsed.
In this one example, you see all the vulnerabilities of being a platform worker, with no protections for healthcare, housing or insurance. This should not be the case, and we should all support this Bill that gives platform workers these basic protections. The employer contribution of CPF, at 17%, significantly increases the amount of CPF available for housing, and will help platform workers save for a house more quickly or save for retirement. Thus, it is important to improve understanding of the long term benefits of CPF and how it works, among platform workers in our community.
Like Woodlands resident Mr K, in his 50s. He became a food delivery rider after he suffered a stroke. While he recovered from his stroke, he and his employer mutually agreed that it was best he leave the company. For him, food delivery has given him a lifeline to continue to earn a living, where he could work when he felt up to it and stop when he couldn’t. Because of his brush with a major health condition, he has been making CPF contributions of $200 a month since he started work as a food delivery rider. It’s for my future he said, if I cannot work anymore, or if anything happens to me again. Part of his CPF goes to paying for Medishield. He knows it’s important. Mr K looks forward to the proposed amendments, in particular the employer CPF contribution, WICA, and the prospect of greater representation.
I asked Mr K: will you like your son to work in the gig economy? The young generation is different, he said. They will have more opportunities, more options.
And this is what we must never stop striving for. More opportunities, more options, for workers, especially the young, in our community, who have a long career ahead of them. Even while we provide much needed protection and security for the platform workers of today, we must ensure that we do not stop providing opportunities for all workers to gain new relevant skills in the fast changing economy of tomorrow. Because the ultimate job security is employability. We must also ensure that we must press on in providing more flexible work arrangements within traditional employment, that can better accommodate family and caregiving needs, so the gig economy is not the only option for flexibility. It is and must remain an option, but not the only option.
So, we must continue to revisit our labour policies and processes from time to time. We must continue to improve financial literacy in our community. We must make sure that our policy making is inclusive and the voices of our community are represented.
(In English): In conclusion, Mr Speaker, as we move forward together and forge our new social compact, we must not lose sight of the values that define us as a nation: fairness, justice and care for one another. Platform workers deserve the same dignity, respect, protections as any other worker, and this Bill is an important step in ensuring that.
Let us not only support the livelihoods of our gig workers but also secure their futures. For the delivery rider who rides through the rain to bring you your dinner, for the private hire vehicle driver who works late into the night to support his family, this Bill is about giving them the security they need without taking away the flexibility they value. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Neil Parekh.
Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Platform Workers Bill.
This Bill rightfully acknowledges the crucial role platform workers play and seeks to address some of the issues they face. It is worth emphasising the significance of their role in Singapore's economy.
During the pandemic lockdown, they became essential to our daily lives, ensuring the continuity of services and even boosting Singapore's productivity. When the circuit breaker was in place, our food delivery riders and companies were at the forefront, delivering tens of thousands of food orders all over Singapore, especially for those who were in quarantine. Not only did these workers alleviate the difficulty of individuals in quarantine, these unsung heroes also ensured that food and beverage (F&B) businesses stayed afloat, by continuing with their takeaway businesses. This Bill before the House recognises them and formalises them as key players in our economy.
Sir, allow me to share some benefits of this legislation. This Bill is an important milestone for the community of platform workers because the various associations currently representing them would be able to negotiate collectively for them, better represent them in disputes and provide them with better support services.
It signals a positive shift, one that recognises not just their contributions but their rightful place within our economic framework. By strengthening worker protection, this Bill paves the way for a more stable and satisfied workforce, with expected outcomes, such as enhanced productivity and reduced turnover in sectors heavily reliant on gig and platform-based work.
In my view, this new legislation also benefits employers. For businesses and business owners, this Bill can lead to better relationships between businesses and their platform workers, as the regulations provide clearer guidelines on rights and responsibilities. This could result in higher worker satisfaction and loyalty.
There is also legal certainty. By formalising the rights and obligations of platform workers and operators, the Bill reduces legal ambiguities. Businesses can operate with more confidence, knowing they comply with regulations, which can help avoid potential legal disputes.
Furthermore, businesses which comply with the new regulations might gain a better reputation among consumers and workers, who value fair treatment and worker protection. This could attract more customers and better performing workers to the respective platforms. The regulation of platform operators also ensures a level playing field, preventing unfair practices and promoting healthy competition within the digital economy. This will stimulate innovation and improve efficiency among platform service providers. This Bill also can lead to the development of new business models and services within the gig economy, contributing to the diversification of Singapore's economy.
Sir, I now turn to some clarifications for the Senior Minister of State. My concern is that compliance with the new regulations might increase operational costs for platform operators. This could lead to higher costs for consumers and will reduce margins for businesses, potentially impacting the competitiveness of Singapore-based platforms.
One, will there be any Government support measures and assistance to help these businesses? Two, does this Bill apply to all types of platform services, including those that are emerging or certainly are less common? Three, are there any exemptions for certain types of platforms or services and, if so, what are the criteria for these exemptions? Four, how will the Bill affect existing contracts between platform operators and workers? Will there be a transition period for compliance? Five, what happens if a current platform work agreement conflicts with the provisions of the Bill? I recognise that effective implementation and enforcement of the Bill’s provisions may require significant additional resources to ensure that all platform operators comply with the regulations. Six, how does the Ministry hope to ensure the seamless execution of these new regulations? Lastly, are there any plans for a separate division within MOM to address the needs of the gig economy for the long term?
Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, this Bill has my strong support.
Mr Speaker: Mr Mark Lee.
Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The number of Singapore platform workers in Singapore fell from 88,400 to 70,500 last year, accounting for 2.9% of our resident labour force. These figures reflect a return to pre-pandemic 2019 levels, suggesting that we may be observing a steady-state situation for platform work in Singapore.
However, despite this decline, platform operators and workers continue to have a disproportionately large impact on both our economy and society. The services they provide remain essential to many aspects of daily life and it is in this context that the Platform Workers Bill takes on heightened significance.
The merit of this Bill lies in its balance. It alleviates cost pressures on our platform operators which might otherwise lead to reduced job opportunities or, in a worse case, business closures. At the same time, it ensures that our platform workers receive basic employment protections, such as income security and workplace safety.
(In English): The Bill, however, adopts an exclusive definition of platform services currently limited to delivery and ride-hailing services. As such, I would like to raise an essential clarification. With other emerging and growing platform services, such as cleaning and caregiving that may either presently or in the near future meet the same defined criteria, what process or mechanism is in place to potentially expand the coverage of the Bill to these sectors? The evolution of the platform economy means that new types of services will inevitably emerge. It is essential that we anticipate this by ensuring the flexibility of the Bill to respond to future developments.
The second point I wish to address concerns the requirements placed on platform operators to provide work injury compensation insurance and ensure that platform workers require adequate training. These are crucial protections, but platform workers often provide their services across multiple operators, which raises a key question. Is there a national mechanism that coordinates insurance coverage and training across operators? Without such coordination, we risk unnecessary duplication of costs which will likely be passed on to both platform operators and, eventually, consumers. A centralised or coordinated approach could help streamline these processes, reducing costs for all stakeholders while ensuring that platform workers are adequately protected.
I now turn to the potential impact of the Platform Workers Bill on our broader workforce. The Bill has the potential to level the playing field between platform operators and traditional employers by ensuring that platform workers receive equitable protections and CPF contributions. This will support their housing and retirement adequacy. While the impact on employment preferences may be varied, some platform workers might choose to transition back to more traditional employment sectors for better long-term career prospects.
To facilitate this transition, can the Government consider expanding the scope of existing programmes like WSG's Career Conversion Programmes (CCPs) as well as the Mid-Career Pathways Programmes administered by the Singapore Business Federation to create an accelerated, effective pathway for platform workers seeking new opportunities in traditional sectors and supporting their career transition? Currently, these programmes already offer structured training, salary support and job placement assistance, which could be adapted to the needs of platform workers looking to reskill and move back into traditional roles.
Can we help our platform workers transition more efficiently by pre-identifying CCPs that platform workers can tap into since there are over 100 CCPs available today? These could be focused on adjacent roles, such as transport and logistics, or even retail and F&B, which can offer opportunities for those seeking new career options.
Importantly, can these programmes be tailored to more workplace-based training and less classroom-based training? This hands-on training element will help ramp up the onboarding process and ensure a fast and efficient transition into new roles and helping close the manpower gaps that some sectors are currently experiencing.
Finally, I wish to address the economic implications of the Bill, particularly for small and medium enterprises (SMEs). The additional costs imposed on platform operators, such as the requirements for insurance and CPF contributions, will inevitably lead to higher service costs. This is particularly concerning for smaller businesses, which may already be operating on tight margins and lack the resources to absorb such costs internally. Based on the recent Singapore Business Federation National Business Survey, nearly half of businesses remain uncertain about their future prospects, with 33% of SMEs and 24% of large companies reporting declining performance over the last year.
The increased costs resulting from the Bill are likely to affect SMEs more acutely, as they often rely on platform services due to their limited ability to manage their functions inhouse. Will the Government be actively monitoring SMEs on the ground to ensure that any cost increases resulting from the Platform Workers Bill are effectively managed? Additionally, can the Government collaborate with trade associations and businesses to explore comprehensive support mechanisms, such as subsidies, tax relief or any other measures to help alleviate cost pressures and maintain the competitiveness of SMEs in this challenging landscape? At the same time, will enhanced measures be put in place to ensure that businesses do not resort to unnecessary price hikes, thus protecting consumers from unjustified cost transfers while maintaining fair pricing practices?
Sir, the Platform Workers Bill represents an important milestone as we seek to create a more equitable framework for both platform workers and operators. Although the Bill has been years in the making, it reflects Singapore’s ability, agility and responsiveness in adapting to the evolving needs of our workforce and business environment.
I commend the tripartite partners for their collaborative efforts in shaping a Bill that seeks to balance the interests of all stakeholders. As we move forward, I encourage continuous engagement among the Government, businesses and workers to ensure that the Bill remains adaptable to a rapidly changing landscape of the platform economy.
Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the questions I have raised and the recommendations I have made, I express my support for the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Usha Chandradas.
Ms Usha Chandradas (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Platform Workers Bill provides long overdue support to workers in the gig economy and I stand in support of this new piece of legislation. I do, nonetheless, have some questions for the Senior Minister of State on the scope of the Bill and on potential future developments.
First, I note that the First Schedule of the Bill restricts the definition of “platform services” to only delivery and ride-hail services. As the Association of Women for Action and Research, or AWARE, has pointed out in its response to the public consultation on this Bill, the Bill excludes other types of services that are delivered via online platforms. Some examples of these include beauty and grooming services, caregiving services and house cleaning services. These types of platform services will not fall within the definition set out in the First Schedule of the proposed Bill.
Accordingly, workers in these categories of services will not be covered by the protective measures outlined in the Bill today. Platform workers in the delivery and ride-hailing sectors tend to be male, whereas a greater proportion of workers in the areas of beauty, grooming, caregiving and cleaning services tend to be female. So, if we consider the framing of the Bill from this perspective, it appears that a good number of female platform workers may not actually be able to benefit from the protections offered by this new law.
So, my first clarification for the Senior Minister of State is why these types of platform workers have been excluded from the scope of the Bill? I would also like to ask if there are future plans to include a wider range of platforms for the delivery of services within the ambit of this Bill. This is a point that has been raised by a number of Members, and I join them, too, in raising my concerns.
My second clarification has to do with the term “human intervention on a regular or routine basis,” as set out in clause 6 of the Bill. Could the Government clarify what the threshold would be for human intervention that is considered to be “regular or routine”, such that this type of intervention would remove the platform concerned from the scope of the Bill?
My next set of questions has to do with gender and other imbalances in the gig economy, especially where digital platforms are concerned. AWARE’s submission, which I referred to earlier, makes important points about the functionality of platform services which the present Bill does not seem to overtly address. Ride-hail platforms, for example, generally prioritise job assignments based on driver ratings. This is something that is determined by both the platform’s algorithms and by client reviews. The theory here is that workers will be incentivised to provide good service so as not to achieve poor ratings. On the flip side of things, platform workers may not themselves be adequately protected from harassment and discrimination if unfair complaints are made by malicious customers. The hope, presumably, is that these kinds of grievances can be taken up by platform work associations, which are provided for in Part 3 of the Bill. I seek the Government’s confirmation that this an area that platform work associations will be actively looking into.
The next point I would like to make is that while we may assume that platforms are gender-blind and merely match customers and workers in the most efficient way, the design of these platforms can inadvertently result in gender imbalances being perpetuated. To put it another way, digital labour platforms are built using real-world data, but we must not forget that the real world is itself full of biases and imbalances.
For example, if workers have unpredictable caregiving responsibilities and need to suddenly cancel their work assignments because of these responsibilities, they may accordingly be penalised by platforms which operate by automatically allocating tasks to workers. Similarly, if ride-hail or delivery workers choose to decline jobs that take place late at night or in areas where they feel it is unsafe to work, they will lose out on potential job opportunities.
Algorithms, of course, are built in such a way that where there is less supply, the prices charged to consumers are much higher. So, there is an opportunity to earn more if you take on work that other people either do not want to do or cannot do. This leads to a situation where workers who are either willing to put themselves at risk or who perhaps feel that they can handle these risks better, well, they have the potential to earn more than others who do not. Given that women still tend to take on the lion’s share of caregiving responsibilities in society and given that women are also a group who may be exposed to higher levels of risks when working alone in remote areas or late into the night, the overall outcome is then a situation where gender pay imbalances can continue to be perpetuated even in the realm of platform work.
AWARE recommends that it be mandated that algorithms and rating systems be designed in a gender-sensitive way. This is one possible solution but the more fundamental issue, to me, is in basically ensuring that platform workers are treated equitably and are not unfairly penalised for things like caregiving responsibilities and for prioritising their own safety. The Platform Workers Bill being debated today does not seem to address this specific point, but I hope that the Government will advocate for this when dealing with platform operators.
The next point I would like to make is a broader one. While the Bill today addresses the problems faced by certain types of platform workers, let us not forget that there are other specific communities which are also made up of a large number of freelancers. As I have mentioned previously in this House, and other Members have as well, in the arts, according to the latest Singapore Arts Plan, at least one-third of the workforce operates on a self-employed basis. Again, it is a well-known fact that this is higher than the national average, which stands at less than one in five. In fact, in many research reports and articles, artists are often referred to as the “original gig economy workers.”
Admittedly, platform workers are not exactly the same as arts freelancers, certainly in the way that they have been defined for the purposes of the Bill today, but the two groups do face similar stresses. Arts freelancers often worry about retirement adequacy, they have little to no bargaining power when negotiating contracts, they are not entitled to protection under the Employment Act and WICA, they have little recourse when contractual disputes occur because it can be costly and time-consuming to pursue legal action and they may not have access to work insurance coverage. This is all information and feedback that is well-known to the Government through its many engagement sessions over a number of years with the arts community.
And there are examples that we can draw from in jurisdictions that have enacted specific laws to protect freelancers like this. In New York City, the “Freelance Isn’t Free Act” protects the entitlement of freelancers to written contracts, timely and full payment and provides protection from retaliation for individuals who exercise their rights under the law. In Illinois, also in the United States (US), the Freelance Worker Protection Act offers similar safeguards. Closer to home, in Korea, the Artist Welfare Act seeks to protect artists’ job security and rights in areas, such as contractual arrangements and work injury compensation.
So, while I welcome and support the Platform Workers Bill, I would also like to take the opportunity today to ask the Senior Minister of State if this important piece of legislation can be seen as a step towards providing better workplace conditions for a wider group of self-employed individuals and, in particular, those in the arts community?
The usual argument that is applied here is that freelancers are expected to make sacrifices in exchange for flexibility, but these kinds of views are so much harder to sustain in a post-COVID world. Now even workers in traditional employer-employee relationships seek more personal autonomy and flexible work arrangements.
The very Bill that we are debating today, recognises that certain types of freelancers do require legislative help in safeguarding their rights; and these are rights that we would normally see being protected only in traditional employer-employee relationships.
And so, my final clarification is this: would the Senior Minister of State consider extending legislative protection to more groups of freelancers in the future and in particular, to the arts community, which itself can also be quite a vulnerable group?
Notwithstanding these clarifications I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman.
Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, the Platform Workers Bill is essential to acknowledge the profound impact of the digital economy on the global labour market. In Singapore, the rise of platform work has underscored the urgency of addressing new challenges in ensuring decent working conditions, fair wages, comprehensive social security coverage, and robust workers' rights.
The rapid expansion of platform based work has necessitated a re-evaluation of our existing framework to safeguard the interests of these workers who are increasingly becoming important in our economy.
The labour movement warmly welcomes the Ministry of Manpower's initiative to strengthen protections for platform workers via the introduction of the CPF contributions and WICA coverage similar to employees. These moves represent a significant milestone, emerging from years of advocacy and collaborative efforts with the Labour Movement and the tripartite partners, to address key issues and develop a mutually agreeable approach to platform work in Singapore.
While this legislative step is indeed a positive advancement, it is important to recognise that there is still room for further improvement. We must continue to refine our strategies and policies to ensure that the evolving needs of platform workers are met with the utmost fairness and efficiency.
Mr Speaker, the Labour Movement is notably pleased to see the implementation of the CPF Transition Support Scheme, which signifies a crucial step forward in supporting low-wage platform workers. This initiative, set to fully offset the increase in CPF contributions to the Ordinary and Special Accounts in 2025 and, gradually taper off until 2029, is an important measure to ensure that these workers are not unduly burdened by the changes in CPF contribution requirements.
Platform workers, particularly those in lower-income brackets, face unique challenges in securing their financial future. The Labour Movement has consistently advocated for measures that protect their interests, ensuring that they receive fair treatment and support in navigating these changes. The CPF Transition Support Scheme reflects the responsiveness of MOM and the CPF Board (CPFB) to the feedback provided by our Associations.
This phased approach is particularly significant as it allows platform workers time to adapt to the new contribution structure while still securing the benefits that come with enhanced CPF contributions. The Labour Movement views this as a positive development that underscores the importance of collaborative dialogue between government bodies and worker representatives in shaping policies that are both fair and sustainable.
The Labour Movement also warmly welcomes enhancements to the WIS scheme, particularly the shift from annual to monthly disbursements for eligible platform workers. This change, alongside the eventual alignment of CPF contribution rates between platform workers and employees, ensures that platform workers will receive the same level of WIS benefits as traditional employees, including higher WIS amounts and a larger proportion of the supplement in cash.
These adjustments are particularly beneficial for low-wage workers, addressing both their immediate financial needs and long-term financial security. The transition to monthly WIS payments is a significant step for low-wage platform workers, who often face unpredictable income patterns due to the nature of gig work.
By receiving WIS on a monthly basis, these workers will have a more consistent and reliable source of income, helping them to better manage their day-to-day expenses and financial planning. These enhancements not only provide immediate financial relief but also contribute to the workers’ long-term financial well-being by bolstering their CPF savings, which are essential for retirement.
Mr Speaker, without CPF contributions, many may find themselves without sufficient savings to support themselves in their later years, particularly if they rely on platform work as their main source of income.
Opting into CPF not only helps build a safety net for the future but also provides immediate benefits such as access to healthcare, housing, and other essential needs. Platform workers who opt in this scheme will benefit from CPF contributions from platforms of up to 17% of their earnings. Given the importance of securing their financial future, it is essential that the government steps up its efforts to encourage platform workers in this age group (30 years old and above) to opt into CPF.
The Government must recognise the unique challenges and concerns that platform workers face and ensure that the CPF system is viewed as a vital component of their financial planning. This requires a multi-faceted approach that includes comprehensive educational campaigns and targeted outreach programs to help platform workers understand the long-term benefits of CPF contributions.
There is a genuine concern that these workers may be offered fewer job opportunities or lower earnings if they choose to participate fully in the CPF system. To mitigate these fears, the government should collaborate closely with platform operators to ensure that CPF participation does not lead to any form of disadvantage for workers. By implementing policies that protect platform workers from potential discrimination and by engaging in clear communication with both workers and operators, the government can create an environment, where opting into CPF is seen as the best choice.
This will not only help platform workers secure a better financial future but also contribute to a more stable and equitable labour market. The time to act is now, and the government must lead the way in making CPF participation a priority for all platform workers. Platform workers face constant pressure to work longer hours just to earn a living and this means that many platform workers find it challenging to invest time and resources in personal development and career growth.
This lack of progression not only affects their current financial stability but also hampers their ability to transition into more sustainable and fulfilling careers. The Government has a crucial role to play in addressing these challenges. There should be a more comprehensive strategy aimed at improving the career prospects of platform workers who wish to move beyond gig work.
This includes providing targeted upskilling programs and career transition support. By offering vocational training and educational opportunities tailored to the needs of platform workers, the government can help them acquire new skills and qualifications that are in demand in other sectors. Additionally, creating pathways for mentorship and career counselling can assist these workers in navigating the job market and identifying potential career opportunities.
For example, take Geylang Serai resident Mr. Naseer, who left his job as an operations manager November last year. Since then, he has struggled with unemployment and relied on ad hoc security gigs and occasional platform work to support his family.
Despite his efforts, the limited career progression in platform work made it difficult for him to build a stable future. However, with the support of the Greenlane initiative through Focus Area 4 under M3, Mr. Naseer secured a new job in April this year as a customer operations manager and remains optimistic about his future. This story highlights the importance of targeted support programs that can help workers like him make the transition from platform work to more stable and rewarding careers.
Investing in these programs not only benefits the individuals directly but also contributes to a more resilient and dynamic workforce overall.
Some platform workers are still unsure, especially in relation to their working conditions and terms imposed by platform operators. It is thus important that this Bill empowers platform workers to voice their concerns about fairer payment terms and incentive-based policies, their workplace health and safety, and fairer and more transparent penalty policies by platforms.
To our platform workers: our Associations, such as the National Taxi Association (NTA), National Private Hire Vehicles Associations (NPHVA) and National Delivery Champions Association (NDCA), have been working hard to improve your welfare behind the scenes. We now have the power to speak up and take action to protect you. We can negotiate for fairer treatment by platforms. When you have grievances with platforms, we can step in to support you. We cannot do this on our own, but we can do it together. Join us to make your voices count.
(In English): Mr Speaker, in conclusion, the Labour Movement warmly welcomes the recognition of the challenges faced by the platform workers through the implementation of initiatives, such as the PCTS and WIS Support scheme. These measures are a significant step forward in acknowledging and addressing the issues of employee protection within the gig economy.
However, we must recognise that the more comprehensive efforts are needed to address the broader clarity face by platform workers. NTUC deeply cares for our platform workers, especially those who are lower-wage roles, and is committed to make a tangible difference in their lives. We believe that encouraging younger workers to actively opt in into the CPF system, enhancing job prospects through targeted upskilling and career development programmes, are crucial steps in this process. By doing so, we can help platform workers navigate the evolving job market and secure more stable and fulfilling careers.
Speaker, Sir, the Labour Movement, comprising unionists, association leaders and NTUC, have worked hard with the tripartite partners to bring this Bill to fruition. Without tripartism and symbolic relationship with the People's Action Party (PAP), this will not be possible. We have seen examples of other countries, where the unions, companies and government cannot agree on the protection needed for platform workers. In the end, the platform workers are the ones who suffer.
Today, we are proof that Singapore's model of tripartism works to achieve progressive pro-worker outcomes. Together, we can build a more equitable and resilient workforce, ensuring no one is left behind in the face of economic change. With NTUC and our associations, let us continue to listen to the voice of our platform workers to not only address the immediate challenges faced by the platform workers, but also pave the way from a brighter and more secure future for all.
NTUC will continue to champion their interests because every platform worker matters. Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Dr Syed Harun.
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I believe, without exception, all of us have been acquainted personally with the ease of a platform service. With the click of a button, we have our food delivered to our doorstep. Another click books our trip to or from home. And yet another click could ensure a timely parcel delivery or a quick retrieval of important documents.
The platform service is so efficient, straightforward and with an interface that is easy to use that often, we have come to rely on it as part of our daily lives.
The process is seamless and almost automatic. The service platform also allows us to get what we want, when we want it and how we want it. We also felt its special utility during the COVID-19 pandemic, to go \"contactless\" and that the delivery can be made without human contact or much further instruction. We specify the need, make the order and hey presto, it appears at our doorstep. We decide the destination and agree on the payment and the ride arrives and sends us to the destination with much fuss or kerfuffle.
So easy it is to use a platform service that sometimes, we forget the human in the loop, which is why I feel this Bill and the Platform Workers Act is overdue.
Platform workers often choose such gig jobs for flexibility of time but this need for flexibility also sometimes arises from a function of their harsh life circumstances and not necessarily by way of their preferred choice. It comes with challenges, including job insecurity, social isolation, irregular work hours and long days. Any injury or illness, a family emergency or unexpected vehicular breakdown can have a very direct impact on our platform workers and without the same sense of safety net and security salaried workers have and are protected for.
Because in platform work it is suggested that the more you work the more you earn, it is also tempting to work more and more such that the platform worker, at least, in the moment, may consider disregarding his own safety, health and welfare to make that delivery or service count and bring that additional dollar back home.
Add that to the contactless nature of how platform services work, that a delivery that can almost feel automatic and be bereft of any human interaction, the lack of collective bargaining power that platform workers have to put their welfare first in this line of work and an imbalance of power and control between platform companies and workers, it really puts us on the path of potentially dehumanising our platform workers if we leave things be as they are.
Mr Speaker, that is why the Platform Workers Bill and future Act is important, to protect the dignity of work and ensure a more fair and equitable support structure for our platform workers. To that end, I thank the MOM for looking into this very important area for platform workers alongside the unions, employers and other tripartite partners. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This Bill gives due weight and attention towards platform workers. Many of them work hard and are often drenched in perspiration just to earn a living, sometimes disregarding the risks to their own health and safety.
When a platform service relies on an algorithm without any direct human involvement; when there is lesser human interaction, either between the service users, the platform workers or the platform operators; and when a service can be accepted or fulfilled in a contactless way or without human contact; we can easily forget about having compassion for the platform workers behind these services.
Sometimes, as consumers, we might pay more attention on getting our orders fulfilled through the platform’s application, without thinking about the circumstances, fatigue and hardship experienced by platform workers who are also challenged by traffic or weather conditions, as well as the time pressure to fulfil the service.
This Bill focuses specifically on the basic needs of platform workers. It zooms in on compensation for work injuries in line with WICA standards, enhances their CPF contribution and provides for the establishment of a representative body for platform workers.
This is key in enhancing the well-being of the platform workers, especially for the lower income group. It further reinforces the emphasis and responsibility of platform operators so that they show more concern towards the needs of this sector, in terms of the workers’ rights, employment, safety and health issues.
This Bill also specifically focuses on addressing concerns and dealing with their long-term insecurities as platform workers, so that it is equal to and aligned with workers in other industries.
I hope this the first of many concrete measures for our platform workers to raise awareness on the importance of platform workers in our economy, thus showing our appreciation for the hard work and determination they show every day to earn a living. It is a very important step to provide justice and equality to our platform workers.
(In English): Mr Speaker, before I end, I have two clarifications for the purposes of this Bill.
First, as also mentioned and similar to the points raised by hon Member prior, relating to the wide definition of the meaning of platform service, operator and the worker, I note that the First Schedule only specifies delivery and ride-hail services today. However, based on the meaning of platform service and platform operator, it does cover a broad definition that can be applied today to other types of services that may use similar platforms, but are not yet articulated in the First Schedule.
These could include household cleaning services, counselling, psychology and caregiving services, or even possibly overlap with certain professional services, such as home nursing and medical services, some already available through mobile applications. These platform services allow for ready provision of such services, have a platform operator already exercising management control of the particular service and also engage workers or professionals providing that service.
Is it envisioned, as technology further evolves, and more of such services can and will be delivered and made accessible through platform-based services, that the workers or professionals providing that specific service be considered as platform workers too under this Bill?
This is because such workers or professionals, like their delivery and ride-hailing services counterparts, may opt for a flexible work arrangement, not wish to be tied to a traditional brick-and-mortar employer or institution and may well fall under the remit of a platform worker as we define it in this Bill today.
Second, Mr Speaker, there would be some anxiety of workers, employers and users alike regarding the eventual implementation of Act.
For platform workers, there are concerns about how CPF contributions could impact, especially in the short to medium term, how much they will bring home each month in real terms to support their needs and their families.
For employers or platform operators, there are concerns about costs associated with the regulatory requirements from CPF contributions, WICA and the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Act.
The costs of business will likely increase and ensuring their platforms and systems transit to the new model of engagement with their workers will require some time and effort.
Lastly, for users, at the last mile, it is also unclear how it will impact delivery charges and whether the availability of such services will be affected in the short term. In this regard, I hope the Ministry can assure members, platform workers, employers and the public on the forward steps to be taken to ameliorate these concerns such that the transition to effecting this Bill, which I believe remains an important pillar for our platform workers, is done smoothly.
Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my comments and clarifications, I rise in support of this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Platform Worker Bills. First, I wish to declare my interest as the CEO of Strides Premier, a company that hires out limousines, private hire cars and taxis.
New technology has created new jobs and platform work is one of them. Today, over 70,000 platform workers in Singapore are working very hard every day to provide essential services and they deserve our support.
However, many platform operators in Singapore are still struggling financially. In 2023, last year, Grab reported a loss of $485 million and Delivery Hero, the parent company of Foodpanda, lost 2.3 billion euros. These figures highlight the uncertainties faced by platform workers, who have little control over their financial security. I am heartened to see that sections 16 to 18 of the Bill prioritise payments to platform workers over most other debts if a platform operator goes bankrupt. Without this protection, many workers would be left vulnerable and unable to recover what is rightfully theirs.
The most notable part of the Bill is Part 3, which paves the way for the formation of platform work associations. NTUC has already announced its intention to register a new platform work association with MOM, which will formally represent platform workers and dissolve the National Private Hire Vehicles Association, National Delivery Champions Association and the National Taxi Association, which has the longest history. These new associations will give platform workers a voice, a place where their concerns are heard and their needs are addressed. This is a significant milestone for a group that has often felt unheard and they can now be more appropriately represented by the new platform work associations.
I recall knowing one particular taxi driver who used to deliver for GrabFood. For some reasons, he was banned from the GrabFood platform. When he switched to becoming a taxi driver, he found himself banned from GrabCar and GrabTaxi platforms as well, even though these services were not directly linked to GrabFood platform. In this case, I had to appeal on his behalf. With the new platform work associations, platform workers like him will have someone to turn to. Platform workers will be better protected, no longer left to fend for themselves.
If the Platform Worker Bill is passed, platform workers will also be required to contribute to their CPF accounts. While this may mean a slight drop in their take-home pay, it ultimately secures their future with higher overall earnings from the CPF contributions to the platform operators. The CPF contributions will help in their housing and retirement needs. Thus, I applaud the Government's initiative to offset 100% of the increase in CPF contributions to the Ordinary and Special Accounts for low-income platform workers in 2025, making this transition smoother for those who need it most.
I also commend the move to keep CPF contribution rates consistent for platform workers below 65 from 2025 to 2027 as mandated in the Fourth Schedule. This is a positive departure from the current practice, where employers contribute less for those aged 55 to 65 compared to younger workers. Many of us, especially those in this House, agree that the 60s today are the new 50s. People are healthier, active and can contribute just as much as their younger counterparts. This is one of the reasons why MOM is raising the retirement age. I urge MOM to consider raising the employer's CPF contribution rates for all Singaporean employees aged 55 to 65 to match those below 55, aligning with the standards MOM imposed on platform operators.
There was once an argument that older workers between 55 and 65 were less productive, making them less attractive hires. However, with the tight labour market and no significant drop in the productivity for this age group, most employers no longer consider lower CPF contribution rates for the older workers as a critical factor in hiring decisions. I urge MOM to stand firm in protecting our older workers by raising their employer's CPF contribution rates, ensuring that they receive the same respect and support as their younger colleagues. Perhaps, the Government Service, being the largest employer in Singapore, can take the lead.
Let us return to our platform workers. Currently, they are paid based on their productivity. Whether it is a 30-year-old or a 65-year-old private hire driver, their job is to safely transport passengers from point A to point B. Similarly, whether food is delivered by a younger platform worker or an older one, the service remains the same. Age should not dictate the value of their work.
So, why should platform operators contribute less to older platform workers' CPF after 2027 when their productivity per job basis remains unchanged? I urge MOM to consider maintaining the platform operator's CPF contribution rate for platform workers below 65, even beyond 2027.
For those above 65, some may argue that they are more prone to workplace injuries, potentially leading to higher insurance costs. In such cases, a slightly lower CPF contribution rate might be justified, but we should always strive to balance fairness with practicality. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] If the Platform Workers Bill is passed, it will be a historic turning point, providing better protection for 70,000 platform workers. To safeguard platform workers' housing and retirement needs, those under 30 will need to contribute to their CPF while platform operators must also make employer's CPF contributions for platform workers. Although platform workers' take-home pay will decrease, however, with the addition of CPF contributions from the platform operators, they will have more CPF funds to buy a home and accumulate more savings for retirement.
Additionally, the Bill requires platform operators to purchase workplace injury compensation insurance for platform workers to better protect their interests if work-related injuries happen. However, the cost will ultimately be borne by someone. Will platform operators transfer this increased cost to consumers? In other words, will private hire car fares increase? Will food delivery fees be raised as a result? These are important issues we must pay attention to.
Especially in Singapore, most platform operators are still operating at a loss and are struggling to become profitable. Therefore, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State what specific measures can be taken to curb platform operators from raising prices and passing on the increased cost to consumers?
Furthermore, platform operators may also reduce benefits for platform workers in order to lower their operating cost. If this happens, platform workers will be affected and will not be able to enjoy the protection they deserve. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, how can we ensure that platform workers do not lose their rightful benefits because of the free market forces?
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have four further clarifications.
Firstly, does the Bill empower the new platform work associations to negotiate with taxi companies that are not platform operators? If so, can the new platform work associations also negotiate with private hire car rental companies, which are prevalent and currently not regulated by the Land Transport Authority (LTA)?
Secondly, how many platform workers are non-Singaporeans? While private hire car and taxi driving is limited to Singaporeans, many delivery workers are permanent residents (PRs). Will the platform work associations represent these PRs?
Thirdly, section 39(4) states that at least two-thirds of the officers of every registered platform work association must be active platform service providers. Why two-thirds? Should this proportion not be higher, given that the associations are meant for platform workers? In addition, should officers of these platform work associations be required to work a minimum number of hours each month to better stay connected and relevant to the platform workers?
Fourthly, the Ninth Schedule amends the WICA 2019 to mandate platform operators' liability for work injury compensation. This is particularly beneficial to food delivery workers, who currently lack insurance coverage. However, for platform drivers, injuries from road accidents could be covered under a car insurance policy if the driver is not at fault. How would MOM advise platform drivers on whether to claim through their car insurance or the work injury compensation insurance for road accidents?
Despite my above clarifications and suggestions, I firmly support the Bill. This is about recognising the hard work and contributions of platform workers and giving them the protection and respect they deserve.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I strongly support the Bill. Our platform workers perform important services utilised by many Singaporeans and residents. They should be accorded similar protections and benefits as employees in similar wage bands. The proposals in the Bill are greatly welcomed since they will help boost their retirement and housing adequacies and get the necessary compensation and representation.
I am heartened that many of the suggestions, feedback and appeals by my Parliamentary colleagues and me to improve the welfare of platform workers over the past few years have been incorporated into this Bill.
For example, in May 2021, I had requested the Ministry through a written Parliamentary Question to enact legislation to require companies hiring platform workers to recognise them as employees so that they can get the corresponding benefits and cover them for personal accident insurance.
Hence, I am delighted with the Ministry's decision to gradually align CPF contribution rates of platform workers with employees and require platform operators to purchase work injury compensation insurance for their platform workers. My residents in Fernvale will certainly be delighted to know that this law will be passed in Parliament. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I do understand that the five-year period for the CPF changes is intended to help the platform operators and the platform workers adjust over time, but I hope that the Ministry would consider shortening this timeframe from five to three years. Three years should be enough for all to adapt and allow platform workers to start accumulating more CPF savings earlier.
In addition, among platform workers born before 1995, a significant proportion would be beneficiaries of the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) scheme. Due to their age, their income, compared to fellow workers, may not be as high. Hence, the Government can consider letting them join the CPF scheme so that they can benefit and be given the WIS as additional income.
On behalf of platform workers, I would like to thank the government. From 2029, all eligible platform workers will receive full employee WIS, up from the two-thirds of employees' WIS presently.
(In English): Next, I would like to raise an issue not covered in this Bill but which I hope can be included in a future amendment Bill.
For normal employees, work cannot exceed 44 hours a week and total overtime cannot exceed 72 hours in a month. However, there seems to be no such regulations for platform workers. There is a risk of platform workers being overworked and not being adequately paid for the additional hours or compensated for higher risks of working while fatigued.
Will the Ministry consider looking into this and implementing measures to ensure that platform workers are adequately protected?
At the Sitting in July 2021, I had asked MOM to consider mandatory breaks for drivers of private hire cars to mitigate health and safety concerns relating to driver fatigue from continuous driving. As drivers are paid for the number of trips they make, I am also deeply concerned about the dangers of overwork for such platform workers.
I hope the Ministry will consider looking into the use of technology to support the drivers to take a short break if the need arises, if they are tired and reduce the safety risks to themselves and others, including their families.
I would also like to take this opportunity to highlight an issue in our current driving framework. For taxi services, the taxi driver must be aged 30 and above and be a Singapore Citizen. However, for GrabHitch driver-partner services, PRs and those aged below 30 are allowed to provide driving services.
On the surface, GrabHitch is a social car-pooling service which allows all drivers to give a lift to riders heading the same way. In practice, this may be a loophole which enables foreigners and younger, less experienced drivers to provide driver services. How will the authorities check and ensure that the drivers are genuine social drivers? Rooting out unqualified persons would help protect the livelihoods of our genuine platform workers. Will MOM investigate this discrepancy?
Last but not least, there have been cases of foreigners coming to Singapore to do delivery work. How would the Ministry tighten the regulations and increase enforcement to ensure that these illegal workers do not encroach upon the livelihoods of our local platform workers, depress their wages and, if accidents were to happen to them, and others.
I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Miss Rachel Ong.
Miss Rachel Ong (West Coast): Mr Speaker, the Platform Workers Bill represents a crucial step in safeguarding the physical and financial well-being of our platform workers, especially our dedicated delivery riders, who will be the focus of my speech.
Our delivery riders are not just workers. They are sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, and even grandparents. In my conversations with them, I have learned about their tireless efforts and the sacrifices they make. Many endure long hours on the road, at times, 12, 15, or even 18 hours a day, driven by a profound commitment to provide for their families and secure a better future for their children. One rider proudly shared with me that his two children are students in schools running the Integrated Programme, with one in junior college and the other in secondary school, both working hard to succeed.
These children are not only their parents' motivating force and hope, but they are also the next generation of Singapore. It is thus our collective responsibility to safeguard the wellbeing of these hardworking individuals who are devoted to their families and play a pivotal role in building our nation.
One of the most pressing concerns we must address is the safety of our delivery riders. The extended hours they work are not just gruelling, they pose significant risks on the road. Fatigue from long hours is a serious safety hazard that increases the likelihood of accidents. To mitigate this, it is essential for the Government and platform operators to work together to enhance safety guidelines.
In many industries, shift workers are provided with mandatory breaks, shift limits and other safety protocols. Implementing similar safeguards for delivery riders could significantly reduce the dangers they face on the road and ensure their safety as they carry out their work.
Balancing safety with economic needs is also critical. I understand that some riders may be concerned about limits on their working hours due to the urgency of providing for their families and the uncertainty of securing jobs. Platform work does not always guarantee a consistent income as earnings depend on the availability of jobs in specific locations and time slots. Those who do not earn enough during their shift may feel compelled to extend their working hours to make up the gaps in income. However, those extra hours could just lead to a devastating loss of a breadwinner due to a preventable accident.
To address both safety and economic stability, I am pleased that the Bill includes legally binding duties for platform operators, specifically an insertion into the WSH Act 2006, section 12A. This requires platform operators to take necessary measures to ensure the safety and health of their workers, including measures to prevent exposing them to hazards arising from the platform operator's arrangements and processes. The number of consecutive hours riders are allowed to work and how incentives are given are part of these arrangements.
It is important that the Government and the industry continue to work closely to clarify how these provisions will be implemented, enforce them rigorously and review them regularly to safeguard our workers on the road.
Beyond safety, the Bill also ensures financial security for our workers through mandatory savings via CPF. This is a very welcome development. From the delivery workers I have spoken with, there is genuine appreciation for this provision. It offers a structured approach to savings, provide financial security for those with young families and those who may not have the means or knowledge to save adequately on their own.
Many riders who are also breadwinners often prioritise and are very willing to spend on their family's present needs, leaving little for their own retirement. This initiative is a step towards securing their future and gifting them peace of mind in their later years. I sincerely hope more workers above 30 will choose to opt into the programme, for their long-term financial well-being.
The Platform Workers Bill stands out not only for its comprehensive safety and financial provisions but also for the collaborative process behind its creation. While other countries have taken steps to address platform worker rights, Singapore's Platform Workers Bill excels in its comprehensive approach to challenges such as retirement adequacy, work safety and insurance, and collective representation.
