Mdm Speaker: Order. Leader of the House.
The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mdm Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that Question Time at this day's sitting be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 22(1) for a shorter period of Question Time?
Mdm Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of the hon Members present to so move?
Hon Members indicated assent.
[(proc text) With the consent of Mdm Speaker, and the general assent of Members present, (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That, notwithstanding Standing Order No 22(1), Question Time at this day's sitting may continue for up to 30 minutes from the commencement of the sitting.\" (proc text)]
1 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked\tthe Minister for Defence (a) what does Phase Three of the US Rebalancing Strategy entail for Singapore and the region in terms of security; (b) what is the Government's assessment of the associated security benefits, costs, and risks; and (c) how does the Government intend to maximise these gains while addressing the costs and mitigating the risks.
\tThe Minister for Defence (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Mdm Speaker, as an independent and sovereign nation, Singapore pursues policies for its own interests for all matters of state, including defence, with the goal to attain the right and best conditions that ensure our survival and progress in this competitive world. We, Singaporeans, are ultimately responsible for our own security but we will partner like-minded countries that pursue common objectives of peace and stability for our region.
For this reason, Singapore joined the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA) in 1971 which imposes an obligation on the five nations to consult in the event of an external attack on Malaysia and Singapore. In the past decade, we have also worked with other ASEAN countries to build a security architecture that is inclusive and based on the rule of law; where peaceful settlement of disputes, dialogue, cooperation and non-provocation are the norm for countries within that framework. This led to the set-up of ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting (ADMM)-Plus in 2010, which includes, apart from the ASEAN member states, China, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand from Asia, as well as the US and Russia.
As a matter of policy, Singapore will continue to partner like-minded countries to pursue peace and stability for our region. We seek to be friends with all militaries and encourage them to use our port and airbases for transit. Indeed, military ships and submarines from many countries, both from ASEAN-Plus countries like US, China, India and Japan, as well as from other continents like Europe, South America, Oceania and Africa, stop and use facilities at Changi Naval Base.
US ships and planes are more frequent users since the 1990 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed by our founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and then-US Vice President Dan Quayle. That MOU facilitated the US' presence in this region and provided the security umbrella under which emerging economies in Asia thrived. The MOU was updated by the Strategic Framework Agreement by Prime Minister Lee and then-US President George W Bush in 2005. And recently, we enhanced the Defence Cooperation Agreement with the US in 2015.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister for the reply. I would like to ask how the Minister would propose mitigating the costs and risks for Singapore should there be a major American departure from the current Rebalancing Strategy. The rationale for my question is this: I am essentially asking with respect to our plans if (a) the US' alliances with its existing allies will weaken or be less involved, or (b) if the US becomes even more active or more involved. These scenarios will affect Singapore quite differently. I am seeking to understand the Government's forward-planning in these respects. I feel that it is important that Singaporeans know the Government's plans to deal with the different scenarios.
\tDr Ng Eng Hen: Madam, the main thrust of my response to the Member's questions is that Singapore must dictate its policies based on its own interests. That is our starting point. Our policy must work to the best interest of Singapore and Singaporeans.
Now, obviously, we have to watch what other countries do with foreign policy. Singapore is a small country and, as I have said in my answer, we will work with like-minded partners who pursue peace and stability in our region. In this framework, we have facilitated and pushed for ADMM-Plus. We push for joint cooperation and exercises with other countries and we want to seek to have as many friends as possible. We encourage countries to use our facilities, whether it is Changi Naval Base or the airbases.
There are specific agreements that we have entered into. I mentioned the FPDA in 1971; there is a historical basis, but it also falls in line with this overarching principle that we will work with like-minded countries that seek peace and stability in our region.
We also have an MOU, a Strategic Framework Agreement and an enhanced DCA with the US, which facilitates the use of their ships and planes in our airbases.
To answer the many theoretical scenarios which the Member has raised, which I do not propose to address, I think our starting point is whatever the calculations of other countries, whatever their foreign policy, we start from this important fundamental – we seek to make sure that Singapore benefits the most. Our foreign policy or defence policy is predicated on making sure that we position ourselves in the best possible position to survive and to compete. We want to make friends with as many militaries and countries as possible.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Genetic Screening for Women Seeking Fertility Treatment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked\tthe Minister for Health considering that gender bias for Pre-implantation Genetic Screening (PGS) can now be blinded, whether the Ministry will consider permitting women with recurrent miscarriages or a history of infertility to seek PGS in Singapore.