This achievement is rooted in Singapore's distinctive approach to tripartism, which brings together the voices of workers, employers and the Government to shape policies. Thanks to the tireless efforts of our tripartite partners: MOM, the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF), we are able to introduce a Bill that safeguards platform workers in a balanced and efficient manner.
In contrast, we can observe the challenges of a different approach in California. In 2020, the introduction of Assembly Bill 5, also known as AB5, which aimed to reclassify platform workers as employees, was swiftly challenged by platform companies through Proposition 22, a measure that exempted platform operators from AB5's requirements. This led to a prolonged legal battle that lasted years and concluded in July 2024 with Proposition 22 being held in favour of platform operators.
The process not only incurred significant legal costs for both employers and unions, but also delayed the much-needed protections for workers. Singapore's collaborative tripartite model, on the other hand, enables a smoother roll-out of protections, avoiding prolonged conflicts and ensuring that all stakeholders are engaged from the start.
In conclusion, the Platform Workers Bill reflects Singapore's deep commitment to fairness, safety, and the well-being of our platform workers. It also stands as a testament to our unique tripartite approach, where Government, employers, and unions work in concert to create balanced and effective policies.
This Bill not only protects the livelihoods of our workers but also secures their future, offering them the dignity and peace of mind they deserve. Mr Speaker, I strongly support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.
Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Sir, let me start with a quick story. A couple of years ago, I had a meeting at a platform operator’s headquarters office in Singapore. And the person I was meeting suggested to let us meet at the staff cafeteria. So, I went to the staff cafeteria, and I remembered being blown away. It was a very nice cafeteria, offering a full range of wholesome meals to staff; there was also an espresso machine and freshly brewed coffee and even beer, for after office hours, I presume. All the creature comforts were there. And it was lunch time when I visited, so the whole cafeteria was lively, teeming with employees, lots of laughter and conversations and energy, and everyone was just enjoying themselves and having a good time in this staff cafeteria.
I recall looking at this and thinking about the delivery riders who were waiting for orders at the fast-food outlet at the CC in my constituency. And I recalled thinking, both groups of workers are working for the same platform company, contributing to the platform company, so why is the difference in perks, benefits and experience so large? And I recall thinking that this does not feel fair, it does not feel right, and we got to change this somehow.
Therefore, I am so glad that the Platform Workers Bill is finally before this House. If passed, it will be a great leap forward for the rights and protection of platform workers in Singapore. Platform workers deserve rights and protection under our laws. And I am glad that there is broad political consensus on this fundamental point – indeed, both the Workers' Party (WP) and Progress Singapore Party (PSP) support the Bill and agree with the Government on this fundamental point.
The Platform Workers Bill has been described as a \"landmark\" Bill. I agree. But the Bill is landmark not only for what it will achieve – for the rights and protection of platform workers, if passed. It is also landmark for how we are able to achieve it in the first place, make the Bill possible in the first place, because of who we are, and how we work. It is landmark for how we are able to achieve the Bill in the first place because of who we are and how we work.
And tripartite is who we are. And tripartism is how we work. This landmark Bill is only possible because of our unique tripartism in Singapore.
There are so many innovative and groundbreaking features in this wide-ranging piece of legislation. Take for example, the Work Injury Compensation framework for platform workers. It is a major innovation.
Senior Minister of State Koh circulated this nifty A3-sized brochure in his opening speech yesterday to summarise the framework, but let us think about it. The principles and the basic mechanism of Work Injury Compensation for platform workers that this brochure so neatly summarises are thoughtful, measured, balanced, very carefully crafted. It must have taken months and months of hard work, by tripartite partners, by a competent Government, working closely with an NTUC who is all about creating better lives for workers, with platform workers themselves, and with platform operators, insurers and other business stakeholders.
Or take for example, the Fixed Expense Deduction Amount that this Bill provides for. It is another major innovation. Those elegant mathematical factors that crystallise the costs on a platform worker to perform platform work, so as to provide a simple and elegant way for everyone to determine net earnings from platform work – so, for example, 20% of earnings for a walker, 35% for a delivery rider on personal mobility device and 60% for a private hire vehicle driver in a car. These Fixed Expense Deduction Amount factors and the whole concept of Fixed Expense Deduction Amount itself, they are another major innovation.
But they did not drop from the sky. Rather, they are borne of what must, again, have been months and months of hard work, of respectful, collaborative consultations between Government, NTUC, platform workers, and platform operators. I can imagine putting five platform workers, operator representatives, union leaders and Government representatives in the same room and asking them to try to agree on this Fixed Expense Deduction Amount values. And between the five of them, there would probably be six different views, and ask them to come back the next day, there may yet be another three or four different views.
So, these must have been tough conversations. But with our unique model of tripartism, we got it done. And so, our unique model of tripartism in Singapore made this landmark Bill possible. And I say, we should celebrate and applaud this achievement by our unique tripartism in Singapore.
And yes, there will be challenges and key issues to implementing the Bill, as has been discussed extensively in this debate. There will certainly be challenges, but I am confident that if we continue to rely on our unique tripartism and work through our unique tripartism, we can – and we will – overcome all these challenges.
Indeed, I would like to put to this House that beyond the challenges, and as much as arriving at this Bill is, in itself, a great leap forward for platform workers' rights and protection in Singapore, the centre of gravity of our efforts to advance and secure the rights and protection of platform workers, in their best interests will lie in the road ahead, and no less through the way in which we operationalise and realise the collective bargaining that this Bill will empower platform workers to engage in.
So, the real work lies ahead.
This Bill deliberately and wisely avoids making any prescription on the scope of this collective bargaining. Platform workers, through platform work associations, and platform operators will have full flexibility to determine the scope of this collective bargaining. It is my hope that pay, specifically fair pay, will be a key issue that our tripartite partners will pick up and address in the collective bargaining going forward.
And I have two suggestions.
First, I hope that we can forge a basic consensus, and crystallise and enshrine a basic principle, on what should constitute Fair Pay for platform work. And I like to suggest this principle: that a platform worker should be, on average, no worse off than a local employee receiving protection and assurance on wage floors under the Local Qualifying Scheme (LQS) Wage Schedule regime.
This means:
(a) that a \"full-time\" platform worker, working up to 44 hours per week, should earn, on average, at least $1,600 a month net of all costs, on par with current LQS;
(b) a \"part-time\" platform worker, working up to 35 hours per week, should earn, on average, at least $10.50 per hour, again net of costs; and
(c) a \"super garang\" platform worker, pulling beyond 44 hours per week, and to hon Member Mr Gan Thiam Poh's point, should be remunerated for what is essentially \"overtime\", at a level that is, on average, at least on par with overtime pay as prescribed by the LQS Wage Schedule. So, for example, those platform workers who work 78 hours per week, or 11 hours per day for seven days of the week, should earn, on average, taking reference from the LQS Wage Schedule at least $2,000 net of all costs.
And if we apply the Fixed Expense Deduction Amount framework and gross up these net earnings for costs, this would translate to just over $16 an hour in gross takings – in other words, what a platform will pay the worker, for a delivery rider on a PMD doing food delivery as a side hustle, for example, or $5,000 a month in gross takings for a private hire vehicle driver who pulls 11 hours per day every day on the road. Compared to the comments that have been offered by a major operator recently that its base fare is, I quote, \"benchmarked to the F&B sector\" and \"something like $1,400\", I think we are quite some way off the mark today.
The key is also to make these earnings more stable, more consistent week to week, month on month, around the agreed average, so as to reduce the precarity of pay for platform work. It is only fair.
It will not be easy to achieve and we will not be able to wait for another Institute of Policy Studies survey or the annual survey by MOM to tell us how we are doing on fair pay for our platform workers. To achieve this, we really need a monitoring and calibration logic cycle that is as dynamic as the algorithms that are assigning gigs, churning out jobs, putting out fares and incentives.
Indeed, we will probably need to bake the whole logic of fair pay into the operating algorithms of platform operators for this to really work. The task will be fraught with complexities: there are the vagaries of supply and demand in the gig economy; there are variances in the base fare and incentive structures across time and across operators; there are various types of platform work to begin with and there are other complexities to work through.
But a basic principle that we can all agree on, around what constitutes fair pay for platform work, will become a north star that can guide and anchor everyone, all stakeholders, as we work through these complexities. So, we should do it, because it is right for our platform workers. And we can do it, I believe, because we have our unique model of tripartism in Singapore.
My second suggestion is this. Let us not stop at pay but let us also champion and advance pay progression for platform work. It is often said that platform work provides \"almost zero\" prospects of career advancement and pay progression. I say, let us harness the collective bargaining structure for platform work that this Bill will enable to break these boundaries, to break that whole mental model. And let us contemplate and work towards, through collective bargaining, a future where we can provide some skills ladder, job ladder and pay ladder for various types of platform work. It will be challenging and there is no precedent around the world.
But if there is anywhere in the world that can take a shot at this and do this, it is in Singapore, with our unique model of tripartism. And if we can get it done, it will be truly innovative and groundbreaking for platform workers and the platform work economy in Singapore. Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Platform Workers Bill aims to provide platform workers with appropriate rights and protections under our laws. Platform workers deserve to have rights and protections. However, this Platform Workers Bill did not come about by chance, but rather as a result of our unique Tripartite model, which has made this Platform Workers Bill possible.
Looking to the future, we must also rely on our unique Tripartite model to continue to advocate for the rights and protections of platform workers and allow the legal effects of this Bill be maximised in practice. By doing this, the income, welfare and lives of platform workers will improve continuously.
(In English): Sir, to conclude, ultimately, this Bill is not only pro-worker but also, in my mind, pro-business and pro-consumer. It is about the ethos of business that we want in Singapore – businesses that do well by doing good and doing right. It is also about the Singaporean consumer supporting fair and sustainable trade practices. It is about an ever fairer economy and an ever fairer and more just society in Singapore. And underpinning all these, it is about strengthening our unique model of tripartism in Singapore and strengthening our social compact.
I am hopeful that all stakeholders – platform workers, platform operators and consumers – will embrace the Platform Workers Bill in this spirit and forge ahead in the tough road of implementation ahead of us with that same spirit, to continue advancing and securing the rights and protection of platform workers in Singapore in the months and years ahead.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Koh.
The Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Dr Koh Poh Koon): Mr Speaker, let me begin by thanking all Members for their support for the Platform Workers Bill. Both the WP and the PSP have spoken in support of this Bill to give platform workers better protection. I thank them for their support as well.
In my opening speech yesterday, I went into some length to explain the construct of the Bill and some of the implementation details for CPF contribution, work injury compensation and representation. Members will get a sense of how complex it is to implement the recommendations put forth by the Advisory Committee for Platform Workers – and Mr Xie Yao Quan's speech just before mine, gave a very good glimpse into the complexities of the negotiations and, sometimes, all the to-ing the fro-ing, all the arguments that can take place. But eventually, we landed on a good set of recommendations.
Before I address the specific questions raised by Members, I thought it is useful for me to help Members of this House understand how we are able to put forth this landmark legislation to help a group of workers who are precarious, when many other countries are still grappling to solve their problems.
The platform sector is a very heterogeneous one that is rapidly evolving and, sometimes, new ones will come onto the scene as well. A key characteristic is the very dynamic way in which supply and demand of jobs and labour are very quickly matched, and dynamic pricing also serves to incentivise service users and workers to facilitate a match. Platform operators, workers and users interact with one another dynamically as demand/supply and prices respond and change rapidly in real time. This allows flexibility and is a feature platform workers desire but it also imposes management control on these workers. Multi-homing on various platforms further adds to the complexity.
For these reasons, many countries are grappling with the difficulties of putting a legislative frame around a constantly evolving entity. How did we manage to put forth this Platform Workers Bill today, that both the governing and opposition Members have given their unanimous support to, in such a short time, over a mere two to three years since we started this stream of work? The International Labour Organization (ILO) is also interested to understand how we did it. I will share three key ingredients that made this possible.
First, and most important, tripartism. Singapore is able to come up with this innovative and landmark piece of legislation because of the close working relationship and trust amongst the tripartite partners. It is a relationship that is forged through the crucible of time, with which we had weathered various crises together over the decades. It allows us to adopt a collaborative approach to seek win-win solutions and enables us to nimby adapt and adjust to the fast-evolving nature of the platform landscape.
This is something that is unique and special here in Singapore that is not necessarily the case in many other countries. The Director-General of ILO Mr Gilbert Houngbo has shared his admiration for the unique tripartism we have here in Singapore when I met him in Geneva and he is keen to learn more about how our tripartism actually works.
But what is so unique about our tripartism? We must understand that there is a natural tension between the interests of businesses and workers which stems from the competing goals of maximising profits on the one side, and securing fair treatment and compensation on the other. It is quite easy for a government to be pro-worker. It is also quite easy for a government to be pro-business. But it is very difficult for a government to be both pro-worker and pro-business at the same time.
Close relationships between unions and political parties are perfectly normal in all functioning democracies. This usually takes the form of the union either forming a party on its own or funding and supporting one party.
A cornerstone of our strong tripartite relationship is the symbiotic relationship between PAP and NTUC as well as our respect for the employers. The symbiotic relationship of PAP and NTUC has allowed us, as the ruling party, to run a government that is both pro-worker and pro-business at the same time.
Tripartism undergirds the industrial harmony and economic success of Singapore. Other countries try to emulate us, but they cannot because, unlike us, they do not have the symbiotic relationship between unions and the governing party, and so they do not have the tripartism that we have.
What is dangerously clear to us is that the WP will seek to dismantle this. When the WP attacks the symbiotic relationship between the PAP and NTUC and Mr Gerald Giam said, and I quote, \"I believe that unions must be independent and non-partisan\", he is, in fact, saying that the WP will not align itself with any union or form any relationship with any union.
The tripartism that we have in Singapore today, which many other countries want to emulate, only exists because of the close relationship and the mutual respect between the PAP and NTUC. You dismantle this and everything falls apart. So, all workers and employers should sit up and take notice because the WP leadership wants to destroy tripartism as it stands here today. The WP will kill tripartism, and in its place will be a more adversarial form of relationship and system that we see happening elsewhere.
But here is the irony. David Marshall was the founding Chairman of the WP. When David Marshall mooted the idea of forming a \"political party whose membership is exclusively confined to members of trade unions\" and started the WP in 1957, the founding executive committee members of the party comprised 20 trade unionists and 10 non-unionists.
Mr Gerald Giam and the WP are completely ignorant about how the WP started as a party of unionists. And some of this information was obtained from their own website. Clearly, the WP is no longer a pro-worker party. Unions have long been a part of WP's history. Somehow, along the way, they lost the trust in their relationship with the unions. So, now, Mr Gerald Giam says, like a bit of a toxic ex-boyfriend, because I cannot have a relationship with unions, no one else should have as well; there should be no love between any other political party and the unions.
Fortunately, for Singapore, tripartism under the PAP Government is strong and, to NTUC and our unions, I say \"Solidarity Forever\". [Applause.]
And the Advisory Committee for Platform Workers (PWAC), which comprises tripartite representatives, was able to negotiate and come up with a balanced set of recommendations which we are now legislating through this Bill. So, I thank the members of PWAC for their efforts that made this possible.
The second ingredient is a strong and dedicated team of civil servants at MOM. Beyond the recommendations of PWAC, Members can appreciate the very complex implementation mechanisms and operational processes that insurers, platform operators, CPF Board and MOM will need to put in place to ensure seamless and smooth execution for CPF collection, an effective work injury compensation claims regime and a workable representation framework.
My MOM colleagues have worked closely with the platform operators, our tripartite partners NTUC and SNEF as well as various agencies, taking their feedback and working through various policy and operational constructs to address the complex nature of work in this sector.
Mr Xie Yao Quan's speech just now characterised some of these challenges in coming up with very detailed implementation details. Sometimes, I look at my officers and I think, the kind of mental gymnastics that they do to come up with all these implementation details, deserves an Olympic medal.
I want to put on record my thanks to all of them for their dedication and commitment to strengthening the support and protections for our platform workers.
The third are Singaporeans at large. Various surveys have shown that Singaporeans are prepared to pay a little bit more to give these platform workers better protection. The percentages may vary across different surveys taken at different time points, but that is not the main thing. The key thing is this: this Bill we are enacting today is a declaration of our social compact. Recognising that \"every worker matters\" means that platform workers also deserve to be treated fairly and equitably.
I thank Singaporeans for standing in solidarity with these workers who have done so much for us, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Sir, this is a very challenging legislation and the policy solutions may not be perfect. We will have to make trade-offs and accept that not all the issues and gaps in the platform space can be fully addressed through this legislation alone. But the status quo of leaving this group of workers – these platform workers, who are vulnerable – would not be the right thing to do. It would have been far easier to just do nothing or perhaps take the easier approaches adopted elsewhere that unfortunately do not address the unique features of the platform workspace.
This Government is taking the approach of enacting legislation to define platform workers as a distinct category of workers because we believe it is necessary and the right thing to do for this group of precarious workers. In legislating, we seek to preserve the key characteristics of the platform economy to ensure it can still function effectively, even as we seek to reduce the precarity of platform workers. All stakeholders, including consumers, will need to play a part.
I would like to make an observation on the considerations raised by Members. Some Members have expressed concerns that the introduction of the Bill will raise prices. On the other hand, there have also been calls to do more for platform workers to provide even more protections for them. For example, to extend work injury compensation coverage to platform workers travelling to and from home or waiting for jobs; but this will further drive up the costs of protections that society will have to bear.
I raise this observation to make the point that where we have landed at this Bill today is a careful balance of the interests of the various stakeholders involved to provide platform workers with the protection they need while making sure that the platform economy continues to be sustainable.
With this principle in mind, I will now address the queries and concerns raised by broad themes. Some of the questions raised by Members have already been addressed in my speech yesterday, so I will not cover them here again. I will start by addressing questions related to the first set of amendments on the definition of terms and scope of entities and workers covered under the Bill.
Many Members have suggested expanding the scope of the Bill to cover other platform services beyond that of the ride-hail and delivery services. As I have earlier explained, the Bill will account for the vast majority of platform workers doing work that is precarious. That said, I would like to assure Members we will certainly review the scope of the Act in the future, as the platform landscape continues to evolve.
Mr Patrick Tay had a query on the meaning of \"agreement\" in clause 5(1)(a) of the Bill. Clause 5(1) sets out the conditions that must be met for the purposes of determining if an individual is a platform worker. The \"agreement\" in clause 5(1) will become a \"platform work agreement\" only when an individual satisfies all conditions to be a platform worker.
Mr Tay also sought clarification on the meaning of \"special expenses\" in the definition of \"earnings\" in the Bill. \"Special expenses\" include payments meant to reimburse the expenses of platform workers when providing the platform service. An example would be the reimbursement of costs that platform workers may incur for cleaning services if a customer makes a mess in the vehicle. Such expenses will not attract CPF contributions as they are not meant to add to the platform worker's earnings.
Mr Neil Parekh had a query on how existing contracts will be affected and how conflicts between the Bill and platform work agreements will be resolved. When the Bill comes into force, obligations on the platform operator or platform worker under the Act will supersede existing contractual provisions that are less favourable. This means that even if existing agreements are not revised or the platform operator does not enter into any new agreement with the platform worker, the Act will supersede any existing platform work agreement. Therefore, it is in the interest of platform operators to go through existing agreements or enter into new agreements with their platform workers to reflect the new obligations under the Act.
Let me move on to clarifications regarding the second set of amendments to support the housing and retirement adequacy of platform workers through the CPF system.
Mr Pritam Singh and Ms Yeo Wan Ling have expressed concerns about the impact of increased CPF contributions on platform workers' take-home pay. Overall, platform workers will experience an increase in their total earnings after factoring in CPF contributions from the platform operators. Platform workers can use their Ordinary Account contributions in lieu of cash to pay for their housing loans. Furthermore, the Government is providing the PCTS. As mentioned in my speech yesterday, we have enhanced the PCTS to offset 100% and 75% of the year-on-year increase in the first and second year respectively.
Mr Pritam Singh's remark that the 100% PCTS offset applies to the lowest increase is not true as the increase in each year is up to 2.5% points. Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked whether the PCTS can be extended to all platform workers who earn more than $2,500, for up to the first $2,500 of their earnings. The PCTS is targeted at lower-income platform workers to provide them with monthly support in the transition period when they see a decrease in their take-home pay as they would have less disposable income for their daily expenses. As announced earlier, the qualifying income cap has been increased to $3,000 a month. The median income of a platform worker ranges from $1,500 to $2,500 a month, so more than half of platform workers should meet the income criteria for the PCTS. These enhancements to the PCTS have increased the estimated total budget for the PCTS by close to 60%.
Mr Sharael Taha asked if part-time platform workers would be covered by the CPF provisions and be eligible for the PCTS and Workfare Income Supplement. The CPF provisions do apply to part-time platform workers, and neither PCTS nor Workfare eligibility is dependent on whether the worker is working part-time or full-time as a platform worker. This is in line with the flexible nature of platform work because the worker can choose the number of hours he or she wants to work.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if we would consider reducing the phase-in of CPF contribution rates from five years to three years and Mr Louis Chua asked to introduce the full increase for platform operators immediately. Mr Gan, Mr Pritam Singh and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also suggested making the CPF scheme compulsory for older cohorts of platform workers or making older cohorts opt out of CPF contributions rather than opt in.
Underlying their suggestions is the sentiment that CPF contributions are very important for all platform workers. I share the same sentiment. But there are pertinent considerations behind the proposed construct that we have put forth.
The five-year phase-in period was a careful decision we made, considering the take-home pay impact on platform workers, the cost impact on platform operators and the possible costs that could be passed on to consumers. These are also concerns raised by various Members in their speeches. A five-year phase-in period will allow any impact to the various stakeholders to be moderated and allows time for the market to adjust to a new equilibrium.
For platform workers who wish to achieve higher CPF contributions earlier than 2029, they can make voluntary CPF contributions to all three accounts in their CPF between 2025 and 2028, and benefit from tax relief for these additional voluntary contributions.
The decision to allow older platform workers to choose whether to participate in the increased CPF contributions by opting in recognises that they may already have existing plans to finance their housing and retirement needs. Some may have already finished paying their home loans. Older platform workers in many of our engagement sessions expressed preference for the choice to opt in.
We respect these preferences that older platform workers have expressed to us. This is why we have allowed older cohorts to opt in, rather than including all by default and requiring them to opt out.
The opt-in arrangement allows platform workers to carefully consider their needs and plans before consciously choosing to increase their CPF contributions. If it is on an opt-out basis, there may be some who might only realise later that their CPF contributions increased and will want to withdraw. This would be administratively onerous on both the platform workers and platform operators.
Nonetheless, I do encourage older platform workers to make a conscious decision and take the active step to choose increased CPF contributions from the start, especially if they are servicing a housing loan or want to build up their savings for retirement.
Furthermore, a study by the Institute of Policy Studies found that younger platform workers expressed stronger preference for additional CPF contributions to help meet their housing needs as they were more likely to have housing obligations or plans to buy a house. Younger cohorts would also benefit more from the compounding of interest, given the longer runway for accumulation.
Members would appreciate that platform work is a very heterogeneous space. Different individuals participate in platform work for various reasons and to various extents. Some do it full-time as their main source of income, others do it part-time to supplement their other sources of income. Yet others do it ad hoc to just get some pocket money.
Platform workers have given feedback that they prefer a choice to decide if they want to contribute CPF, based on their different needs. Hence, we set the mandatory contribution for CPF to begin for those who are born on or after 1995. It respects the autonomy of the platform workers while ensuring that on a cohort basis over time, a majority of platform workers will have mandatory CPF contributions.
Ms Mariam Jaafar and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked about how we plan to encourage platform workers to opt in or to help strengthen their financial literacy. The Government is working with partners, including NTUC and Institute for Financial Literacy (IFL) to ensure that platform workers are aware of the benefits of opting in to the increased CPF contributions. IFL will also offer holistic financial literacy guidance for platform workers.
Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman, Mr Ong Hua Han, Mr Pritam Singh and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim spoke about platform workers potentially facing discrimination because of their CPF contributions. Let me reassure Members that we have been actively engaging the potential platform operators and they are supportive of making CPF contributions for their platform workers.
There was a suggestion to police or audit the platform operators' algorithm to ensure that it does not result in discrimination against platform workers who opt in for CPF. There are two challenges with this suggestion.
First, an algorithm is quite dynamic, responding to real-time changes in demand and supply for platform services. Any audit will be reactive and of limited utility. The moment you get the algorithm and audit it, something has changed in the next one hour and you will always be chasing the tail. Second, algorithms are proprietary knowledge. If we force platform operators to reveal such knowledge, this may drive them away and bring about a loss of platform worker jobs, which is not our desired outcome for these workers.
So, how will we address this issue? Platform work associations will have the legal mandate to represent the interest of the platform workers. If there are instances of possible discriminatory practices by any platform operator, the platform work association can take this up with the relevant operators and, where necessary, inform MOM. This provides a channel for the platform workers, through the platform work associations, to communicate and negotiate with the platform operators. Similar to the trade union space, this can be done in a way that seeks to achieve win-win outcomes and preserves the harmonious relationship between the platform workers and platform operators in this fast evolving industry.
In addition, because of the cohort-based approach, an increasing proportion of platform workers will be covered by mandatory CPF contributions over time, as the years go by. Over time, all the younger workers who take on platform work will have mandatory CPF contributions. Therefore, it is in the interest of platform operators to treat all platform workers fairly, regardless of whether they opt-in or are in the mandatory cohort.
Finally, the platform work sector is a competitive and fluid one, where consumers and platform worker can easily switch platforms depending on what they feel works best for them. It is therefore also in the interest of platform operators to treat all workers fairly from the perspective of worker retention.
Mr Ang Wei Neng asked about the CPF contribution rates for platform workers aged above 55. As mentioned, the contribution rates set out in the schedule of the Bill are subject to the CPF contribution rate increases for employees in the same age group. Mr Ang will be pleased to know that we remain committed to implementing the 2019 recommendation by the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers to align the CPF contribution rates for employees aged above 55 to 60 to those of employees aged 55 and below.
Mr Sharael Taha asked how expenses will be factored in for platform workers who use multiple modes of transport. The Fixed Expense Deduction Amount to be applied will be based on the mode of transport for the specific job in question. As you heard from Mr Xie Yao Quan's speech earlier, 20% if you are walking, 35% if you are riding a motorbike, 60% if you are driving.
Next, I will cover the clarifications regarding the third set of amendments to ensure financial protection of platform workers if they get injured at work and to strengthen stakeholders’ responsibilities to prevent injuries.
Mr Pritam Singh asked about the cost impact of work injury compensation insurance premiums on platform operators. Mr Desmond Choo, Mr Mark Lee and Ms Yeo Wan Ling sought clarifications on the work injury compensation process for cases where multiple platform operators are involved. There was also a suggestion for a centralised insurance system to minimise disputes over which platform operator is liable for the claim.
While I agree with the need for fair and expeditious compensation, a monopolistic approach is not the best way to provide for platform workers’ insurance needs. In comparison, allowing platform operators to purchase work injury compensation insurance in an open and competitive market facilitates sustainable premiums. The open market allows platform operators to negotiate insurance rates with insurers of their choice and a competitive market facilitates sustainable premiums based on claims history. As with employers, platform operators’ insurance premiums will account for the risks in the sectors they operate in, which Ms Mariam Jaafar asked about. This will be based on indicators such as payroll size and number of workers. The new work injury compensation insurance market will be led by insurers from the Platform Workers Work Injury Compensation Implementation Network as first-movers. We welcome other players to join the market as well.
Nevertheless, we agree with Members that it is important for platform workers to receive compensation in a timely manner, so they can recuperate from a work injury with peace of mind. An injured platform worker only needs to inform the platform operator he is working for of the incident and his injury details. The platform operator will file a work injury report to MOM and the platform operator’s insurer will be notified to process the work injury compensation claim. The platform worker will be notified of the work injury compensation claim case reference number and the insurer processing the claim.
As with the employee regime, insurers and platform operators will be required to follow operational timelines for the processing of claims expeditiously, and the same dispute resolution mechanisms apply. If multiple platform operators are liable, MOM will appoint the insurer of one of those platform operators to process the claim for timely payouts to the platform worker.
Ms Jean See asked about plans to augment the Bill to protect platform workers against the unintended consequences of safety regulations. Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggested regulating the working hours of platform workers. Mr Melvin Yong suggested for platform workers to have training for road safety and safe load management and to codify incentive structures.
From our engagements, platform workers value the flexibility to determine how long and when to work, which helps them accommodate personal commitments. The proposed Bill should not alter the flexible nature of platform work that is a key feature of platform work that both the workers and the platform operators desire.
Nonetheless, we agree this should not be at the cost to personal safety and health of platform workers. Hence, amendments to the WSH Act will empower platform workers to prioritise safety and prevent platform operators from penalising them for doing so. Platform operators need to review and address the safety and health risks arising from platform work, as with companies in other industries.
This will be put into practice through the Approved Code of Practice for Platform Services, which MOM and the WSH Council are consulting the public on. Developed with tripartite partners, platform operators and platform workers, the Approved Code of Practice will codify how platform operators and platform workers can collectively address safety concerns in platform work, including fatigue management and support platform workers’ access to safety training. It includes what Mr Leong Mun Wai suggested – that platform operators should not penalise platform workers who were unable to complete the job for valid reasons.
With these in place, we should allow the industry to take ownership and work on its safety practices. Intervening to micromanage the incentive structures and algorithms of platform operators or the working hours of platform workers risks jeopardising the flexibility and sustainability of platform work.
Next, I will address questions on the fourth set of amendments on the legal framework for representation of platform workers. I will also speak on how some of the suggestions raised by members are more suited to be taken up by platform work associations in negotiations with platform operators.
Mr Patrick Tay asked how MOM would determine when platform workers have undertaken industrial action. Industrial action refers to an act that limits or restricts the performance of tasks by platform workers, which is carried out with the intention to further a work dispute with a platform operator.
For instance, if a group of platform workers intentionally turn off their apps with the intent to compel a platform operator to agree to their terms of negotiation, we will consider them to be undertaking industrial action. In contrast, a platform worker will not be regarded as undertaking industrial action if he shares information on better terms offered by a competing platform operator and suggests that other platform workers switch operator to enjoy the better terms. Because in the second scenario, there is no intent by the platform workers to further a work dispute with a platform operator.
Mr Tay also suggested allowing platform work associations to use digital voting for secret ballots since platform workers have no fixed workplaces. We agree that platform workers may not have fixed workplaces or fixed schedules and hence a different way of conducting ballots may be needed. Hence, we accepted the recommendations of the Tripartite Workgroup on Representation of Platform Workers. MOM will conduct electronic voting for secret ballots for recognition. To ensure the security and integrity of the voting process, we will implement strong safeguards including secure authentication systems.
Mr Ang Wei Neng sought clarification on whether platform work associations can negotiate with private hire car rental companies and taxi companies and represent permanent residents, or PRs. The new legal framework allows platform work associations to represent platform workers and such platform workers can include PRs. Remember we said there is a two-pronged assessment of who is a platform operator – so, private hire car companies and taxi companies that do not fulfil the definition of platform operators and are therefore not platform operators, are not covered under the framework. But associations or societies can continue to engage such companies, which is already the case today.
Mr Ang also queried on the requirement that at least two-thirds of the officers in a platform work association must be active platform workers, and whether officers should be required to work a minimum number of hours each month to better stay connected and relevant to the platform workers. In general, the representation framework for platform work sector is modelled after that of the trade unions, which has worked well and contributed to Singapore’s industrial harmony over the years. The two-thirds requirement is, for example, the same as that in the trade union space. On the point of having a fixed work hour eligibility criterion for officers, we have not set this requirement as we recognise that platform workers may not have a regular schedule every month.
Ms Jean See asked for the introduction of tripartite set-ups between sectoral platform work associations and platform operators. Mr Pritam Singh, Ms See and Mr Louis Ng also suggested to require platform operators to make information on its algorithm and earnings transparent to platform workers, or to validate their algorithms against AI Verify for fairness and safety. Ms See further suggested requiring platform operators to provide some form of income protection for platform workers if there is an outage in their app platform. Mr Xie Yao Quan, Mr Louis Chua and Mr Leong Mun Wai had various suggestions on introducing minimum earnings for platform workers as well.
We agree that the law should set basic standards on platform work in terms of transparency. For example, we will require platform operators to keep records of and provide their workers with earning slips. These earning slips must also state that they are for platform workers, so that platform workers know that they are platform workers and are aware of their rights. These requirements are specified in clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill respectively.
Related to this, Mr Patrick Tay sought clarification on the different classes of platform workers mentioned in clause 13(4). To clarify, clause 13(4) will provide the Government with the flexibility to set different record retention periods for different groups of platform workers, for example, based on the type of platform services they provide. Having said that, we currently have no plans to set different record retention periods.
On the broader points made by the various MPs asking for more regulatory requirements and minimum earnings, we should be mindful of the risks of overregulation that is impractical and counter-productive. As mentioned earlier, algorithms may be proprietary, and regulating platform operators’ use of algorithms will impose significant compliance costs and affect the economic viability of platform operators. Potential entrants may also be deterred from the market due to the fear of excessive regulatory burden. Platform operators also need the flexibility to decide how to remunerate platform workers, in order to balance the demand and supply of services while keeping prices manageable for consumers. We should avoid being too heavy handed with regulation, which could stifle the innovation and sustainability of the platform economy, and lead to poorer outcomes for platform workers themselves.
Instead of the blunt tool of regulation, it is better to focus on the outcomes and empower stakeholders to negotiate for their interests. This is why we are empowering platform work associations to negotiate with platform operators for better outcomes and to balance the relationship between platform workers and platform operators. Platform work associations will be well placed to represent the interests of platform workers and negotiate a sustainable and mutually agreed solution at the individual platform operator level that takes into consideration all parties’ circumstances. Platform work associations and platform operators are also free to establish and participate in tripartite platforms as needed, similar to how trade unions and employers interact today.
Beyond getting help from platform work associations, I would add that platform workers do have the choice to switch platforms, if they feel that they have been treated unfairly, or even when the app of one platform operator is facing technical issues. This is how most people would operate today anyway – you arbitrage between the rates of different apps and switch from one to the other, and if one is not working, go to the next one. So, this is commonsense and people are already doing that today.
I will move on to the concerns raised on the impact of this Bill on stakeholders. Many Members have raised clarifications on the impact of this Bill on platform operators, platform workers and customers.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Mark Lee, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Ong Hua Han, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Ms Joan Pereira and Ms Mariam Jaafar have raised several concerns on whether the costs of these platform work protections will be passed to platform workers and customers. Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi spoke about assuaging the concerns of platform workers, platform operators and customers as we implement the Bill and Mr Neil Parekh requested Government assistance or incentives to help businesses make this transition.
On the impact to workers, I have elaborated at length on the measures to prevent the passing of costs to workers. So, I will not repeat the points here, except to add that ultimately, market competition is an important self-regulating force. It bears repeating that platform work associations will play an important role in representing the interests of platform workers and these workers will also have the choice to switch platforms if they feel that costs are unfairly passed over to them.
On the impact to platform operators, the Government has been working closely with the companies who have stepped forward to seek advice on how to implement CPF and work injury compensation regimes for platform workers. We will continue to do so through existing structures. This is the first time we are defining platform operators in legislation and we understand companies may have questions on whether they meet the definition of a platform operator. An example of a question, which Ms Usha Chandradas raised, is on the threshold of human intervention in the use of data that would define an entity as exercising management control over a worker.
Put another way, the intent of clause 6(1)(b) of the Bill is to capture entities where automation of the use of data for a specified purpose is the primary mode of operation. That said, I would like to highlight that whether an entity is exercising management control and the broader question of whether it is a platform operator is fact-dependent and companies should do their own due diligence checks to see if they fit the bill.
MOM will provide support to companies to determine whether they are likely to be a platform operator, including through a self-assessment checklist. Companies can also approach MOM if they still require further advice on their specific circumstances.
As Ms Mariam Jaafar pointed out, as a society, all stakeholders should be prepared to do our part for platform workers to receive protections they need. The Government has provided generous transition support through the PCTS and will monitor work injury compensation insurance premiums. Platform operators will need to consider how best to manage the costs. Consumers, too, will have a role to play.
I should emphasise that the costs arising from providing platform workers with basic protections are no different in nature from the business costs that other employers are already incurring to provide CPF and work injury compensation to their employees today. Thus, it is a levelling up of what platform operators ought to have been paying, if they are to ensure basic protections for platform workers like what other employers have been doing for their employees all along.
Introducing CPF and work injury compensation for platform workers, therefore, ensures that platform operators who derive their sources of revenue from the hard work and risks taken by the platform workers, provide them with basic rights and protections. It will also ensure a level playing field for companies operating in Singapore to compete fairly in terms of business costs.
How do employers in non-platform sectors typically deal with these costs of providing protections for their employees? Well, it is part and parcel of running a business, so they build these costs into their overall operating cost and decide how to price their services based on a range of factors – costs, profitability and market competition. This is what keeps prices manageable. It would be disingenuous to reflect and charge these costs through a separate fee component.
Platform operators should think carefully before doing so, because, as I said, the market is a competitive one. Such a move would be tantamount to passing the costs directly to customers. Customers have a choice to switch to other platforms where costs are shared more equitably or even stop using such platform services altogether and switch to other alternatives.
The costs incurred by platform operators on work injury compensation and CPF can also be audited. Platform work associations can work with platform operators to regularly publish these data, so workers and consumers can clearly see how the costs are shared across stakeholders to counter any claims of profiteering or loading of these costs onto the workers themselves.
Finally, I will address the concerns on other issues, such as the welfare and longer-term career paths for platform workers, which are not included in the scope of this Bill.
Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Ong Hua Han and Ms Usha Chandradas spoke about protecting platform workers from abuse and unfair reviews, with Mr Yip suggesting to provide mental health support for platform workers. Let me be clear that, we have zero tolerance for abusive behaviours towards our platform workers. In this respect, the Protection from Harassment Act protects all individuals, including platform workers, from threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour. Perpetrators may be prosecuted for offences under the Act. With these existing protections in place, we do not need to introduce additional protection for platform workers in this Bill. Platform work associations can also work with platform operators on measures to deal with abusive customers, including blacklisting such customers and making available avenues of redress for platform workers who have been given unfair reviews.
Just like anyone else, platform workers who need mental health support can tap on the mental health services in community care settings, such as the Community Outreach Team, which offers basic emotional and psychological support. Those facing job transitions can also seek no-cost assistance from Workforce Singapore's (WSG's) employment-focused peer support groups. Platform work associations can also play an important role, as they are often the first port of call for platform workers when they are faced with challenges and I would encourage them to do more in this regard.
Mr Ong Hua Han also sought clarification on this Bill excluding other benefits, such as annual leave and medical benefits. For annual leave and medical benefits, we must recognise that these are relevant for employees where working hours and duties are fixed; whereas platform workers enjoy more flexibility compared to employees. Platform workers and platform companies are keen to retain this flexibility, rather than be deemed as employees. Thus, the Bill has focused on protections, such as CPF, work injury compensation and representation, which, we feel, will help platform workers be better protected, while maintaining the flexibility they desire.
Mr Ang Wei Neng asked for the number of platform workers who are non-Singaporeans. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked whether we will take action against foreigners illegally providing platform services. Under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA), only foreigners with valid work passes are allowed to work in Singapore. Foreign employees can only work in the occupation stated in their work passes. Foreign employees, who provide platform services, may face prosecution under the EFMA.
Ms Pereira spoke about the volatility and unpredictable nature of income earned in platform work. She and many other Members, such as Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Ong Hua Han and Mr Mark Lee, also raised the need to support platform workers in upgrading their skills and transiting to other careers. This Bill is intended to protect those who have chosen to make platform work their occupation, especially those who face precarity because of their fluctuating incomes.
At the same time, as Members have pointed out, platform workers can also consider other forms of employment. We will support them. There are measures in place to support platform workers who wish to transit to other sectors. For example, platform workers can tap on the Jobs and Skills Centres for career coaching service and advice. From early-2025 onwards, platform workers above 40 years of age can also tap on the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Training Allowance to pursue eligible full-time training programmes, such as the full-time SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme to support mid-career transitions into sectors with good employment opportunities. They will receive a monthly training allowance computed as 50% of their average monthly income and capped at $3,000 a month, over a lifetime cap of 24 months.
However, the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support scheme will not be open to platform workers, to answer Ms Pereira's question. The scheme is targeted at employees who became unemployed due to involuntary reasons, such as retrenchment and dismissals, and platform workers are not included as they are not employees.
Ms Usha Chandradas asked whether legislative protection will be extended to freelancers, particular those in the arts community who can also be a vulnerable group. While this is outside the scope of this Bill, we take the points that the Member of Parliament has raised and will consider how this group may be better supported.
Mr Speaker, in closing, I would, again, like to express my appreciation to Members of the House who have expressed their support for the Bill. Let me recap what this Bill seeks to do. Platform workers face volatility and their incomes are subjected to the market forces of demand and supply. This is a feature of the platform sector. And while we cannot change this, we can close the gaps in protections faced by platform workers and the sooner we do so, the better.