3 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked\tthe Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider permitting Pre-implantation Genetic Screening to improve the chances of healthy live births, subject to strict controls, such as banning sex selection and use for other non-medical reasons.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Health):\tMdm Speaker, may I take Question Nos 2 and 3 together?
Mdm Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Thank you. MOH had previously received requests to allow Pre-implantation Genetic Screening (PGS) to identify chromosomal abnormalities in embryos created through in-vitro fertilisation (IVF), with the aim of improving the chances of conceiving. We had not granted approval so far as the published evidence had been unclear. In recent years, however, newer technologies for PGS have emerged and some jurisdictions have now allowed PGS.
MOH is, therefore, reviewing the clinical effectiveness of PGS and its ethical implications. To assess clinical effectiveness, NUH will be conducting a three-year pilot PGS programme which will commence by early next year.
MOH will also look into the ethical concerns and regulation of PGS. For example, we will need to ensure that embryos are not eliminated solely based on parental preferences on characteristics, such as gender.
MOH will consult stakeholders and the public to gather views.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. Can I just ask her if there is any criteria for this trial that is going to be carried out at NUH for people that want to participate in this trial?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: The eligibility criteria for people to participate in this trial as well as all the other details, such as funding and so on, are being worked out and will be available closer to the date of commencement.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reduction in Hawker Stall Rent for Hawkers who Fall Ill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked\tthe Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether the Ministry can consider giving a reduction in rent, up to an annual limit, for NEA hawker stallholders who are unable to work due to sickness and are certified medically unfit to work by a doctor from a polyclinic or Government hospital.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources): All stallholders in NEA-managed hawker centres are required to pay rent throughout their tenancy. Nonetheless, my Ministry will consider requests from hawkers who are genuinely unable to carry on their business temporarily and explore options to assist them on a case-by-case basis. For example, a stallholder who is ill may appoint a person to operate the stall on his or her behalf for the period he or she is ill.
That said, when no other options are available, we do, from time to time, grant concessions where the circumstances are exceptional and worthy of compassion. For example, we have waived rent payments in a case where the stallholder was temporarily unable to operate his stall after he sustained serious injuries and had to undergo extensive medical treatment for a few months.
Ultimately, stallholders need to assess their own health and determine whether they are able or suited to work in the hawker trade. Those who are often medically unfit to work in the hawker trade may wish to transfer their stalls to their relatives and consider other employment options.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Decisions on Tree-cutting and Replanting Activities within Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Leon Perera asked\tthe Minister for National Development (a) what are the criteria that NParks uses to make decisions about tree cutting and/or replanting activities in residential estates; (b) whether these criteria vary according to the location and nature of the residential estate and, if so, how; and (c) how are residents consulted in the process.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee) (for the Minister for National Development): Madam, NParks manages over two million trees in Singapore's parks, park connectors, state lands and along roads, our street scape. Trees are removed when they are in poor health, when they impact public safety or when there are development works. Prior to removal, NParks' arborists carry out professional assessments to decide if a tree can be saved or transplanted. So, this is the standard practice.
When there is no choice but to remove a tree, NParks will study replanting options at the site. In doing so, NParks considers factors like the site condition and landscaping scheme. For example, where space is limited or tight, a small or medium-sized tree will be chosen.
Residents are consulted when there is an opportunity to rejuvenate the overall landscaping of the estate. For example, NParks seeks feedback on landscaping options and tree planting schemes as part of the Estate Upgrading Programme and for large projects like Jurong Lake Gardens.
NParks is committed to conserving the trees under its care as much as possible. Our green spaces and trees are precious and NParks does its best to ensure that Singaporeans can enjoy them well into the future.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I just have two supplementary questions. In cases where a tree is replaced because it is in ill health or for some other reason, in some cases, I believe that a different species of tree is planted from the species that was planted before. I just wish to know what are the considerations behind that. Are there biodiversity considerations, or aesthetic or residents' feedback considerations? And where species switch is made in the replacement, is there some consultation aspect? Just as context, I received this feedback from a resident in East Coast, who noticed there was some change in the species mix of trees in the area, and that is why I am asking the question.
\tMr Desmond Lee: Madam, there are various factors that go into how NParks selects trees for planting, whatever the reason may be. In the Member's example, it is to replace a tree that had to be felled because it was ill and cannot be saved.
NParks, over the years, would have obtained lots of residents' feedback, feedback from municipal agencies as well about the maintainability of a tree, the risk structure of particular types of trees given their height, their crown and the incidence of branch falling or how frequently the leaves are shed, making things difficult for the cleaning companies; but also for biodiversity reasons. So, some street scape forms part of nature ways where we try to plant a variety of plants and tree species in order to provide connections between areas of biodiversity.
Of course, we look at considerations, such as the ability to provide shade, screening for privacy, and the ability to survive urban environment stresses and ease of maintenance.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Can I ask the Senior Minister of State if the guidelines for NParks are identical to those for HDB? In HDB estates, especially in older car parks in mature estates, I am sure residents and Singaporeans appreciate the foliage and the cover that the trees provide, but a big problem is some of the roots of the trees will start to protrude between car park slabs, causing accidents and things of that nature. Under what circumstances would a Town Council be allowed, with HDB's permission, to replace that tree with one whose growth can be controlled in the long term, with the roots perhaps not spreading out so much, particularly for mature estates?
\tMr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member for his query with regard to suitability of certain tree species in the residential environment. NParks and HDB closely consult each other and NParks provides training to Town Councils' horticulturists, but they also share their learning experience with the HDB staff which Town Councils will approach when they want to make changes to the tree types within the municipal areas that they are responsible for.
So, if the Town Councils' horticulturists have concerns, please flag out to HDB and ask them to consult NParks if you feel that there is a need to delve a bit deeper into the types of trees that need to be replanted.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Policy on Students Getting Hurt on School Premises","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Darryl David asked\tthe Minister for Education (Schools) what is the Ministry's policy regarding (i) students who are injured on school premises and (ii) students who are injured in the course of training for, or participating in, a CCA representing the school.
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministers for Education (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Education): Madam, the safety and well-being of all our students are of paramount importance. Schools do their due diligence to ensure their activities and activity venues are safe so as to minimise the risk of injury. Schools proactively perform regular checks on building infrastructure and equipment to ensure they are safe and teach students safety-related skills. For example, for physical and sports activities, students are taught to follow rules of the game, wear proper attire, and techniques to jump and land safely.
If a student sustains light injury, staff trained in First Aid will render assistance. If medical treatment is required, the school will seek parental consent to send the student to a nearby clinic or the parents may prefer to do so themselves. For serious injury, the school will call an ambulance to send the student to the nearest hospital and inform the parents.
All our students are covered by Student Accident Protection Plans purchased by the schools to cover medical expenses incurred.
\tMr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his answer. It is great to know that the welfare of our students are taken care of. I just have two supplementary questions, Mdm Speaker. One of them is how comprehensive is this insurance coverage for the students and is this coverage portable and is it, perhaps, extended up to a certain period of time?
The reason why I ask the Parliamentary Secretary is because, say, in a scenario where a student is in the last year of his time with the school, perhaps, Secondary 4 or Junior College 2 before they move on to the next level of their education, should they suffer bad injury like breaking their leg while playing football for the school, and then this injury may take some time to heal – there may be follow-up operation, complications that may take a year or a year and a half later – does the insurance plan that the MOE may have for the student then cover him or her, even though they may have left the particular MOE school and moved on to the next course of their life?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Madam, I thank the Member for the question. I would like to assure the Member that we will do our best to assist our students. Like what I have said, the safety and well-being of all our students are of paramount importance.
What happens is that if there are injuries sustained while the students are, let us say, doing the CCAs, we will work with the student to see how we can facilitate; one aspect is in terms of getting treatment. The other aspect is to see how we can work with the insurance companies to look through and journey with the students on the process of the claims and how this process of recovery can be made together.
Nevertheless, each case is unique on its own. I would like to urge the Member, if he has any cases which are unique and need MOE, and as far as the insurance coverage is concerned, to look at it deeper, you can flag out to us. We will certainly look at it and see how we can assist the student.
\tMr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mdm Speaker, may I ask the hon Parliamentary Secretary whether injuries sustained by students – as a result interactions between students, as opposed to school activities or CCAs per se – within school premises, would they be covered by insurance, please?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: We have cases when students carry out activities together, even though it is not part of CCA but it is an activity in school and they are injured, we will have to work with the insurance companies to see the nature of the injury. Nevertheless, we will try our best to see the circumstances of how it happens and see how we can facilitate the coverage of the insurance.
\tMr Murali Pillai: Mdm Speaker, may I just clarify. I am talking about interactions among young children. Things may happen between them, for example, while walking to canteen and then one pushes another, injuries are sustained. So, in those circumstances, would there be insurance coverage?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Like what I have said earlier, we have to look at the nature of the interaction. If it happens in school and if he is injured as a result of the interaction, we, on our part, will do our best to ensure that the students are protected.