This could not have been done without strong tripartite dialogue and support. I would like to take this opportunity to put on record our thanks and appreciation to our tripartite partners for journeying together with us to build a fairer and more inclusive society. Miss Rachel Ong and Mr Desmond Choo have aptly contrasted the acrimonious path that some overseas jurisdictions took in regulating platform work with our own tripartite approach.
I cannot agree more. The tripartite system of close collaboration and dialogue between the Government, the Labour Movement, and businesses, has led us to a framework that balances the needs of all parties in a way sustainable for the platform ecosystem. The result is a legislation that will allow platform workers to benefit from improved housing and retirement adequacy, coverage for work injury compensation and representation. Platform operators, too, will benefit from a more engaged workforce and better industrial relations. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Senior Minister of State Koh just now said that if the WP comes to power, we will not form any relationship with any union. This is not true and it is ridiculous for any governing party to not seek good relations with unions, when it is crucial for any government to work with unions and employers for the good of workers and the economy.
What we are calling for is a key reform to untether the NTUC from the PAP and free up unionists to be independent advocates for workers in Singapore. An independent NTUC will be a stronger voice for workers as they will be better able to fight for workers' rights without fear or favour.
I call for independent unions, not mindlessly confrontational unions. It is important for unions to work with the government of the day, but they should maintain their independence from the Government and should not be subordinated to it. This will benefit Singaporean workers and strengthen our country's institutions regardless of the political situation.
This is not about politics. It is about getting the best possible deal for Singaporean workers and for Singapore.
And lastly, Senior Minister of State Koh mentioned ILO. ILO's Convention No 87 on freedom of association and protection of the right to organise, stresses that workers and employer organisations must be independent from public authorities, meaning the government, and free from government control or interference. This is found in Article 3(1), Article 3(2), Article 5, Article 8(2) and Article 11.
Instead of having a symbiotic relationship with the PAP, the NTUC should declare a symbiotic relationship with the people of Singapore.
Mr Speaker: Mr Desmond Tan.
The Senior Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Desmond Tan): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I believe yesterday, my colleague Mr Heng Chee How had addressed the point about independence and respect for the unions. I would like to, once again, reiterate some of the points that was brought up by Mr Gerald Giam. In fact, he has repeatedly used the words \"independent\" and \"non-partisan\". The unions must be independent and non-partisan to be effective, that to represent our workers without fear and favour, unions have to be independent and non-partisan. And that they would, then, be in a better place to represent their workers and to negotiate. Then, he also went on to say that to be able to better advocate for workers they need to— he said said that unions are trying their best to advocate for workers, but they face restrictions to do so because of the Government and legislation.
So, I would like to ask Mr Gerald Giam whether he has personal experience or data points or even anecdotes to suggest that actually, today, the symbiotic relationship between the PAP and NTUC has caused our unions or union leaders to face restrictions or not to be able to speak up without fear of favour.
Because I would like to suggest that yesterday, after your speech, I received so much feedback from many of our union leaders. That is because whatever you said does not represent their experience on the ground.
So, I will make two points in response to what you have just said. The first point I want to say is that the relationship between PAP and NTUC – the symbolic relationship – is an equal partnership. Our union leaders are elected by the workers to represent them. It is not a subordinate relationship between PAP and NTUC. So, that is a very important point I need to make known to you.
And in fact, one of the union leaders wrote to me quickly to ask, where does Member Gerald Giam feel that there are any restrictions for the union leader to speak up. So, I think that is the question that I hope Mr Gerald Giam can address.
Maybe I can also highlight one of the posts by the Building Construction And Timber Industries Employees' Union, or BATU – so, do not just hear from me. It talked about the labour MPs and the relationship in the union, it said \"the privilege of working closely with PAP MPs and Cabinet Ministers over the years as council advisers is apparent. Their involvement has been instrumental in helping us advocate for policies that address the needs of workers and improve their livelihoods. This collaboration has allowed us to shape practical solutions for the challenges faced in our industries.\"
So, the whole idea of this symbiotic relationship is not to control the unions, but rather, we want to be able to serve, to listen, to be close to the ground so that we can better support and better speak up for the workers and better represent our workers in Parliament or even outside.
The second point I want to address is about independence and being non-partisan. One of the union leaders, who is also in the central committee, wrote this passionately in his post after hearing the Member's speech. He said this, let me quote, \"I am heartened by the impassioned response from Brother Heng Chee How. On numerous occasions, I have discussed concerns of teachers without fear or favour with the STU advisors.\" And that is from Mike Thiruman from the Singapore Teachers' Union, or STU.
And he went on to say that, \"as unionists of unions affiliated with NTUC Singapore, we have never flinched from raising our concerns and advocating for our members' rights for better wages and for better work prospects and welfare. It would be foolhardy to think that unionists are not independent.\"
So, please have a care, give some respect to our unionists and union leaders on the ground. They have a mind of their own. They choose to be affiliated to the NTUC and to the PAP because of the results we have delivered, because of the outcomes we have delivered for workers and for many years, because \"Every Worker Matters\". [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, I reiterate once again what I said yesterday that I appreciate the hard work that many unionists are putting in to try and speak up for workers.
But what I am talking about is not so much that the unionists are not speaking up. What I am saying is that there are institutional constraints on them that prevent them from being able to really push forward a lot of the policies. Because if in the current set-up where the unions are, what I feel, subordinate to the PAP, the unions will only be able to push through their policies if their policies align with the PAP's priorities. They will not be able to override what the PAP wants to do.
And can I ask the Senior Minister of State whether he can cite any instance where the NTUC has taken a public position that is contrary to the Government policy in recent times?
Mr Desmond Tan: I asked the hon Member about his personal experience and data, and he has not been able to cite those.
So, whatever he claims, he might have read it in other countries. I am not denying that that is your opinion and that is your view. But I would like to suggest that we do not make those assumptions for Singapore, because of what other people are practising or because of what you read as a theory of how unions can work with the ruling party.
Our colleagues have mentioned yesterday that is not uncommon that unions across the world are aligned to political parties. We have gone through the years and worked very hard to make sure that we build this symbiotic relationship as a strong foundation built on trust. And we are not about to give it up just because the Member has some theoretical framework and he suggests that it is better for unions to be independent of the ruling party.
On the Member's questions about whether we have policies where we have differed from what the Government suggests, I would gladly say that NTUC has been pushing for many policies that, even over the years, the Government has not accepted, but we will continue to do so. The SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support scheme is one very good example. Member Patrick Tay has been raising it for 14 years. The Government did not agree at the start, but finally, they did. [Applause.]
Maybe the Member imagines that these policies come from the labour MPs. But no, let me assure the Member that these policies, ideas and suggestions came from the workers and the union leaders because they best represent their workers. They know what they need. And our job as labour MPs is to represent them.
Sometimes, the Government will listen to us and implement immediately. Sometimes, it takes more time. And sometimes, we differ. That is the nature of it, but we will never flinch and we will never refrain ourselves from speaking up or have any fear or favour when doing so.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon.
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, I want to clarify the Member's question about ratifying ILO Conventions. We do not ratify Convention C87 because we require registration of unions. And that is to guard against what we call \"yellow unions\", unions that might be acting on behalf of employers to the detriment of employees, and also we to ensure the officers in the union were not convicted for criminal breaches of trust because these are necessary to maintain the trust. The tripartite relationship is built on trust so that there is trust between the tripartite partners involved in negotiations.
And just so that the Member is aware, there are actually quite a number of countries that have ratified, but it might also be useful for the Member to know that countries like the US and New Zealand have also not ratified this particular convention that the Member raised.
I listened to the Member's roundabout defence of why unions need to be independent and all, and the WP will or will not seek relationship – I am very confused. Does WP want to build relationship with unions or not?
Mr Speaker: Mr Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Yes.
Dr Koh Poh Koon: So, is the Member saying that his relationship with the unions is a transactional one, not built on mutual win-win and a symbolic relationship?
Mr Speaker: Mr Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, I think the Senior Minister of State is having difficulty seeing anything between the dichotomy of full symbiosis and full confrontation with unions. We are calling for a third way, which is independent unions with tripartite dialogue, to work towards achieving win-win outcomes for both workers and employers. So, it is this approach that we are trying to take. We are not trying to say that we do not work with unions at all or we are in full relationship and symbiosis with unions. There is a third way in between.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Koh.
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, just a final clarification on what he said. Because I am very confused on why the WP is called \"Workers' Party\", if they are not really so pro-unions to begin with. In their website, I was just reading from here, the website says, \"Marshall announces the idea of forming a party for workers while addressing the delegates of the army, civil service unions at a conference and he said, 'We can evolve a plan where we can create a political party whose membership is exclusively confined to members of trade unions'.\"
So, the history of the WP is to be a party for trade unions. How can you not be in a relationship that is closely intertwined when you want to be a party for trade unions? I do not understand where you start from.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to respond to Senior Minister of State Koh. The only reason I do so is because he made a remark in his concluding address on WP leadership. So, obviously, I have to stand up. I second what my colleague, Mr Gerald Giam, has said but let me just state some points very clearly.
One, I reject, and the WP will reject, Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon's comments on the WP entirely and his characterisation of harmonious industrial relations between workers, employers and the government of the day as being something the WP does not agree with.
Two, on the Senior Minister of State's historical analysis of the WP, I think it disregards an important fact that more than 60 years have elapsed, and the political situation has changed dramatically and significantly. This is not just true for the WP, it is also true for the PAP.
But since the Senior Minister of State is on history, let me refer to evidence of what I believe my colleague, Mr Gerald Giam, was thinking about when he was talking about an independent NTUC, through the eyes of history. I am referring to a publication of NTUC, titled \"50 years of the Labour Movement in Singapore\", October 1966, \"NTUC's cooperation: Not one way traffic\": \"At an NTUC delegates conference, Ho See Beng, now Secretary-General, reminded the Government and employers that the NTUC's cooperation in the task of economic development was not a one-way traffic. He took issue with the with Government leaders, particularly the Prime Minister, for speaking unendingly of labour's obligations while hardly touching on labour's rights and major grievances.\"
I would be grateful if the Senior Minister of State can raise a single example of where an NTUC Secretary-General or a deputy secretary-general has spoken out against a 3G or 4G leader to defend the rights of workers.
I am not suggesting that this is the gold standard or the test. It is not the test. But this comes to the heart of what people see and believe to be a conflict of interest. And when NTUC delegates are saying \"Majulah PAP\", I think people are entitled to question, \"Do you speak for the party first or do you speak for workers first?\" [Applause.]
So, it is a simple point. The point is not about moving Singapore in a direction where employers, employees, workers, Government fight each other to the detriment of our society and our economic growth. That is not the point. And I think we have been waylaid down that rabbit hole and we have got to just come back to the central point that was being made by Mr Gerald Giam.
Party interests cannot be more important than the interest of our workers and a symbiotic relationship does not mean that the NTUC is neutered or cannot openly speak out in the interest of workers. And I think Minister of State Desmond Tan has shared where the NTUC has spoken out, and I have no reason to believe that NTUC rank and file workers did not speak out. That is something I have to say, because I know some of them and I have to say I have to thank them for their service for our workers.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Koh.
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I do not want to prolong this, but I think it is important for Mr Singh to realise that the fact that we are even debating this legislative Bill today is a proof point of how the tripartite relationship that PAP and NTUC has endured for the last 60 years or more has allowed us to make this Bill a possibility today.
So, just because the WP lost the relationship with worker unions long ago does not mean that because we can preserve relationship for 60 years that there is something wrong with the symbiotic relationship.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: I am not going to respond to that point, but just to say that there is no question of losing a relationship in any way.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. This is a completely different point.
Senior Minister of State Koh, if I heard correctly, indicated that the reasons for not defaulting to an opt-out rather than an opt-in approach for the CPF system was due to extra administrative costs that will be borne by the Government as well as platform companies and also the possibility of a diminished choice. Again, I am happy to stand corrected if I misheard.
If what I did hear was true, I find this puzzling because after all, there is certainly no loss of choice either from opting out or opting in, that is the nature of opting. And there are indeed already Government schemes, pension schemes, such as CPF LIFE, where opting out is the default. More generally, I suppose, what I should be asking is: are we allowing the possibility of some additional administrative costs to be the basis for us not ensuring that the retirement adequacy of our platform workers is actually made more secure?
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I understand the Member's positioning, to try and ensure as much protection as possible is given to platform workers. But having had deep conversations with our platform operators and the platform workers themselves, the desire on both sides is to make sure that administrative costs are reduced, the burden is reduced and choice is given to the workers.
So, from a theoretical perspective, the Member may be right – put them in and then those who want to get out, can apply to get out. But the operators who have to bear onboarding costs, these are real costs. To put everybody on the system in the beginning will require system enhancements, put everybody in and making sure that everyone is onboarded and then subsequently, if a majority or a large number, or whichever number it may be, chooses to opt out, there will be an additional cost to process those people who want to get out.
Whereas, if you let people decide that they want to come in, then the operator only needs to do it one time and process the onboarding cost for that worker coming onto the system. That is why in our construct, we disallow people from opting out thereafter, once they opt in, so that the operator only does one time of onboarding and does not have to keep flipflopping workers in and out.
Opting out as a default is also a challenge because some workers may then choose to be out of one operator but not the other, and it becomes very messy for the operators to track whether this worker is on which system.
So, I think for administrative ease and for simplicity of operating a very complex system with many combinations of worker preferences to begin with, we have decided, together with the operators and also the desire of the workers, to go for an opt-in system.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Just a quick point about the theoretical nature of the system, I would just emphasise that this is not theoretical at all. Systems around the world, public policy systems, including what I have just cited – CPF LIFE – along with the UK's Nudge Unit have already used opt-out systems as a default, as a mechanism, to encourage what is ultimately in the welfare of the individuals.
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I call that a theoretical argument because if the Member takes the effort to talk to the platform operators, he will realise that the practical considerations and the challenges are real.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, I have two questions for the Senior Minister of State, which we have gathered from our conversation with the platform workers. That is why I had two recommendations in my speech yesterday: one is to introduce a base fee; two is to take cancellations and rejections of orders during bad weather out of the performance of the workers.
I understand what the Senior Minister of State said just now about not micromanaging the situation, but can I get a sense or a commitment whether the Government will encourage these two issues to be brought up in a negotiation at the platform work associations. That is one question.
One more question is regarding CPF contribution. I think currently, the rule is rather onerous. Once you opt in, you cannot opt out. Is it possible for the Government to consider that maybe the platform worker, after they have opted in, whether they can reconsider the decision after a certain period, maybe on an annual basis?
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank the Member for his suggestions. Obviously, anything is possible. But we have to take the approach of what is practical, how easy it is to implement and what cost it will be to the system overall.
Whether there can be, for example, a base fee, that is something that the operators have to decide on whether that is something financially viable for them to do. We leave it to the platform work associations and operators to decide on the scope of negotiation, because it can differ from platform to platform. Some platforms may be prepared to offer that but, for other platforms, their business model and the cost structure may not allow that to happen.
So, I think rather than have a one-size-fits-all regulation, we allow representation to take place so that from an association to an individual operator's business model basis, they can scope out what works best for them and decide even on the scope that they are prepared to discuss. It may well be that some operators will have different models that they have agreed on with the operators and they can see that as a way of advantage to attract more workers who like that kind of arrangements to work for them as well. This also maintains a competitive landscape among the different operators.
But I would say also on the other aspect of opting in and out, whether it is time-dependent or a black-out period, whichever the construct may be, there will be quite a lot of challenges to implement because a particular platform worker could have been registered with several apps. If they are on several apps and they choose to opt in and out, each time they make a decision, it is not just one operator that has to make system changes and incur administrative costs, all the apps that this person has signed up with, even if it is an app that he uses very infrequently, would have to then also reflect that same CPF opt-in or opt-out status.
So, as a system, it becomes very complicated and the cost is not borne by just one operator, it will be borne by quite a number of operators. I think the complex nature of this work is such that people can sign up for an app and not use it for a long time, but suddenly can use it again for a few months in a row. So, the very difficult nature of this sector is such that we try to keep things as simple as possible and reduce the overall cost burden.
As I said in my speech, the solutions that we propose may not be 100% perfect, but the fact is that this legislation aims at providing the basic protections that will level up the protection for this group of workers, for it to be at least as close to being on par as possible with other employees working in a similar sector and also earning a similar income. In terms of achieving retirement adequacy and housing adequacy, we think this is a good base to start from. For any other operational benefits and challenges that may come along the way, we created the representation framework to allow negotiations and discussions to take place on a bilateral basis.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Senior Minister of State Koh, on the Bill proper, the first question pertains to the costs and how the costs will be distributed amongst platform operators, workers and we know the contribution of the Government. So, it is actually the flow-through, which is a bit more of a concern.
I think Member Mariam Jaafar today spoke about how different platform companies have their own models – some 0% and they will charge platform fees and so on, for example. So, there is a concern that for some platforms, there will be an incredible flow-through of these costs to the consumers; others, less so.
Does the Government have any expectation of how it is going to manage the situation such that platform operators do not willy-nilly just proceed and transfer all these costs accordingly to the consumer? That is my first question.
The second question is pertaining to WICA. My understanding is there is some concern about the cost of WICA for platform companies. As I iterated in my speech with three months to go before the introduction of WICA for platform workers, is there some landing insofar as how these premiums are priced, in view of the varied nature of the platform space? Some clarity on that would be helpful because if WICA is very expensive, then one can imagine what the cost for the consumer would be.
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Pritam Singh for the questions.
On the first question of cost transfer or pass-through to stakeholders, the thing that we think would be important to guard against any excessive cost increase or profiteering would be to make sure that the sector continues to remain competitive. So long as it is not monopolistic, there will be competition – competition for drivers, riders and competition also for customers. When that dynamic competition takes place, each platform will have to make sure that the cost that they are prepared to flow through, whether it is to the driver or to the customers, will have to be something that remains attractive to them both. Otherwise, they will lose either the share of available labour or they will lose the share of the available market. So, that is one.
But many of the things that we talked about – cost of CPF on operators and cost of WICA on operators – these are numbers that can be audited. For example, because now all platform workers will need to at least pay MediSave and those who opt-in or are mandated will have to pay CPF to their Ordinary and Special Accounts, which means that at the backend, we will know, by working backwards, what is the total wage cost that a particular operator with a particular load of workers will be paying for CPF or their wages. In that case, we can then determine the true wage costs for each operator and can audit and see if there is some evidence of profiteering.
On the WICA costs, based on our engagement with insurers through the Platform Workers Work Injury Compensation Network, where we work with five or seven insurers to start with, their estimate is that the cost of WICA for platform workers will not be too much higher compared to the current WICA costs for drivers in the logistics or transport sector, for example.
It may be slightly higher because, today, there is no actuarial data, so everyone is pricing a little bit more conservatively. But I think, over time, with real world data, and now that we know who is a platform worker once the Bill comes to pass, the true incident rate of injuries and the severity of injuries being reported will allow more accurate actuarial data and claims history to be established over time. So, insurers then will have some real data to make some adjustments to the insurance premium that they charge.
In a competitive market, if there are more than five, seven, maybe even more insurers who are prepared to come in – today, there are 26 operating in the employee WICA space – if a certain number of them also continue to participate in this for platform workers, we think the competitive premiums will continue to keep the market viable in terms of cost to operators. Again, that part of the cost is also auditable, to determine how much it costs operators to put forth WICA compensations.
A lot of people may think that WICA is charged on a per individual basis. But actually, the insurers look at this on a total wage cost basis. So, it is based on what the company is paying in terms of wages to their workers and the premium is calculated as such. So, it is irrelevant how many platform workers actually work for a particular platform company. What is more relevant is how much they are actually paying for the cost of wages to these workers that determines the WICA cost that they are paying in terms of premiums.
So, I think we should probably give the market some time to come to an equilibrium. But the initial sensing from the insurers is that it will not be excessively much higher, compared to what WICA is today for employees of the same sector.
Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, I listened very carefully to what Mr Gerald Giam had to say. My understanding is if the WP becomes the government of the day, then \"we, the Workers' Party\", according to Mr Gerald Giam, will partner unions. Yet, Mr Giam says that you do not want NTUC to be tethered to the Government or PAP.
I do not think you can have your cake and eat it. We do not use the word \"tethered\". We use the words \"partnership\", \"alliance\", \"solidarity\" and \"equal partnership\". We do not use the word \"tethered\". Point number one.
Point number two about Mr Gerald Giam's insinuations, that there is a suggestion that NTUC is subordinate to the PAP's interests when it comes to Labour Movement negotiations and trajectories, this is completely inaccurate. Let me share with the Member my personal experience.
In the middle of COVID-19, we had multiple difficulties with the occupancy rates in hotels. I had the privilege of being the advisor to the Food, Drinks and Allied Workers Union, or FDAWU. They were down one quarter occupancy rate, half occupancy rate. We met with them multiple times. Never in the meetings was there a subordinate-and-elder relationship. It was about how we get our workers in their jobs through the pandemic, secure and get Singapore's economy afloat. We worked hand in hand, in solidarity. Point number two.
So, on two points, I disagree with the hon Member Gerald Giam, from personal experience.
Number three, where was the partnership between PAP and NTUC formed? It was in the crucible of fire. We were fighting the communists. Mr Lee Kuan Yew represented the Postal Workers' Union. And why should we not rely on such trust, solidarity, mutual respect, equality, mutual relationship in advancing Singapore's cause? Why unravel that? It makes no sense, except if you dissect Mr Giam's position as being completely political.
So, woe to those who disregard the past, especially if they seek to lead the future. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, I will be quick. When I say \"tether\" or \"untether\", what I mean is that NTUC and PAP should be separate, independent organisations and should not be pledging symbiosis to each other – that is all I mean.
And what he says about it not being a subordinate relationship, can I ask the Member why is there then a need for the platform work associations to have a council of advisors which has the power to dismiss the executive council? Why are these council advisors appointed by the NTUC and why do they all happen to be PAP members or PAP MPs even?
Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza: If I may, Sir, tripartism is a bedrock of Singapore's economy – the employers, the Government, the employees. Do you seek to unravel that?
I have been an MP for a number of years. When I go overseas, people ask: why are your unions not fighting against your government? It is a misnomer overseas. But here, it is something special. My answer to the hon Member Mr Giam is that, please, do not seek to unravel a secret formula, a good formula that we have in Singapore which is tripartism between the Government, the employers and the employees.
The only conclusion I can draw, in my limited human mind, is that Mr Giam is a making a political point, whereas in my humble priority, it is Singapore that remains the priority.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, we have sat here and heard about the arguments about the independence of NTUC from the two parties. I think it may be useful for a third party to come in and say a few words, and also to demonstrate that there are benefits of having a third party in this Parliament.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, just confine it to this debate and not start a new one.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, yes, of course, of course. I think this is broad enough.
First of all, I must speak out in support of the WP, what Members Gerald Giam and the Leader of the Opposition and the other Members have said. I do not think the opposition is not in support of tripartism. In fact, no political party who aspires to run the country one day, would not want the support of the trade unions. Tripartism is a given. Everybody will want to cultivate that tripartism.
And we understand. All of us know history, that trade unions in other countries and by nature of their organisation, they must have the political power to institute change in a country. So, as a result, trade unions will want to be affiliated with political parties. And, of course, the opposition, whether it is the WP – of course, I cannot speak for the WP too much – but the PSP, for example, we would welcome, we want to cultivate the most harmonious and the best working relationship with trade unions.
However, I think the issue here that we are trying to push, trying to clarify or trying to stress, is that the nature of the relationship between the NTUC and our Government is more than what we have seen in the world today. [Interruption.]
It is more than what we see in the world today, for example, what I am trying to say is, can you find another trade union in the world where the trade union chief is a Minister. Are there any countries? Please, if there are, tell me.
So, as a result, you cannot deny our impression. No opposition, few opposition politicians are being given appointments in NTUC and all that. So, we do not really understand the exact decision-making process there. But from the structure that you can see from the outside, if the NTUC Secretary-General is a Minister or a former Minister and there are many leaders in the NTUC who come from the ruling party, I think we are entitled to think that the independence of NTUC ought to be better than this.
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan See Leng.
The Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I had not intended to participate in this debate because the Senior Minister of State is doing such a great job in wrapping up, but I feel compelled to intervene in the last couple of discussions on the role of tripartism.
I would appeal to Members on both sides of the House to again spare a thought about the unique position, the unique model that we have, the very special model that we have here in Singapore.
In Singapore, we do things differently. We are a tiny red dot. We have been able to move, we have been able to progress so well. This approach is fundamentally built on trust, on collaboration and a shared commitment to finding win-win solutions.
Through our decades of strong tripartite relationship between the unions, SNEF and the Government, collectively, we do not just talk, we do not just debate. We act. Together, we have robust discussions, we push back, we have intense debate behind the scenes. When we formulate ideas, we turn them into actions and we overcome challenges as one united people. This unique approach is one of our greatest strengths.
Take, for instance, it was just barely two plus years ago, when we went through the crisis of our generation, COVID-19. When the crisis hit, the partners acted swiftly to address tough issues like cost-cutting measures, retrenchments. This is in stark contrast to many other countries where tensions flared. Our unions worked collectively with SNEF to share the burden, negotiating wage cuts, saving jobs. And the unions, NTUC, even administered the Self-employed Persons Income Relief Scheme, or SERS. This collaboration helped prevent deeper disruption. It protected not just our lives, but our livelihoods.
That is what is unique about our tripartism – that it works and it is a very, very unique, yet a true partnership.
The Government plays a key moderating role, of course, balancing the interests of both workers and businesses to ensure that all decisions, when they are taken, are made for the long-term good of everyone.
Let me reiterate this. I know you keep talking about independence, independence, independence. Behind closed doors, the tripartite partners do not always agree. Heated discussions happen behind closed doors on many, many issues – the raising of retirement age, or even the upcoming workplace fairness legislation. I am sure we will have another very intense debate during that time. The Leader of the Opposition is already smiling at me, probably thinking, \"You better watch it.\" [Interruption.]
Mr Pritam Singh: I always smile at you.
Dr Tan See Leng: Thank you. We are ready.
But we all work hard. We all work hard to reach a consensus, knowing that collectively we are always working for Singapore's shared interests. And as I have said yesterday, not just for you, but for your children, for your grandchildren and hopefully, for your great-grandchildren.
To quote Dr Robert Yap, the former President of SNEF, he once shared an anecdote with me when I just joined the Government. And I thought that resonated and illustrated very well. He said it at a meeting with a foreign counterpart. The foreign counterpart commented to Dr Robert Yap, the then President of SNEF, saying that he was lucky because Singapore's unions were weak because they do not strike.
SNEF's view, his response to this foreign counterpart's comment was, actually, no, the unions here are strong because they get what they want without striking. This is the strength of our system. Our outcomes, our positive outcomes are achieved through negotiation – not confrontation, not open confrontation. [Applause.]
To paraphrase the late US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: do you throw away your umbrella in a thunderstorm because you are not getting wet? Members of the House, the lack of open confrontation, your so-called being more independent, does not mean that our unions are weak. It shows the power of positive collaboration in delivering results without disruption.
I urge all Members of the House, we are here to help our platform workers. We are here and we have just finished and heard the wrap-up speech of Senior Minister of State Koh on how we can help our platform workers better, taking into consideration all of the comments, the suggestions, the opinions of Members of the House. Let us not detract ourselves from this Bill. I hope that you do not judge NTUC or SNEF by what you think the relationship between unions, employers and the Government should be. But look at the record, look at the outcomes, the positive outcomes that tripartism has delivered for Singapore through the decades. Together, we have protected jobs, we have created stability, we have ensured prosperity for our workers, our businesses.
I hope we can continue to use this platform to support sustained tripartism as our competitive advantage, because by working hand-in-hand, we are not just navigating today's challenges, we are also securing a better, a brighter, a more secure future for Singapore and Singaporeans. I hope that is the legacy that we must preserve. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: We have had a long debate and I think all the clarifications have been asked and answered.
[(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. – [Dr Koh Poh Koon]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)]
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Clauses 1 to 121 ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The First to Eighth Schedules ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Ninth Schedule – (proc text)]
The Chairman: Senior Minister of State Koh.
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister, I beg to move the amendment* to Ninth Schedule standing in the Minister's name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
The amendments to clause 13 are required for the consistency across section 31(a) and section 31(1b) of the Work Injury Compensation Act to require both a designated employer's insurer and a designated platform operator's insurer to provide insurance.
[(proc text) *The amendment read as follows: (proc text)]
[(proc text) In page 182, line 8: to leave out \"pay\" and insert \"provide\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) Amendment agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The Ninth Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The Tenth Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.40 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.19 pm until 4.40 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.40 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Casino Control (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"
[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mdm Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Casino Control Act (CCA) is the primary piece of legislation to manage casinos in Singapore. It provides the regulatory framework to keep the casinos free from criminal influence, ensure that gambling is conducted honestly and minimise the harms from gambling. The CCA also helps to ensure that the Integrated Resorts (IRs) make a positive contribution to our economy.
Other gambling activities that are not related to the casinos are regulated under a separate piece of legislation – the Gambling Control Act. Taken together, the Casino Control Act and the Gambling Control Act help to ensure that gambling is well-regulated in Singapore. Today's amendments are related to the regulation of the two casinos in Singapore. Singapore's approach to regulating casinos have worked well.
Casino-related crime remains low. In 2023, only 0.2% of all reported crime cases took place in the casinos. This proportion has been stable over the years. The probable pathological and problem gambling rates among our residents also remain low and stable, at around 1%. The casino operators have not committed any significant breaches of gaming-related requirements.
The CCA was last amended in 2012. Since then, there have been changes to consumer preferences and gaming technology. For example, we see new ways of gambling in overseas casinos including gambling using off-the-shelf mobile devices, such as tablets.
Our legislative framework must remain relevant and be responsive to these changes. Hence, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has worked with the Ministry of Social and Family Development and the Ministry of Trade and Industry to review the CCA. This Bill is the outcome of our review.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Casino Control (Amendment) Bill seeks to achieve four objectives.
First, to enhance the operational effectiveness and future readiness of our casino regulatory regime; second, it tightens the regulation of casinos and licensees; third, it strengthens protection for vulnerable groups of people; and fourth, it regularises the entry levies collected from 4 April to 7 May 2024. Let me speak about them in turn.
Today, the Gambling Regulatory Authority (GRA) approves all casino games, gaming machines and chips that are used in a casino. This ensures that casino gambling is conducted honestly. To future-proof these approval regimes, clause 3 of the Bill amends three aspects.
First, it expands the scope of gambling activities that GRA can regulate in the casinos. Today, GRA is empowered to regulate games of chance offered by the casinos, such as table games and games on gaming machines. We propose to empower GRA to regulate all forms of gambling in the casinos, including betting and lotteries.
Betting is distinct from games of chance because the former involves placing a stake on the outcome of a process, such as betting on a football competition or a horse race. Lotteries are also distinct, as the distribution of prizes is dependent on chance, for example, the random drawing of lots in TOTO. To be clear, the GRA has no plans for now to allow casinos to offer betting or lotteries, but the amendments would make clear that the casinos would need GRA's approval before they can do so.
Second, clause 3 empowers GRA to approve gaming software. Today, the GRA approves casino gaming machines comprising both the software and hardware components. However, manufacturers of gaming machines are increasingly developing gaming software independently from the hardware. This amendment allows the GRA to approve gaming software on its own, for example, gaming software that is deployed on off-the-shelf mobile devices, such as tablets.
Third, clause 3 empowers the GRA to prescribe any wagering instrument to be used as chips for casino gambling, such as virtual credits, if the GRA assesses them to be suitable in the future.
The next set of amendments relates to the approval of manufacturers and suppliers of casino gaming machines. In recent years, the GRA has observed that for any particular gaming machine, there could be multiple manufacturers and suppliers for individual parts of the machine because of outsourcing arrangements.
Our policy intent is to regulate the entity that has overall control of the design or production of the gaming machines. Clause 30 updates and streamlines the approval process, to only require approvals for such an entity. Other manufacturers and suppliers will no longer require GRA's approval.
The third set of amendments pertains to the main shareholders, controllers and substantial shareholders of the casinos. Only approved persons are allowed to take on these positions. They are required to seek approval for acquisition and disposal of shares exceeding specific thresholds. This ensures that persons with control over the casinos are suitable persons and there is no undesirable influence over the casinos' operations.
The Bill enhances the approval regime for such persons. There are three aspects.
First, for the main shareholdings regime, clause 4 transfers the powers related to the approval of associated divestments and acquisitions, from the GRA to the Minister for Home Affairs. The main shareholders are accountable for the development of the IRs and their long-term commitments in Singapore. Their divestments and acquisitions are currently approved by the GRA. Our view is that the Minister for Home Affairs is better-placed to balance whole-of-Government considerations and make these decisions.
Second, for controllers and substantial shareholders, clause 17 transfers the related powers from the Minister for Home Affairs to the GRA. These include, the powers to approve persons as controllers and substantial shareholders or to exempt them from any requirement under the CCA. These decisions are currently made by the Minister for Home Affairs. Our view is that the GRA is better-placed to make these decisions, as these are regulatory decisions in line with GRA's existing responsibility to ensure the suitability of casino licensees and their associates. That said, we will allow persons to submit appeals on GRA's decisions to the Minister for Home Affairs.
Third, clause 15 tightens the criteria for identifying associates under the controlled shareholdings regime. Currently, other than the corporate entity with controlled shareholdings in the casinos, all its related corporations are also subject to GRA's approval. This would include related corporations that do not exercise influence or control over the casino operators, such as sister companies. This is not our policy intent. Hence, for consistency with the Companies Act, we will tighten the criteria for identifying associates and ensure that only corporations that are able to exercise influence or control over the casino operators will be subject to GRA's approval.
The fourth set of amendments clarifies the Evaluation Panel's ability to assess the tourism and economic impact of the IRs. The Evaluation Panel provides an independent opinion to the GRA on the ability of the IR to fulfil its economic obligations. The GRA takes this into consideration when evaluating the application or renewal of a casino licence. The Evaluation Panel considers several factors, such as how the IRs compare to industry standards and whether they meet prevailing market demand.
Clause 6 of the Bill clarifies in law that the Evaluation Panel may also take into consideration an IR's ability to meet future industry standards and market demand, in addition to prevailing standards and demand. This can be and is already being done today. What this amendment does is to expressly state in law.
Next, let me address the amendments to tighten the regulation of casinos and licensees. There are three parts.
First, casino-related offences. Even though casino-related crime remains low, we continually review and update our offences regime to deter crime and protect the integrity of gaming operations. The Bill introduces three new offences in the CCA.
First, clause 80 makes it an offence to withdraw bets after the result of a game is known. Today, it is an offence under the CCA for casino patrons to place a bet in a casino after the result of a game is known, but the CCA is silent on the withdrawal of a bet after the result of a game is known. Hence, the Police have had to use provisions in other laws, such as the Penal Code, to deal with these cases. This amendment will right-site the offence under the CCA.
Second, clause 79 makes it an offence to record non-card games in the casinos. It is currently an offence to record cards dealt in the course of gaming. However, non-card games are not covered. Hence, the Police have had to deal with such cases as an act of cheating at play under the CCA. This amendment will expand the current offence to cover the recording of non-card games.
Third, clause 82 makes it an offence for any person to destroy or falsify documents, knowing that the document is required to be produced under the CCA. Currently, it is an offence for a person to destroy or falsify a document which he is required to submit to the GRA. However, the offence does not cover any other person who handles or has access to the same document, should they destroy or falsify it knowing that the document is required by the GRA. This amendment will ensure that such persons can also be taken to task.
The Bill also strengthens our ability to prosecute an excluded person, otherwise known as an EP, for entering a casino.
With the exception of a self-excluded person, it is currently an offence for an EP to enter, remain or take part in gaming in a casino. To make out an offence, the GRA has to prove that the EP was aware of his exclusion status when he entered the casino. However, this has been difficult to prove. For example, an EP who had breached a Visit Limit could claim that he had miscounted his visits even though he was aware of his Visit Limit.
To address this, clause 42 makes an EP liable for entering, remaining, or taking part in gambling on the casino premises, if it is proven that he knows or ought reasonably to know that he was an EP. This places the responsibility on an individual to ensure that he is not excluded before entering or when remaining in the casino where there are circumstances in which the individual ought reasonably to know that he is an EP. This means that an EP who had breached a Visit Limit and claims that it was because he had miscounted his visits would now be liable for an offence for entering or remaining in the casinos, since he ought reasonably to know when he would exceed his Visit Limit.
Second, suitability criteria of the casino operators. The casino operators are expected to conduct their business operations in an ethical and credible manner, and to implement good corporate governance practices. To make clear our regulatory expectations, clause 5 expands the suitability criteria for casino licensees, to allow the GRA to consider two additional criteria when assessing a casino operator's suitability to hold a casino licence on an ongoing basis.
First, whether the casino operator conducts business in a manner which is unethical or will bring discredit to casino gambling in Singapore; and second, whether the casino operator has poor corporate governance practices or weak internal controls. This could include, disregarding whistle-blowing reports which allege employee misconduct.
Next, clauses 10, 26 and 35 empower the GRA to take disciplinary action against a former licensee for a regulatory breach, if the disciplinary action had commenced prior to the lapse of the licence. This applies to all licensees under the CCA, including the casino operators, special employees, international market agents and international market agent representatives. This amendment will ensure that no licensee evades punishment for contravening regulatory requirements, simply due to the lapse of his licence.
Third, on information sharing. Under the Personal Data Protection Act, a casino operator is currently not allowed to share the personal data of a patron directly with another casino operator without the patron's consent. Hence, when one casino operator assesses that a patron poses a high-risk of money laundering, terrorism financing or proliferation financing, the patron's personal data can be shared with the other casino operator, only through the GRA. This arrangement is operationally inefficient and impedes the casino operators from taking timely actions.
To address this, clause 47 empowers the GRA to require the casino operators to directly share information of patrons with each other, instead of going through the GRA, for the purposes of tackling money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing. The GRA will impose measures to safeguard patron information.
I now turn to the amendments to strengthen the protection for vulnerable individuals and their families.
Today, the National Council on Problem Gambling, otherwise known as the NCPG, administers Exclusions and Visit Limits to protect vulnerable groups of people and minimise the impact of problem gambling. It is an offence for an individual to breach an Exclusion by Law, a Third Party Exclusion Order or Visit Limit imposed by NCPG; or a Family Exclusion Order imposed by NCPG upon application by the individual's family. However, a breach of a Family Visit Limit imposed upon application by the individual's family does not constitute an offence today.
We will close this gap. To ensure that the Family Visit Limit acts as an effective protection for vulnerable persons, clauses 3 and 42 will criminalise the breach of a Family Visit Limit. With this amendment, the breach of any Exclusion Order or Visit Limit under the CCA, except those that are self-imposed, would constitute an offence.
Currently, when there is a change in circumstances for an individual on an Exclusion Order or Visit Limit, the NCPG is only empowered to revoke the existing Exclusion Order or Visit Limit, before imposing a new Exclusion Order or Visit Limit. This process usually takes a period of one to two months. During this period, the individual is not protected by any safeguard. This is not ideal.
Clause 75 streamlines the process and allows the NCPG to immediately substitute an Exclusion Order with a Visit Limit, and vice versa. As an illustration, this amendment will allow the NCPG to substitute a Visit Limit with an Exclusion Order seamlessly, to protect the individual by imposing a more stringent safeguard, if necessary.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, let me now move on to the last set of amendments. This is to regularise the collection of casino entry levies between 4 April and 7 May this year.
The casino entry levy was introduced in 2008 as a social safeguard to deter casual and impulse gambling among Singaporean residents. As part of the Government's commitment to keep problem gambling under control, we increased the casino entry levies on 4 April 2019 for Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents from $100 to $150 for the daily levy, and from $2,000 to $3,000 for the annual levy. The Government also introduced a five-year moratorium on the casino entry levies, as part of our negotiations with the casino operators on their reinvestment plans. This was operationalised via the Casino Control (Variation of Entry Levies) Order 2019, which was valid for five years up to 3 April 2024.
It has always been the Government's intent to maintain the higher entry levies beyond the five-year moratorium period. In other words, it was always the intent to renew the 2019 order upon its expiry rather than to allow the rate to revert to the lower one after the five-year period. However, MHA overlooked the expiry of the 2019 Order and the entry levies reverted to the previous lower rates on 4 April 2024.
MHA acted immediately to remedy this when the issue was brought to our attention. On 8 May 2024, MHA restored in law the daily levy to $150 and the annual levy to $3,000. This was operationalised via the Casino Control (Variation of Entry Levies) Order 2024.
From 4 April to 7 May 2024, we collected about $4.4 million more than the lawful entry levy rates at that point in time, that is, the previous, lower entry rates. Clause 95 will regularise this amount collected during that period. This is in line with the Government's policy intent for introducing the higher entry levy rates in 2019. We have tightened our processes to avoid this happening again. I would now like to speak in Mandarin, with your indulgence, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Next, I will outline in Mandarin the key proposals in the Bill that will affect casino patrons.
First, casino-related offences. Although casino-related crime remains low, we continually review and update our offences regime. This ensures that our laws continue to deter casino-related crime and protect the integrity of gaming operations. The Bill will, thus, introduce new offences in the CCA. In particular, it will be an offence to withdraw bets after the result of a game is known and to record non-card games in the casinos.