Nevertheless, we have to look at the nature, the real nature, of the incident. Because to say that everything is covered is a sweeping statement. At the end of the day, it is the nature of how it happened. Nevertheless, I want to assure the House that we try to protect our students as much as possible because we know as they grow up in school, there may be activities that they engage in which sometimes may be grey. At the end of the day, sometimes, they may not be aware of what they do.
Nevertheless, this protection will provide them coverage and also give assurance to the parents that whatever the students do, the schools will really look after their welfare and also want to make sure that the students are well-protected.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Selective Relaxation on Total Debt Servicing Ratio Restrictions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Ms Sylvia Lim asked\tthe Prime Minister whether the Total Debt Servicing Ratio (TDSR) restrictions can be relaxed to allow borrowers to obtain credit facilities if they are able to offer unencumbered private property as collateral to financial institutions, even if they have breached the TDSR limits, so as to enable them to manage their overall loan commitments.
\tThe Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) and Second Minister for Defence (Mr Ong Ye Kung) (for the Prime Minister): Under the Total Debt Servicing Ratio (TDSR) framework, a borrower's monthly loan instalments should not exceed 60% of his monthly income.
This is to help ensure that borrowers have sufficient cash income to meet their debt obligations. The 60% threshold applies to any property loan regardless of whether it is a loan for purchasing a property or a loan secured on an unencumbered property. Even with unencumbered private property as collateral, it is important that the borrower has sufficient cash income to meet the debt obligation. If the borrower fails to make repayment and defaults, the lender could seize and sell the property. This may not be a big problem for a wealthy borrower with several properties, but for someone who is living in that property, it can cause significant hardship.
Therefore, it is more prudent to have our current rules as the default position. However, financial institutions may approve property loan applications where the borrowers' TDSR exceed 60% in exceptional cases. Such exceptions must be approved by the financial institutions' credit committees, in line with the policies set by their board of directors.
\tMs Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Madam, a supplementary question for the Minister. I kind of expected that answer, but the reason I am highlighting it is because, as the Minister mentioned, the TDSR formula is actually focused on income and does not take into account the assets that the potential borrower may have.
We are seeing residents of ours in this current economic climate who have seen a drop in their income. They do believe that with the assets that they have, if there can be some relaxation where they can get a loan from a financial institution, they will be able to manage their overall indebtedness. Of course, in their view, the bank would be secured with their asset but they feel that they have other resources to manage such a loan. They need to manage their current liquidity challenges. I think this is a problem that MAS could look into.
We also have situations where retirees who are reasonably rich are unable to get any loans at all because they have no income. So, perhaps, MAS should review this because I think there is some ground concern and some people are having a hard time now.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: There are some circumstances, for example, if the borrower runs a company, is a sole proprietor or SME boss and the loan is raised in the name of the company, actually the TDSR does not apply. I think there is some leeway for this group.
For others, there are also some circumstances, such as they hold other assets, debentures, bonds, coins, gold and so on. MAS and the banks do take into account that this can also be income-generating and can also be counted as income stream. So, there is another group that is also, in a way, catered to.
Lastly, there are others, maybe the cases that the Member has encountered, where they need to reduce their fully-paid-for property to re-mortgage. We take note of that feedback. We have received similar feedback and will study them carefully.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Interest in Singapore Savings Bond","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked\tthe Prime Minister (a) what has been the take-up rate for the Singapore Savings Bond since its launch in September 2015; (b) whether the Ministry is satisfied with the interest shown; and (c) what is the Ministry doing to reach out to the man in the street to explain the benefits of the bond.
\tThe Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) and Second Minister for Defence (Mr Ong Ye Kung) (for the Prime Minister): The Savings Bonds programme was to expand the range of low-cost investment options for individual investors. The safety and flexibility of Savings Bonds mean that they are well suited to those putting aside \"rainy day\" funds. Savings bonds can also form part of an investor's portfolio, complementing other higher risk, higher return investments.
Since the launch of the programme in September 2015, around 35,000 individuals, from all age groups, have invested S$970 million into 14 Savings Bonds issues. MAS is encouraged by the take-up rate.
That notwithstanding, we think more can be done to raise public awareness and understanding of Savings Bonds. One of the common misperceptions is that the investments in Savings Bonds are locked up for 10 years. Although Savings Bonds mature in 10 years, an investor can withdraw some or all of the money invested, with interest, in any given month without penalty. This feature compares favourably against fixed deposits.