The Bill also strengthens our ability to prosecute an excluded person for entering a casino. In particular, the Bill makes an excluded person liable for entering, remaining or taking part in gambling on the casino premises, if it is proven that he knows or ought reasonably to know that he was an excluded person. This places the responsibility on an individual to ensure that he is not excluded before entering or when remaining in the casino, where there are circumstances in which the individual ought reasonably to know that he is an excluded person.
Second, there are amendments to strengthen the protection for vulnerable individuals and their families.
Today, the NCPG administers Exclusion Orders and Visit Limits to protect vulnerable groups of people and minimise the impact of problem gambling. The Bill will tighten our regime by criminalising the breach of a Family Visit Limit, such that the breach of any Exclusion Order or Visit Limit under the CCA, except those that are self-imposed, will constitute an offence.
To conclude, our strict but pragmatic approach to regulating casino gambling has delivered good outcomes so far. This Bill will allow us to keep the casinos free from criminal influence, ensure gambling is conducted honestly and minimise the harm from gambling.
(In English): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill which seeks to enhance the effectiveness of our casino regulatory regime and strengthen protection for vulnerable groups. However, I have some questions and suggestions.
Madam, the Government has done much since the two casinos were established to ensure that casino-related crimes in Singapore are under control. According to statistics by MHA, casino-related crimes constitute just 0.2% of all crimes reported in Singapore. This is a stark contrast when compared to the findings of a January 2024 report published by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, which reported a proliferation of organised crime in the rest of Southeast Asia due to the casino industries in the region. The United Nations (UN) report also highlighted various trends in illegal gambling activities, including the increasing popularity of illegal online casinos using cryptocurrencies and other forms of virtual tokens in an attempt to evade local law enforcement.
I therefore support the Bill's proposal to future-proof our regulatory ambit by providing the GRA with the scope to regulate the entire suite of gambling activities in the casinos, including the ability to prescribe any instrument or thing to be considered as a wagering instrument.
But Madam, our authorities currently do not regulate chance-based loot boxes as gambling as long as there are no in-game monetisation facilities. A loot box is inherently gambling disguised in the form of a game. In the future, games could incorporate the concept of loot boxes and virtual tokens to allow players to gamble for a large sum of the token, which could then be converted into money through a roundabout manner.
In an article published just last month in The Guardian that examined the relationship between online gaming and gambling addiction, the experts interviewed said that research shows that children who play games with loot boxes are much more likely to experience gambling problems when they enter adulthood. This could be because the odds in these games are better, causing them to think that they will have the same likelihood of success in the online gaming world. I hope that MHA can study this in our local context and examine if we need to take a tougher stance on regulating loot boxes.
Madam, I also support the Bill's proposal to enhance protection for vulnerable groups by criminalising the breach of a Family Visit Limit for casinos. Family Visit Limits are applied when family members are worried about their loved one's potential affliction by gambling and it makes sense to align the breach of these limits to existing Exclusion Orders.
I also fully support the proposal to provide the NCPG and its committees with the operational flexibility to immediately substitute an Exclusion Order with a Visit Limit and vice versa to protect individuals struggling with curbing their reliance on and addiction to gambling.
While we provide NCPG with the operational flexibility to protect vulnerable individuals, we must also ensure that there is an avenue of appeal should the individual disagree with the NCPG's decision. I would like to ask the Minister if the appeal framework for Exclusion Orders and Visit Limits would change in tandem with these new operational flexibilities.
Madam, innocent family members are most affected when a person develops an addiction to gambling. Beyond the Bill's proposals, I hope that we can widen our suite of enforcement tools to prevent vulnerable individuals from receiving unsolicited gambling advertisements. Whenever there is a big global sporting event, such as the recent resumption of the English Premier League, it is common to receive unsolicited text messages encouraging a person to place big bets on unlicensed betting websites. Advertisements that are programmatically pushed to viewers on social media also frequently feature online casinos and sports betting pages.
I hope that the whole ecosystem, from telecommunications companies to social media companies, can lean in to aid both the GRA and NCPG to combat the issue of problem gambling and prevent vulnerable individuals from falling prey to gambling syndicates feeding on their gambling addiction.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, this Bill will enhance the effectiveness of our casino regulatory regime and also strengthen protection for vulnerable groups. As new forms of gambling arise through games and illegal websites, it is important that GRA is able to respond to these changes so that we ensure that illegal gambling and its ills will never take hold in Singapore. Madam, I support the Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mdm Deputy Speaker, in the money laundering space, the casino industry is considered one of the non-financial sectors that poses significant risk. This is to be expected, in view of the high volumes of cash transactions that casinos undertake, whether in payments out to patrons or receiving cash in exchange for chips or other goods and services.
Among the 40 recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) on anti-money laundering measures, casinos are singled out for special mention. At Recommendation 28, FATF advises that casinos should be subject to a comprehensive regulatory and supervisory regime that ensures that they have effectively implemented the necessary anti-money laundering and terrorist financing measures. To that end, I see the Bill as another step towards this recommendation.
On the provisions of the Bill, I wish to raise three points: first, on ownership of casino businesses; second, anti-money laundering measures; and third, the drastic increase in punishment for certain offences. Later in this debate, my party colleague Sengkang Member of Parliament Louis Chua will raise questions regarding gambling duties and casino tax rates, the challenge of technology and the retrospective amendment regarding casino entry levies.
First, on approval of ownership changes. FATF's Recommendation 28 on casinos advises that competent authorities should take the necessary legal or regulatory measures to prevent criminals or their associates from holding or being the beneficial owner of a significant or controlling interest, holding a management function in, or being an operator of a casino. Put simply, we need to prevent organised criminal syndicates from profiting from casino businesses and laundering illegal funds through them.
Under the existing CCA, approval of changes in the main shareholders of casinos needs approval from the GRA. Under the Bill, it is proposed that approval of changes in the main shareholder be transferred from the GRA to the Minister for Home Affairs. On the other hand, the opposite is being done for changes in ownership that do not involve the main shareholder. For those who are controllers and substantial shareholders, the Bill removes certain powers from the Minister and transfers them to the GRA.
The Ministry has sought to explain the rationale for these changes. As regards the main shareholders, the Ministry has argued that considerations about the main shareholder should rightly be with the Minister, who can take into account whole-of-Government considerations. As for controllers and substantial shareholders, it is said that the decisions involved are regulatory decisions with operational implications, which are more appropriately undertaken by the GRA rather than the Minister.
Madam, even accepting the Ministry's reasoning, one needs to ask why, in the original Act, the approving authorities were structured the other way round. Could the Ministry please elaborate on this and what has changed?
Next, I move to the specific changes to enhance anti-money laundering measures in casinos. These are seen in clauses 46 and 47 of the Bill.
Under clause 46, the threshold amounts of money which would trigger customer due diligence obligations have been lowered. For both payments out and receipts of money in, the threshold amount will be lowered to $4,000, which is down from the current $10,000 for payments out and $5,000 for payments in.
In addition, there will be a new requirement for the casino operator to expressly consider making a suspicious transaction report. This requirement will be triggered when casino operators do not proceed with the transaction with the patron, whether it is because they are unable to complete the customer due diligence measures satisfactorily or because the patron refuses to provide the necessary information.
Under clause 47, there will be a new electronic information-sharing scheme for casino operators. This scheme will provide for information sharing of the contents of a suspicious transaction report to prescribed persons once the filer is notified by the GRA to do so. In the media release on the Bill, MHA explained that this scheme will enable casino operators to share information directly with each other so that those in the industry can act more quickly to prevent money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing.
Madam, I see these measures as particularly prudent. Already under the current obligations, our casino operators have occasionally fallen short. For instance, it was reported in December last year that one of the casino operators was fined a total of $2.25 million for failing to perform due diligence checks on deposits into patrons' accounts in prior years. Another operator was investigated in Singapore and the United States four years ago into whether it had fully complied with anti-money laundering measures when allowing patrons to transfer monies amongst themselves, known as \"third party transfers\".
The risks are further amplified in Singapore due to the high percentage of casino patrons from overseas. According to Singapore's Money Laundering Risk Assessment Report released in June this year, the majority of casino patrons are foreigners, which would mean, that in most cases, our agencies may have little or no background information about these individuals.
Of course, the effectiveness of these enhanced anti-money laundering measures lies not just in the design but in the implementation. Much work will be needed by casino operators to review standard operating procedures and systems and to train staff to understand their roles. The GRA's role as regulator is critical, as it works with the casino operators to literally raise their game.
Madam, finally, I would like to ask about clause 91 on the increase in punishments for certain offences. The increases in punishments are very significant and it is necessary to understand the rationale behind these changes. For instance, some offences that are currently fine-only offences are being converted to offences which are punishable by significant jail time. These offences include, violating business stakeholding requirements, ignoring directions of the GRA, failing to give information to the GRA or failing to provide certain information to the police within a specified time frame.
The existing law already provides for heavy fines for these offences, ranging from $50,000 to over $100,000 in many cases. The Bill introduces jail as an option, with a maximum jail term of either three years or seven years.
What is the mischief the Government wishes to address with these enhanced punishments? Has there been evidence that hefty fines alone are insufficient to deter these offences and that imprisonment needs to be included? Have casino operators or other persons not been cooperative with the Ministry or the GRA, such as to warrant these changes?
Madam, in conclusion, I support the efforts to enhance our anti-money laundering regime relating to casinos. It is no mean task and I hope we will succeed. That said, I look forward to the Government's clarifications on my queries regarding the swap in the approving authorities for ownership changes and the introduction of harsher punishments.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Ng Ling Ling.
Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Deputy Speaker, since the Casino Control Act was last amended in 2012, there have been considerable advances in technology and the way gambling and casino operations are delivered. As such, I agree that the amendment Bill to take steps to further deter casino-related crime and protect the integrity of gaming operations is a timely one.
Nonetheless, I will like to raise clarifications pertaining to three areas: one, on Family Visit Limit; two, on future-proofing regulations; and three, on sharing of information among casino operators.
Firstly, under the proposed changes in the amendment Bill, breaching a Family Visit Limit for casinos becomes a punishable offence. An EP can be fined up to $10,000 and jailed up to 12 months if found guilty. A Family Visit Limit can be applied by family members to limit the number of times a person can enter a casino, if his or her gambling behaviour has caused harm to them, including financial and emotional distress, neglect of family responsibilities or relationship breakdowns.
Based on the data shared by the Ministry, there are about five individuals each year on average that breached Family Visit Limits. However, behind each of this breach can be a very broken family situation with severe debts and relational strains to the family members. Currently, it is an offence to breach an Exclusion Order by Law, Third Party Exclusion Order, Third Party Visit Limit or Family Exclusion Order. With the amendment Bill, the NCPG and its committees will be able to immediately substitute an Exclusion Order with a Visit Limit, and vice versa, instead of waiting one to two months under the current legislation.
The Bill proposed to criminalise violation of Family Visit Limit at Singapore casinos. While I support the principle of increasing penalties for deterrent, often, the families with members who are problem gamblers are usually already facing immense financial distress when they need to apply for such a Family Visit Limit on the problem gambling family member. As such, can the Ministry clarify what will be the considerations when a fine is to be imposed or will a jail term be a better deterrent instead. My concern is that the burden of the fine of $10,000 will usually fall onto the innocent family members, causing even more downward spiral in their financial situation, instead of the problem gambler himself or herself.
In addition, penalties may also be increased for minors faking their ages to get into casinos. I will like to ask, how many of such cases have occurred so far. Minors refusing to give particulars, such as their age, or using false evidence of age to enter casinos, may be fined up to $10,000 under the Bill. This is a 10-fold increase from a maximum fine of $1,000 under the current regulations. Again, will a probation sentence be more appropriate for this group of offenders instead of a high financial penalty, which most minors will not be able to afford to pay and the burden will again fall onto the rest of the family who are innocent of the offence.
Next, the proposed changes will also extend GRA's regulation of casino activities to cover betting and lotteries, beyond games of chance. The Bill will also allow gaming software, which can be deployed on mobile devices, to be approved by the GRA if the need arises. This follows the GRA's observation of gaming machine manufacturers developing software, without the hardware, which can be used on off-the-shelf devices, such as tablets.
The GRA can also allow new betting instruments to be used as chips in casinos in future, such as virtual credits, under the proposed changes. To pre-empt future changes in the gambling landscape, the Bill will also expand the scope of activities that the GRA can regulate in the casinos to cover betting and lotteries.
While the GRA has clarified that there are currently no plans to allow casinos in Singapore to carry out such betting and lottery activities, will the provision have a reverse effect of casinos considering such activities within the legislative framework, leading to more gaming activities than what the authorities will foresee, instead, in the casinos.
In addition, regarding the change that will allow the GRA to assess which instruments can be regarded as chips, I would like to clarify whether virtual assets, such as cryptocurrency, can later be deemed a type of betting instrument and controlled by GRA's approval and how is the GRA keeping up with the understanding and supervision of new betting instruments.
Lastly, the proposed changes to the law will allow the two casino operators in Singapore to share patrons' information with each other to tackle money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing. The operators are, currently, not allowed to share personal data directly with each other without patrons' consent, due to the Personal Data Protection Act. Instead, the GRA needs to facilitate this exchange, which is mentioned by the Ministry as operationally inefficient and impedes the operators from acting quickly.
This is in line with the efforts to tackle money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing. It also fits with Singapore's recent moves to best align with the guidelines of the FATF.
While I agree with the amendments to enhance operational efficiency, I seek the Ministry's clarifications on how the process will be initiated by the casinos and what is the difference in timeline of information sharing compared to the current legislation. How would the GRA know if either casino has failed to initiate such important information sharing and what other surveillance or inspection measures does the GRA have, to identify such risky patrons in the two casinos?
In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, consequences of problem gambling and illegal acts in casinos not only impact the individuals involved but also cause severe hardship to the innocent family members and negative impact to our society. As such, strengthening our casino control legislation will be a step in the right direction.
Madam, notwithstanding the clarifications that I have raised, I support the Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I last spoke about the Gambling Duties Bill and the Gambling Control and Gambling Regulatory Authority of Singapore Bill in 2022 and I believe much of what I raised back then remains relevant for the Casino Control (Amendment) Bill before us today.
As we continue to witness the growth and evolution of the gaming industry in Singapore and beyond, it is essential that we take decisive action to enhance the operational effectiveness of our regulatory regime, ensuring it can adapt to evolving challenges. Most importantly, this Bill also seeks to strengthen protections for our most vulnerable groups: families, individuals at risk of addiction and those who could be disproportionately affected. This is a necessary step toward balancing economic interests with our duty to safeguard the well-being of our society.
On the topic of economic interests, I wish to, once again, raise the point I made during this year's Budget debate that in Singapore, betting taxes as a percentage of gross domestic product have been flat in past years at around 0.5%. Given that gambling duties have been unchanged since 2014, there is room to look into raising the relevant gambling duties as a means of supplementing fiscal revenues consistent with an approach of raising taxes on activities with negative externalities. For casino taxes, while I am cognisant that these were raised in 2022, I would argue today as I did back then when we were debating the Gambling Duties Bill, that casino tax rates have much room to grow.
In Singapore, casino tax rates range from 8% to 12% of gross gaming revenue (GGR) for premium gaming, and 18% to 22% for mass gaming, respectively. Macau, the largest gaming market globally, imposes a special gaming tax of 35% on GGR, amid other fixed and variable premiums payable, while also requiring operators to contribute a further percentage of GGR to utilities designated by the Macau government. This would bring effective gaming tax rates to higher than 35%.
It is especially important to place this call for an increase against the context of the two IRs here reporting very strong profitability in spite of the higher casino tax rates. In their most recent half year results, Genting Singapore saw gaming revenues up 28% to $957.6 million in the first six months of the year, driving adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) 26% higher to $570.8 million and putting the company on track to beat its \"robust 2023 performance\", as highlighted by the company itself at its recent Annual General Meeting, where it also reported adjusted EBITDA of more than $1 billion in 2023. Similarly, Marina Bay Sands saw net revenues up 23% in the first half of the year to US$2.17 billion, with adjusted property EBITDA up 34% to US$1.1 billion. Further, Las Vegas Sands Corp continues to enjoy the highest EBITDA margins in Singapore at 51%, compared to 33% at its Macau operations, despite the higher casino tax rates and this would also have likely been higher than its Las Vegas properties which have since been divested.
Considering that casino licences are renewed with every three years, with the current term expiring in 2025, is there scope for the casino tax rates to be raised in the coming years? Under the recent development agreements signed between the Government and the two casino licensees, what are the maximum casino tax rates that are specified and what are the terms and conditions required before these can be raised in future, assuming the expansion plans of both IRs are completed on schedule? Is the Government constrained in its ability to raise casino and gambling duties in the next few years?
Second, I understand that the Bill seeks to provide for advances in technology and changes to the way gambling and casino operators are carried out. I note that under clause 3, the definition of a \"gaming program\" is inserted, which refers to a software application designed to be used with an electronic device other than a gaming machine to play a casino game or participate in any other form of gambling.
In its press release, MHA noted that this was in response to manufacturers of gaming machines developing software, which can be deployed on off-the-shelf mobile devices such as tablets. I struggle to see how the GRA can restrict the deployment of such gaming software within the casino premises only, should it be approved.
As it is today and as I have highlighted in my speech in March 2022, illegal online gambling remains a key problem regardless of whether official gaming software is being deployed by gaming manufacturers. When I tried to visit one of the popular online gambling websites of yesteryear, I was greeted by a notice by the GRA saying in bold red font, \"Access Blocked\", followed by \"You have attempted to access an illegal gambling site hosted by an unlicensed gambling service provider. Singapore Pools is the only licensed online gambling operator in Singapore.\"
However, a simple google search of \"online gambling\" throws up numerous websites, listing down all the different online gambling portals in Singapore, supposedly. The top link even includes a list of \"the best Singapore online casino sites\", with the self-styled \"gambling expert\" claiming that \"gambling at online casino in Singapore is becoming more and more popular as the years go by. Because of this, it probably comes as no surprise to learn that there are now loads of options for players to choose from\".
I appreciate that while a key part of our strategy to combat illegal online gambling is our blocking measures for illegal online gambling websites and that, yes, no blocking measures are foolproof, but could we better harness technology to stay ahead of the curve and make it prohibitive to access such online gambling portals in Singapore?
Considering that a person convicted of gambling with unlicensed gambling service providers is liable for a fine of up to $10,000 or a jail term of up to six months or both, are there corresponding penalties for operators of unlicensed gambling service providers, regardless of where they are domiciled if they are offering such services to users in Singapore?
Finally, I wish to touch on clause 95, which provides for a validation of amounts purportedly collected as entry levy during the period from 4 April 2024 to 7 May 2024, at the rate set out in section 116(1) as amended by the Bill. Essentially, MHA made a mistake and overlooked the expiry of the 2019 Order to increase casino entry levies for a five-year period and is now enacting retrospective legislation to fix the mistake.
In its press release on 6 August 2024, MHA stated that: \"It was always the Government's intent to maintain the higher entry levies beyond the five-year period. However, MHA had overlooked the expiry of the 2019 Order\". Curiously, section 2 of the 2019 Order itself merely stated that \"The entry levies specified in section 116(1) of the Act are replaced, for the period starting on 4 April 2019 and ending on 3 April 2024, as follows...\". In the joint press release made on 3 April 2019, it was stated that \"The casino entry levies for Singaporeans and PRs will be raised by 50%, from $100 to $150 for the daily levy and from $2,000 to $3,000 for the annual levy, with a five-year moratorium\". There is no indication of the Government's intention after the moratorium – if levies are going to be higher, lower or maintained – except that this levy is to be in place for exactly five years.
Less than a year ago, my Sengkang colleague Assoc Prof Jamus Lim spoke eloquently in this House of the importance of not treating retrospective applications of the law lightly and how if we routinely amend laws and apply them after the fact, then, we erode the very stability of the rule of law. Prime Minister Lawrence Wong also appeared to agree with this principle and said that and I quote, \"Backdating, as Assoc Prof Jamus Lim correctly said, should be done sparingly. It is really the exception rather than the norm and we do it very, very rarely. Why so? Because backdating upsets expectations and prejudices individuals who rely on the existing law\".
MHA stated in its August press release that \"we have tightened our processes to avoid a repeat of such an incident\". But such an incident involving the backdating of laws to fix a mistake should not be treated lightly. When confronted with this issue, one approach is to accept that a mistake was made by the Ministry and enact legislation prospectively, given that it is quite clear in my opinion that there are Singaporeans and PRs who are prejudiced. Yes, S$4.4 million of extra revenue is a meaningful sum, but it is also significant to the Singaporeans or PRs who were overcharged. Whatever one's views are towards those who visit casinos is quite secondary to the principle of the rule of law we are trying to uphold in this country. Allow me to conclude in Mandarin, Mdm Deputy Speaker.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Firstly, although we often say \"a little gambling can be fun\", the reality is that more often \"nine out of ten gamblers lose\". Therefore, I believe that while pursuing economic benefits, we should also safeguard social welfare and continuously strengthen our protection of vulnerable groups. In an era where online gambling is rampant, blocking certain sites cannot be completely watertight. Can we utilise technology to stay ahead and effectively control gambling issues?
Secondly, while our IRs are reaping substantial profits, I believe the government should carefully consider imposing higher taxes on them. This would not only supplement fiscal revenue but also help curb the social ills brought about by gambling activities.
Thirdly, the Prime Minister has said that retrospective legislation should be treated with caution and only used as a last resort. Given that retrospective legislation is the exception rather than the norm, why are we now using retrospective legislation to make up for someone's mistake? Is this approach appropriate? It is worth our pondering.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi.
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi (Nominated Member): Mdm Deputy Speaker, in the context of my comments on the Bill and ensuing queries, I declare that I am a psychiatrist in private practice and have had to treat individuals with addictions and disordered gambling habits.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Casino Control (Amendment) Bill in that it further strengthens the regulatory framework around casino and gambling operations to keep pace with technology and contemporary challenges in regulating this particular space. This includes enhancing protection against money laundering and criminal conduct, as well as strengthening internal controls and corporate governance for casinos.
Secondly, it strengthens the protection of individuals affected by or are at risk of problem gambling, including minors and family members affected by the ill-effects and consequences of gambling by another family member.
The obvious and direct harm of problem gambling is that it causes financial harm, which can spiral into debt accumulation, asset loss and even bankruptcy. While some may find some joy and thrill from a momentary, once-off gamble and win, the truth is that it is a fine line and easily a slippery slope towards habitualised problematic gambling, to the extent where financial losses are compounded further from an inability to walk away or exercise self-control, where social relationships are torn from the unfounded preoccupation for the next winning gamble, a loss of trust and an inability to fulfil personal, family and vocational responsibilities and where chasing losses and desperation can contribute to behaviours with legal consequences.
A person seized with problem gambling is not only at risk of being impacted with mental and physical health concerns but, as covered by the Bill, families and loved ones are at risk and vulnerable to the extended harm a person's problematic gambling habits can bring. This is so much so that where it was formerly known as pathological gambling, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of Mental Disorders, in its fifth edition, DSM-5, has re-categorised it as gambling disorder. So, from pathological gambling to gambling disorder, to become the first recognised non-substance behavioural addiction in DSM.
This was also to reflect growing evidence that gambling behaviours activate reward systems in the brain similar to those activated by drugs of abuse and alcohol and can produce behavioural symptoms comparable to those produced by substance abuse.
I hope this tells us that we can never let our guard down when it comes to the harms of gambling and, by extension, that the amendments, through this Bill, to the Casino Control Act, must keep pace with any emerging evidence of harm that gambling and casino operations can potentially contribute to an individual and his/her family.
With that as a preamble, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I have several queries that I hope the Ministry can address.
First, relating to the distinction between promotional gambling and casino game, is there a reason or utility for distinguishing \"promotional game\" in the context of a casino from \"casino gambling and casino games\"? It appears that the distinction is drawn only when there is a wager of money or casino chips. I would argue that the fundamental harm and psychological impact comes from participating in the game of chance itself, whether wagered on money, chips or otherwise.
In the context of a casino, such a promotional game is a precursor and an encouragement to the actual casino gambling and casino game itself. My view is that a promotional game in the casino should be treated the same as per any casino game, without having to distinguish it and suggesting that it is of a lesser harm under the Act. Within the changes to the Bill, this distinction is only made under Part 1, section 2 of the Act under the subheading of Interpretation. However, practically, under the relevant sections for Exclusion Orders, this harm is, indeed, recognised as with the same weight and grievance regardless whether they be promotional or casino games and all manner of games, promotional games inclusive, are prohibited. I would like to seek clarification whether this distinction between promotional or casino games is, indeed, necessary at all for the purposes of this Bill.
Second, relating to the prohibition of automate teller machines (ATMs) within boundaries of casino premises, I would like to clarify if this law is mainly maintained on principle or are there well-grounded reasons of deterrence for this? Under current practice or regulations, is there a prescribed distance as to where ATMs can or cannot be to a casino? I ask this because within close locality of, for example, the Marina Bay Sands casino as an example, an online search suggests the availability of ATMs of different banks located close within the vicinity outside the casino.
Are there similar legal provisions for locality of ATMs at other gambling type of establishments, for example, Singapore Pool lottery outlets? And in the era of online payments and transactions, does the proximity prohibition of ATMs remain an appropriate and effective deterrent at all?
Third, regarding increasing the cost per entry to casinos, I am in support of the increase of entry levy for both per entry period or annually and that this gives direct support to the Tote Board for public, social and charitable purposes.
I wonder though whether we can tighten further and consider reducing the visit duration to less than 24 hours, for example, over 12 or 16 hours per visit. Practically speaking, a 24-hour period may encourage a person to gamble comfortably over two calendar days depending on the start of the 24-hour window.
Fourth, also on a related note to the previous point, regarding Exclusion Orders in general, for a person who is already imposed a Visit Limit due to known problematic gambling behaviours, I wonder if he or she should still be granted the same privilege of a continuous 24 hours per visit as someone who is not on such a Visit Limit.
When considered under an Exclusion Order and a prescribed Visit Limit, can each visit be restricted further to one entry and exit only, or be restricted to a specified lesser number of hours, rather than for the person imposed on a Visit Limit be allowed to spend a continuous period of 24 hours at the casino just like any other person?
Fifth, regarding family exclusion and third-party Exclusion Orders, could the Ministry perhaps give an update as to whether these continue to be effective and whether the intent of such Exclusion Orders is met and fulfilled in that it supports the recovery of the individual and has prevented further harm?
Specific for Third Party Exclusion Orders, like addictions to drugs where doctors are obliged to report illicit drug abuse, can there be a mechanism where doctors or psychiatrists who find someone with a gambling disorder and puts himself, herself or others at risk of financial harm, be reported to the Authority for consideration of Third Party Exclusion Orders?
Finally, in terms of application on behalf of an incapacitated person to trigger a family Exclusion Order under section 161, may I confirm that an assigned Lasting Power of Attorney Donee or Court appointed Deputy, even if he is not a relative of the incapacitated person, can be allowed to apply the order on the incapacitated person's behalf to protect himself or herself from financial harm?
Further to this and as a related question, is there a mechanism where the Courts or the Office of Public Guardian is informed if someone who is an existing Donee or Deputy to an incapacitated person is himself being imposed an Exclusion Order, that his suitability is reviewed with expedience and that he is not allowed to fulfil the role of Donee or Deputy, especially for property and affairs, of that incapacitated person?
Today, I believe this only applies to undischarged bankruptcy and I wonder whether the same rule should apply, at the very least, for the duration where a person remains under an Exclusion Order, with the intent of protecting the interests of the incapacitated person to which he is Donee or Deputy to. Notwithstanding my comments and clarifications, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Keith Chua.
Mr Keith Chua (Nominated Member): Mdm Deputy Speaker, the issue of problem gambling is not new. Gambling addiction has long been a matter of social concern and can destroy lives of individuals, families and friends.
In my growing up years back in the 1960s, I became aware of relatives with gambling issues and recall how this distanced them from family and, in turn, often, family from them. I was then too young to fully appreciate the realities. Though I do recall with some detail that there was a constant search for money to pay debts, including dealing with the demands of debt collectors, sometimes these were quite intimidating.
When we awarded the two casino licences, there was understandable concern over the social impact, in particular, for the vulnerable and potentially those who had worked hard to build up savings that could be placed at risk. I acknowledge the various initiatives in response to the concerns and directed to minimise the consequences on various groups. I am encouraged that the relevant authorities constantly review protection for individuals affected by or at risk of problem gambling. In addition, I do support the broader objectives of this Bill to continue to stay relevant to the changing landscape.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
The report from NCPG indicated the existence of over 340,000 active Exclusion Orders as of June 2023. Taking a closer look at the statistics, exclusions by law total just over 117,000 or just about a third, and self-exclusions at about 185,000 for casinos include about 157,000 foreigners, and this is the majority group for this category.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the insidious nature of gambling suggests that anyone can be vulnerable. The active Exclusion Orders aim to protect more harm from being done, though it would seem that damage has already happened in perhaps several instances. As a society embarking on a renewed social compact, we should continue to look at how we prevent problem gambling at the earliest stages.
By design, casinos are embedded within world-class convention facilities, entertainment, food and beverage, retail and related attractions. Hence, the venues themselves will attract persons of all age groups. In fact, the two IRs attract significant local and foreign visitors daily, who are there to enjoy the excellent facilities. These facilities and attractions are not offered at subsidised levels to the general public. So, the operators in these two locations can, therefore, refrain from any efforts to attract such visitors to the casinos without any loss of revenue.
Some may feel that there is little harm trying out a casino experience. Would we have any data on whether this seemingly innocent step has led some on the path to problem gambling? How are we monitoring this? Can we consider requiring the two casinos to review the casino access points such that these are not directly from public areas of retail, food and beverage, entertainment and attractions? The purpose of this would be to shield unsuspecting visitors and protect exposure to children. I am again here making a guess that random visitors would not be core sources of revenue for the casinos and, therefore, this would not significantly affect their current operating revenues. Unlike specialised casino destinations like Las Vegas or Macau, Singapore casinos are located within our integral day-to-day landscape and, therefore, remain a facility for many who are not drawn to these facilities for gambling.
Some years back, there was a private initiative for Singaporeans and PRs to protect oneself by voluntarily signing up for self-exclusion, even if one felt there was no known interest or likelihood in gambling. This pre-emptive approach could be a protective step that at least enables a first level check and balance. In particular, this could provide individuals protection from impulsive situations. The current statistics on self-exclusion indicate there are 28,000 Singaporeans and PRs in this category for self-exclusion from casinos.
There may also be parents and families who are concerned about the risk of gambling affecting their children when they turn adults and gain access to casinos and other forms of gambling. Can we provide a mechanism for parents to apply for Exclusion Orders while their children below 21 years of age are under their charge and on a voluntary basis and even without any existing evidence of any gambling problem?
The introduction of the IRs has shown the economic benefits. Initially, we had to handle the social fallout that accompanied this. Gambling takes many forms and we need to continue to look into all forms of gambling as we look at prevention. Tax revenues from legal gambling are sizeable and can we consider deploying more resources to the matter of prevention and protection?Social service organisations, such as We Care Community Services and other similar service providers, can be better or should be better resourced to initiate preventive programmes. We would also want to keep up our efforts to engage our youths at risk of problem gambling. Our family service centres can also be increasingly resourced to tackle frontline prevention.
Mr Speaker, Sir, we need to continue to help those who struggle with gambling problems and, at the same time, we need to continue to seek preventative efforts to minimise any further rise in problem gambling.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): This Bill will improve the effectiveness of our casino regulatory regime, tighten the regulation of casinos and licensees and strengthen protection for vulnerable groups. MHA shared that our regulatory regime has worked well and these amendments are part of MHA’s regular reviews of our laws. I am glad that we are proactively reviewing our laws to ensure our legislative framework is able to meet anticipated developments in the gambling landscape. I have three points of clarification to raise.
My first point is on the responsible entity or individual for approving changes in main shareholders. For main shareholders, section 42 will be amended to require the Minister’s approval, instead of GRA's approval, for the divestment and acquisitions of shareholdings relating to main shareholders. In its press release, MHA explained its rationale: “The Minister for Home Affairs would be better placed than the GRA to take into account whole-of-Government considerations, in deciding whether to approve divestments and acquisitions relating to main shareholdings.”
Can the Minister of State clarify what whole-of-Government considerations will the Minister for Home Affairs take into account when approving divestments and acquisitions of main shareholders? I ask this question because the GRA has long been entrusted to make complex assessments on long-term viability and economic prospects when deciding on casino licence applications. It is unclear why the GRA is now a poor fit for making considerations about main shareholders. How are considerations related to main shareholders different from considerations that the GRA must already take into account when approving casino licences? Can the Minister of State provide some examples of whole-of-Government considerations that the Minister for Home Affairs is better placed than the GRA to take into account?
My second point is on the removal of the requirement for a hearing before Exclusion or Visit Limit Orders are made. A number of provisions, including sections 157, 158, 164 and 166, will be amended to remove references to a “hearing”. The effect of these changes is that the NCPG or one of its committees does not always need to hold a hearing for applications. The amended provisions still require the NCPG or its committees to give a person a reasonable opportunity to object to an application for an order against him or her or to make representations.
Can the Minister of State explain the rationale for removing the requirement for a hearing? Can the Minister of State clarify whether following the amendments, by default, the NCPG or committee will not hold a hearing for applications? Are there situations where the NCPG or a committee may nonetheless decide to hear an application? If so, what are the types of cases where a hearing may be deemed necessary?
My third and final point is on the powers of the NCPG to substitute an Exclusion Order with a Visit Limit, and vice versa. The new section 166A lists the types of substitutions that can be made and sets out the tests for when the NCPG may make a substitution. MHA explained that this amendment is to address the inefficient current situation where NCPG or the committee can only revoke an existing Exclusion Order or Visit Limit, and subsequently impose a new Visit Limit or Exclusion Order. This process usually takes one or two months. The new section 166A(3)(c)(iii) requires NPGC, before making a substitution for a third-party Exclusion Order or a Third Party Visit Limit, to be satisfied that it is in the best interests of the respondent and his or her family members. Given that it is no longer a requirement for hearings to be conducted, can the Minister of State explain how the NCPG will obtain all evidence necessary to determine whether a substitution is appropriate?
While the amendments require the NCPG to provide the party concerned a reasonable opportunity to make representations on the relevant matter, since a hearing is no longer required, there is a higher risk that the NCPG may not hear from a party. Where a party does not make representations, can the Minister of State share if the NCPG will proactively request material or evidence from the relevant agencies or individuals to ensure it has the full information to make the determination? Notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Sun Xueling.
Ms Sun Xueling: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members for their support for the Bill and their suggestions. They raised important questions which I will now address.
First, on enhancing the operational effectiveness of our casino regulatory regime. Dr Syed Harun asked about the need to distinguish a promotional game from casino gambling. Promotional games are a form of casino promotion. Examples include lucky draws or “pick-and-win” giveaways. Compared to the casino games, they pose a lower risk of gambling harm as they do not involve a wager. We use therefore a lighter hand to regulate promotional games. Although GRA’s approval is still required before a casino operator conducts promotional games, certain regulatory requirements which are imposed on casino games, are not imposed on the promotional games. For example, there is no need for the promotional games to be conducted by licensed casino employees.
Ms Ng Ling Ling asked if the amendment to expand the scope of gambling activities in casinos that the GRA can regulate, to include betting and lotteries, would inadvertently encourage casino operators to consider offering such activities. The intent of this amendment is to future-proof our regulatory regime and to clarify in the law that GRA’s approval is required for any gambling activities offered in casinos in Singapore, including betting and lotteries. There are already casinos in other countries that offer betting and lotteries. With this amendment, it will be clear that a casino operator must get GRA’s approval before offering any new gambling activity, including betting and lotteries. The GRA has not received any requests from the casino operators to offer betting or lottery-based products. Should they do so, the GRA will carefully consider the proposal, including law and order and social concerns.
Mr Louis Chua raised the issue of how the GRA will be able to ensure that the deployment of gaming software is restricted to the casino premises should it be approved by the GRA. The GRA intends to allow the casino operators to offer gaming only on mobile devices provided by the casino operators and within the casino. They must demonstrate how they would ensure that the gaming software cannot be used outside the casino, for instance, using geofencing technology.
Ms Ng Ling Ling asked if virtual assets such as cryptocurrency are within the scope of wagering instruments that the GRA would be able to prescribe as chips for casino gambling. The amendment empowers the GRA to prescribe any wagering instrument to be used as chips for casino gambling. The intent of this is to future-proof the regime to allow for new modes such as cashless gaming. An example is where a patron may place wagers at either the gaming tables or gaming machines by drawing down virtual credits directly from his cashless gaming account or e-wallet. The GRA has no intention of allowing cryptocurrency to be used as chips for casino gambling as this presents money laundering risks.
Mr Louis Ng and Ms Sylvia Lim asked how we arrived at the assessments that the Minister for Home Affairs would be better placed than the GRA to approve divestments and acquisitions relating to main shareholders and that the GRA would be better placed than the Minister to manage decisions relating to controllers and substantial shareholders.
The main shareholders regime is the principal upstream lever for the Government to decide who should be allowed to operate the IRs and the casinos within. The current main shareholders for Marina Bay Sands and Resorts World Sentosa are Las Vegas Sands Corp and Genting Singapore Limited respectively. These are operators whom we have assessed are aligned with Singapore's strategic objectives for the IRs.
Members would recall that the Government's decision to develop the two IRs was based on the need to reinvent Singapore's tourism industry and the economic spin-offs such as job creation. It is therefore more appropriate for the Minister rather than the GRA to be the authority to approve divestments and acquisitions relating to main shareholdings to ensure continued alignment between the IRs and the Singapore Government's strategic objectives. This will also bring it in line with the existing policy where it is the Minister who decides on the entity to be designated as the main shareholder of the casino operator in the first place.
Decisions relating to controllers and substantial shareholders, however, have different considerations. The key is to ensure that they do not have undesirable backgrounds so as to ensure that the operation of the casino will be free from criminal influence or infiltration.
When the Casino Control Act was introduced in 2006, we took reference from the Banking Act, where it is the Minister who approves changes to controllers and substantial shareholders. We have reviewed this holistically. Given the context of the Casino Control Act, which has the concept of a main shareholder, unlike financial institutions under the Banking Act, we assess that decisions relating to non-main shareholders can be made by the GRA and that the GRA is well placed to do so.
I would like to reiterate that the objective of these changes is to enhance the operational effectiveness and future-readiness of our casino regulatory regime. It is not to cure any mischief. Since taking up the mantle of Singapore's casino regulator in 2008, the GRA has done well. This is evidenced by the low crime rate and problem gambling rate in casinos.
Our casino operators appreciate the spirit, intent and reasons for our regulations and have a good track record in compliance. Notwithstanding, we continue to review our regulations. We are hence taking this opportunity to rationalise such that functions that relate to the whole-of-Government at the strategic level are overseen by the Minister and regulatory functions are overseen by the GRA.
I will now deal with the questions on tightening the regulation of casinos and licensees.
Ms Ng Ling Ling asked how information sharing between the casino operators will be initiated, what would be the time difference for this proposed information sharing process as compared to the current process and how the GRA would know if either casino operator has failed to initiate such a process.
The new provision stipulates the circumstances under which a casino operator has to share information with the other operator. For example, where an operator has made a suspicious transaction report on a customer and has declined to establish a relationship with him or her.
The GRA does not track the time taken for the current information sharing process. However, we believe that with the removal of the GRA as the conduit and the casino operators sharing and receiving information directly with each other, the process would be more efficient and the casino operators will be able to take timelier action, with GRA still in the loop, having visibility of the information being shared.
The GRA conducts regular and ad hoc inspections on the casinos. If it detects any non-compliance with regulatory requirements, including the failure to share necessary information with the other operator, it will investigate and take appropriate enforcement action.
Ms Ng Ling Ling asked what other surveillance or inspection measures the GRA has in place to identify patrons who may pose a high risk of money laundering, terrorism financing or proliferation financing. Casino operators are already required to have in place a framework for the prevention of money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing, which includes identifying and managing high-risk patrons and mitigating the risks associated with these patrons. The operators must take into consideration the profile and behaviour of patrons and establish risk and materiality thresholds for the identification of high-risk patrons.
Ms Sylvia Lim asked about the impetus for imposing an imprisonment term for offences that were originally liable for only a fine. The Casino Control Act was last amended more than 10 years ago. Since then, the Gambling Control Act, which brought together all non-casino gambling matters, has come into force, in 2022. The proposed amendments to the Casino Control Act seek to align the penalties with the Gambling Control Act to ensure parity for similar offences. The prospect of an imprisonment term will also be a stronger deterrent against the commission of such offences.
I will now deal with the questions on strengthening protection for vulnerable groups of people.
Mr Keith Chua raised the issue of deploying more resources to prevent problem gambling and to protect vulnerable groups of people. I would like to assure Mr Chua that the Government does and will continue to devote significant resources to tackle problem gambling. This includes extensive public education campaigns and initiatives and also funding social service agencies that offer gambling rehabilitation services.