I would reiterate that the fundamental driver of Savings Bonds is global bond yields. Over the past several months, Savings Bond interest rates have declined due to lower global bond yields. When global interest rates normalise, we should likewise expect them to influence SGS and Savings Bond interest rates.
Efforts are ongoing to generate public awareness and a better understanding of the safety and flexibility that Savings Bonds offer. MAS has been reaching out to the public through publicity campaigns and community outreach activities. In particular, MAS has been working with partners, such as MoneySENSE, the Institute of Financial Literacy and grassroots organisations, to educate the public about Savings Bonds. Through these outreach efforts, we expect awareness and interest in Savings Bonds to grow over time.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Saktiandi, keep it short, please.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): I thank the Minister. I just want to appreciate the benefits of Savings Bonds. The reason why I asked was because a young resident of mine highlighted that the eligibility for Savings Bonds is 18 years and above. This highlights the importance of starting early so that they can have a longer runway. The Minister mentioned just now about retirement savings and for rainy day savings. I was wondering what are the outreach efforts by MAS to the young, as it helps them to achieve a longer runway, going forward.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: I thank the Member for his interest in wanting the young to start early. Saving is, indeed, a good virtue and I hope you can play your part, too, and explain to the young. We intend to launch another publicity effort, but this has to be timed properly, such as waiting until the US Presidential Election is over! Time it properly sometime next year, and I think we have to reach out in a more concerted proactive way.
Mdm Speaker: Order. End of Question Time.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 10 and 11 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 8, 12 and 13 have been postponed to the next available Sitting of Parliament.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Income Tax (Amendment No 3) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mdm Speaker, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Income Tax (Amendment No 3) Bill of 2016, or \"the Bill\" in short, covers income tax changes announced in the 2016 Budget Statement, an amendment to implement country-by-country reporting, as well as other changes arising from the periodic review of our income tax regime. We sought views from the public on the draft Bill from 8 July to 29 July 2016. MOF has evaluated all the feedback received and, where relevant, accepted the suggestions.
Madam, the tax changes announced in the 2016 Budget Statement have already been debated in this House. These changes seek to transform our economy through enterprise and innovation, as well as to build a more caring and resilient society. Let me highlight the key changes.
First, the existing Corporate Income Tax rebate will be raised from 30% to 50% of tax payable, with a cap of $20,000 rebate each year for Years of Assessment 2016 and 2017. This will provide greater support to help all qualifying companies, especially SMEs, to address immediate concerns, while encouraging restructuring. Clause 51 of the Bill provides for the change.
Second, to support more mergers and acquisitions, the M&A scheme was enhanced to allow 25% tax allowance on the first $40 million of the cost of qualifying share acquisitions incurred each year, up from $20 million. Companies can, therefore, enjoy a maximum tax allowance of $10 million on their qualifying share acquisitions, up from $5 million. Clauses 23 and 63 of the Bill provide for the changes.
Third, to provide upfront certainty to companies for their corporate restructuring, the non-taxation of companies' gains on disposal of their equity investments has been extended until 31 May 2022. Clause 11 of the Bill provides for the change.
Fourth, to support firms, especially SMEs, to seek new markets and new growth opportunities overseas, the Double Tax Deduction for Internationalisation scheme has been extended till 31 March 2020. Clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill provide for the changes.
Fifth, to enhance progressivity of our personal income tax systems, the total amount of personal income tax reliefs an individual can claim will be capped at $80,000 per Year of Assessment. This change will take effect from Year of Assessment 2018. Clauses 25 to 28 of the Bill provide for the changes.
Sixth, to encourage volunteerism among businesses, a pilot Business and Institutions of Public Character (IPCs) Partnership Scheme was introduced from 1 July 2016 till end 2018. Businesses that organise their employees to volunteer and provide services to IPCs, including secondments, will receive a total of 250% tax deduction on qualifying expenditure incurred, subject to the receiving IPC's agreement. The qualifying expenditure will be subject to a yearly cap of $250,000 per business and $50,000 per IPC. Clauses 17 and 18 of the Bill provide for the changes.
Madam, Singapore has joined the inclusive framework for the global implementation of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project. As a BEPS associate, Singapore has committed to implementing country-by-country reporting, a minimum standard under the G20/OECD action plan to counter BEPS.