Mr Chua also asked if the access points to the casinos can be reviewed to minimise exposure to unsuspecting visitors or minors. The GRA imposes regulatory requirements to reduce public exposure to the casinos. For instance, gaming areas cannot open directly into public spaces, visitors and guests should not have to walk through the casino in order to gain access to other IR facilities. There are also other measures to limit the accessibility of casinos, including the entry levy regime and the minimum 21 years age restriction. Taken together, our approach has generally worked well. We will continue to closely monitor the situation through NCPG's regular Gambling Participation Survey.
Dr Syed Harun asked about the effectiveness of Exclusion Orders and if there should be further restrictions imposed on persons on Visit Limits. Social safeguards, including Exclusion Orders and Visit Limits, have played a key role in ensuring that problem gambling in Singapore remains under control.
A person who is financially distressed will be subject to an Exclusion Order. The Visit Limit is generally imposed on less financially vulnerable persons, together with other safeguards in place in the casinos, to help them control their gambling on the ground. As I mentioned earlier, the probable pathological and problem gambling rates among our residents are low and stable, at about 1%. We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of our social safeguards. We will take the Member's suggestions into account if there is a future need to tighten them.
Mr Keith Chua suggested allowing parents to apply for an exclusion for their children who are below 21 years of age. A Family Exclusion Order is treated seriously. A breach of a Family Exclusion Order is an offence and hence, the family should only apply for it when there is evidence of harm caused by gambling. For parents who are concerned about minors under their care, they should educate them on the harms of gambling and not to start gambling. Parents can encourage their children to apply for self-exclusion when they turn 21.
Dr Syed Harun also suggested having a mechanism for doctors or psychiatrists to report problem gamblers to the NCPG for consideration of a Third Party Exclusion Order, likening it to how doctors are obliged to report any illicit drug use today. Problem gambling, unlike drug abuse, is not a crime. There is therefore less ground to override patient-doctor confidentiality and require medical professionals to report individuals whom they suspect to be problem gamblers.
Nevertheless, medical professionals should encourage such individuals to exercise personal responsibility and avoid gambling beyond their means. They should also encourage the individuals to seek help, including through channels like the NCPG Helpline or Webchat or to apply for self-exclusion or Voluntary Visit Limits to help them control their gambling habit.
Dr Syed Harun asked whether an existing Donee or Deputy of an incapacitated person should continue his role if he or she is issued with an Exclusion Order. Individuals can be issued an Exclusion Order for many reasons. When the Office of Public Guardian comes to know of such a case, it will investigate with NCPG's assistance and make a determination of continued suitability. The public can whistle-blow to the Office of Public Guardian on alleged misconduct by Donees or Deputies, including misconduct that may have arisen as a result of their being issued Exclusion Orders.
In response to Dr Harun's other questions relating to Donees and Deputies, the Minister for Social and Family Development can appoint suitable persons to apply for a Family Exclusion Order for the incapacitated person. Suitable persons may include Lasting Power of Attorney Donees or Court-appointed Deputies.
Ms Ng Ling Ling asked when a fine would be meted out against a person who has breached his or her Family Visit Limit and when a jail term would be imposed. She raised concerns that the burden of a fine would usually fall onto the family members, causing them further financial burden. In considering the punishment, the GRA will assess the facts and circumstances and consult the Attorney-General's Chambers, who will make the final decision. The more egregious cases may be prosecuted. Once the matter is in Court, the Court will assess and mete out the appropriate punishment. To date, no EP has been prosecuted solely for breaching an Exclusion Order or exceeding a Visit Limit.
Mr Louis Ng had a few questions on how NCPG's Committee of Assessors makes its decisions on an Exclusion Order or Visit Limit. I would like to assure Mr Ng that hearings will remain the default practice. The Bill will simply provide the Committee with the option to not convene a hearing if it already has sufficient evidence to assess the case, including documents which the respondent has submitted, or if the respondent has consented to the Exclusion Order or Visit Limit.
On Mr Ng’s other questions on the empowering of NCPG to substitute an Exclusion Order with a Visit Limit or vice versa, let me elaborate on the appeal and revocation process. Today, the respondent is already required to provide supporting evidence to help the NCPG make a decision and the NCPG may request additional information. The NCPG will use this information to determine whether the initial order remains appropriate, or where there are changes to the respondent's circumstances, whether it is more appropriate to substitute an Exclusion Order with a Visit Limit or vice versa.
Mr Melvin Yong asked if there will be changes to the channels through which respondents can express their disagreement with NCPG’s decision on Exclusion Orders and Visit Limits. Individuals who disagree with NCPG’s decision may appeal against it, or apply to vary or revoke their Exclusion Order or Visit Limit. These channels for recourse remain available. The enhanced operational flexibility to allow the NCPG to substitute an Exclusion Order with a Visit Limit and vice versa, will be incorporated into NCPG’s workflows.
Ms Ng Ling Ling noted the increase of the fine for minors refusing to give particulars or using false evidence of age to enter casinos, from $1,000 to $10,000, and asked if a probation order would be more appropriate. With a financial penalty, she is concerned that the financial burden would fall on the family. She also asked about the number of cases of minors who had managed to enter the casinos by providing false evidence of age.
A minor’s failure to comply with the request by an authorised person such as a Police officer or the GRA inspector to provide his or her particulars shows defiance and prevents the officers from carrying out their duties. Also, the use of false evidence of age by a minor to enter casinos is essentially deceit. These are serious offences which we must deter. That is why we are increasing the penalties. The increase will also ensure parity with the penalties for similar offences under the Gambling Control Act.
We note Ms Ng's point that the family would likely end up having to pay the fine on behalf of the minor. This is the case even today, including for other offences outside the Casino Control Act and the Gambling Control Act. The family is responsible for the minor and it cannot completely absolve themselves from the minor's misdemeanours.
In the past five years, from 2019 to 2023, three minors were found to have entered a casino using false evidence of age. So far, the GRA has not prosecuted any minor for failing to provide particulars or giving false evidence of age. But in the event that a case is prosecuted and a minor is found guilty by the Court, the Court will consider all available orders, including probation, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case.
I will move on to the other issues and suggestions from Members.
Mr Louis Chua asked about casino tax rates and noted that the rates were raised recently in March 2022, through the Gambling Duties Act. As this falls outside the scope of this Bill, I will address this only briefly. If the Member has further questions, he can file a Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Finance or Ministry of Trade and Industry.
We first introduced the casino tax rates in 2007 and introduced a 15-year moratorium until 2022. This was to provide the IRs with greater certainty, bolster the competitiveness and attractiveness of the IRs, as well as enhance the investors’ ability to raise funds for the IRs. This was important to the IRs, given the significant amount of investments that they would be committing.
Since then, we revised the casino tax rates once, upon the expiry of the moratorium in 2022. We introduced a tiered casino tax structure, with higher tax rates than before. The rates were also subjected to a 10-year moratorium. The rates were set with a view to striking a balance between competitiveness and revenue. The tiered casino tax structure and the moratorium are subject to the casino operators meeting development targets and they expire in 2032. We will review the casino tax rates closer to the end of the moratorium.
Dr Syed Harun asked about the prohibition of ATMs within the boundaries of casinos and its effectiveness as a deterrent. ATMs are prohibited within the gambling venues of casinos and gaming machine rooms. This creates a \"break in play\" and injects some inconvenience to the patron. This is to prevent them from having easy and instant access to additional funds for gambling. This restriction is still relevant today as there remains a sizeable proportion of patrons who gamble using cash. We do not prescribe any minimum distance between the ATMs and the casinos.
The GRA has imposed similar requirements for a \"break in play\" where electronic payments are used by casino patrons. Where electronic payments are used by Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents who are non-premium players to transfer funds into their deposit account with the casino operators, the GRA has imposed a 30-minute waiting time between the patron’s deposit of funds and the time that the funds are made available to the patron for gambling.
Dr Syed Harun also suggested the shortening of the validity period of an entry levy. We thank him for his suggestion. For now, we do not think that there is a need to increase the levies further or to reduce their validity period.
Mr Melvin Yong raised the issue of illegal remote gambling activities and unsolicited gambling advertisements on social media platforms. I mentioned in my speech earlier that the regulation of non-casino gambling activities is covered under the Gambling Control Act. As these matters fall outside the scope of this Bill, I will address them very briefly.
We take a strong enforcement approach against illegal gambling. In 2023, the Police arrested more than 450 persons for their involvement in illegal gambling activities. About one-third of the arrests were for remote gambling.
The GRA carries out blocking of illegal online gambling websites and advertisements that can be accessed in Singapore, as well as payment services linked to illegal online gambling. Since 2015, we have blocked more than 3,800 illegal gambling websites, over 270 bank accounts and more than $36 million in payments linked to illegal online gambling.
In addition, the Online Criminal Harms Act empowers the authorities to issue Directions to online service providers to restrict the exposure of Singapore users to criminal activities, including illegal gambling advertisements, on their platforms.
On Mr Yong’s suggestion regarding loot boxes, our current approach to regulating loot boxes is a balanced one. It aims to safeguard against gambling inducement, rather than gaming. We will continue to monitor the landscape closely. Mr Yong would recall that earlier this year, MHA imposed new restrictions on the value of prizes for games at amusement centres and funfairs, because of the higher risk of gambling inducement when large prizes are offered. Similarly, if we find that loot boxes are becoming a significant driver of gambling inducement, we will review our regulations.
Mr Louis Chua asked about the penalties for operators providing unlicensed gambling services, regardless of where they are domiciled. Under the Gambling Control Act, the definition of remote gambling covers situations where the facilities are outside of Singapore, whether in part or in full. An illegal gambling operator is thus liable for an offence and faces the same penalties, even if he resides overseas, as long as the illegal gambling service is accessible by Singapore users. But given the difficulties with enforcing this law against foreign operators, the GRA’s first recourse is to block such illegal online gambling websites.
Mr Chua also talked about the regularisation of entry levies collected between 4 April and 7 May 2024. The entry levies collected were in line with the higher levies that were imposed since 2019. It was always the intent to continue the higher levies until such time that we assess that there is a need to further adjust the rates. The intent of the moratorium was to stipulate that the levies will not change during the five-year period. The intent was for the rates to be at least maintained thereafter. I do not think that there were expectations that the rates would revert to the earlier lower rate after the five-year period.
We have heard many in this House talk about their concerns about problem gambling. I believe that more would be in support of the maintenance of levies imposed since 2019, rather than to lower the levies to what was first set in 2006, and which may inevitably end up encouraging more gamblers. That said, we are not treating this incident lightly. We have been upfront to acknowledge the issue and we have come to Parliament to validate the excess collections during this period.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope I have addressed the Members’ queries. I thank them again for their support for the Bill and I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications from Members for the Minister of State? I see none.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Sun Xueling]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":"Business Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"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 (Ms Sim Ann) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for National Development, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Buildings account for around 20% of Singapore's carbon emissions and more than a third of our electricity consumption. Hence, there is much that the built environment sector can do to contribute to our drive towards sustainability.
Our journey to green our built environment began about two decades ago in 2005, with the introduction of the Green Mark scheme. It was the first green building certification scheme that catered specifically for buildings in the tropical climate.
The scheme formed the backbone of the first Singapore Green Building Masterplan, or SGBMP, which was launched in 2006. Since then, we have continually refreshed the SGBMP to expand the reach and impact of our green building efforts.
The fourth and most recent edition of the SGBMP was launched in 2021. As reflected in its title \"Building our Green Future Together\", this edition of the SGBMP was co-developed with over 5,000 individuals across the built environment value chain as well as the wider community. It sets out three ambitious targets, or \"80-80-80 in 2030\".
The first target is to green 80% of our buildings by gross floor area, or GFA, by 2030. Buildings are considered green when they meet minimum environmental sustainability standards which are set out in our regulations. The second target is for 80% of new developments to be certified as Super Low Energy, or SLE buildings, a much higher sustainability standard, from 2030. The third target is for our best-in-class buildings to achieve 80% improvement in energy efficiency from 2005 levels by 2030.
We have employed a wide range of strategies over the years to achieve our targets. They include raising minimum sustainability standards to ensure that new buildings are designed to be sustainable from the onset and existing buildings are upgraded to meet prevailing standards when they undergo extensive works.
We have also set higher Green Mark standards for new building projects in key strategic areas, such as Marina South and Jurong Lake District, as well as for public sector buildings.
To encourage and support developers and building owners to meet higher sustainability standards, we introduced two incentive schemes in 2021 and 2022 – the Built Environment Transformation Gross Floor Area incentive scheme and the Green Mark Incentive Scheme for Existing Buildings 2.0 for new and existing buildings respectively.
We have also enhanced our investment in the Green Building Innovation Cluster 2.0 programme to advance research, development and demonstration of cutting-edge green building technologies.
Our strategies thus far have been aimed at uplifting sustainability standards for new buildings and buildings undergoing major upgrades, as well as supporting developers and building owners who want to pursue much higher standards.
Notwithstanding the significant progress that we have made, there is still room to do more. In particular, there are still existing buildings that are highly energy-intensive but are not required to improve their energy efficiency. This is because they do not undergo major retrofitting works or energy use change.
These buildings may not have been designed with sustainability in mind or may not be operated or maintained efficiently. As a result, there is significant energy wastage, sometimes amounting to more than a quarter of the buildings' overall energy use. This translates to unnecessary emissions and avoidable costs that building owners incur over the lifetime of their buildings.
It is in this context that we are proposing amendments to the Building Control Act to further enhance energy efficiency measures for existing buildings. Alongside other existing efforts, this enhancement will contribute towards meeting the first target of greening 80% of our buildings by GFA by 2030. As of July this year, we have greened close to 60% of our buildings by GFA.
To tackle the emissions arising from this group of existing energy-intensive buildings, this Bill will introduce the Mandatory Energy Improvement, or MEI regime planned for the third quarter of 2025. In gist, the MEI regime requires owners of energy-intensive buildings to engage a professional to carry out an energy audit of the building's energy consuming systems. Thereafter, building owners are required to implement improvement measures to reduce the building's energy consumption and to maintain the improved building energy performance over a period of time.
Sir, allow me to now go through the key amendments to the Building Control Act to enact the MEI regime. These amendments are consolidated under clause 5 of the Bill, which expands Part 3B of the Building Control Act on Environmental Sustainability Measures for Existing Buildings.
First, under the new section 22FF on periodic reporting, we will introduce the requirement for owners of buildings that may be subject to the MEI regime to submit information on their building's energy use. This information is necessary for the Commissioner of Building Control (CBC) to assess if a building is energy-intensive and should be subject to the MEI regime.
For a start, the MEI regime will apply to commercial buildings, healthcare institutions, institutional buildings, as well as sports and recreation buildings that have a GFA of 5,000 square metres (sqm) and above.
Today, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) already collects building energy consumption data from these buildings annually by way of a written notice. This data is used by BCA to establish national building energy benchmarks, which are published in BCA’s annual Building Energy Benchmarking Report, or BEBR. The publication of such data allows building owners to compare their electricity consumption patterns against the national average for their specific building typology, which in turn nudges them to proactively improve their buildings' energy performance. Therefore, in practice, the addition of the new section 22FF will not impose new reporting requirements on these building owners.
Second, the new section 22FJ on the issuance of the MEI audit notice requires the CBC to issue a notice to owners of energy-intensive buildings. Energy-intensive buildings are defined as buildings that have exceeded the prescribed Energy Use Intensity, or EUI threshold for three consecutive years. EUI is a measure of the building's energy consumption normalised by its GFA. The EUI thresholds will be set out in subsidiary legislation for each building sub-typology. This considers the fact that different sub-typologies will have different energy use profiles.
For a start, the EUI threshold will be pegged at roughly the 75th percentile of the EUI range for each of the sub-typologies. In other words, the buildings that will be subject to the MEI regime are those that are consistently in the top 25% of their building sub-typology in terms of energy consumption.
The new sections 22FJ and 22FK also provide for the CBC not to issue or cancel the MEI audit notice under certain conditions, for example, if a building is scheduled for redevelopment in the near future, or if the building is currently undergoing major retrofitting works or energy use change. These will be assessed by the CBC on a case-by-case basis.
Third, the new sections 22FL to 22FU prescribe the duties of the owner whose building is subject to an MEI audit notice, as well as the specified individual appointed to carry out the energy audit.
Upon being issued an MEI audit notice, the building owner is to appoint a specified individual within 90 days to carry out an energy audit of the building's major energy consuming systems, such as the building’s chiller and hot water systems. This specified individual can either be a Professional Engineer registered in the discipline of mechanical engineering, or an energy auditor registered with BCA.
With the findings of the energy audit, the specified individual is to develop an Energy Efficiency Improvement Plan, or EEIP with proposed measures to reduce the building's EUI by 10% from pre-audit levels. Depending on the building’s existing condition and energy performance, these measures can range from simple, low-cost measures, such as the replacement of faulty parts and sensors, or the insulation of hot water systems, to more extensive retrofitting works, such as the replacement of the building's chiller systems.
The building owner is then required to submit the audit report, which includes the EEIP, to BCA within one year from the issuance of the MEI audit notice and implement the measures in the EEIP within three years from the submission of the audit report.
Thereafter, the building owner is to ensure that the required improvement in EUI achieved by the measures in the EEIP is maintained for the period of one year.
Sir, the MEI regime is an important and necessary addition to our suite of strategies to accelerate the decarbonisation of our built environment. It signals our commitment to bring all buildings, including the most energy-intensive ones, onto this journey of sustainable development. It also recognises that no effort is too small to make a difference.
BCA has engaged extensively on the MEI regime over the last two years, conducting around 10 engagement sessions with over 500 stakeholders across the built environment value chain.
I am pleased to share that building owners, energy auditors, consultants and key industry champions, such as the Real Estate Developers' Association of Singapore, the Institution of Engineers Singapore, the Association of Consulting Engineers Singapore and the Singapore International Facilities Management Association, are supportive of the regime.
That said, we recognise that upfront cost may be a concern to building owners whose buildings are subject to the MEI regime. This is a legitimate concern, so let me share how the design of our policies will help mitigate some of these concerns.
First, beyond the environmental case for implementing energy efficiency improvement measures, we need to recognise that there is also a strong business case for doing so, as building owners can stand to reap significant cost savings over the building's lifecycle.
As such, building owners should think of these energy efficiency improvement measures as long-term investments that will pay for themselves in the years to come. This is achieved through the energy cost savings, as well as downstream maintenance and manpower savings. Let me share the example of Thong Chai Building, a 10-storey office building at Chin Swee Road.
The Thong Chai Building was completed in 1976 and is 48 years old. In 2022, the building owner completed energy efficiency retrofitting works to improve the building's energy performance. This was one of the projects supported under BCA's previous Green Mark Incentive Scheme for Existing Buildings and Premises.
The retrofitting works included the upgrading of the existing chiller plant to a more efficient one, the redesign of the air-distribution system to better cater to the building's cooling demand, as well as the implementation of an energy management system with intelligent controls to more effectively monitor the performance of building systems. These measures have resulted in a significant reduction of the building's energy consumption by around 40%, which translates to a reduction in its annual electricity bills by the same extent.
I am pleased to learn that with these energy efficiency improvement measures, the Thong Chai Building has outperformed the average energy consumption for office buildings and has been awarded BCA's Green Mark Platinum certification.
Beyond this case example, extensive retrofitting works, such as those implemented by the Thong Chai Building, generally have an average payback period of around six years. This means that building owners should be able to offset the upfront cost of the retrofit through downstream cost savings within an average of six years. After this six-year period, owners will still continue to reap further savings over the rest of the building's lifetime.
This House would also be aware that Singapore's carbon tax will be further raised from $25 per tonne of emissions today to $45 in 2026, with a view to reaching between $50 and $80 by 2030. The carbon tax today is imposed on power generation companies and this is in turn reflected in higher electricity prices. Ahead of the subsequent increases in the coming years, it would be wise for owners of energy-intensive buildings to re-evaluate their electricity consumption and implement measures to reduce it and the MEI regime encourages them do just this.
Let me also share about we have designed our policies to help building owners cope with the upfront cost of such measures.
First, we have designed the MEI regime to be outcome-based. In other words, we do not stipulate the types of improvement measures that building owners need to undertake. Building owners have the autonomy to decide the measures to implement that are most appropriate for their buildings, as long as the required reduction is achieved.
If assessed to be adequate, building owners can implement simple measures as mentioned earlier or other behavioural changes such as increasing their set temperature of their air conditioning by 1°C, which could result in about a 0.5% reduction in energy consumption. The upfront cost to implement these simple measures and behavioural changes is expected to be lower than the cost to implement more significant retrofitting works, which also means a shorter payback period.
Next, owners who wish to undertake more significant retrofitting works to meet even higher sustainability standards can also tap on the Green Mark Incentive Scheme for Existing Buildings 2.0, or GMIS-EB 2.0. Under this incentive scheme, building owners can receive up to 50% co-funding support to implement energy efficiency retrofits at various caps, depending on the level of Green Mark certification standard achieved.
Third, building owners are given up to three years to implement the energy efficiency improvement measures from the submission of the audit report. This would give building owners sufficient time to plan and implement the measures to manage their costs.
Ahead of today's Second and Third Readings, we have also taken extensive efforts to engage building owners who will likely be subject to the MEI regime when it is first implemented next year. BCA will continue to help these building owners prepare for and comply with the requirements of the new regime.
In addition to the MEI regime, the Bill will also make a further amendment to the Building Control Act pertaining to the Periodic Facade Inspection (PFI) regime.
The PFI regime was introduced in 2022 to enhance the safety of building facades by facilitating early detection of facade deterioration and ensuring that defects are rectified in a timely manner. Under the PFI regime, the building owner is to appoint a Competent Person (CP) to conduct the facade inspection. The CP may in turn appoint a facade inspector (FI) to assist in carrying out the facade inspections under his or her direction and supervision.
Presently, while there are prerequisites that an individual must satisfy to become an FI, there are no statutory duties imposed on the FI in respect of the inspections conducted. This means that only CPs are held legally liable if inspections do not comply with regulatory requirements even though an FI's work could have a significant impact on the CP's final assessment of the condition of the facade.
To address this, clause 14 of the Bill amends section 49(2) of the Building Control Act to enable the Minister to make regulations pertaining to FIs. The regulations will set out the statutory duties for FIs to: (a) exercise due diligence in carrying facade inspections in accordance with the CP's instructions and directions; (b) personally supervise in full-time any other person or inspection company engaged by the CP to conduct the inspection; and (c) notify the CP immediately of any unsafe facade. BCA has consulted CPs and FIs involved in the PFI regime and they are supportive of the move to prescribe statutory duties for FIs.
Mr Speaker, Sir, to conclude, this Bill is necessary to further our efforts in tackling climate change and enhancing the safety of our built environment. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): This Bill expands our framework for environmental sustainability in buildings by identifying energy-intensive buildings and requiring their owners to improve their energy efficiency. I support this Bill, which will advance goals set out in our Green Building Masterplan.
We have been making good progress. BCA reports that the overall energy use intensity of our buildings has dropped by 29% between 2008 and 2023. I commend BCA for their efforts and commitments in constantly improving our built environment.
I have three points of clarification to raise.
My first point is on the classification of energy-intensive buildings that the new regime under Part 3B is intended to cover. The new regime involves identifying energy-intensive buildings to require owners of these buildings to improve their energy efficiency. Can the Senior Minister of State share the criteria that will be used to identify energy-intensive buildings? Can the Senior Minister of State also share how often BCA will review this criteria and whether there are plans to progressively strengthen this criteria?
As buildings age and technology improves, we should actively push building owners to meet the latest standards in environmental sustainability. I hope that we will eventually work towards having as many buildings be super low energy or net-zero as possible.
My second point is on the provisions relating to energy audits. Section 22FB provides that a mechanical engineer, an energy auditor or any prescribed class of individuals may be appointed to carry out an energy audit. This is consistent with BCA's Energy Auditor Scheme, which provides that professional mechanical engineers need not register as an energy auditor. However, it is not clear if both groups go through the same standard of continuing professional development to keep their skills relevant.
BCA requires energy auditors to participate in continuing professional development activities relating to green building and energy management. Can the Senior Minister of State share if it has verified that professional engineers undergo sufficient continuing professional development courses to ensure that their skills relating to green buildings are up to date? Can the Senior Minister of State share how BCA ensures that professional engineers are also equipped with relevant skills for performing energy audits?
Next, under section 22FB(3), the specified individual may include in the audit report any finding that it is impracticable for any Type 1 building to meet the specified reduction in energy use intensity. Can the Senior Minister of State share examples of situations that might be considered impracticable for meeting the specified reduction in energy use intensity? For instance, would financial cost be potentially a situation as to why meeting the specified reduction is impracticable? If so, what is the extent of the financial burden required to meet the standard of impracticability?
If a finding of the energy audit is that the specified reduction is impracticable, can the Ministry clarify what steps will be taken to identify a more achievable interim reduction goal, with a roadmap for eventually reaching the specified reduction?
My third and final point is on the support for and collaboration with building owners and businesses to green our built environment. We must not forget that these new regulations will come with an increased business cost for building owners and businesses. The Government previously had Green Mark Incentive Schemes to help improve the environmental standards of buildings. Can the Senior Minister of State provide an update on the utilisation of these schemes and consider refreshing them in light of the new regulations? If not, what other support will we be providing to building owners to help them comply?
Besides financial support, we also need innovation to drive disruptive change to the energy usage of our built environment.
In 2022, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) launched the Green Economy Regulatory Initiative (GERI) to consolidate sandbox efforts by Government agencies. The one-stop platform is aimed at businesses with solutions in sustainability that face regulatory impediments or lack of clarity around existing regulations. Can the Senior Minister of State share whether the Ministry of National Development has worked with entrepreneurs to trial green products or services relevant to the energy efficiency of buildings through this initiative? If so, what has been the outcome of these trials?
Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Mark Lee.
Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill seeks to tighten the energy efficiency regulations for our buildings, especially those with high energy consumption, ensuring that Singapore remains a global leader in sustainability. Sir, I support the Bill, but I would like to offer some clarifications and recommendations.
First, while the Bill outlines robust measures to improve energy efficiency, we must acknowledge the potential financial strain it may place on building owners, particularly those managing older buildings or small and medium enterprises (SMEs).
To address the financial burden that many building owners, particularly smaller enterprises, may face in complying with the requirements of this Bill, can the Government consider leveraging and expanding the Enterprise Financing Scheme – Green, the Energy Efficiency Grant and the Green Mark Incentive Scheme? These schemes already support sustainability projects, making them ideal vehicles for funding the energy efficiency upgrades mandated by the Bill.
First, the Enterprise Financing Scheme – Green, which is designed to support sustainability projects, currently applies to enterprises, defined as business entities with a presence in Singapore and at least 30% local equity. These criteria would exclude certain building owners such as those in strata-titled buildings where the Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST) serves as the collective manager. Ironically, many of these strata-titled buildings tend to be older and in greater need of energy efficiency improvements. Can the Government consider expanding the scheme's eligibility to include non-enterprise owners such that they receive the necessary support to retrofit their properties and meet the new energy standards? If not this scheme, what other schemes can they tap on?
Second, when considering assistance for building retrofits, it is important to look beyond large enterprises. The current Green Mark Incentive Scheme for Existing Buildings 2.0 is applicable to privately owned existing buildings with a GFA of at least 5,000 sqm and specific building types. Can this be expanded to include smaller buildings, particularly strata-titled properties and older developments?
Third, I would like to ask about the Government's plans to expand the Energy Efficiency Grant to include construction, process, maritime and data centres and their users by the end of this year as well as other sectors which are also energy consumers. Expanding this grant could provide crucial support to help more companies across diverse sectors meet the Bill's energy efficiency standards.
Beyond financial assistance, knowledge and capability support will be essential for older buildings and strata-titled properties. Many facilities managers lack the technical expertise to handle complex retrofits. As the demand for sustainability consultants and green building experts rises, we can expect their services to become more expensive.
A similar risk applies to energy auditors as the Bill mandates that audits be conducted by certified energy auditors or mechanical engineers. If demand for audits surges, as anticipated, we could face a shortage of qualified professionals, which may drive up costs and delay compliance efforts.
We have already seen this happen in other countries. Under the Energy Independence and Security Act in the United States, a shortage of energy auditors led to significant delays in compliance, creating a backlog that undermined the overall efficiency of the law.
I recommend that the Government work with institutes of higher learning, industry bodies and agencies to increase the training and certification of both sustainability professionals and energy auditors. Only by doing so, we can meet the growing demand, maintain reasonable costs and ensure the timely implementation of the Bill.
This Bill will also have impact on particularly those with high energy consumption such as data centres and manufacturing facilities like semiconductor plants. These facilities are expected to fall under Type 1 buildings due to their high electricity usage.
I would like to seek clarification on whether the Bill's EUI thresholds focus solely on the building's energy consumption for cooling, lighting and infrastructure or if they also encompass operational usage such as the electricity consumed by machines and equipment during production. Machines in these facilities often require cooling and it is important to clarify whether cooling specifically for operational equipment is excluded from the building's overall EUI calculation.
Including operational energy, particularly relating to production, could require extensive modifications not just to building systems, but also to industrial equipment – a challenging and costly proposition.
Moreover, as operations become more efficient, energy use per square meter might increase due to higher utilisation of space, which could inadvertently worsen the EUI. For industries like manufacturing, alternative metrics, such as energy use per hour worked or per unit of production, might provide a more accurate reflection of efficiency gains.
Understanding this distinction is crucial. Including operational energy in the EUI would expand the scope of compliance, potentially creating additional burdens on sectors that rely on energy-intensive operations.
Additionally, with the growing adoption of electric vehicles (EVs), how will EV charging stations, particularly in malls and office car parks, will be factored into a building's EUI. Since EV chargers are essential for reducing carbon emissions from fossil fuels, it would be reasonable to exclude EV chargers from EUI calculations to avoid penalising efforts aimed at reducing overall carbon footprints.
Older buildings, particularly those constructed with outdated materials or systems, may require substantial retrofitting. The Bill addresses this by setting clear standards for energy use, but we must ensure that these standards are realistic for buildings with inherent structural limitations. Particularly, for heritage or historically significant buildings, can the Government consider flexibility clauses, allowing building owners to apply for extensions or exemptions where retrofitting would compromise the building's integrity or where the technology for upgrades is not yet feasible.
To further encourage compliance with the Bill's energy efficiency goals, we should provide incentives for early adopters and innovative solutions. Early movers often face higher costs, but their leadership can set a powerful example for others.
Denmark introduced an Energy Savings Obligation that required energy companies to help their customers improve energy efficiency. To incentivise early adoption, the government provided financial rewards to companies that implemented energy-saving measures ahead of schedule. This spurred innovation and created a competitive environment for energy efficiency solutions.
I propose the introduction of incentive programmes for building owners who comply early with the Bill's requirements. These incentives could include financial rewards, recognition or priority access to Government grants.
Finally, Government agencies will play a pivotal role in facilitating green retrofits and supporting the future deployment of green systems, such as battery energy storage systems. As part of the Bill's implementation, strong inter-agency coordination will be essential to ensure that no single agency, such as those involved in perhaps rooftop solar installations or future green technologies, applies overly conservative risk assessments.
Together with Senior Minister of State Low Yen Ling, as co-chair of the Alliance for Action on Business Competitiveness by MTI and SBF, we have received valuable feedback from industry stakeholders on these challenges. Current regulations can sometimes make the installation of solar panels and emerging green technologies overly complex or restrictive, which limits progress towards achieving our energy efficiency goals.
Based on this feedback, we recommend streamlining processes and ensuring alignment across agencies to support not only green retrofits but also the future deployment of green systems, like battery energy storage systems. This coordinated effort will be crucial for the smooth implementation of the Bill and for achieving our long-term sustainability objectives.
Sir, the Building Control (Amendment) Bill is a significant and necessary step towards making Singapore's built environment more energy-efficient and sustainable. With whole-of-Government coordination, strong inter-agency alignment and collaboration, together, working closely with the business community, I am confident that we will achieve the Bill's objectives and continue to lead in sustainability efforts. Notwithstanding my questions and recommendations, I express my support for the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. In particular, I am supportive of the introduction of the MEI regime, which I will focus on in my speech today.
As one of the early countries to ratify the Paris Agreement in 2016, our Government is committed to mitigate the effects of climate change and play our part as responsible global citizens. Presently, buildings account for around 20% of Singapore carbon emissions and more than a third of Singapore's electricity consumption.
As of December 2023, current efforts have greened about 58% of our buildings by GFA. However, there are still some gaps in our journey to achieve our goal of 80%. Today, a stock of older buildings, which were not designed with sustainable features in mind, are energy inefficient. It is crucial to include these buildings and journey with them through our country's efforts to green the nation.
The introduction of this regime is also similar to other ones, such as in the EU and the United Kingdom. For example, the Energy White Paper released by the UK Parliament in 2020 shared similar goals to eliminate emissions from domestic and commercial buildings and achieve net-zero by 2050. The government laid out several plans to achieve this goal. One of which is the Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme, a mandatory energy assessment scheme for organisations in the UK to meet particular qualification criteria. Through this scheme, organisations must calculate the total energy consumed by themselves, the building, industrial processes and transport systems. Thereafter, organisations will identify areas for improvements and ensure that plans are fulfilled.
I have three clarifications.
Firstly, buildings with multiple tenants. The energy consumption of a building comprises both central system for common areas, but also usage by individual tenants. The targeted building typologies for the introduction of the MEI regime may house various stakeholders under one roof. In particular, I note in the BCA Building Energy Benchmarking Report 2023 that commercial buildings consume significantly more electricity than the other building types targeted for the MEI regime. Commercial buildings, such as office and retail spaces, are made up of multiple tenants with varying levels of energy consumption.
While building owners can take proactive steps and implement measures for central systems, such as installing light sensors and replacing faulty appliances, the situation can vary as it involves the spaces of their tenants. On this, I would like to clarify how the Government can support building owners in relaying the requirements of the MEI regime and mandating tenants to implement energy-efficient measures within their leased units.
Further, in a situation where some of these older buildings may not be able to accurately capture the energy consumption by different stakeholders and consumption levels have not gone down after implementing measures laid out in their EEIP, how can building owners be supported to stay on track? Are there interim check-ins within the three years or so after the submission of the audit report and the one year after the implementation of the EEIP? Although BCA has introduced a Green Lease toolkit aimed at encouraging sustainable initiatives, I would like to inquire on the awareness and uptake of Green Leases in the past one year.
Secondly, further support. As discussed in the Super Low Energy Building Technology Roadmap by BCA, possible sources of electrical consumption in a building can be attributed to functions of cooling, ventilation, lights, lifts, among others. The cost of implementing sustainable solutions is understandably a concern to building owners who will be subject to the MEI regime. While building owners will be required to appoint a qualified person to conduct an energy audit and develop an EEIP for their building, and I note the Ministry will not prescribe the specific actions, it is critical that building owners, themselves, are educated on what would actually be effective and buy in to the EEIP, while considering also longer-term maintenance plans, costs and whether some element of the cost should be factored into tenants' leases.
On this, I would like to clarify if BCA plans to make available a list of qualified contractors or approved works to support building owners exploring available pathways to achieve their EEIP. Will the longer-term cost savings be explained to building owners and, on average, for the different sub-typologies, how long will it take for such cost savings to be recognised?
Further, I note that the co-funding of the Green Mark Incentive Scheme for Existing Buildings 2.0 is available for owners looking to undertake more significant retrofitting works. How much has been disbursed under this scheme and to what impact since it was first introduced in 2022 and does the Government foresee an increased take-up with the introduction of the MEI regime? I would like to ask if there are other sources of funding and incentive available for owners looking at perhaps a smaller scale of retrofitting, but may not have the necessary funds to do so.
Finally, while the initial focus is to tackle, I understand, the top 25% of building typology in terms of energy consumption over a period of up to three years, to reduce their energy use intensity by the predetermined threshold for prescribed period, is there a roadmap to encourage this group of buildings to progressively go beyond the pre-determined threshold reduction towards perhaps achieving a fixed level of energy consumption in absolute value, depending on the type of building? How ambitious will this pre-determined threshold be and how often will it be reviewed to ensure that we are keeping with our national targets?
Finally, some technical clarifications. In particular, for section 22FK, which specifies that the CBC must cancel an MEI audit notice issued in relation to a Type 1 building if he or she is satisfied, whether or not through further information provided, that the Type 1 building is not an energy-intensive building. I would like to clarify, what would be considered satisfactory for the cancellation of an MEI audit notice?
Secondly, on the maintenance period under section 22FT. After building owners have implemented their measures in the EEIP, I note that the owner of the building must maintain the specified reduction or approve reduction in energy use intensity in relation to that building for a prescribed maintenance period. I would like to ask what is the prescribed maintenance period we are looking at and what would happen after this period?
While the BCA's preliminary estimation looks at not that many buildings involved in the introduction of the MEI regime and I note that these building owners will receive an advanced audit notice, I would like to ask what is the Ministry projected timeline for the introduction and progressive rollout of MEI for all older buildings? As a whole, how would these processes and timelines be communicated to building owners?
In conclusion, Sir, with the implementation of the MEI regime, buildings of different ages are progressively on board our green journey. Some people joke that our national bird is the crane, with the amount of new buildings and constructions that we see. But we should also safeguard older buildings and their memories and ensure that they are running sustainably.
Beyond this Bill, I recall a point I made in the 2022 Motion on \"Towards a Low-Carbon Society\" moved by the Government Parliamentary Committee for Sustainability and the Environment. Then, I called for individuals, society and Government to remain bold and demonstrate our national commitment to support businesses and our people in the green and blue economies and to hold ourselves to high standards, so that together, our collective actions are impact-oriented. I am glad that progress has been made since. With the introduction of the MEI regime, I hope that we can close the gaps steadily and fulfil our commitment to green 80% of our buildings by 2030.
Finally, I hope that the Government will continue to prioritise and be ambitious to reach our net-zero goals by 2050, while working with and supporting industries and individuals to manage costs and take action. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Jean See.
Ms See Jinli Jean (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, buildings are spaces where we live and work in. How we design and use these spaces shape the flow of everyday activities and impacts the quality of life for many.
Against this backdrop, I support the Bill. In particular, a sustainability strategy that the Bill will set in motion, that is the expansion of regime in Part 3B of the Building Control Act relating to environmental sustainability measures for existing buildings. I understand that when the Bill comes into effect, owners of existing buildings must, on an enduring basis, run energy-efficient building systems that meet the prescribed standards underpinned by the Environmental Sustainability score.
In this regard, I wish to seek clarification in three areas.
The new sections 22FM and 22FN of the Bill would empower the CBC to require owners of identified energy-intensive buildings to appoint a specified individual to carry out an audit on the energy use of the building as well as provide the building owner with an energy efficiency improvement plan. However, under the new section 22FO, the same building owner can apply to reduce the energy use intensity of the building by a lower percentage than the approved reduction and/or amend the proposed energy efficiency improvement plan.
Mr Speaker, my first clarification relates to the parameters for approval. On what basis would approval be given to a building owner seeking to amend the specified reduction in energy use intensity and/or the proposed energy efficiency improvement plan? I note that under the new sections 22F T, U and V, the building owner is required to maintain the achieved energy use intensity for a prescribed maintenance period. Should the building owner fail to do so, the CBC is empowered to direct the building owner to comply in the absence of reasonable excuse. Nonetheless, the CBC can also modify or waive any requirement relating to the implementation of an energy efficiency improvement plan or the maintenance of the reduction in energy use intensity.
My second clarification relates to the prescribed maintenance period. How long is the prescribed maintenance period and does a common prescribed maintenance period apply to all buildings under the updated regime? What are expectations of building owners when the prescribed maintenance period expires?
My third clarification relates to the likelihood for modification or waiver of requirement. To ensure that building owners set aside adequate resources to follow through with both the implementation of the energy efficiency improvement plan and the maintenance of specified reduction in energy use intensity for the prescribed period, what measures might the Ministry consider implementing?
We tend to make poorer long-term decisions through a short-term lens. The Bill widens our lens and shifts the perspective of success for stakeholders to the longer term because it does take time for energy efficiency measures to take root and for us to reap the desired environmental gains and economic savings.
Buildings are spaces where we live and work in. We can shape how we design and use buildings to achieve a better quality of life. Climate change is an existential threat that can upend life as we know it. There is urgency for action and the Bill is a push for environmental sustainability. Building owners can make a bigger push for sustainability, for instance, by embracing the car-lite movement and facilitating parking and passage routes within the building and its premises to convenience delivery riders and other mobility device users. While the Bill can set in motion the momentum for environmental sustainability, sustaining this momentum would rest upon building owners and building users like us to make sustainable living a way of life.
Mr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.
Ms Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the proposed changes to the Building Control Act. These changes provide measurable and practical ways forward to reduce the energy consumption of buildings and these are welcomed amendments that chart an actionable path to achieve our intentions of more sustainable buildings.
Buildings are energy hungry. Tangible initiatives like the MEI regime are steps in the right direction to shift us from merely talking about it to doing something about it.
I am heartened that the top quarter of all building typologies in energy consumption will be placed on MEI. They will be required to reduce their energy use intensity by 10% and maintain it, which is a very specific goal. It is not merely a suggestion to say, \"Hey, please, try to use less power\" but a requirement that reduces in measurable kilowatts per hour per metre square.
I echo all my Parliamentary colleagues' call to make this process as painless as possible for building owners so that we can increase our chances of actually being successful in it.
This Bill is a timely opportunity to remind ourselves that reducing energy consumption, such as what MEI seeks to achieve, is mission-critical if we want to ensure Singapore’s continued thriving in an uncertain energy future.
However, energy efficiency is often conflated with consumption reduction, which are different. Energy efficiency can, indeed, result in energy reduction as less can be used to do more. It could, however, also inadvertently result in more energy being used collectively because energy efficiency results in lower energy cost to individuals. Individuals could, therefore, consume more energy since it becomes cheaper for them to use it.
This observation, called the Jevons Paradox, is not new. It was first identified in 1865 by the English economist William Stanley Jevons. While there are debates over the specific extent improved energy efficiency impacts overall energy reduction, we can observe some elements of this paradox in Singapore.
Our use of air-conditioning is a good example. Its use has become significantly more widespread because improved cooling technology over the years is now cheaper to run. I recall when there were both air-conditioned and non-airconditioned public buses – I think it was service No 5, where we had those windows that you could adjust up and down – student fares were 25% cheaper – 35 cents versus 45 cents – for non-airconditioned buses than those of airconditioned ones. Now, all our public buses are air-conditioned, presumably because the running cost of operating air-conditioned buses has fallen significantly. Yet, air-conditioning makes up 20% of a public bus’ energy consumption, which perhaps could be saved.
Admittedly, we cannot ignore how rising passenger expectations of comfort have also motivated this shift. We see this expectation, too, in buildings. We have come to expect relief from Singapore’s tropical heat in our daily lives and air-conditioning is now our go-to solution to achieve this. According to CNA, Singapore tops the region in the number of air-conditioners per capita. Household and building use of air-conditioning alone constitutes 19% of Singapore’s carbon emissions, making it the second highest source of emissions in Singapore after the industrial sector, which accounts for 60%.
More energy-efficient air-conditioners merely mask the fact that we are not actually reducing our overall energy consumption. Furthermore, air-conditioned buildings contribute to the heat island effect, which counter-productively increases our reliance on air-conditioners to lower ambient temperatures within buildings. This is an obvious vicious cycle.
Over the past three decades since Singapore became more affluent, we have been converting our naturally ventilated buildings to those dependent on air-conditioning. To ensure we are resilient in a worst-case scenario where energy supply may decline to the point where it will have to be reserved for essential services, or become too expensive for Singapore to procure, we need to do two things: one, reverse this process and convert over the next few decades buildings that are currently fully air-conditioned to hybrid buildings with more natural ventilation; and two, make natural ventilation the default norm for new buildings, starting from now into the future.
As anyone who has attempted to mend a garment before, sometimes mending something is much harder than making a whole new garment. So, we should start looking into a different strategy for our new buildings starting from the present.
It may sound wildly ambitious, but it is entirely doable, as we see in the successful examples from the National University of Singapore School of Design and Environment (SDE). They successfully revamped their SDE buildings 1 and 3, by \"reinventing the legacy of a 1970s institutional building...by accommodating net-zero energy and creating a high-comfort academic environment of the future”. They also created SDE 4, the first Zero-Energy Certified building in Southeast Asia, and won in 2020 the International Living Future Institute Award as well as the Global Human Settlements Model of Building Category Award in 2018.
To get from \"doable\" to \"norm\", we can incentivise architectural solutions to create more naturally ventilated spaces and set quantitative targets for the built sector in Singapore to achieve them. This can be an intentional effort to routinise natural ventilation as the way forward to build from the present into the future. This could include hybrid approaches that incorporate both air-conditioning and mechanical ventilation that consume only 60% of the total energy of a typical commercial building.
There are several public spaces in Nee Soon South where I find residents like to hang out to read newspapers, sometimes they watch their dramas on their phones, even take a nap, while taking advantage of a natural wind column that comes through. I have also encountered residents who bring their meals to void decks and common stairwells just outside their flats to enjoy amidst a cool breeze the scenic view of Lower Seletar Reservoir or other community scenery. These are smart residents who know how to live in harmony and integration with nature and save on electricity bills.
Let us bring back the pleasurable experience of enjoying a cool breeze on a hot day – an experience that older generations may recall in nostalgia, and what younger generations who are \"digital natives\" and what I suppose are also \"aircon natives\" may not have had that many opportunities to experience.
Whilst increasing natural ventilation is now an intentional component of HDB’s design process for public housing and spaces, I hope this can be mandated in progressive phases for commercial buildings as well.
Many fully air-conditioned buildings are strata-titled properties, such as shopping centres. Similar to the Land Acquisition Act which enabled the Government to acquire land for the construction of public infrastructure, the Government may want to consider a similar legal mechanism for strata units to be acquired, or supported, where necessary, so that parts of a fully air-conditioned building can be opened up to achieve natural light and ventilation. This can be done step by step with helpful doses of grants and support from the Government over the next 20 years or so.
One of the things that COVID-19 has shown us is that open ventilation spaces also help to reduce risks of transmission in the event of virus outbreaks. If the global energy emergency does not seem imminent enough to shift us onto this path, let the more recent lessons of COVID-19 be an additional impetus for this important policy move to strengthen Singapore's resilience for the future. I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Sim Ann.
Ms Sim Ann: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Ms Carrie Tan, Ms Jean See, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Mark Lee and Ms Nadia Samdin for their comments and support for the Bill. Let me address the issues they have raised.
First, on buildings that are subject to the MEI regime. Mr Louis Ng asked about the criteria used to define energy-intensive buildings and if there are plans to review and progressively strengthen these criteria. As mentioned in the opening speech, energy-intensive buildings are those that have consistently exceeded the EUI threshold in the last three years. The EUI threshold is pegged at the 75th percentile of the EUI range for each building sub-typology and will be prescribed in subsidiary legislation. The EUI threshold will be fixed for a period of five years from 2025. This is to give certainty to building owners. As the MEI regime is aimed at reducing the EUI of such energy-intensive buildings, we can expect the 75th percentile EUI for each building sub-typology to come down over time. BCA will monitor the outcomes of the MEI regime and review the threshold in five years’ time.
Mr Mark Lee asked if the assessment of a building’s EUI and its EUI threshold will include high energy uses, such as manufacturing, data centres and EV chargers. To clarify, the MEI regime applies only to four broad building typologies, namely, commercial buildings, healthcare facilities, institutional buildings and sports and recreation buildings.
It will not apply to buildings for industrial use, such as manufacturing, which are largely regulated under the Energy Conservation Act by the National Environment Agency (NEA). It will also not apply to standalone data centres which are managed by the Infocomm Media Development Authority and the Economic Development Board.
The MEI regime will, however, apply to buildings of the four broad building typologies, parts of which may house high energy consuming uses, such as data centre operations and laboratories. The EUI threshold for such buildings will be pro-rated based on the space distribution of such uses. And this approach of pro-rating the EUI threshold is to ensure a like-for-like comparison as far as possible. So, I hope that addresses Mr Mark Lee's concern.
I thank him too for his suggestion to exclude the energy consumption from EV chargers when assessing a building's EUI. Given that EV chargers are a relatively recent addition to many buildings, we will need to collect more data to better understand the contribution of EV charging to our buildings' energy consumption. As EV adoption becomes more widespread in years to come, our data will become more robust and we would be better able to derive appropriate EUI thresholds that take into account the energy consumed for charging EVs. We will take this into consideration as we implement and refine the MEI regime in the coming years.
Ms Nadia asked about our projected timeline to introduce the MEI regime and the plans after it is first introduced. In my opening speech, I shared that we intend to issue the first batch of MEI audit notices in the third quarter of 2025. We expect that there will be fewer than 100 energy-intensive buildings in this first batch. MEI audit notices will subsequently be issued on a yearly basis.
Next, Members had also raised some clarifications and concerns regarding the professionals who may conduct the energy audits under the MEI regime.
Mr Louis Ng had asked if Professional Engineers (PEs) registered in the field of Mechanical Engineering, or Mechanical PEs are equipped with the skills to perform energy audits and if we verify that they attend sufficient courses to ensure that their skills relating to green buildings are up to date.
Sir, mechanical PEs have the necessary skillsets and expertise to conduct energy audits by virtue of the educational qualification, training and experience that they have attained in order to be registered.
The Professional Engineers Board also prescribes the number of Professional Development Units that PEs must obtain every year, through partaking in continuing professional development initiatives. The selection of specific continuing professional development activities is left to individual PEs on account that the scope of practice for each PE is different and unique. As such, the PE is in the best position to decide on the specific training that would best advance their professional development.
Mechanical PEs can continually sharpen their skillsets in areas relating to green buildings and energy audits by selecting relevant continuing professional development activities, such as through specialised training under the Singapore Certified Energy Manager programme, Green Mark certification courses, practical experience and self-directed learning.
The energy audit requirements under the MEI regime are also similar to the requirements of the existing Periodic Energy Audit regime for cooling systems, which has been around since 2014. The skillsets required of Mechanical PEs and energy auditors under the MEI regime are therefore neither niche nor new and we do not expect that there will be any competency issues.
Mr Mark Lee had also raised concerns about industry capacity to cope with the demands of the MEI regime and potential increases in service prices. Today, there are about 500 Mechanical PEs, BCA-registered energy auditors and NEA-accredited Energy Services Companies, or ESCOs that can provide energy audit services. We have assessed this to be sufficient. Given that the number of buildings that would be subject to the MEI regime is expected to be fewer than 100, we do not expect a surge in demand that would cause service prices to increase.
Next, let me address clarifications on the measures that building owners could implement to achieve the 10% EUI reduction and the maintenance period.
Ms Nadia has rightfully pointed out that a building's energy consumption will include the share of energy used by individual tenants, beyond centralised systems. It would be the building owner's responsibility to work with their tenants to achieve the building's overall energy reduction goals. Building owners play an important role in influencing the energy consumption practices of tenants. They may consider implementing energy-saving policies or sustainability programmes to foster greater collaboration and cooperation from tenants.
To Ms Nadia's query about the uptake of green leases in the past year, BCA does not collect such data.
Ms Nadia also asked if BCA plans to share a list of approved works that buildings owners can implement and their estimated costs, as well as a list of contractors for such works. To clarify, the MEI regime is outcome-based. There is no prescribed list of approved works that building owners can or must undertake. The PEs or energy auditors are to recommend the suite of measures to achieve the 10% EUI reduction.
That said, BCA has also engaged owners whose buildings may be subject to the MEI regime. They have shared about the possible types of measures that building owners can implement, as well as their estimated costs and typical payback periods.
On contractors, BCA is not able to provide such a list as the types of works that can be implemented are wide-ranging. Building owners may work with their PEs or energy auditors to engage suitable contractors to carry out the works.
Ms Jean See asked about the length of the prescribed maintenance period and if there are any further expectations of building owner when this period expires. As mentioned earlier, building owners are to maintain the improved EUI reduction for a year after the completion of the energy efficiency improvement measures. This one-year period will be applied consistently to all buildings under the MEI regime. Upon expiry of this maintenance period, building owners are considered to have fulfilled requirements under the MEI audit notice. That said, it is in the interest of building owners to continue monitoring the energy performance of their buildings and ensure that the improvements made continue to be effective in reducing their building's energy consumption.
To Ms Nadia and Ms See's query about efforts that BCA will take to ensure that building owners remain on track to fulfil the requirements of the MEI regime, building owners will be required to submit their building's energy performance data annually. This will allow BCA to track their progress. The CBC may also issue a written direction to building owners to submit progress reports.
Specific to Ms See's query about ensuring that building owners set aside adequate resources to comply with the regime, as mentioned, we have conducted engagements with building owners who are likely to be affected by the regime. The early engagements give them time to plan for resources needed before the regime comes into effect in the third quarter next year. Building owners are also given three years from the submission of the audit report to implement the energy efficiency improvement measures. This should provide sufficient time for building owners to stage the resourcing needed to implement their plans.
Ms Nadia also asked if there may be plans to prescribe an absolute EUI reduction figure instead of the 10% reduction in the future. We have gone with a percentage reduction as the EUI of buildings can differ quite significantly, even if they are of the same building typology and in the 75th percentile. Given that a percentage reduction is fairer than an absolute figure reduction, we do not foresee that we might prescribe an absolute EUI reduction figure in the future.
Moving on, let me address the clarifications around the topic of waivers and exemptions.
Ms Nadia asked about the grounds on which an MEI audit notice that has been issued may be cancelled under the new section 22FK. The CBC may cancel the MEI audit notice if he or she assesses that it would not be reasonable to require the building owner to comply with the regime. Examples include if the building is scheduled for redevelopment or will be vacated in the immediate future. Building owners will need to provide the necessary evidence of such plans to the CBC.
The CBC may also cancel the MEI audit notice if an energy-intensive building has already applied to carry out major retrofitting works or major energy use change. In such cases, these buildings will be subject to minimum environmental sustainability standards and there is no need to impose an additional regulatory regime on them to improve their energy performance. The merits of each request for cancellation will be assessed by the CBC on a case-by-case basis.
Mr Mark Lee raised a valid point about existing buildings that may be structurally difficult to retrofit and suggested flexibility clauses to cater to such buildings. To reiterate, the MEI regime is outcome-based. It does not prescribe that building owners must undertake retrofits in order to meet the 10% EUI reduction. Building owners have the autonomy and flexibility to implement measures that are most appropriate for their buildings, as long as the 10% EUI reduction is met. Nonetheless, we agree with Mr Lee on the importance of providing sufficient flexibility in our regulations to cater for exceptional cases. As such, we have built in various flexibility clauses into the Act.
One such flexibility clause is on the 10% EUI reduction requirement. Mr Ng and Ms See asked about examples where it may be considered impracticable for the building owner to meet the 10% EUI reduction and the grounds on which BCA may accede to lowering the EUI reduction percentage.
One example is if the efficiencies of existing energy consuming systems are already high and optimised, such that there is limited scope for further improvement. In such scenarios, BCA may assess that it is reasonable to impose a lower EUI reduction percentage. Such applications to meet a lower EUI reduction percentage will be assessed by the CBC on a case-by-case basis. Building owners must, however, demonstrate that they have made good attempt to meet the 10% EUI reduction but encounter genuine difficulties in doing so.
To address Mr Ng's question if financial constraints would constitute a basis for the EUI building to be deemed as impracticable to meet the 10% EUI reduction, the short answer is no. Building owners who are unable to afford the cost of energy efficiency improvement measures on their own can explore various financing options or business models. For example, there are existing green financing options from financial institutions that provide upfront financing for energy efficiency projects.
Building owners may also consider engaging in energy performance contracting models with energy services companies. Some of such energy performance contracting models include an agreement where the energy services companies or third-party financing firm finances the retrofits, which is subsequently repaid through the resulting energy savings.
On this note, let me address the clarifications and suggestions that Members have raised regarding support to affected building owners to comply with the MEI regime. While funding will not be directly provided to building owners to meet the requirements under the MEI regime, as mentioned earlier, building owners who choose to undertake more significant retrofitting works can tap on the Green Mark Incentive Scheme for Existing Buildings 2.0, or GMIS-EB 2.0. In fact, building owners would have been able to tap on the GMIS-EB 2.0 to undertake energy efficiency retrofits to improve their energy performance and avoid being identified for the MEI regime since we first announced it at Committee of Supply 2023.
Mr Ng and Ms Nadia asked about the utilisation of the GMIS-EB 2.0 and if there are plans to refresh the scheme. Since its launch in 2022, we have approved 11 applications and committed about $1.3 million in funding support to building owners. We expect the utilisation to increase with the implementation of the MEI regime. We are also undertaking a mid-term review of the scheme to consider ways to enhance support to building owners.
Mr Mark Lee had suggested for us to consider expanding the GMIS-EB 2.0 to support building owners of smaller buildings, given that the scheme is currently only applicable to buildings that are 5,000 sqm and above. We had scoped the support scheme to buildings that are 5,000 sqm and above to align with the coverage of our minimum sustainability requirements, which only apply to buildings of this kind. This is to reduce regulatory burden and compliance costs for smaller buildings.
Given that our intent is to further encourage these existing buildings that are required to meet minimum sustainability standards to go above and beyond to achieve even higher standards, we have pegged the GMIS-EB 2.0 eligibility criteria to buildings that are 5,000 sqm and above.
Mr Mark Lee had also asked to consider expanding Enterprise Singapore's (ESG's) Enterprise Financing Scheme-Green, or EFS-Green, to non-enterprise owners so that building owners, such as MCSTs can benefit. The EFS-Green is meant to support our local businesses to develop capabilities, build track record and tap on growth opportunities in the green economy by enabling access to financing. Non-enterprise owners intending to retrofit their buildings, such as MCSTs can tap on the GMIS-EB 2.0 to do so.
Mr Lee had also asked for an update on the expansion of the Energy Efficiency Grant, or EEG. With the expansion, the EEG will be eligible to local companies in sectors such as retail, food services and data centres, as well as their users. Such companies and users, who may be tenants of energy-intensive buildings, will be able to tap on the EEG to co-fund energy efficiency equipment. This will contribute to their buildings' efforts to reduce energy consumption. Additionally, the EEG will be expanded to the construction industry and will provide co-funding support to construction firms to adopt energy-efficient construction equipment.
While the GMIS-EB 2.0 and the EEG for the construction industry both seek to drive greater sustainability within the built environment sector, unlike the GMIS-EB 2.0 which is aimed at reducing emissions at the building operations phase, the EEG targets emissions at the construction phase.
Since the announcement, our agencies have been consulting industry stakeholders and experts to identify key construction equipment that would be most impactful to greening the construction process. Some examples include eligible Battery Energy Storage Systems, electric excavators, wheel loaders and crawler cranes that are more energy-efficient than their diesel equivalents. Interested construction firms may apply for EEG on the Business Grants Portal from the end of this year.
We also share Mr Lee's sentiments on the importance of ensuring that our grant application and regulatory processes are duly streamlined. In fact, it is in our interest to ensure that this is the case so that more will benefit from our schemes and our policies can be implemented more smoothly and effectively, too.
Finally, Sir, I would like to address the clarifications and comments relating to innovations in the green building space.
Mr Louis Ng asked if we have worked with entrepreneurs to trial green building products and services through the GERI. As Mr Louis Ng mentioned, the regulatory sandboxes under GERI cover areas, such as carbon services, EVs, energy and sustainable aviation and maritime. Although the buildings sector is not one of the areas under GERI, there are existing programmes by BCA that drive innovation and support the test-bedding of new green building solutions.
One such programme is the Green Buildings Innovation Cluster 2.0 (GBIC 2.0), a programme which supports the research, development and demonstration of building energy efficiency technologies and innovations. Some examples of innovative solutions that are being developed and test-bedded under GBIC 2.0 include alternative cooling technologies as well as AI or machine learning solutions that help to optimise building systems.
Just last week, at the International Built Environment Week, we announced an exciting demonstration project by South Beach Tower Office under GBIC 2.0. They will be receiving up to $1.6 million of funding support to implement novel solutions to enhance the energy efficiency of the tower's air-conditioning systems, with the goal of achieving 75% energy efficiency improvement from 2005 levels.
On this topic of green building solutions, Ms Carrie Tan also raised the suggestion of incentivising the development of more naturally ventilated buildings. A key thrust of BCA's Green Mark Scheme is to encourage the adoption of passive design strategies that reduce heat gain into buildings and improve natural ventilation. GMIS-EB 2.0 also provides co-funding support to existing building owners who wish to redesign existing air-conditioned spaces to naturally ventilated spaces. I am heartened to see more project teams adopting such passive design strategies in their buildings. We are seeing this not only in new buildings, but also in existing buildings that have undergone renovations.
An example is DBS Newton Green, one of Singapore's few net-zero commercial buildings. One of the key design strategies employed was to convert 10% of the floor area that was previously air-conditioned into naturally ventilated spaces. The building facade is also designed with bamboo slats, which provide shade while allowing for the cool natural breeze to flow through the building. Like Ms Carrie Tan, I encourage developers and building owners to embrace such design solutions to reduce energy consumption.
Sir, to conclude, I thank Members for sharing their views and for their support towards the amendments to the Building Control Act. These amendments will enhance our decarbonisation efforts in the buildings sector and strengthen our building control regulatory framework. With this, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications for the Senior Minister of State? No.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Sim Ann.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Shaping Foreign Policy in a Less Predictable World","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi.
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, the work of foreign policy has always been a delicate one. It would not be an understatement to say that Singapore is like a small yacht in an open sea. When a sizeable cruise ship or oil tanker passes, we would feel the waves rather acutely. The waves can come in the form of geopolitical tensions, economic instability, technological disruptions and environmental challenges.
Our diplomatic corps had never had it easy in their efforts to further Singapore's interests and, admittedly, things are only getting harder and harder. On one hand, our geographical limitations and natural resource constraints remain much the same as before. Yet, on the other hand, the world has become more volatile and less predictable, especially of late.
Misinformation and ideological echo chambers thrive, amplified by social media, contributing to polarisation of public opinion. Nationalism, populist movements and extremist views take root more easily now more than ever, leading to societal divisions. The nature of contemporary threats, online and offline, tend to have transboundary impact and Singapore is not spared.
The world has not gotten any smaller physically, but it has gotten more tightly knitted with the advent of technology and social media. Therefore, reverberations at a distance are more acutely and easily felt than before, sometimes, almost as if we experience it for ourselves first-hand.
Therefore, I argue, Mr Speaker, our ability to navigate our relationships and approaches in foreign policy are more critical than ever for Singapore's survival if we were to ride the waves of the future, catch the wind and sail our next lap as a nation.
Whether we like it or not, the impact of major global trends like climate change, sustainability, technological changes and threats to global governance and order remains a common challenge that affects all countries in the world today and requires multilateralism and a concerted global lens to solve. No one country can solve, through a singular unilateral policy, these problems on its back alone, for it requires a concerted effort together.
Even as we are on the topic of foreign policy, the terms \"local\" and \"foreign\" remain relevant insofar as making the distinction to refer to our collective identity as Singaporeans and as a people in wanting to protect our specific interests, our way of life, our cultures, our homeland and our sovereignty.
However, in the context of addressing bigger challenges of the world that could directly impact our survival as a country, the local-foreign distinction needs to be fettered with a willingness to achieve outcomes and common good, building friendships across borders and being open to working together to achieve collective benefit, peace and security, whether it be in the region of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) or globally, in the context of the world today.
To that end, my view is that Singapore owes it to our diplomats, past and present, who have dared to venture beyond our shores, representing us in faraway forums and lands to further our interests as a country. It can sometimes be lonely, I am sure, and I begin this Adjournment Motion by thanking the work of our diplomats as Singapore's torchbearers on the global stage.
I am no diplomat but I have a care about how Singapore is positioned by others and how Singapore positions itself in the world today. Through this Adjournment Motion, I put forward three suggestions for the Ministry to consider in its efforts to further foreign policy for our country.
First, we need to and must engage our citizens better in the exercise of our foreign policy, broadly, for two reasons.
The first reason is that our citizens are now more exposed to the world more than ever. Knowledge of the world is no longer just the remit of diplomats and a privileged few. The world has changed over the last 20 to 30 years and information has been democratised to a wider base. With information readily available, citizens will form a view of Singapore's foreign policy, rightly or wrongly, and based on accurate information or otherwise.
The second reason is that our engagements overseas can only be more effective and resilient when harnessed with the potential of our citizens, their networks and their awareness of opportunities for the country. By this, I do not only mean Singaporeans based overseas but also to tap on the networks of Singaporeans based locally who have some reach, influence and awareness of other countries. This could be in the form international networks amongst professionals, business owners, volunteers and students even, who, in themselves, take an open view of the world, venture out beyond our shores and let their personal or professional opportunities take them to new places.
For our diplomatic efforts to be effective and to thrive, we must look beyond what governments can achieve from formal platforms alone and leverage on nurturing informal opportunities for meaningful relationships across peoples. This layers further the nature and depth of connection among countries, allows the formation of closer ties that are first organic and most strongly felt at the level of our citizens and allows for policy-makers to have a nuanced awareness and understanding of the diversity, culture and worldview of others.
With citizens at the base and as a foundation of our foreign policy, diplomatic efforts and trade opportunities would come more naturally and readily because it stems from a deep mutual appreciation of the other. Citizen engagement on our foreign policy needs to be done more deliberately in order to share, educate and achieve a wider understanding at the level of every citizen on why Singapore takes certain positions and decisions on the global stage. It must be that we are more proactive in articulating our ethos, values and principles as a country, how it is exercised inwardly through our education, housing and social policies and how it continues to be preserved and aligned outwardly in our foreign policy decisions. I argue that when decisions are based on our core values and principles and start from what we hold dear as a country, citizen engagement would actually be relatively straightforward and easy.
As a country, we already stand firm and unapologetically so on the importance of social cohesion in our neighbourhoods, on the expansion of common spaces to live together as a united people regardless of race, language or religion, and we value diversity along with the beauty and strength it brings us. I would venture to further suggest that it is in our natural psyche and ability as Singaporeans to coexist with differences and differing viewpoints, to meet others in the middle to find practical solutions to global problems and then land on a principled and fair view even on something seemingly as complex as foreign policy and finding solutions to challenging global events of the day.
Secondly, Mr Speaker, we must double down and continue to take the view of principles and values when it comes to our stated positions regarding what happens around the world.
This is the only way possible for us to survive as a small city state and to advocate for a rules-based world order and for international law to flourish and take root. We must remain open to building relationships, strengthen our existing friendships and build new ones and advocate for an even-handed, fair, just and principled approach to how we conduct ourselves and expect others to do the same as responsible citizens of the world.
Just like within family or a close-knitted friendship, we want everyone to succeed together, to do well and flourish and to live in peace and security. It is also only through a trusting relationship and friendship that we have the scope to be honest with one another and be candid about our views.
In fact, the paradox is that our principles and values as well as the strength and closeness of our friendships are tested most when those close to us err in their actions. No parent will relish calling the Police on their child who has erred in the eyes of the law and no true friend will find delight in reporting another's crime. However, when firmly grounded on sound principles and values, family and friends know this would be the right thing to do.
When this happens at the level of countries, we must be ready to differ from others and continue to align consistently with our values as we have on many occasions as a country on the international stage.
I would also stretch it to say that in the context of transgressions over international law and any travesty of justice, we must owe it to our values and principles to not only express our dismay but to rebuke, to fervently object and to hold parties accountable in proportion to the actions in question.
As part of our diplomatic efforts, our principles and values shine through not only by the side that we take, but also through the words we choose, as well as how and when we say them, right down to the pitch, the frequency and the volume of how we express them. There is weight and gravity in the words and statements we make that belie the extent of the position or side we take on any given issue and we need to be sensitive to how that informs others of and aligns with our values and principles over issues.
Recently, in an CNA interview as part of his visit to Singapore, the hon United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Mr Antonio Guterres said, \"We live in a situation in where practically there are no rules\", describing the current state of affairs as a chaotic situation. He also highlighted a renewed need to \"affirm the values\" and that \"without values everything is lost\".
To hear this from the UN Secretary-General himself is both alarming sombre but perhaps somewhat reassuring at the same time. It tells us of the disarray that the world is in today and how far the world is from the values we espouse to live by. But it offers a glimmer of hope for us to bolster and rally around multilateral organisations like the UN for a better world for ourselves and for others.
As part of being true to our principles and values, we must be ready, even as a small state, to express our views honestly with some candour and forthrightness, if necessary, even and especially to our closest allies and friends. In the longer term, it makes for an honest friendship on the international stage where our viewpoints resonate with our citizens and matter to members of the global community, and this continues to put us in good standing as a country upholding values and principles.
Thirdly, my view is that Singapore is well poised for a role in leadership, arbitration and mediation in global affairs today and this is something Singapore should continue to hone and position itself to do better in.
Like the same yacht in the open sea, Singapore makes no seismic wave in the global order through its land size or natural resources. However, we have the prospect of being the honest broker in the room when giants cannot agree and the testament of our ability lies in how efficiently we do business and run our country, how we continue to be fair and consistent in our stated positions about issues and how serious we are about wanting peace and security for the world.
It certainly is in our national interest to do so, yes, but more than most, we have the conviction and track record to show others that the world is better off when we have the will to cooperate and achieve consensus. This perhaps has been a necessary function of our own painful lessons in history and our own limitations as a young nation. But we have shown that we are a people who thrive and continue to succeed only because we believe truly in a rules-based order and consensus building.
We also cannot afford to be passive about the quarrel of bigger others, simply because we will directly suffer the consequences of the uncertainty or escalation that could follow.
There is a Malay proverb, Mr Speaker, \"Gajah sama gajah berjuang, pelanduk mati di tengah-tengah\", loosely translated as \"When two elephants collide or fight, it is the mousedeer in the middle that dies\". In the context of a global order, we are the proverbial mousedeer that needs to be circumspect about how the elephants in the room are treating one another for our survival could depend on the extent to which things evolve between the stronger powers that be.
We have also built goodwill and friendships not only with the bigger powers, but smaller states too know that we are a friend. Our chairmanship of the Forum of Small States that we helped initiate, for example, can and has shown the utility in rallying for the unique concerns and advancing the interests of smaller states in an increasingly unpredictable world.
My encouragement to the Ministry is to consider looking at the value Singapore can bring to the world and position ourselves as well-regarded partners for global benefit and progress.
Mr Speaker, foreign policy and diplomacy is a big topic to address as part of an Adjournment Motion. I concede there are many layers to it and it would be impossible to unpack everything in all of 20 minutes.
Like many Singaporeans, I am concerned about Singapore's place in the world and how we navigate a less predictable future moving forward. Citizens do take an interest in how Singapore positions itself today vis-à-vis the uncertain global state of affairs and they are confronted with it more directly than ever before. I believe we can and must engage citizens better as part of our foreign policy strategy.
Notwithstanding the chaotic nature of the world today, at this stage of our development as a country, Singapore also has an opportunity to make a difference and shape the world for the better.
We can use our size and nimbleness to our strength, lean on our good standing as an honest broker and concerned citizen of the world and seize the opportunity to make a difference and influence for a better world and for generations to come.
Mr Speaker: Minister Vivian Balakrishnan.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Speaker, I think we have all just heard a brilliant, incisive, clear and erudite speech. On behalf of all my colleagues at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), I want to thank Dr Syed Harun for his contribution.
Actually, I agree completely with you and the thought did go through my mind that maybe I could just sit down and say it. But it is such a good speech. It deserves a response.
The analogy you started off with was that Singapore is a yacht in a sea. Actually, think of a sampan in a typhoon. The world has certainly become far more dangerous and far more inimical to small states. There are tragic wars going on in Ukraine and in the Middle East with horrendous civilian casualties and there is an elevated risk of a wider conflagration.
We are also witnessing deepening fractures in the global economy, ostensibly in the name of resilience and national security, but really due to a more fundamental lack of strategic trust between the superpowers.
We also see the continued erosion of global norms and global governance as the world makes this transition from a unipolar moment to a multipolar world. And this has resulted in clearly, visibly inadequate responses to dealing with global challenges like climate change, pandemics and the challenges and risks of the digital revolution, the biotechnology revolution and the need for an energy transformation.
Domestically, all over the world, we have seen the rise of xenophobia, hyper-nationalism, extremism and a bitter polarisation of domestic politics. This, as you have said, is accelerated by misinformation and the social media echo chambers. This is in all countries.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew reminded us, \"Singapore has to take the world as it is. It is too small to change it. But we can try to maximise the space we have to manoeuvre among the big trees\". Our national interests and our vulnerabilities have remained unchanged all these decades.
We are still a tiny, low-lying city-state in the middle of Southeast Asia. We are sea-locked. The territorial seas of our neighbours enclose us completely. Our absence or our lack of a hinterland also remains an existential fact. And that means Singapore needs to remain open as an existential need. We cannot insulate our people. We cannot build walls.
History is not kind to small states. Or to put it more starkly, actually, nobody would care if Singapore disappeared under the waves overnight. There are many other countries and ports that are queuing up to replace the functions that we currently perform. To survive, Singapore has to be exceptional. We have to be more smart, more nimble, more organised, more reliable, more honest than anybody else. Consequently, Singapore's foreign policy has several fundamental objectives to fulfil.
First, to protect our Independence, our sovereignty and our territorial integrity. Second, to secure access to essential supplies – water, energy, food – in fact, almost everything we consume; and to keep the air and sea lanes of communication open. Third, to expand economic opportunities for Singaporeans and to maintain our relevance to the world.
And as a small state, I agree with you, we need to advocate for rules-based order with full respect for international law because without that, the risks for small states are exponentially high. We try our best to shape global norms by making common cause with as many partners as possible on the basis of sovereign equality, mutual respect and mutual benefit.
Dr Syed Harun has advised us to double-down on our values and principles. I completely agree with you and that we need to speak up whenever and wherever there are transgressions of international law. And this is precisely what we do. We do not take sides. We uphold principles. And we do so consistently, even if that means, from time to time, having to say no to a superpower or to say no to a long-standing friend.
Our consistent application of these principles has allowed us to maintain credibility with major and the middle powers and our neighbours. Or put it another way, I say exactly the same thing in Beijing where I just came back from as I say in Washington, as I say in New Delhi or in Kuala Lumpur or Jakarta.
Actually, everybody knows our positions. They know that it is based on a realistic assessment of Singapore's long-term strategic interests and our long-held principles and values. They know that we are not acting on behalf of their rivals and they also know that Singapore cannot be bullied or bought.
Actually, that makes my job easier because I can say the same thing everywhere and it does not have to be exactly identical to the positions taken by superpowers.
But the most important point you have made is that foreign policy begins at home and I completely agree with you. Domestic unity, cohesion and consensus are essentially because without that, we cannot conduct effective foreign policy.
And I agree with you we do need to do far wider engagement of Singaporeans. We cannot treat foreign policy as something esoteric and elite. It is an exercise which every citizen, first, has a right to gain access to and understanding, and to participate in the discussion in the public space. But we also have to arrive at a common position because Singapore, being diverse and vulnerable, will always be exposed to foreign influence and way before hostility begins, influence operations to divide us, to create uncertainty, to erode our resolve would be conducted against us.
The challenge that we have is we need to engage, we need to explain, we need to persuade, we need to mobilise and every Singaporean has to know why we take certain positions in the world. And we need every Singaporean, wherever you live, work, study or travel, to also be our representatives – so, in a sense, we are all ambassadors now.
I have already said that we are at risk of external forces dividing us and just look at the recent examples in the last couple of years.
For instance, we had to take a categorical position on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It was a clear violation of the UN Charter and if the world accepts that a large neighbour, citing historical errors and crazy decisions, can intervene militarily in the affairs of a smaller neighbour, that is a world which is very dangerous for Singapore.
More recently, the appalling human tragedy of the Israel-Hamas conflict has elicited the shock, horror and anger in all of us. We had to take a categorical stand against acts of terror which were committed on 7 October because if someone launched a thousand missiles in Bukit Panjang, an insurgent force in Woodlands and took 240 Singaporean hostage, you know we would have to respond.
Even as we asserted the right of self-defence, we also told the Israelis – and some Members of Parliament were with me when we went to both the Arab countries and to Israel – we said that your military response has gone too far and we need an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, and we need the safe and immediate, and unconditional release of all hostages.
And those of you who accompanied me will know that I said the same thing in Jerusalem, in Ramallah, in Doha, in Cairo, in Abu Dhabi.
We do need to recognise that there may be different interpretations of the origins of these conflicts or even the desired end-state. But the point for Singapore is do not let that divide and erode our social harmony and cohesion. Looking ahead, this House needs to be psychologically prepared that there was going to be more foreign policy issues in future which are sensitive, which are prickly and controversial and to recognise that Singaporeans will have different opinions.
We need to find consensus, we need find a middle ground and, as the Member said, we need to be able to express that credibly on the global stage.
So, I want to thank the Member again. His key points: foreign policy begins at home, that we need to be consistent overseas and that Singapore, with all our uniqueness, our diversity and our smallness, we can play an outsized role to make this world a little bit safer as we navigate the perilous storms in the next few years ahead.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 8.20 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":"Reporting of Passengers Who Vape by Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Drivers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"20 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Health (a) how may taxi and private hire vehicle drivers report vaping in their vehicles by passengers; and (b) what workplace protection will the Ministry avail to such drivers in order to alleviate worries about negative repercussion or penalty on their livelihoods.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: We have addressed similar questions at the previous Sitting and the answer has been provided in the written answers for Question Nos 33 and 34 for the 6 August 2024 Sitting. [Please refer to \"Vaping in Private Hire Cars and Measures to Protect Drivers Reporting Such Incidents\", Official Report, 6 August 2024, Vol 95, Issue 138, Written Answers to Questions section.]
Nevertheless, for completeness, I will provide a reply to this question today.
While it is not mandatory for the taxi and private hire car drivers to report vaping by passengers, they may do so to the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) via its hotlines.
The identities of persons who report these cases to HSA are kept confidential by HSA. Drivers will also not be penalised for passengers vaping in their vehicles. If passengers retaliate or are uncooperative, drivers can seek help from the relevant authorities, such as the Singapore Police Force, where appropriate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Penalties for Misuse of Personal Mobility Devices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider having or increasing penalties to prevent the misuse of personal mobility aids (PMAs) by able-bodied persons.
22 Mr Alex Yam Ziming asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider implementing the guidelines as recommended by the Active Mobility Advisory Panel earlier, considering the increasing number of reported incidents between errant personal mobility aid users and other pedestrians and road users.
23 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether an update can be provided on LTA’s efforts since March 2024 to prepare for the enforcement of new regulations for the use of personal mobility aids (PMAs) in 2025; (b) what efforts have been expended to engage current owners who will have to give up their PMAs under the new regulations; and (c) whether any efforts have been made to engage retailers to stop selling PMAs to buyers who will not be allowed to use PMAs under the new regulations.
24 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for Transport (a) in 2023, how many personal mobility aids (PMAs) have been impounded for being non-compliant with technical standards; (b) how many PMAs have been impounded because of egregious behaviour by the user, such as riding on roads and reckless riding; and (c) what challenges does LTA face in enforcing against non-compliant PMAs and errant PMA users.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: In March 2024, the Government accepted recommendations by the Active Mobility Advisory Panel on various regulations for personal mobility aids (PMAs) such as to: (a) allow only users certified with relevant medical needs or walking difficulties to use mobility scooters; (b) reduce the speed limit of motorised PMAs from 10 kilometres per hour (km/h) to six km/h; and (c) align dimension restrictions for all PMAs used on public paths with that allowed for use on public transport. We also said there is a transition period of at least one year, to provide ample time for affected stakeholders, such as retailers and PMA users, to adjust to the new regulations. During this transition, we have continued to work on various fronts.
First, on requiring the certificate of medical need for mobility scooter users. We have been working with relevant public agencies, healthcare institutions and voluntary welfare organisations on the operational details of this requirement, including how existing certification can be recognised to make it more convenient for PMA users with genuine needs and to reduce the workload for healthcare institutions.
Second, on reducing the speed limit for PMAs from 10 km/h to six km/h. For retailers, we had earlier highlighted that they should start making adjustments and not bring in new PMAs that do not comply with the revised speed limit. From our engagements, we are glad that retailers have already started doing so. For PMA users who depend on using PMAs for their livelihoods, we are working with stakeholders, such as food delivery companies, the National Delivery Champions Association and social service agencies, on how they will be able to support affected persons in making the transition.
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has also continued to enforce against errant PMA users. In 2023, LTA took enforcement actions against four PMA users for riding their PMAs on roads. In 2024, as of August, LTA has enforced against 10 PMA users for riding their PMAs on roads and impounded four of the PMAs involved.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Follow-up Actions after Investigation into Inappropriate Issuance of Medical Certificates by MaNaDr Clinic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health what are the follow-up actions taken by the Ministry after preliminary findings have revealed that the teleconsultation services provided by MaNaDr Clinic are likely to have involved clinically and ethically inappropriate practices regarding the issuance of medical certificates.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Investigations by the Ministry of Health (MOH) against MaNaDr Clinic, and its practicing doctors are on-going. Appropriate enforcement actions will be taken against the licensee if there were any breaches under the Healthcare Services Act 2020. Medical practitioners found to have breached the Singapore Medical Council’s (SMC) Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines will also be referred to the SMC for disciplinary actions.
MOH will provide further details when the investigations against MaNaDr Clinic are completed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of HDB Households without Direct Lift Access and Use of Lift Access Housing Grant to Address This Issue","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the number of households from the 140 HDB blocks island-wide that do not have direct lift access on the same floor; (b) how many households have applied for the Lift Access Housing Grant (LAHG) since its inception and of which, how many are successful in their applications; and (c) whether HDB will consider enhancing the LAHG of $30,000 for residents who are in urgent need of direct lift access due to medical conditions or mobility reasons.
30 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many HDB households are still affected by not having a lift at their storey; and (b) how many HDB households have been helped by HDB to transit to alternative housing.