Singapore-headquartered multinational enterprise groups with global consolidated revenues exceeding $1.125 billion will be required to submit to the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) an annual report containing the income, taxes paid and other indicators of their level of economic activities in every tax jurisdiction where they operate, from their financial years commencing on or after 1 January 2017. IRAS will then exchange the reports bilaterally with jurisdictions with whom Singapore has concluded Competent Authority Agreements. Clauses 53, 54, 55, 56 and 58 of the Bill provide for the implementation of country-by-country reporting.
Madam, MOF regularly reviews and refines the income tax regime. I shall now outline two other key changes arising from MOF's periodic review of the tax regime.
First, we will delink the income tax relief limit for CPF cash top-ups from the CPF top-up limit from 1 January 2016. The CPF top-up limit to the Retirement Account has been raised from the Full Retirement Sum (FRS) to the Enhanced Retirement Sum which is 1.5 times of the FRS, from 1 January 2016. To keep tax benefits focused on supporting basic retirement needs, the limit on tax relief for cash top-ups will be maintained at the FRS. Clause 24 of the Bill provides for the change.
Second, we will grant tax deduction of up to 200% for qualifying expenditure incurred on qualifying retail bonds issued from 19 May 2016 to 18 May 2021. Such qualifying expenditure include professional fees, origination, underwriting and distribution fees, as well as advertising and marketing expenses. This will further encourage the issuance of retail bonds and broaden the range of investment options available to retail investors. Clauses 16 and 18 of the Bill provide for the changes.
The remaining legislative changes are mostly technical in nature or relate to improvements in tax administration. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, I stand in support of this Bill. I welcome these progressive and timely amendments to the Income Tax Act, which support domestic businesses and spur economic growth, especially in view of the forecasted sluggish growth in 2017.
In its twice-yearly Macroeconomic Review released on 25 October 2016, MAS stated that global growth is expected to come in at 3.7% this year and edge up slightly to 3.8% next year, as business investments in major economies stay sluggish due to the elevated economic uncertainty.
The central bank also said that business sentiment remains negative, especially among small and medium-sized enterprises.
As a nation, we have to face the upcoming tough challenges together in the year ahead. However, it is encouraging that Government policy continues to be relevant to meet the needs of the finance sector and other businesses.
Here, let me highlight two aspects of this Bill.
As the Senior Minister of State had mentioned, Corporate Income Tax Rebate is given to all companies to help them with rising business costs and is applicable for Years of Assessment 2013 to 2017.
For Years of Assessment 2013 to 2015, companies received 30% income tax rebate, capped at $30,000.
For Years of Assessment 2016 to 2017, companies were to receive 30%, capped at $20,000. The cap reduced the maximum rebate by $10,000 from what it was previously.
The current Bill seeks to increase the rebate rate for Years of Assessment 2016 to 2017 from 30% to 50%, but retains the cap at $20,000.
Can the Senior Minister of State clarify the rationale behind reducing the cap by $10,000? And in view of the sluggish economy ahead, will the Senior Minister of State also consider not just increasing the rebate rate but also increasing the cap?
Secondly, in sections 8A and 63, the Bill has sought to introduce mandatory electronic filing for corporate income tax returns in stages for all companies eventually, by 2020.
I welcome this change as this is in line with the Government's direction for more effective delivery of public service. This is also in line with the Government's Smart Nation vision to harness technology to enhance productivity. While I commend our move to lead a life more empowered by technology, this may be difficult for some of the staff members, particularly those in the older generation, who may be unfamiliar with such computer systems. This may impede their productivity, or even cause them to be replaced by businesses if they are unable to rise to the task.
As such, I would suggest that the phasing out be taken at a slower pace, especially for traditional businesses, which should have the option of opting-out of mandatory e-filing with good reasons. This is also as we have seen an increase in the number of retrenchments. IRAS can consider these applications on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the age and capabilities of administrative staff members of the company.
These comments notwithstanding, Madam, this Bill can only serve the interests of Singapore's businesses and economy, and I stand in support of it.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for his support of the Bill. With regard to Mr Louis Ng's query on the rationale behind the reduction of the Corporate Income Tax (CIT) rebate quantum cap by $10,000, it may be helpful if I explain the circumstances.
In Budget 2013, a three-year CIT rebate of 30% of tax payable, capped at $30,000 per Year of Assessment (YA) from YA 2013 to YA 2015 was given as part of the three-year transition support package to support firms in their restructuring efforts. So, that was 2013.