31 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Government will further raise the Lift Upgrading Programme cost cap for the remaining HDB flats that have yet to have direct lift access on the same floor; and (b) whether HDB will consider open-sourcing alternative engineering solutions and ideas to bring about lift accessibility for these flats.
Mr Desmond Lee: This Question has been addressed in the written reply to Parliamentary Questions on lift upgrading matters, for the 10 September 2024 Sitting. [Please refer to \"Addressing Lift Accessibility Needs of HDB Residents\", Official Report, 10 September 2024, Vol 95, Issue 141, Written Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Singapore-Johor Special Economic Zone is Value Accretive to Singapore Economy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how can the Singapore-Johor Special Economic Zone be value accretive to the Singapore economy and our land and labour resources; and (b) what are the expected developmental timelines. \n\n
Mr Gan Kim Yong: As a small economy, Singapore must focus on the global market to sustain our economic growth. The objective of the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone (JS-SEZ) is to build on the complementary strengths of Singapore and Johor to better compete for global investments together. Companies can tap Singapore’s offerings as a business and financial hub, and benefit from Johor’s abundant supply of land and workforce as well as Malaysia’s market.
The Ministry of Trade and Industry has worked closely with industry groups, trade associations and chambers to gather their feedback on the JS-SEZ. In a report released by the Singapore Business Federation in July 2024, about 90% of 160 Singapore businesses surveyed found Johor an attractive place for investment, but would like to see improvements in labour availability, ease of doing business and the flow of goods and people. We have thus prioritised these issues in the discussions with our Malaysian counterparts on the JS-SEZ. We are working with them towards a substantive conclusion by the 11th Malaysia-Singapore Leaders’ Retreat later this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Local Talent, Crew and Facilities for Government-funded Creative Projects","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information whether the Ministry will consider requiring (i) firms that have been awarded creative projects by Ministries and Government agencies to endeavour towards engaging Singapore-registered sub-contractors and local talents, crew, and facilities for their projects and (ii) these firms to dedicate a reasonable portion of their budget in engaging local talents and crew, so as to boost the capabilities of the Singapore creative workforce and growth of a creative economy.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Ministries and Government agencies procure creative services in various ways, and many do so via the whole-of-Government Period Contracts and Framework Agreements (PCFAs). Vendors under the Creative Services, and Video and Animation Services PCFA are required to adopt Tripartite Standards, which covers fair recruitment practices and the procurement of services from media freelancers. Creative agencies must however be allowed to hire talents that best meet the needs of their clients in the most cost-effective way.
The Government is committed to supporting our local artistes and the development of the creative industry. Government agencies have programmes and grants to uplift the capabilities of local talent and companies in the industry such as the National Arts Council’s Presentation and Participation Grant and the Infocomm Media Development Authority’s Media Talent Progression Programme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Wrongful Termination of Work Permit or S Pass Holders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many wrongful termination cases have been filed by work permit or S Pass holders in the last 10 years; (b) in how many of such cases were the workers successful in their appeals; (c) for successful cases, what redress has been offered to the workers; and (d) whether the majority of such workers have been allowed to continue working in Singapore.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry, has over the years, made enhancements to its dispute resolution and claims management process. Prior to 2019, wrongful dismissal claims did not have to go through mandatory mediation, and we did not comprehensively track work pass types nor claim outcomes. From 2019, all wrongful dismissal claims must first go through mediation at the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management. Claims can be referred to the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) for adjudication only if mediation is unsuccessful.
From 2019 to 2023, there were about 400 wrongful dismissal claims (or about 80 a year) filed by work permit and S pass holders. About 50% were eventually withdrawn by the worker, 40% were successfully resolved by mediation, and 10% were adjudicated at the ECT. Of the adjudicated cases, about 30% were ruled in favour of the worker. Recourse for the worker throughout this process can include monetary compensation, converting the employee’s dismissal into a resignation, or the employer providing the employee with a service testimonial.
We do not track the number of workers who found another job after filing a wrongful dismissal claim.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Lowered Loan-to-value Limit on Aspiring Home Owners Transitioning from Rental Housing to Purchasing Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the expected impact of the lowered loan-to-value (LTV) limit on aspiring home owners transitioning from rental housing to purchasing a flat; (b) of the lower-income households who may be handicapped or disadvantaged by the new LTV limit, how many are eligible for the increased maximum grant amount of S$120,000 under the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant; and (c) of those who are ineligible, what is being done to minimise the impact of the lowered LTV limit on them.
Mr Desmond Lee: This question has been addressed in the reply to Parliamentary Questions on the residential property market and housing affordability, which was issued on 9 September 2024. [Please refer to \"Impact of Housing Grant Increase on HDB Resale Flat Prices, and Trend for Resale Flat Prices By Flat Type\", Official Report, 9 September 2024, Vol 95, Issue 140, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Imposing Maximum Charging Limits for Electric Vehicles in Residential Car Parks for Fire Safety","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether there are thermal runaway related regulations for electric vehicles (EVs); (b) if so, what are these regulations; (c) whether such regulations include an EV battery safety certification and a requirement to provide information on the battery manufacturer to consumers; and (d) if there are currently no such regulations, when will these regulations be set in place.
38 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Government will mandate maximum charging limits for electric vehicles (EVs) in residential car parks for fire safety; and (b) how does the Government plan to reconcile EV adoption targets with the potential increased fire risks in high-density urban areas.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: International studies thus far have shown that the rate of fire incidents for electric vehicle (EVs) is much lower than those for internal combustion engine vehicles and hybrid vehicles. Nonetheless, as safety is of paramount importance, a multi-agency EV Safety Taskforce co-chaired by the Land Transport Authority and Singapore Civil Defence Force was established in 2023 to manage EV fire risks. We have also put in place a suite of existing regulations to mitigate the risk of EV fires.
All vehicles, including EVs, are required to meet internationally recognised vehicle safety standards such as those issued by the United Nations1 before they are approved for use on our roads, and have to be regularly inspected. The standards prescribe safety requirements for the electric power train and EV traction battery, including protective features against overcharging, short-circuits, thermal runaway and mechanical impacts.
Further, all EV charging systems (EVCS) must comply with our national charging standard, the Technical Reference 25 (TR25), as stipulated by the Electric Vehicle Charging Act. TR25 takes reference from international safety standards and mandates installation, certification and maintenance requirements for EVCS.
Beyond regulations at the vehicle- and charger-level, building regulations also reduce the impact of fire before the arrival of first responders. For instance, car parks are designed to the Fire Code. These includes the use of fire-rated walls and doors to contain fire spread, and ventilation systems to disperse smoke, heat and gases emitted during a fire. For enclosed basement car parks, sprinklers are also required. These fire safety systems have to undergo regular maintenance and inspection.
As EV technology continues to evolve, we will continue to monitor developments locally and abroad to formulate our policies and safety protocols.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : These standards are developed by the World Forum for Harmonisation of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29), a working party within the United Nations."],"footNoteQuestions":["37","38"],"questionNo":"37-38"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Teaching on Importance of Racial and Religious Harmony in Singapore in Integration Programmes for Foreign Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether an update can be provided on the integration programmes and the briefings conducted for foreign workers of all nationalities to ensure that they are apprised of the importance of racial and religious harmony in Singapore before their employment; and (b) whether more steps will be taken to educate foreign workers living in dormitories on racial harmony and in the language that they understand best after the incident of a Bangladeshi preacher who illegally preached at a dormitory on 9 August 2024.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) requires migrant workers in key sectors to attend the Settling-In Programme (SIP) upon arrival in Singapore. Conducted in their native languages, the programme introduces migrant workers to Singapore’s laws and social norms, including the importance of living and working harmoniously with people of different races and religions.
Beyond the SIP, a whole-of-society effort is essential to facilitate the successful assimilation of migrant workers to live and work in Singapore. MOM works closely with various stakeholders such as non-governmental organisations, employers, dormitory operators, community partners and migrant worker volunteers to share the importance of racial and religious harmony in Singapore with migrant workers. These initiatives include social media outreach, dormitory orientation programme for new workers and festive celebrations in dormitories and recreation centres. For example, in July, MOM co-organised a Racial Harmony Day celebration for over 1,200 migrant workers with the Alliance of Guest Workers Outreach, a movement under Hope Initiative Alliance, to promote understanding of different cultures, races and religions.
The annual International Migrant Day celebration is also a key engagement platform to showcase the diversity of nationalities and cultures of the migrant workers in Singapore, which will also engender greater understanding and acceptance by the community.
Employers and dormitory operators also play important roles in ensuring religious and racial harmony at both the workplaces and dormitories. MOM will continue to work with them and other partners to promote social cohesion and religious harmony amongst our migrant workers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Tensions in Middle East on Waiting Time at PSA Ports","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the longest average waiting time per week at PSA ports since January 2024; (b) given the escalation of tension in the Middle East and other parts of the world, whether the Ministry can provide an update on the current port congestion situation in Singapore; and (c) what are the plans to further ease port congestion in the next 12 months.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Port of Singapore has faced increased demand and complexity of container handling, as shipping lines rely on Singapore as a key transshipment port to mitigate their commercial challenges. From January to July this year, we handled 23.82 million twenty-foot equivalent units, an increase of 6.1% from the same period last year.
The Member may refer to the Ministry of Transport’s reply at the 2 July 2024 Sitting for the measures we continue to take to address the additional demand for container handling capacity at our port. [Please refer to \"Adequacy of Singapore’s Seaports to Anticipate and Manage Severe Cargo Congestion\", Official Report, 2 July 2024, Vol 95, Issue 137, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
The average vessel wait time for container berths within our port has been reduced from between two to three days in May 2024 – which was the highest we observed this year – to half a day in August 2024. This is comparable to average wait times observed pre-Red Sea Crisis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reason for Requiring Trainees to Co-pay Monthly Training Fee for Certain Medical Specialties","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) why do certain medical specialties require trainees to co-pay an additional monthly training fee for the entire duration of their training; and (b) whether the Ministry has studied the effects that such de facto additional training costs have on applications by junior doctors who are from families that are less well-off.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Postgraduate medical training is highly subsidised by the Government, regardless of specialty. Residents undergoing specialist training in selected popular specialties co-pay $450 per month for their training. This takes into account the high costs of specialist training and is to encourage junior doctors to consider specialising in other areas, that are more needed to meet future national healthcare demand.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Entry Requirements for National University of Singapore's Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Education whether the entry requirements for the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the National University of Singapore have become more stringent since 2019 to date and, if so, what are the reasons for this.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: From 2019 to date, the National University of Singapore has not changed its entry requirements for the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences.
44 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Health (a) in each year of the past five years, what is the rate of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) in healthcare facilities; (b) what has the Ministry done to reduce the rate of HAIs; (c) what are the Ministry’s targets for managing HAIs; and (d) whether the Ministry will consider publishing data reports on HAIs every few years to track progress and target weak areas.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health (MOH) tracks healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) in acute Public Healthcare Institutions for (a) device-associated infections and (b) various multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs) in the Intensive Care (ICU) setting. These are the most common sources of HAIs.
In the ICU setting, the rates for hospital-associated urinary tract infections and central line infections are 3.56 and 2.15 per 1,000 device-days respectively in 2019, and 2.80 and 1.51 per 1,000 device-days respectively in 2023. For ventilator-associated infections, the infection rates are 8.23 in 2019 and 11.70 in 2023.
For MDROs, the prevalence rates for Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus are 0.54 per 10,000 patient-days in 2021, and 0.35 per 10,000 patient-days in 2023. In the same period, the prevalence rates for Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) are 0.45 and 0.91 respectively. This rise in Carbapenemase-producing CRE (CP-CRE) prevalence is similar to what has been observed globally and related to antibiotic usage practice in the hospitals.
MOH aims to bring down HAIs to as low as possible. Ultimately, there needs to be a strong culture of vigilance, embedded within care protocols and clinical practice. A Technical Advisory Group on CP-CRE has been convened to recommend further targeted actions to reduce Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae infections within the next three years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number and Proportion of Unsuccessful Applications under Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for National Development (a) in each year of the past five years, what is the number and percentage of unsuccessful applications under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS); (b) whether married couples waiting for their Build-to-Order (BTO) flats are accorded priority for a PPHS flat in the same area as their booked BTO flat; and (c) if not, why not.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) offers a subsidised temporary housing option for families with income of $7,000 and below while they are awaiting completion of their new Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat.
In 2019, 27% or 207 eligible applicants were unsuccessful in their PPHS applications due to flat supply limitations. This increased to about 77% at the peak of COVID-19 in 2020 and 2021. With HDB’s efforts to more than double the PPHS supply from 800 flats in 2021 to 2,000 flats today, the proportion of unsuccessful PPHS applicants has moderated to 62% in 2022 and 43% in 2023.
We expect the success rate for PPHS applications to continue improving as HDB further doubles PPHS supply to 4,000 flats by 2025. In the meantime, eligible families can also tap on the PPHS (Open Market) Voucher scheme to defray the cost of renting in the open market.
HDB does not accord families priority to choose a PPHS flat in the same area as their booked Build-To-Order (BTO) flat. Not all BTO flats have PPHS flats nearby. Prioritising by proximity to the booked BTO flat will unfairly disadvantage those whose booked BTO flats do not have PPHS flats in the vicinity.
Instead, we accord priority to married couples with at least one child aged 18 and below, as these families have greater need for temporary housing. In the last eight PPHS application exercises, all such families who applied were invited to select a flat.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prospects of Lao PDR-Thailand-Malaysia-Singapore Power Integration Project to Import Hydropower from Laos","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Ministry can provide an assessment of the status and prospects of the Lao PDR-Thailand-Malaysia-Singapore Power Integration Project to import hydropower from Laos.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Singapore has approved the next phase of the Lao PDR-Thailand-Malaysia-Singapore Power Integration Project. We will need the approvals from all four countries’ governments to proceed. Singapore is committed to working closely with our neighbours to advance the project.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Review into ANGEL Scheme to Retain Nurses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry can provide an update on the review into extending the Award for Nurses' Grace, Excellence and Loyalty (ANGEL) scheme, which is a retention scheme to attract and encourage nurses to build a lifelong career in the public healthcare system, to the administrative and support healthcare workers who work alongside the nurses.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: There are currently no plans to extend the Award for Nurses' Grace, Excellence and Loyalty (ANGEL) scheme beyond nurses. The ANGEL scheme is designed to encourage nurses to stay and build their careers in the publicly-funded healthcare sector.
The considerations for each healthcare profession are unique, including factors like the strength of the recruitment pipeline and global competition, the nature of the job and career structure. Nurses make up a large proportion of the workforce in public healthcare, which makes retaining them through a scheme like ANGEL necessary.
The Ministry of Health regularly reviews the salaries of all our public healthcare workforce and ensures that their total remuneration is fair and competitive. We will continue to look into other attraction and retention measures to ensure that we are future-ready, such as by supporting mid-career entrants to the sector, providing opportunities for job redesign and career development, and ensuring a conducive and safe work environment in our public healthcare institutions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Days of Annual Leave Provided to Full-time Resident Employees of Different Salary Levels","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower for 2023, what is the mean and median number of days of paid annual leave provided to full-time resident employees aged 25 to 64 earning (i) below $2,000 per month (ii) $$2,000 to $4,999 per month and (iii) $5,000 and above per month, respectively.
Dr Tan See Leng: In 2023, the mean number of days of paid annual leave provided to full-time resident employees aged 25 to 64 is 12 days for those earning below $2,000 a month; 17 days for those earning between $2,000 to $4,999 per month; and 21 days for those earning $5,000 and above per month. The median number of days of paid annual leave provided to full-time resident employees aged 25 to 64 is 14 days for those earning below $2,000 a month; 15 days for those earning between $2,000 to $4,999 per month; and 21 days for those earning $5,000 and above per month.
Annual leave is one of several statutory employment benefits to support employees in balancing their work and personal needs. Besides annual leave, employees are also entitled to paid sick leave and parental leave such as maternity leave, paternity leave and childcare leave, for their respective needs. Leave entitlement must therefore be viewed holistically. Agencies regularly review leave entitlements to better support workers. For example, to better support parents in caring for their infants, the Government has recently announced 10 additional weeks of fully paid Shared Parental Leave to be implemented in two phases from 1 April 2025.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Obligations of Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Drivers when Passengers Refuse to Wear Seat Belts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether there are regulations governing the obligations of taxi and private hire vehicle drivers when passengers refuse to wear seat belts for their transport despite reminders from the drivers; (b) if so, what are these regulations; and (c) what recourse is available to these drivers who are found guilty to be transporting unbelted passengers despite reminders.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Our seat belt regulations are to keep drivers and passengers safe. Under the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Wearing of Seat Belts) Rules, the driver and passengers of a motor vehicle, including taxis and private hire cars, are required to wear a seat belt or a lap belt unless they have a valid medical exemption or are below 1.35 metres in height and would generally be required to wear a child restraint instead. Drivers and passengers who fail to do so may face a penalty of $150. In addition, the driver will receive three demerit points under the Driver Improvement Points System. In cases where the driver fails to ensure compliance by passengers, the driver of the vehicle may in addition be subject to the composition sum and receive demerit points.
Taxi and private hire car drivers are not exempt from this law and should remind their passengers to comply with the seat belt requirement. If passengers refuse to wear their seat belts or unfasten their seat belts mid-trip despite reminders, taxi and private hire car drivers can refuse to convey them and can terminate the trip. Taxi and private hire car drivers will not be penalised for terminating such trips, as long as it is done safely, for example, by stopping at a location that is safe for the passenger to alight.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Opportunities for Youths to Have Meaningful Conversations within Their Neighbourhoods","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth what platforms and opportunities are currently available for our youths to have meaningful conversations and build community within their neighbourhood.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: This response to Mr Christopher de Souza will also address a related question filed by Mr Christopher de Souza for a subsequent Sitting.
The Government works closely with our partners to provide platforms and opportunities for our youths to contribute to causes they care about and shape the future of our nation.
At the community level, the People’s Association (PA) empowers our youths to be involved, such as through the PA Youth Movement and the Youth Chapters of the PA Residents’ Networks. These initiatives provide opportunities for our youths to work on community projects.
This is complemented by ground-up initiatives such as KampungKakis, which connects youths and seniors, and Good Hood, an online network for neighbours to connect and help one another.
At the national level, we have been expanding opportunities for our youths to contribute to policy development, including through the Youth Panels. Our recent Youth Policy Forum provided over 1,000 participants the opportunity to discuss issues that our youths care about – financial resilience, jobs, digital well-being, and sustainability. Our National Youth Council (NYC) also runs programmes such as Our Singapore Leadership Programme and NYC Leaders Course, which bring youth leaders together to gain a deeper understanding of Singapore’s policy considerations.
Beyond conversations and policy discussions, we are empowering our youths to turn their ideas into action, through programmes such as NYC’s Youth Action Challenge, which has supported about 1,000 youths to develop over 280 initiatives. Our Youth Corps Singapore too, has enabled about 6,000 youths to volunteer for meaningful causes at home and abroad.
We are also giving our youths the tools to be the best versions of themselves, in line with the Forward Singapore vision to embrace wider definitions of success.
First, we are evolving our approach to education. We are providing multiple pathways for our students. Our secondary schools implemented Full Subject-based Banding this year to cater to the different strengths and interests of our students. Through the Direct School Admission, students can progress to their preferred schools through an alternative pathway that recognises their diverse talents and achievements.
Second, we are giving youths more support to navigate and thrive in a complex world. Youths tell us they would like more support as they navigate through life transitions, such as moving from school to work, or when making decisions about their careers. That is why we launched the Mentoring SG movement, to develop a culture of mentoring to support youths as they navigate their future.
Since its launch in December 2022, Mentoring SG has expanded its outreach. It has engaged over 2,500 skilled mentors and more than 6,000 youths, to connect youths from all backgrounds to networks and resources.
Third, we are helping our youths to develop their potential in different fields, including sports and the arts. In sports, we are enhancing support to our national athletes through a new spexEducation scholarship, increasing the allowances for our spex athletes, and working with companies through spexBusiness to open viable career paths for our athletes during and even after their sporting careers.
In the arts, we are providing more pathways for youths to pursue an arts education and make a career of it. Youths keen on the arts or who want to test their creative ideas can do so with our vibrant creative arts communities at *SCAPE. The School of the Arts has also been supporting youths who want to pursue an education in the arts, and so too the University of the Arts Singapore, for youths to pursue arts at a higher level. At this year’s National Day Rally, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong announced that the Government will subsidise Singaporean students studying at the University of the Arts Singapore at the same level as students attending other Autonomous Universities.
Just last week, the President announced that the refreshed President’s Challenge will extend its focus to support the arts and sports as fields for nurturing potential, especially among the less advantaged. This will be another avenue to support our youths to pursue diverse pathways and aspirations, especially those who start with greater odds.
The Government is committed to expand the space and opportunities for our youths to be the best version of themselves. This will require all of us – parents, friends, mentors, and employers, to believe in and support them on their journey, particularly on a road less taken.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cases of Unauthorised Sale of Drugs for Treatment of Diabetes and Obesity","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health in each year of the last two years (a) how many cases of unauthorised sales of GLP-1 agonist drugs for treatment of diabetes and obesity has the Ministry investigated; (b) how many unauthorised listings of such drugs on e-commerce platforms have been taken down; (c) whether there are any prosecutions under the Health Products Act for unauthorised sale of such drugs; and (d) whether there has been an increase in public interest in these drugs driven by endorsement from celebrities and influencers.\n\n
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) drugs are prescription medicines which can only be dispensed by a registered medical practitioner or a licensed retail pharmacy to a patient with a valid prescription, and are strictly prohibited from advertisements and sales on local online platforms. Since 2022, the Health Sciences Authority has investigated a total of 16 unauthorised sales or illegal advertisements of GLP-1 receptor agonist drugs. Investigations are on-going for most of the cases and no prosecutions have commenced yet. A further 82 non-compliant listings of such drugs were removed from various e-commerce platforms.
The nature of the Internet makes stringent enforcement almost impossible. It is important that consumers avoid purchasing medicines from overseas or unknown sources, including online and through influencers, as these may be unregistered, substandard, or counterfeit, posing significant health risks.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Violation of Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Regulations by Residents Who Exhale Smoke to Exterior of HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry will amend the law to clarify if the exhalation of cigarette smoke to the open air outside of a HDB flat is a violation of the Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Regulations when the individual is smoking within the flat; and (b) if not, why not.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The exhalation of cigarette smoke to the open air outside of a Housing and Development Board flat is not a violation of the Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Regulations when the individual is smoking within the flat, as smoking is not prohibited in residential homes.
Nevertheless, we urge residents to be considerate of others, even when smoking within their own homes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Top Five Forms of Emotional Neglect Identified by Child Protective Service","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what are the top five forms of emotional neglect identified from the emotional neglect cases investigated by the Child Protective Service in the past five years.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Ministry of Social and Family Development classifies the types of abuse experienced by children and young persons into four categories: (a) physical abuse, (b) neglect, (c) sexual abuse, and (d) emotional and psychological abuse. We do not further break down “emotional and psychological abuse” into sub-categorisations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Making Learning of Mother Tongue Languages in Schools More Enjoyable","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Education (a) what is being done to make the learning of Mother Tongue Languages in schools more interesting and enjoyable; (b) whether the Mother Tongue Language curriculum is designed to ensure students have a good functional use of the languages instead of learning idioms and phrases that are less likely to be used in conversation; and (c) whether lessons can be learnt from the private language centres that parents are sending their children to.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Mother Tongue Language (MTL) curriculum is designed to develop students' values, cultural understanding and language skills to communicate effectively. It focuses on helping students to use their MTL proficiently in their daily lives. Teachers use authentic contexts, multi-modal resources and instructional strategies such as role-playing and gamification to create engaging learning experiences. The idioms and phrases taught in the curriculum are carefully selected to enrich students’ vocabulary and enable them to communicate with stronger cultural understanding.
The Ministry of Education regularly updates the MTL curriculum and scans international research developments in language education, incorporating best practices and technological tools. This ensures that our MTL curriculum, resources and instructional approaches remain responsive and effective to changes in environment and learner profiles.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improving Health-span of Singaporeans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Minister for Health (a) what efforts are being taken by the Ministry and its agencies to reduce the gap between the health-span and lifespan of Singaporeans; (b) whether, in the Ministry’s assessment, employers have a role towards improving the health-span of Singaporeans; and (c) if so, how.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Reducing the current 10-year gap between health-span and life-span, is the ultimate objective of healthcare and which all our efforts revolve around. This includes efforts to expand healthcare capacity to enhance accessibility, leveraging technology to improve healthcare in a sustainable manner, shifting the centre of gravity of care to communities and homes as far as possible, tackling the \"buffet syndrome\" caused by excessive insurance, developing our manpower and, very importantly, building up population health through preventive care strategies such as Healthier SG and Age Well SG.
Employers can play a major role because work is such a significant part of our lives. There are many areas where employers can contribute, but let me highlight a few key areas.
First, and a very critical one, is to be able to employ older workers for as long as possible, even beyond statutory retirement and re-employment age, so that those who want to work can continue to do so. This may mean having employees and employers work together to ensure there is flexibility in deployment and in adjusting roles, responsibilities and remuneration. The ability to contribute and learn, and having colleagues around is a major factor that builds health.
Second, employers can adopt good workplace health practices, advocate healthy lifestyle initiatives for employees, and strengthen monitoring and management of occupational diseases.
In this regard, the Ministry of Health and the tripartite partners jointly released the Tripartite Statement on “Enhancing Employee Health and Well-being in Support of Healthier SG” in July last year. Recommendations for employers included actively supporting Healthier SG enrolment among their employees and implementing health-promoting workplace practices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Considerations for Issuing Change of Employer Letter to Migrant Workers Faced With Pending Investigations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what standards or thresholds are used to issue Change of Employer (COE) letters to migrant workers who are victims of illegal acts or accused of wrongdoing but found not to be culpable at the conclusion of investigations; and (b) what are the most common reasons for not granting COE letters.
Dr Tan See Leng: Migrant workers are allowed to stay and work in Singapore if they have a permit to do so. They have no right to insist on staying in Singapore. The permits granted to foreigners are a privilege and not a right. Migrant workers may be denied permits before they come into Singapore, and sometimes, their permits may be cancelled. This might arise due to many circumstances, in particular, when their employers cancel the permit. When migrant workers become involved in law enforcement investigations, the workers are issued a Special Pass to allow them to remain in Singapore while investigations are ongoing.
Migrant workers who are victims of illegal acts or are found to be innocent of any wrongdoing are allowed to look for a new employer before their Special Pass expires. Where such a migrant worker indicates interest to work for a new employer, the Ministry of Manpower will facilitate the work pass application for them after determining with the law enforcement agencies that it is not contrary to public interest to do so and provided the prevailing work pass criteria are met.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Preventing Pet Business Workers Found Culpable for Animal Cruelty from Re-offending","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for National Development (a) what measures are in place to prevent reoffending amongst pet business workers who are found culpable for animal cruelty and neglect offences; and (b) how does the Animal and Veterinary Service ensure that pet businesses, workers, and owners adhere to disqualification orders more broadly.
Mr Desmond Lee: Under section 41C of the Animals and Birds Act, a person who is found guilty of an offence relating to the failure of duty of care for an animal will be liable to a fine and/or imprisonment term. Under section 42 of the Animals and Birds Act, a person who is found guilty of an animal cruelty offence will similarly be liable to a fine and/or imprisonment term.
The penalties for both types of animal welfare offences under these sections of the Act, are more severe for individuals working in animal-related businesses. Such individuals are expected to uphold higher standards of animal welfare in a professional setting. Penalties are also heavier for individuals committing second or subsequent animal welfare offences.
In addition, the Court may issue a disqualification order to an individual or business that is convicted of an animal welfare offence under section 43B of the Animals and Birds Act. This disqualifies the offender from owning or being in charge of any animal, or carrying on any animal-related business for up to 12 months. The disqualification order, if issued, is over and above the penalties for the animal welfare offences mentioned earlier.
Animal-related businesses, such as pet shops, which are issued a disqualification order will have to cease their operations for the period stated in the disqualification order. The National Parks Board (NParks) will revoke the company’s pet shop licence, and will not issue new pet shop licences to companies that are serving out their disqualification order.
If the offender is an individual, they will have to surrender or rehome all pets under their care. In addition, NParks will withhold issuance of pet-related licences that are required by regulation for an individual to own a cat or dog. In this regard, the offender will not be able to purchase a new cat or dog from a pet shop for the duration of the disqualification order.
Breaching a disqualification order issued by the court is a criminal offence under section 43B of the Animals and Birds Act. There are penalties in place for animal-related businesses or individuals who contravene a disqualification order.
Members of the public can inform NParks of animal welfare offences and breaches of disqualification orders via NParks’ website. NParks will investigate the matter fully and take the necessary action against the individual or individuals involved.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safety Measures when Personal Mobility Devices Catch Fire on Public Buses or Trains","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport what safety measures are in place in the event that a personal mobility device or a personal mobility aid catches fire on public trains or buses.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Commuters must not bring any items that may pose fire risks on to Mass Rapid Transit trains and buses. Only approved Active Mobility Devices that comply with the relevant size limits can be brought on to trains and buses. Power-assisted bicycles and motorised personal mobility devices must also be powered off completely, with foldable devices folded at all times.
I would like to assure the Member that all of our trains and buses have passenger compartments that are built using non-combustible materials to minimise the spread of fire. Our train stations and tunnels are also compliant with the relevant fire safety codes, and are equipped with systems to facilitate the safe evacuation of commuters in emergency situations.
In the event of a fire, our rail and bus operators have established standard operating procedures (SOPs) to respond to the situation. Our rail and bus operators will prioritise the safe evacuation of all commuters. All trains and buses are equipped with fire extinguishers, and public transport staff are trained to use them. Our operators conduct regular emergency drills and exercises, in collaboration with the Singapore Civil Defence Force, to ensure that their staff are familiar with SOPs and are well-prepared to handle fire incidents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Difference in Fees Charged by Private and Government-supported Preschools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the average monthly fee per child presently charged by (i) Government-supported preschools and (ii) private preschools; (b) what is the difference in the amount of Government funding per child received by (i) Government-supported pre-schools and (ii) private pre-schools; and (c) how does the Ministry ensure a consistent quality of teachers and programmes across Government-supported preschools and private preschools.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Government has invested significantly in the early childhood sector to give every child a good start in life. The average Government expenditure per preschool-aged child has increased by more than three times over the past 10 years, from $3,500 in 2014 to $11,200 in 2023, with a higher amount spent on children in government-supported preschools and children from lower-income families. Our expenditure is channelled towards measures such as preschool subsidies for all Singaporean children, sector-wide manpower measures and funding for government-supported preschools.
We provide additional funding to Anchor and Partner Operators (AOPs and POPs) to increase access to affordable and quality preschools. AOPs and POPs are subject to quality requirements such as achieving the Singapore Preschool Accreditation Framework (SPARK) certification, raising educators’ salaries and supporting their continuing professional development. Our funding also enables AOPs and POPs to keep within monthly fee caps, which are currently set at $680 and $720 respectively for full-day childcare. In comparison, the median monthly full-day childcare fee for non-government-supported preschools was $1,400 in 2023. We are increasing the number of government-supported preschool places so that 80% of preschoolers can have a place in a government-supported preschool by around 2025, to allow more families to benefit from these lower fees.
We have also dedicated significant funding to raising the quality of the early childhood sector, through initiatives which benefit both government- and non-government-supported preschools. The National Institute of Early Childhood Development was set up in 2019 to provide training and professional development for the sector. The Early Childhood Development Agency and Ministry of Education have also recently updated our national learning and development frameworks to guide all preschools in their pedagogical approaches and practices to provide quality care, teaching and learning for children. Additionally, resources such as the Skills Framework for Early Childhood and Leadership Development Framework guide all educators and leaders in the sector to develop the relevant skills and competencies required for their job roles.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Raising Understanding of Biometric Data Usage and Security","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information whether the Ministry will take additional steps to raise the understanding and awareness of biometric data usage and security among the public, especially for vulnerable groups like the elderly or migrant workers, in light of the recent case of private entities like Worldcoin collecting biometric data of users in exchange for monetary incentives.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) governs the collection, use, disclosure and care of personal data by organisations in Singapore, including Worldcoin. Biometric data – which relate to the physiological, biological or behavioral characteristics of an individual – can form part of the personal data of an individual. The Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) has also issued a Guide on Responsible Use of Biometric Data in Security Applications, to advise on risks unique to biometric recognition technology and measures to govern and protect biometric data.
As biometric data are generally unique, they cannot be changed once compromised, unlike passwords or other tokens. Stolen biometric data can therefore be misused by malicious actors to spoof an individual’s identity – in order to access information or systems or conduct scams or other fraudulent activity. Such misuse is harder to defuse because biometric data cannot be changed.
Organisations that handle such data must ensure they put in place the necessary data protection and security arrangements to address these risks, when designing and operating their systems and processes. They must also obtain consent from consumers before collecting their data by giving all necessary information in a manner that is understandable to the consumer.
The PDPC has been engaging Worldcoin on their obligations under the PDPA and will continue to monitor their collection, use and disclosure of personal data, including biometric data. The PDPC may take enforcement action against organisations in Singapore that are found to have breached their obligations under the PDPA. The PDPC also monitors developments in other jurisdictions and is ready to work with international counterparts as necessary.
To support the adoption of good data protection practices, the PDPC conducts educational and outreach activities through events such as the annual Personal Data Protection Week and Privacy Awareness Week. The PDPC has also worked with the Ministry of Manpower to disseminate notices to migrant workers to raise awareness about the importance of keeping their personal data safe.
Ultimately, everyone must exercise judgement and ensure they fully understand how their personal data will be used by whom before giving consent for it to be collected.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Ensure Suicides Rates Continue to Drop","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the factors that contributed to the decrease in number of suicides from 476 in 2022 to 322 in 2023, the lowest in more than 20 years; and (b) what measures has the Ministry taken to continue reducing suicide rates.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Member is referring to data in the Report on Registration of Births and Deaths 2023 published by the Immigration and Checkpoints, which are provisional. The finalised figures will be published next year.
We adopt a whole-of-society approach to address the issue of suicide. We have run several public education campaigns, trained peer supporters and frontline personnel to support those with mental health needs, built up resilience among our youths and students, and expanded community mental health services and 24/7 crisis helplines.
However, what is most important and hopefully starting to reduce the incidence of suicide, is to change societal attitudes, by normalising conversations around mental health and reducing stigma in seeking early help.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for Same Benefits for PRs and Singapore Citizens under SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Manpower what is the rationale for (i) giving permanent residents the same benefits as Singapore citizens under the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme (ii) payments that are stepped down with time (iii) not extending support under the scheme to workers earning above $5,000 per month but with dependants like children and (iv) excluding those who have received such assistance in the last three years.
Dr Tan See Leng: This question has been addressed in the combined oral reply to Question Nos 9 and 10 on the Order Paper for 9 September 2024. [Please refer to \"Basis of SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme and Considerations for Applications\", Official Report, 9 September 2024, Vol 95, Issue 140, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tracking Sleep Deficiency among Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has any data on students' self-reported sleep patterns; and (b) if not, whether there are any plans to track sleep deficiency among students, in view that sufficient sleep is critical to physical and mental health and well-being.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Ministry of Education monitors the sleep sufficiency of students through regular surveys. Based on the latest survey in 2023, Primary 5 and Secondary 3 students reported, on average, getting seven hours of sleep on school days. In schools, students learn about the importance of sleep and good sleep habits through the Physical Education curriculum. Parents also play an important role to encourage their children to adopt good sleep habits.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support of Mental Well-being of Social Workers by Their Employers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether there is currently any psychological safety training for senior management and board members of social service agencies to support the mental well-being of social workers in their organisations; (b) whether steps are being taken by the National Council of Social Service to support the mental well-being of these social workers by ensuring that those who express psychological difficulties do not face criticisms or reprisals within their organisations; and (c) if so, what are these steps.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The National Council of Social Service (NCSS) works with social service agencies (SSAs) to develop stronger leadership and organisational capabilities. For example, the Social Service Institute offers training in organisational development for senior management and board members. These courses include elements on staff motivation and creating a supportive workplace environment, which contribute to staff psychological safety and well-being. These also help to equip supervisors with skills to manage stress and burnout among their staff and colleagues.
We encourage SSAs to adopt the good practices on fostering psychological safety in the workplace, as recommended by the Tripartite Advisory on Mental Health and Well-being at Workplaces. In addition to being safe, workplaces should also be fair and harmonious. To this end, SSAs should abide by the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices and the upcoming Workplace Fairness Legislation. To strengthen their people practice capabilities, SSAs can tap on funding from the Transformation Sustainability Scheme. In addition, NCSS’ online Wellness Resource Hub provides resources for supervisors and human resource practitioners to manage their employees’ mental well-being. NCSS’ Caring for Social Service Professionals Scheme also provides co-funding of up to 90% for SSAs to engage professional providers to offer counselling services for their staff.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expanding Flexi-MediSave Scheme for Outpatient Medical Treatment for Elderly","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Health whether there are any plans to further expand the Flexi-MediSave scheme for outpatient medical treatment for the elderly.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Singaporeans aged 60 and above can tap on Flexi-MediSave for general outpatient medical treatment. This includes outpatient consultations and medications for common acute conditions, such as the common cold, as well as chronic conditions under the Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP), including diabetes and hypertension. Flexi-MediSave can also be used on-top of other outpatient withdrawal limits, such as the MediSave500/700 limit for CDMP and approved vaccinations.
Flexi-MediSave was recently reviewed in 2023, where it was expanded to cover home medical and home nursing services provided by selected providers. In 2023, fewer than three in 10 of those eligible to use Flexi-MediSave reached the annual $300 limit.
We will continue to regularly review the Flexi-MediSave scheme to ensure that it remains relevant for the needs of Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Onsite Submission of Documents at ICA in Addition to Electronic Submission","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether it is a mandatory requirement by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) for applicants to submit all supporting documents through ICA website; and (b) whether ICA can allow elderly residents who are not IT savvy to submit applications and supporting documents physically at the ICA office.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority's (ICA's) transformation of its services is guided by its three “N” vision of “No Fuss, No Visit and No Waiting”. To this end, ICA has digitalised its services and made them easy to use, so that members of the public can access these services anytime and from anywhere. Close to 95% of ICA’s services are available digitally.
We are cognisant, nevertheless, that some members of the public, particularly the elderly, may need some help in using these services. They may approach officers at the ICA Services Centre for assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"BTO Flexi Flats Set Aside for Singles and Average Rates of Singles Applying for BTO Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development in each year over the last five years, what has been (i) the total number of 2-room flexi flats launched in BTO exercises (ii) the total number of 2-room flexi flats set aside for singles to apply and (iii) the average application rates for singles applying for a BTO flat.
Mr Desmond Lee: The impact of COVID-19 and rising Housing and Development Board (HDB) resale prices have led to an increase in demand for Build-To-Order (BTO) flats, including from singles. Amongst first-timer singles, application rates for BTO flats increased from 2.4 times in 2019 to a peak of 10.4 times in 2022. This has since come down to 4.8 times in the latest June 2024 BTO exercise.
The moderation in application rates was the result of a series of measures to address the housing needs of singles and stabilise the property market. First, we have ramped up BTO supply significantly. Since 2021, HDB has launched more than 74,000 flats, including 14,000 2-room Flexi flats. Second, we increased the singles’ quota for 2-room Flexi flats in non-mature estates from up to 50% to up to 65%. Third, we introduced four rounds of cooling measures to stabilise the property market, and increased both the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Housing Grant and the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant, to make resale flats more affordable to home buyers, including singles.
From the upcoming October 2024 BTO exercise, singles will be able to apply for new 2-room Flexi flats in all locations, instead of just in the non-mature estates, thus giving them wider options to meet their diverse housing needs. We expect singles’ demand for new 2-room Flexi flats to increase as a result. We will continue to monitor the market closely and adjust our policies where necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Payment Delays by Qoo10's E-commerce Platforms in South Korea","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Government is working with South Korean authorities and conducting its own investigations into Singapore-based Qoo10 regarding payment delays at its e-commerce platforms in South Korea; (b) whether the Ministry is aware of any similar payment delays faced by merchants in Singapore; and (c) if so, what recourse and assistance are rendered to merchants who may be facing such issues.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Government has received feedback from several Singapore-based merchants regarding payment delays from Qoo10. We have brought these cases to Qoo10’s attention and requested that they take prompt action to resolve the delays with the affected merchants. The Government is also closely monitoring developments in South Korea regarding Qoo10’s subsidiaries and is in touch with Qoo10 to assess whether and how this may affect its operations in Singapore.
Merchants facing payment delays should raise their concerns with Qoo10. If the concerns remain unresolved, there are established processes in place to assist merchants in resolving commercial disputes, inclusive of debt recovery. For example, they can consider filing a civil claim with the courts. Merchants who face cash flow difficulties because of the payment delays may contact any of the participating Financial Institutions listed on Enterprise Singapore’s website to apply for the Enterprise Financing Scheme (Working Capital Loan).