In Budget 2015, the CIT rebate was further extended for another two years, that is, for YAs 2016 and 2017, at the same rate of 30% of tax payable, but up to a lower cap of $20,000 per Year of Assessment. The intent was to continue to support firms in the period of restructuring, while phasing out the support gradually.
I note Mr Louis Ng's concern on the current economic climate. In light of the difficult and uncertain business conditions amidst the economic slowdown, the CIT rebate was further enhanced in Budget 2016 from 30% of tax payable to 50% of tax payable, but the cap of $20,000 rebate for each year for YA 2016 to 2017 was maintained. And the intent was to address the immediate concerns while encouraging companies, especially the SMEs, to restructure.
The cap remains at $20,000 per Year of Assessment to ensure the focus remains on SMEs. Apart from the CIT rebate, however, businesses can also benefit from other grant schemes, for example, the Wage Credit Scheme and the Capability Development Grant, which are targeted at smaller businesses. We will continue to monitor closely the economic outlook and consider further business assistance measures if necessary.
With regard to electronic filing, we agree with Mr Louis Ng on the need to consider the difficulties that may be faced by small and traditional businesses with the introduction of mandatory electronic-filing or \"e-filing\" for corporate income tax returns. To assist companies, especially small and traditional ones, the mandatory e-filing will be introduced in a phased approach as follows.
First, companies with turnover of more than $10 million in YA 2017 will be required to e-file for YA 2018;
Second, companies with turnover of more than $1 million in YA 2018 will be required to e-file for YA 2019;
Third, all other small companies will only be required to e-file their corporate income tax returns from YA 2020.
We would also like to assure Mr Louis Ng that IRAS will help companies transit to e-filing.
First, IRAS will be holding e-filing workshops for SMEs and tax agents where participants can experience e-filing using a demonstration kit.
Second, there is a hotline available to answer questions regarding e-filing services.
Third, SMEs can visit the IRAS taxpayer service centre for one-to-one assistance.
Fourth, IRAS will also reach out to taxpayers to provide assistance where necessary for the companies to e-file.
[(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 Indranee Rajah]. (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":"Telecommunications (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Communications and Information (Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim): Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, that the Bill be now read a Second time.
Madam, the Telecommunications Act, or TA for short, provides the broad legal framework for the regulation of Singapore's telecommunications sector. The TA provides the Info-communications Media Development Authority (IMDA) with various powers, including those to grant licences, issue directions and codes of practices, and promulgate service standards.
Mdm Speaker, the TA must remain relevant and effective in regulating and providing for the development of our telecoms industry amidst rapid changes and recent developments. Since the last review in 2012, my Ministry has been keeping a close watch on how the industry has evolved, both locally and internationally, as well as the changing needs and demands of Singapore consumers. We have made three key observations.
First, the reliance on telecom services by consumers and businesses, especially for mobile telephone services, has increased dramatically over the last few years. Total mobile data usage has more than doubled since 2012, due to increased smartphone penetration and the use of data-intensive applications, such as mobile video streaming. Hence, consumers and businesses have come to expect more reliable and better quality service standards. To meet these rising demands, IMDA must have the ability to facilitate the continued deployment of telecoms infrastructure.
Second, consumer disputes have become more individualised in nature and usually relate to customer-specific contractual and billing issues. Given the individualised nature of these disputes, IMDA's existing frameworks for consumer protection will not be as effective. A dedicated, specialised and independent platform that can resolve these disputes in a fair and even-handed way will be needed.
Lastly, my Ministry has noted instances where end users may not have the freedom to access telecoms services from their preferred operator. Madam, this should not be the case. It has been 16 years since the telecoms sector was fully liberalised. A key consideration for liberalisation was to allow end users more choice. To ensure that consumers and businesses can continue to reap the benefits of competition, any obstacles in the way of them exercising choice should be removed.
Madam, my Ministry conducted a four-week public consultation in August this year to share these observations and consult on proposed solutions. Respondents generally supported our observations and suggested solutions. In light of this, we intend to amend the TA to effect most of these proposals, save for two.
First, my Ministry has decided not to proceed with increasing the maximum composition amount for compoundable offences under the TA from $5,000 to $10,000. As we have experienced a recent spike in the number of cable-cut incidents around Singapore, we wanted to send a clear and strong deterrent signal to would-be cable-cut offenders that they must follow the prescribed procedures for isolating telecom cables before commencing earthworks. Given the seriousness of cable-cut incidents and their adverse impact on end users, we have assessed that a more effective and targeted deterrent approach would be to focus on actively prosecuting and seeking harsher criminal sentences for such offences. This effort is underscored by IMDA's recent prosecution of a case which has led to Court fines totalling $165,000 in 2015.