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cyber Security Agency's Role in Investigating Mobile Guardian App's Hacking Incident","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"71 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Cyber Security Agency (CSA) is assisting the Ministry in investigating the Mobile Guardian hacking incident in August 2024; (b) what is CSA’s role in assisting other agencies in investigating security vulnerabilities in IT systems owned, operated, or otherwise used by the Government; and (c) whether the task force set up to bolster Singapore’s tech resilience following the CrowdStrike outage will also be assessing the Mobile Guardian incident in August 2024.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Cyber Security Agency (CSA) focuses on the higher risk systems that could affect our national security and delivery of essential services because of the widespread or systemic impact if disrupted. These are designated as Critical Information Infrastructure (CII) under the Cybersecurity Act and held to high standards of cybersecurity and resilience. CSA also requires CII owners to conduct regular audits and testing on their CIIs so that vulnerabilities can be quickly identified and remediated. If they encounter cyber-attacks, CSA’s incident response teams will support CII owners to investigate, contain and remediate the attack.
But not all Government information technology (IT) systems are designated as CIIs, nor should they be. Disruptions to non-CII IT systems cause varying degrees of impact. It is therefore only practical to take a risk-based approach in managing their cybersecurity and resilience. Their disruption may cause inconvenience and loss which should certainly be avoided. But the consequences are generally localised or do not pose widespread or systemic disruptions compared to disruption to a CII. The owners of these non-CII systems are in the best position to decide the resources to be put in to protect such systems against disruption, which should in general, be proportionate to their risks and impact. All systems must, however, maintain a baseline of cybersecurity and resilience measures that are appropriately stepped up according to their risk assessments. Defensive measures must also be complemented by business continuity plans that mitigate the impact of disruptions when they occur. Agencies that own IT systems are responsible for their cybersecurity and resilience. They can draw on the expertise of CSA and the Government Technology Agency (GovTech), if needed, to investigate vulnerabilities and compromises that have been discovered.
A device management solution such as that provided by Mobile Guardian is not a CII. While the Ministry of Education has overall responsibility for its cybersecurity and resilience, CSA and GovTech provided various types of support such as forensic investigations when incidents happened. The Minister of Education has already covered the details in his earlier reply.
My Ministry has set up a task force to draw lessons from the CrowdStrike incident as the incident had the potential to cause disruptions to a wider set of systems. This is part of the effort to strengthen the overall security and resilience of our digital infrastructure.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Appeals by Patients to Draw from MediSave Accounts Beyond Annual Withdrawal Limit","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"72 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Health in each year of the past three years (a) what is the number of appeals received from patients to draw from their MediSave account beyond the annual withdrawal limit; and (b) of these, what are the respective rates of successful appeal.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: This question has been addressed in the reply to Question No 60 on the Order Paper for the 9 September 2024 Sitting. [Please refer to \"Review of MediSave Withdrawal Limits with Rise in Healthcare Costs\", Official Report, 9 September 2024, Vol 95, Issue 140, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Amount of Community Improvement Projects Committee Funding Extended to Each Town Council","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for National Development in each year from 2019 to date, what is the amount of Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) funding that is extended to each respective Town Council, expressed in dollar terms.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) provides funding support for community-led improvement projects in Housing and Development Board estates for the benefit of local residents. Such estate enhancements include covered walkways, footpaths, cycling tracks and playgrounds.
Over the past five years, an average of $47 million per year was set aside for all towns. The amount of funding varies across towns and from year to year for each town, depending on the number and cost of proposals submitted by the Town Councils and Citizens’ Consultative Committees (CCCs).
The amount of CIPC funding subsequently disbursed to each Town Council each year is based on works completed by the Town Council as the Implementing Agent. This disbursement is reported in the respective Town Councils’ annual financial statements. The annual disbursement to the Town Councils includes CIPC projects approved over multiple years as projects may span across a few years and excludes CIPC projects implemented by CCCs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reports of Errant Use of Personal Mobility Devices or Power-assisted Bicycles Made via MyTransport App","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"74 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Transport (a) for each year from 2019 to 2023, how many reports relating to errant users of personal mobility devices, power-assisted bicycles and personal mobility aids have been made via the MyTransport app; (b) what percentage of such incidents are reported via the app; (c) what alternative platforms are available for those who are not adept in using mobile apps to report such incidents; and (d) whether such function can be integrated into the One Service app.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Members of the public have been able to lodge reports via MyTransport app since 31 July 2019. Since then, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) had received 3,093 reports in 2019, 3,402 reports in 2020, 955 reports in 2021, 899 reports in 2022 and 747 reports in 2023. These reports make up about 36% of the 25,551 reports on errant users received between 31 July 2019 and 31 December 2023.
Members of the public can also use the OneService App to report such cases of errant users. For those who prefer not to use mobile apps, they can call the LTA hotline at 1800 2255 582 or submit the feedback form on LTA’s website.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Allianz Will Not Be Allowed to Rationalise Income Insurance’s Business After Acquisition","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"75 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether, in MAS’ review of Allianz’s plan to acquire Income Insurance Ltd, it required a commitment from Allianz to provide a capital adequacy injection to grow Income Insurance Ltd across all its business lines beyond the $2.2 billion that Allianz will be paying; (b) if so, how much and over what time period is this commitment; and (c) if not, how will MAS ensure Allianz will not be allowed to rationalise Income Insurance Ltd’s business after its purchase.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): The Monetary Authority of Singapore will assess Income Insurance’s business strategy and capital management plan after Allianz submits its application to obtain effective control and be a substantial shareholder of Income.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tracking of Road Traffic Incidents Where No Police Reports are Made","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"76 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether LTA and other road traffic agencies systematically track the incidences of reported road traffic (i) near misses (ii) accidents without injury and (iii) accidents with injury where insurance claims arise but no police report is made; and (b) whether LTA will consider installing portable CCTV cameras at traffic junctions where the public have given feedback on safety concerns so as to enhance detection and analysis of such situations.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Traffic Police does not track incidences of near-miss or accidents without injury, nor incidences where no police report is lodged.
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) monitors vehicular traffic along expressways and arterial roads through surveillance cameras. LTA also analyses road infrastructure which are damaged on arterial roads and expressways. The data allows LTA to identify higher-risk roads so that measures can be implemented to further enhance road safety.
LTA also installs portable close circuit television cameras at selected roads and traffic junctions, such as those with a higher risk of accidents, and where there has been public feedback on safety concerns, to enhance detection and analysis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Potential Increase in Women's Participation in Labour Force in Relation to Gender Pay Gap","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in view of the study on Singapore's current resident labour force participation rate as reported in Macroeconomic Review published by MAS in April 2024, what will be the potential increase in the number of women participating in the labour force (i) for each percentage point of decline in gender pay gap and (ii) if the gender pay gap is eliminated.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): The Monetary Authority of Singapore's study of Singapore's labour force participation rate, published in the April 2024 Macroeconomic Review, suggests that a 1%-point decline in the gender wage gap, defined as the percentage difference between the median wage for resident males and the median wage for resident females, is associated with a 0.2 percentage point increase in the female labour force participation rate, and 0.1 percentage point increase in the overall labour force participation rate.1
This result should be interpreted in the context of Singapore's already high labour force participation rate among women. In 2023, the labour force participation rate among women in Singapore was 62.6%, higher than the OECD average of 56.7%. Factors other than the gender wage gap will also affect the female and overall labour force participation rate. These factors include further improvements in educational attainment, as well as fostering the sharing of caregiving responsibilities and family-friendly workplaces to help caregivers manage work and family commitments.
Collectively, these factors will be important for reducing the gender wage gap while helping ensure that the labour force participation rate among women in Singapore continues to remain high.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Gender wage gap is calculated as 100% X (male earnings / female earnings) in the study, which differs slightly from the calculation that has been used in other studies, 100% X (1- female earnings / male earnings)."],"footNoteQuestions":["1"],"questionNo":"1"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enforcement Actions for Motor Vehicle Loan Breaches and MAS' Stance on Social Media Advertisements for Luxury Vehicles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) in the past five years, how many enforcement actions has MAS taken against financial institutions that breach the rules for motor vehicle loans; and (b) what is MAS' stance on social media advertisements that tout zero downpayment for purchase of premium luxury vehicles that are targeted at consumers.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): In the past five years, no financial institution has been found to have breached the motor vehicle financing rules. Accordingly, the Monetary Authority of Singapore has not had to take any regulatory actions in this respect.
The motor vehicle financing limits were put in place principally to encourage financial prudence on the part of consumers. Consumers should be cautious of arrangements which purport to require zero downpayment for the purchase of motor vehicles as these are unregulated.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"MAS’ Assessment of Risks of Worldcoin's Operations in Singapore and Measures to Deter Related Criminal Activities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Derrick Goh asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether MAS has assessed the risks of Worldcoin's operations in Singapore, including issues relating to data privacy, scams and cryptocurrencies; and (b) how will measures be enhanced to deter criminal activities relating to Worldcoin in Singapore.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): This question has been answered in my reply to Miss Rachel Ong's Parliamentary Question filed for yesterday's Sitting. [Please refer to \"Regulations for Sale of WorldCoin Accounts to Third Party Agents for Monetary Incentives\", Official Report, 9 September 2024, Vol 95, Issue 140, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Research Grants Administered Directly by National Research Foundation and Statutory Boards","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what percentage of National Research Foundation (NRF) research grants are awarded through grant calls administered directly by NRF instead of through statutory boards; (b) for statutory board-administered grant calls, what percentage of evaluators have significant relevant research experience; and (c) why has an ARPA-like model, where expert programme managers autonomously set strategic research directions and funding, not been adopted.
Mr Heng Swee Keat (for the Prime Minister): Singapore's Research, Innovation and Enterprise (RIE) investments involve close collaboration among the National Research Foundation (NRF), Government agencies and RIE ecosystem stakeholders. These investments include, RIE programmes supported by the National Research Fund that are administered by NRF and other Government agencies. As at end-FY2023, around 50% of RIE2025 National Research Fund grants are directly administered by NRF.
Government agencies evaluate research grant applications based on the respective RIE programme's approved eligibility and evaluation criteria. The evaluation processes for technical proposals generally incorporate reviews by experts in the relevant field, such as international peer reviewers or technical evaluation panel members, to support the \tdecision-making of Government agencies' funding.
NRF regularly reviews RIE grant administration modalities, including studying overseas models, such as the Advanced Research Projects Agencies (ARPA). ARPA-like models require a strong cadre of expert programme managers and leadership driving the programmes towards specific goals that are often higher-risk or ambitious in nature. We will continue to review where such models are appropriate in Singapore's context and deploy such models if useful.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Implementation of Earlier Polling Hours for Polling Day","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether polls can be opened earlier than 8 am on Polling Day of an election to further assist voters who are working on Polling Day and have difficulty getting time-off during polling hours from 8 am to 8 pm.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): Under the law, Polling Day of any General Election or Presidential Election is a public holiday. However, we recognise that some voters may still have to work despite Polling Day being a public holiday. As such, polls are open from 8 am to 8 pm to allow enough time for voters to vote.
The law also provides that every employer must allow every voter in his employ a reasonable amount of time to vote. Employees who have to work on Polling Day should make arrangements with their employers to enable them to vote during Polling Day. With the support of employers and the 12-hour window for polling, all voters should be able to cast their votes even if they work on Polling Day without extension of the polling hours.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government's Current Cumulative Fiscal Position and Inclusion of Special Transfers in Government Budgets","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is the current cumulative fiscal position of the current term of Government; and (b) whether this includes the full amounts of special transfers, including top-ups to endowment and trust funds as allocated in annual Government budgets.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Overall Fiscal Position (OFP) for each Financial Year (FY) is reported in the Revenue and Expenditure Estimates, otherwise known as the Budget Book. The OFP was $1.88 billion in FY2021, $1.72 billion in FY2022 and -$2.55 billion in FY2023. FY2024 is still ongoing and its OFP is estimated to be $0.78 billion. As set out in Table 1.1 of the FY2024/2025 Budget Book, the line item \"special transfers, including top-ups to endowment and trust funds\" contributes to overall expenditure and, consequently, the OFP.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Growth in Labour Productivity and Monthly Earnings of Residents from 2016 to First Half of 2024","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry in each year from 2016 to 2023 and for the first half of 2024 on a quarter-on-quarter seasonally-adjusted basis, in nominal terms (a) what is the growth in labour productivity of the overall economy excluding construction and other services industries as measured by (i) value-added per worker and (ii) value-added per actual hours worked; and (b) what is the growth in the average (i) monthly earnings of residents and (ii) gross monthly income among full-time employed residents including CPF contributions by employers.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Data on (a) nominal labour productivity growth for the overall economy excluding construction and other services industries1, and (b) nominal monthly earnings and income growth for residents are in Figure 1 and Figure 2 below, respectively2.
8 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry in respect of the business cost structure of the Information and Communications Sector in 2022 cited in the Economic Survey of Singapore 2023, what is the percentage of such business cost spending on (i) Singapore-registered businesses for the item \"Professional Services\" and (ii) Singaporeans for the item \"Contract labour and work given out\".
Mr Gan Kim Yong: In the information and communications sector, business expenditure on \"Professional Services\" and \"Contract labour and work given out\" accounted for 13.5% and 6.0% of the businesses' total operating costs, respectively, in 2022. A breakdown of these two cost components by types of suppliers is not available.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Grants Disbursed to Micro-, Small- and Medium-Sized Companies under Enterprise Sustainability Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry in each year of the past five years, regarding the micro, small and medium-sized companies that have applied for grants under the Enterprise Sustainability Programme (a) what are the mean and median amounts of grants disbursed to each company; and (b) what are the top uses of the grants by (i) micro (ii) small and (iii) medium-sized companies respectively.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Enterprise Sustainability Programme (ESP) comprises not just grants, but also capability building courses and programmes and loan support via the Enterprise Financing Scheme – Green. Between 2021 and 2023, about 1,500 unique companies were supported by ESP with an estimated $14 million in total funding, excluding loans which are repayable.
The amount of funding support per company depends on the types of projects undertaken and varies widely. Thus, the average figure is not meaningful.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Compliance with Local Laws and Maintaining Good Relations with Locals Near Overseas Military Training Sites","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Defence in light of the recent noise disturbance incident linked to RSAF fighter jets training out of an air base in Western Australia, what are the steps taken during overseas training to ensure compliance with local laws and to maintain good neighbourly relations with the local residents and users near the proximity of such training sites.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: The Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) conducts regular flying training overseas to overcome the constraints of Singapore's limited airspace. In planning and conducting such training, RSAF works closely with its counterpart and relevant authorities to ensure that all its flying are conducted in compliance with local laws and safety requirements. It also takes into account local flying procedures and practices in its flight plans and profiles.
Outside of the training, RSAF works with its military counterpart and community leaders to engage with and contribute to the local community through various programmes and initiatives. It also briefs all its personnel on and reminds them to adhere to local laws and practices.
The Ministry of Defence and RSAF are grateful to our foreign partners and their local communities for their support of our training. We remain fully committed to being law abiding and appreciative guests while training in their countries.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Incidence of Drink Driving and Traffic Accidents among Drivers Aged 21 and Below in Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Home Affairs in the past three years (a) what is the number of incidence of drivers aged 21 years and below who are (i) caught for drink driving and (ii) involved in traffic accidents as a proportion of the population of drivers aged 21 and below; and (b) how do these figures compare with the wider population of all drivers.
Mr K Shanmugam: The data is as follows:
Over the past three years, drivers aged 21 years and below constituted 1.35% of all drivers who were caught for drink-driving and 4% of all drivers who were involved in traffic accidents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Fire Risks from Overcharged Electric Vehicles in Basement Car Parks and Implementation of Risk Mitigation Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Singapore Civil Defence Force is looking into the risks of fire for overcharged electric vehicles (EVs) in basement car parks; and (b) whether it will implement any risk mitigation measures taking into consideration practices in certain jurisdictions which ban EVs with battery charged over 90% from entering underground parking in residential buildings.
Mr K Shanmugam: Carparks in Singapore are designed in accordance with the Fire Code. For example, they are built with fire-rated walls and doors to be able to contain the fire from spreading to other parts of the building prior to the Singapore Civil Defence Force's (SCDF's) arrival. Ventilation needs to be provided, through either natural or mechanical means, to disperse smoke, heat and gases emitted during the fire. For enclosed basement carparks, sprinklers are also required. These fire safety systems undergo regular maintenance and inspection, as part of Fire Code requirements.
In March 2022, SCDF mandated at least one emergency main isolation shut-off switch to be provided within 15 metres of an Electric Vehicle (EV) charging station. This switch cuts off the power supply to both the charging station and the EV being charged in the event of a fire.
Since 2023, SCDF and the Land Transport Authority have been co-chairing a multi-agency EV Safety Taskforce to monitor and manage EV-related matters, such as fire risks. The Taskforce will continue to regularly review safety requirements to support the adoption of EVs in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Fire Incidents Involving Active Mobility Devices in Residential Premises and Measures Against Errant Consumers and Retailers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Derrick Goh asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many fire incidents in residential premises involving active mobility devices (AMDs) are reported in the first half of 2024; (b) whether an increasing trend of such cases is observed over the past five years; and (c) whether additional measures are being considered against errant consumers and retailers of non-compliant AMDs or parts.
Mr K Shanmugam: In the first half of 2024, there were 17 fire incidents in residential premises involving active mobility devices (AMDs). The annual number of AMD fire incidents in residential premises has decreased from 78 incidents in 2019, to 31 and 35 in 2022 and 2023 respectively.
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) adopts a firm stance towards the import, sale and use of non-compliant AMDs. Since June 2021, businesses and individuals must obtain LTA's approval to import Power-Assisted Bicycles (PABs) and motorised Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs) into Singapore. These devices must meet the prescribed technical and safety requirements before they can be used on our public paths and roads.
The LTA also conducts enforcement operations against non-compliant AMD users as well as errant retailers. Between 2020 and 2023, LTA detected around 5,100 offences involving non-compliant AMD devices on paths and roads and about 100 violations by retailers. Non-compliant devices are immediately seized and enforcement action taken.
For first-time offenders, the maximum penalty for using a non-compliant device on a public path is a fine up to $10,000 or imprisonment for up to six months, or both. As for retailers, the maximum penalty for displaying a non-compliant device for sale is a fine of up to $20,000; and the maximum penalty for individuals illegally modifying a device is a fine of up to $20,000 or imprisonment for up to 24 months, or both.
The Active Mobility Fire Safety Taskforce, co-chaired by LTA and the Singapore Civil Defence Force, will continue its public education efforts on the dangers of using non-compliant devices, proper usage and safety tips, as well as how to dispose of motorised AMDs in a safe and responsible manner.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Visa-Free Visitors Arrested or Identified as Persons of Interest for Criminal Offences and Enhanced Screening Measures Planned","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many visa-free visitors to Singapore have been arrested or identified as persons of interest for criminal offences each year from 2021 to June 2024; (b) what is the breakdown of these offences by type, number, and country of origin; (c) what enhanced screening measures are being considered to prevent and counter crime by visitors on visa-free travel; and (d) whether the Ministry will consider implementing an electronic travel authorisation system similar to other jurisdictions to better vet visa-free visitors.
Mr K Shanmugam: There are over 150 countries whose citizens do not require a visa to enter Singapore. It is not practical nor meaningful to publish their crime statistics. There are also bilateral considerations and it may send the wrong message to bona fide visitors from these countries.
The Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA) uses a risk-based, multi-layered approach to balance between border security and the facilitation of travellers. The Member may refer to the Oral reply delivered on 9 September 2024 in response to a question posed by Mr Leong Mun Wai, for more details. [Please refer to \"Number of Social Visit Pass Holders from China who Have Been Arrested\", Official Report, 9 September 2024, Vol 95, Issue 140, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
We are satisfied with the current measures and, for now, do not see a need for an additional electronic travel authorisation regime. Also, such a regime will make visiting Singapore more inconvenient.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Small Claims Tribunal in Resolving Contractual Disputes and Plans to Raise Claim Limits and Reduce Cost","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Law (a) whether the Ministry has data on how effective the Small Claims Tribunal (SCT) has been in resolving contractual disputes between suppliers and consumers in the past three years and, if so, what is the data; (b) whether there are plans to further increase the current limit of $20,000 (or $30,000 with consent) for claims that can be brought in the SCT; and (c) whether additional legal support can be provided to reduce the overall cost of seeking such claims.
Mr K Shanmugam: In the past three years, the Small Claims Tribunals (SCT) has issued about 12,200 money orders and work orders that relate to a contractual dispute for the sale of goods or the provision of services. There are currently no plans to increase the current claim limit of the SCT.
The SCT is designed as a quick and inexpensive forum for the resolution of small claims. In this regard, parties are required to present their own case. Legal representation is not allowed. The SCT also adopts a Judge-led approach, that is, the SCT magistrate will take the lead to identify the relevant issues in the claim and ensure that parties adduce relevant evidence. This reduces the need for parties to seek legal advice on their claims.
Filing fees for individuals are relatively low, at $10 for claims up to $5000; and $20 for claims between $5000 to $10,000. Claimants with financial difficulties may apply to the Registrar for a waiver or deferment of the filing fees.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria Determining Persons Unable to Return Trays at Hawker Centres and Communication of Criteria to Enforcement Personnel","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what criteria are used by National Environment Agency (NEA) officers to determine if an elderly or disabled person is unable to return their tray at hawker centres; (b) whether all NEA officers and tray return ambassadors are briefed on these criteria so they do not advise or issue summonses to such persons for not returning their trays; and (c) whether notices in hawker centres can make clear that such persons are not obligated to return their trays.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency does not take enforcement action against persons who have genuine difficulties returning their trays due to frailty or physical disability. This is a pragmatic approach in view of the difficulties they may face. All relevant officers have been briefed on the enforcement approach for table littering and will exercise the necessary discretion based on their observations on site.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints Received by Committee for Private Education Annually and Top 10 Categories","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Education (a) how many complaints has the Committee for Private Education received each year since 2016; and (b) what are the top ten categories of these complaints.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) received an average of around 650 complaints on Private Education Institutions per year from 2016 to 2018. The number of complaints has since declined to around 200 on average per year from 2019 to 2023, given mandatory minimum standards set through the Enhanced Registration Framework and the Dispute Resolution Scheme for consumer protection.
These complaints can be broadly categorised into three types, namely: (i) administrative matters, such as admission processes and certificate issuance; (ii) academic matters, such as management of examinations and feedback on teachers and staff; and (iii) course fees and payment-related matters.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Quality and Consistency in School-based High-Ability Learner Programmes and Enrichment Activities Post-GEP","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Education with the discontinuation of the Gifted Education Programme (GEP) in its current form and primary schools identifying their own high-ability learners and implementing their own enrichment programmes (a) how will the Ministry ensure that the quality and effectiveness of these programmes are consistent across all schools, given varying resources and expertise; and (b) whether the perceived differences in programme quality will lead to increased competition for Primary 1 places in certain schools.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: This question has been answered as part of the Minister for Education's oral reply to Parliamentary Question Nos 1 and 2 on 10 September 2024. Members may refer to the transcript for the reply. [Please refer to \"Outcomes from Gifted Education Programme, and Rationale and Plans for Programme Revamp \", Official Report, 10 September 2024, Vol 95, Issue 141, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Usage of SkillsFuture Credits at Private Education Institutes in 2023","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the amount of the SkillsFuture Credit (SFC) used by Singaporeans for courses offered at private education institutes (PEIs) in 2023; (b) which are the top five PEIs receiving the SFC in 2023; and (c) what proportion of the SFC has been used at the PEIs in 2023.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Private Education Institutes (PEIs) are entities registered and regulated under the Private Education Act and Regulations. Registration under the Private Education Act is unrelated to SkillsFuture Credit.
Some PEIs separately qualify as SkillsFuture Singapore-supported training providers, offering Continuing Education and Training (CET) courses that are eligible for SkillsFuture Credit. In their capacity as CET providers, PEIs receive about 35% of the total approved SkillsFuture Credit claims by Singaporeans, which amounted to about $67 million.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trend of Hearing Loss Across Age Groups and Measures to Stem Avoidable Loss Among Youths","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the trend of hearing loss across the different resident age groups over the past 10 years; and (b) what are the measures in place or to be introduced to stem avoidable hearing loss among Singaporean youth.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Based on data collected in national health surveys, the prevalence of self-reported hearing loss in adults 18-74 years old has increased from 1.3% in 2013 to 9.2% in 2023. This increase is most significant in adults aged 60 years and above. The significant increase is likely due to increased awareness.
The School Health Service and Student Health Centre run by the Health Promotion Board conducts hearing screenings for Primary 1 and Secondary 2 students. In 2023, 0.4% of Primary 1 students and 0.2% of Secondary 2 students were found to have some degree of hearing impairment. The trend has been stable over the last five to 10 years.
There has been heightened concern about hearing loss amongst youths lately, due to their lifestyles. Indeed, research has shown that prolonged or consistent exposure to loud noise or music, including the use of audio devices like headphones, can lead to hearing loss.
The Government can do what we can to minimise the risk exposure to hearing loss. For example, at birth, all newborns undergo a hearing screening test. Infants at high-risk of hearing impairment, such as preterm infants born before 32 weeks, will also have formal audiological evaluation. Schools take precautionary measures when students are in noisier settings, such as operation of machinery in Design & Technology workshops or shooting activities during Uniform Group Co-curricular activities, by requiring students to use ear plugs or earmuffs. As for exposure to loud noise in youth because of social and lifestyle choices, we can educate and raise awareness as much as we can.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Banned Substances Detected Annually in Health Products and Plans for Enhanced Public Education for Consumers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health (a) how many cases of health products containing banned substances has the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) detected annually in the past three years; and (b) whether HSA plans to step up public education to inform consumers to purchase health products from reputable pharmacies, retailers' websites and those with an established retail presence in Singapore.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Over the last three years, the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) has detected an average of 10 cases per year, of health products containing banned and prohibited substances.
HSA regularly issues press releases on the adverse reactions that result from use of illegal health products. Consumer advisories on making discerning choices in the purchase of health products from reputable sources, such as pharmacies or online shops with established retail presence in Singapore, are provided through HSA's website, social media platforms and the local news media.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Addressing Lift Accessibility Needs of HDB Residents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for National Development with regard to HDB households lacking direct lift access (a) how is HDB addressing the accessibility needs of households that have approached them for assistance and what is the success rate of these efforts; (b) how is HDB helping residents beyond the Lift Housing Grant that requires them to leave their community support systems; and (c) what are HDB's plans to ensure inclusivity and accessibility for the elderly, pregnant women, those with young children and those with disabilities.
23 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for National Development (a) for HDB flats ineligible for the Lift Upgrading Programme, whether the Ministry can provide an update on alternative engineering and technical solutions that have been explored to improve lift accessibility, including the duration and scale of the trials and reasons for their unsuitability; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider tapping on external or foreign consultants for these solutions.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) was introduced in 2001. Since then, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has successfully implemented LUP in more than 5,000 blocks, which were originally built without direct lift access to every floor. Today, around 99% of all HDB blocks are either built with direct lift access or have benefitted from LUP.
There remains about 1% of blocks, comprising around 2,000 flats, which have not been offered LUP due to high costs or technical constraints. In some cases, the cost can be more than $200,000 per benefitting household.
HDB has explored numerous alternative lift technologies, including vertical platform lifts, pneumatic vacuum elevators, wheelchair stair lifts and portable equipment, such as stair climbers. However, they were assessed to be unfeasible for heavy residential use or unsafe to be operated independently by residents already facing mobility challenges. Furthermore, some of these solutions will also encroach into staircases and impede evacuation routes in the event of a fire.
HDB will continue to explore new technologies and adopt them, where feasible. In the meantime, residents who are in need of direct lift access due to medical conditions or mobility reasons can apply for the Lift Access Housing Grant (LHG) of up to $30,000 to help them buy another flat with direct lift access.
Since the implementation of LHG in 2020, HDB has received 60 complete applications. Of these, 49 applications were approved, while five are currently under evaluation. Some residents have used the LHG to purchase units available within the same neighbourhood, so that they can continue to enjoy the familiarity of their neighbourhood and community.
I would like to assure Members that HDB will continue to look into ways to make HDB estates and blocks more accessible, to help residents with mobility challenges, such as the elderly, pregnant women and persons with disabilities. I encourage households with accessibility needs to approach HDB to explore suitable options.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reports Made and Actions Taken Against Veterinarians for Performing Unjustified Dog Debarking Procedures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development in each year for the past five years (a) how many reports have been made on veterinarians carrying out procedures to debark dogs without due justification and how many of these reports have been investigated; and (b) how many of these cases have led to (i) written warnings (ii) composition fines (iii) suspension of veterinary licence and (iv) revocation of veterinary licence, respectively.
Mr Desmond Lee: Over the past five years, the National Parks Board has not received any reports on veterinarians carrying out procedures to debark dogs without due justification.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness and Relevance of Central Business District Incentive and Strategic Development Incentive Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of the effectiveness and relevance of the Central Business District Incentive and Strategic Development Incentive schemes to date; and (b) whether these schemes will be modified or extended for the Draft Master Plan 2025.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Urban Redevelopment Authority's (URA's) Central Business District Incentive Scheme (CBDI) is intended to encourage the conversion of existing older office buildings into mixed-use developments in selected areas of the CBD, to inject a larger live-in population and greater mix of uses to rejuvenate the CBD. URA's Strategic Development Incentive Scheme (SDI) encourages the redevelopment of older buildings and precincts in strategic areas across Singapore to positively transform the surrounding urban environment.
To date, URA has received 17 outline applications under CBDI – 13 applications have been given in-principle approval, of which, three are under development. URA has received nine outline applications under SDI – seven applications have been given in-principle approval, of which, two are under development.
We will continue to monitor the market trends and engage developers and industry professionals as part of Draft Master Plan 2025 to ensure that these schemes stay relevant.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Installation of Zebra Crossings in HDB Car Parks to Enhance Pedestrian Safety","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether zebra crossings are allowed to be installed in HDB carparks; and (b) if not, whether the Government will consider allowing zebra crossings to be installed in HDB carparks in the interest of pedestrian safety.
Mr Desmond Lee: Zebra crossings are allowed in the Housing and Development Board (HDB) carparks, provided they can be implemented safely. For example, pedestrians and motorists should have good visibility of one another for a sufficient distance.
Where the implementation of zebra crossings is not feasible, HDB will enhance road safety by providing courtesy crossings or traffic calming measures, such as road humps, to reduce vehicle speed.
Safety is a shared responsibility and all carpark users should exercise caution when driving or walking in a carpark.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Structural Integrity of Multi-storey Car Parks for All-electric Vehicle Fleet","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB has performed any studies to ensure that existing multi-storey car parks (MSCPs) will maintain their structural integrity for an all-electric vehicle fleet; and (b) whether there are any plans to upgrade MSCPs that may not meet safety standards.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) works closely with the Land Transport Authority to provide electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure at HDB carparks, as part of Singapore's transition to cleaner energy vehicles.
HDB multi-storey car parks (MSCP) are designed to cater primarily for passenger vehicles not exceeding an unladen weight of 2,000 kilograms and are built according to the prevailing building codes. While EVs tend to be heavier than internal combustion engine vehicles, due to their batteries, the loading provision of HDB MSCPs is generally able to support the increasing EV adoption in Singapore. Nonetheless, HDB and the relevant agencies are monitoring EV adoption and are jointly studying how to facilitate the parking of heavier EVs without compromising building safety.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhancing Deterrence against Violations of Progressive Wage Model Requirements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in the past three years, how many enforcement actions has the Ministry taken against companies for flouting Progressive Wage Model (PWM) requirements; (b) whether there is an increasing trend; and (c) if so, what is the Ministry's plan to enhance deterrence.
Dr Tan See Leng: The compliance rate with the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) is high. Over the past three years, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has taken enforcement action against three employers, as they were non-compliant with the PWM requirements despite several rounds of engagements.
MOM takes an educational approach in the first instance to help employers comply with the PWM. Since the expansion of PWM in 2022, MOM has conducted over 4,000 inspections, focusing on retail and food services firms, to check on PWM compliance. Most of the employers were compliant with the PWM requirements and those who had gaps rectified them after our intervention.
MOM will continue to conduct checks on PWM compliance across sectors and work with the tripartite partners and the PWM sectoral leads, the Building and Construction Authority, National Environment Agency, National Parks Board and Singapore Police Force, to educate and help employers meet their PWM requirements.
Employers who need help with understanding the PWM can sign up for the Progressive Wages workshops, organised by the Singapore National Employer Federation (SNEF). MOM also strongly encourages employees to log in to the Progressive Wage Portal to check if they are paid the correct wages according to their PWM job level. This will enable employees to quickly detect any discrepancies and approach their employers for clarifications.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Calculation of Public Transport Accessibility Level Values in Provision of Public Transport","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether LTA calculates Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) values in their Transport Impact Assessments for developments based on different (i) subzones (ii) planning areas or (iii) regions of Singapore to determine which areas are under-served by public transport; and (b) if so, which are the (i) subzones (ii) planning areas or (iii) regions that have the lowest PTAL values and are considered under-served by public transport.
30 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether LTA can work with HDB to make public the Public Transport Accessibility Level values of new BTO developments, so that prospective applicants can consider the accessibility of BTO developments by public transport; and (b) if not, why not.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: In planning for public transport, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) adopts a holistic approach by considering both travel demand and existing public transport options using indicators, such as ridership data, land use plans and projections of travel patterns. The Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) is a purely supply-side indicator, measuring the availability of public transport for a given location. However, it does not account for travel demand and ridership patterns and does not fully reflect whether an area is well-served by public transport.
For individual commuters, the PTAL score for a given area will not indicate how well their specific travel needs will be met. In addition, PTAL scores are a static measure of existing levels of public transport provision at the time of calculation. It is, therefore, not meaningful to provide a PTAL score to prospective Build-To-Order (BTO) applicants at the point of launch as LTA and the Housing and Development Board (HDB) will typically develop additional transport infrastructure to support new BTO developments as they are completed.
Instead, to help prospective flat buyers make an informed decision, LTA works with HDB to provide information to BTO applicants in HDB's sales collaterals on existing and future transport nodes around new housing developments, such as Mass Rapid Transit stations, Light Rail Transit stations and bus interchanges.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Land Allocation for Roads and Car Parks Since 2010 and Future Policy Considerations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Transport (a) in each year since 2010, what is the percentage of land allocated to roads and carparks respectively; (b) in light of Singapore's zero-growth rate policy for cars and motorcycles, whether the Government will also pursue a policy of zero-growth in the percentage of land allocated to roads and carparks and begin reallocating land allocated to roads and carparks for other social purposes; and (c) if not, why not.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Singapore's road network occupies around 12% of our total land area today and this proportion has remained stable over the last decade. It includes roads that serve new housing, commercial and industrial developments. Where feasible, we have repurposed roads for commuter facilities, including wider paths for pedestrians and community placemaking.
Carparks are generally provided by developers as part of their developments, based on parking provision standards. The percentage of land allocated to carparks is not tracked as many are sited within housing, commercial and industrial developments.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulations for Public Transport Operators to Ensure Passenger Safety and Accident-free Bus Operations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport whether any guidelines or regulations are issued to public transport operators to ensure that bus services (i) alight passengers closer to the kerb so that elderly persons do not have to jump to reach the kerb (ii) reduce instances of jerky driving and (iii) ensure that bus captains pay closer attention to traffic lights to reduce incidents of sudden braking that can lead to passengers falling down and getting injured.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Safety is a key priority and public transport operators have to meet stringent safety standards. In addition, the Land Transport Authority provides regular guidance on bus safety to the public transport operators, including guidelines for bus captains as well as quarterly safety bulletins to share learning points. These include stopping the bus close to the kerb when possible, looking out for passengers onboard before moving off and the importance of practicing safe and defensive driving techniques to provide smoother and safer rides.
These safety messages are reinforced as part of the training for new bus captains and disseminated by operators to existing bus captains through various platforms, such as staff mobile applications and safety briefings. The operators have also installed telematics systems onboard buses to monitor bus captains' driving behaviours, which can provide immediate feedback to bus captains and allow operators to identify bus captains who may require coaching or remedial training. For example, SMRT has upgraded their fleet with a system that is able to provide safety alerts to bus captains if it senses that they are distracted or if they perform abrupt lane-changes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Headways and Crowding Levels on Bus Services Plying Bukit Batok Road and Steps to Reduce Congestion","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the average observed headways and crowding levels on Bus Services 180, 992 and 993 plying Bukit Batok Road during the weekday peak hours; (b) what are the congestion levels on Bukit Batok Road during the weekday peak hours affecting the buses; and (c) whether there is any need for additional steps to relieve congestion on Bus Services 180, 992 and 993 plying Bukit Batok Road.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Under Bus Contracting Model (BCM) standards, bus services operate at scheduled headways of no more than 15 minutes during peak periods, with at least half of the bus services having shorter scheduled headways of no more than 10 minutes. The average observed headways for Services 180, 992 and 993 are eight minutes, five minutes and 14 minutes, respectively.
With residents moving into the new Tengah town\tprogressively, ridership on Services 180 and 992 has increased to over 50% of capacity. In June and July 2024, more buses, including double-deckers, were added to these two services to reduce waiting times and increase capacity. For Service 993, loading remains relatively low. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the bus operators will continue to monitor ridership and make necessary adjustments.
There are ongoing improvement works being carried out along Bukit Batok Road to improve traffic flow. Based on LTA's assessment, traffic flow along Bukit Batok Road is acceptable today. Vehicles, including buses, are generally able to clear most junctions along Bukit Batok Road in one or two traffic light cycles during peak hours.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Ridership and Cost Per Passenger for Bus Service 825 and Potential Deployment of Electric Minibus Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the current average ridership and cost per passenger for operating Bus Service 825; (b) whether electric minibuses which operate on Bus Service 825 can be similarly deployed on bus routes plying narrow roads and where there is low ridership, to improve connectivity throughout the public transportation system; and (c) if not, why not.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The average ridership of Service 825 is about 400 passengers per day. On a per passenger basis, the cost of running Service 825 is higher than the average feeder bus service, which has a ridership of around 4,500 passengers per day.
As previously explained in a reply to a Parliamentary Question filed by Assoc Prof Jamus Lim in September 2023, we do not intend to proliferate the use of smaller-capacity buses in our public bus network. Procuring a separate fleet of mini-buses with a different operating and maintenance regime from the current public bus fleet and the need for more bus captains to operate a large fleet of mini-buses, will result in higher operating costs that will be borne by commuters or taxpayers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Automotive Grade Temperature Ranges and International Technical Standards in Tender Specifications for ERP 2.0 On-Board Unit","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Transport whether the tender documentation for the ERP 2.0 On-Board Unit (OBU) specifically indicated that the OBU will need to satisfy (i) automotive grade temperature ranges or (ii) the International Electrotechnical Commission's IEC-60068 and IEC-60529 standards.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: As part of the tender requirements for ERP 2.0, the contractor was required to ensure that all the specified test certifications and standards are met, including the need for the On-Board Unit (OBU) to achieve IEC-60068 and IEC-60529 qualifications. The tender requirements also specified that, the OBU shall be fit for use in an automotive environment based on Singapore's environmental conditions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Policy Measures to Prevent Goods Vehicles from Parking in Private Residential Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether there are any policy measures that currently prevent the parking of large numbers of goods vehicles in private residential estates, causing disamenities to residents; and (b) if so, what are they.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: All vehicles, including goods vehicles, are permitted to park along public roads without parking restriction lines, including roads in private estates.
Notwithstanding the above, if parked vehicles cause obstruction or pose safety risks to other road users, the Land Transport Authority will work with the local community and take appropriate actions, including prohibiting parking along the roadside by implementing road markings, such as double yellow lines.
For heavy goods vehicles with Maximum Laden Weight that exceeds 5,000 kg, they are mandated to park at designated heavy vehicle parks from 12am to 6am, given the additional safety and noise considerations posed by such vehicles parking at residential areas overnight.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":6251,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Mariam Jaafar","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240910/vernacular-10 Sept 2024 - Ms Mariam Jaafar - Platform Workers Bill.pdf","fileName":"10 Sept 2024 - Ms Mariam Jaafar - Platform Workers Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6252,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Mark Lee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240910/vernacular-Mark Lee Platform Workers 10Sep2024-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Mark Lee Platform Workers 10Sep2024-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6253,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240910/vernacular-10 Sept 2024 - Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman - Platform Workers Bill.pdf","fileName":"10 Sept 2024 - Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman - Platform Workers Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6254,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240910/vernacular-10 Sept 2024 - Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi - Platform Workers Bill.pdf","fileName":"10 Sept 2024 - Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi - Platform Workers Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6255,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Ang Wei Neng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240910/vernacular-Ang Wei Neng Platform Workers 10Sep2024_Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Ang Wei Neng Platform Workers 10Sep2024_Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6256,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Gan Thiam Poh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240910/vernacular-Gan Thiam Poh Platform 10Sep2024-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Gan Thiam Poh Platform 10Sep2024-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6257,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Xie Yao Quan","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240910/vernacular-Xie Yao Quan Platform Workers 10Sep2024-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Xie Yao Quan Platform Workers 10Sep2024-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6258,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Sun Xueling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240910/vernacular-Sun Xueling Casino 10Sep2024_Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Sun Xueling Casino 10Sep2024_Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6259,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240910/vernacular-Louis Chua Casino 10Sep2024-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Louis Chua Casino 10Sep2024-Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}