The other proposal that we will not proceed with is requiring that all appeals to the Minister also be copied to the regulator. Such a requirement is an operational one and need not feature in primary legislation.
Mdm Speaker, allow me to now go through the key amendments proposed.
Mdm Speaker, for IMDA to facilitate the continued deployment of telecoms infrastructure, a few amendments will be needed.
Today, IMDA's Code of Practice for Info-communication Facilities in Buildings, also known as the COPIF, requires building developers and owners to provide adequate space and facilities for the deployment of telecoms equipment in their buildings. However, IMDA has faced many practical challenges with building managers that have delayed timely deployments in the buildings they manage. To ensure COPIF's effectiveness, clause 2 will expressly clarify that parties who have control over the day-to-day management and operations of the building must also comply with COPIF. In practice, IMDA will continue to enforce COPIF requirements on the legal owner of the building in the first instance, before reaching out to building managers, such as the Management Corporations and Town Councils.
In addition, under current rules, telecom licensees must provide sufficient notice when entering buildings to deploy their infrastructure. Clause 8 will provide greater certainty to building owners and occupiers on this notification and objection process. For example, before entering a building, licensees must first issue clear and accurate notifications to the building owner stating their intent and nature of the activities to be done, including whether they intend to use the space and facilities to serve any other building.
In our dense urban environment, mobile deployments need to be sited at suitably high locations, such as building rooftops and towers, to optimise coverage of each mobile antenna. Accordingly, it is usually optimal for mobile operators to deploy their infrastructure on rooftops to serve multiple buildings from one location. This is known as \"spring-boarding\". Given the advantages that spring-boarding confers, clauses 9 and 10 will empower IMDA to establish a framework to further regulate and facilitate the use of and access to buildings for spring-boarding. Following these amendments, IMDA will consult affected stakeholders on amendments to COPIF to allow spring-boarding and other related operational details.
To provide end users with the freedom to access telecom services from the operator of their choice, clause 11 will prohibit building owners from entering into exclusive arrangements that have the effect of limiting end users' choice of telecoms service provider. Madam, I would like to assure the House that this amendment will not prevent building owners from having promotional tie-ups with operators that end users can benefit from. This amendment simply prevents a building owner from denying end users the right to choose their preferred operator. The amendment is also not intended to apply to data centres, central offices and telecom exchanges, as their customers lease space to locate their equipment and are not considered tenants or residents for the purpose of this provision.
To ensure that clauses 9, 10 and 11 are effective, IMDA will be able to issue written notices and directions to licensees, developers, owners or occupiers of any land or building to achieve regulatory compliance. Although no concerns were raised in relation to these powers during the public consultation, I wish to assure the House that IMDA will be reasonable, prudent and circumspect in the application of these powers and that IMDA will take affected parties' concerns into account before making a decision. IMDA will also only narrowly apply these powers to specific contractual clauses that are inconsistent with the written notice or direction. In all other cases, these amendments to the TA will not affect the continuance of existing contracts, which should carry on until the expiry or termination.
Mdm Speaker, IMDA will need to be empowered to establish an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) scheme, for the resolution of disputes between specific telecom and media licensees and their subscribers. Given that IMDA's regulatory powers for the telecom and media sectors are contained in the TA and IMDA Act respectively, clauses 17 and 21 will make amendments to both, to give IMDA powers to establish an ADR framework, as well as the rules, procedures and operational mechanics of the ADR scheme. As I mentioned during the debate on the IMDA Bill in August this year, having telecom and media regulation in separate legislation is an interim measure and my Ministry remains committed to the longer term approach of developing a holistic framework for the infocomm media sector through streamlined rules and regulations.
Mdm Speaker, in establishing a sector-specific ADR scheme, we are quite cognisant that service providers may be unwilling to participate in existing voluntary mediation schemes, such as those offered by the Consumers Association of Singapore. As such, participation in the ADR scheme will be made mandatory for service providers. Consumers, however, will have the flexibility to resolve their disputes through the ADR scheme, or through other avenues, such as the Courts or Small Claims Tribunal. IMDA is considering a suitable and independent operator for the ADR scheme and will consult relevant stakeholders on the details of the scheme after the legislative framework is in place.
Mdm Speaker, my Ministry is also amending the TA to strengthen oversight of the telecom industry and provide greater clarity to the existing parts of the TA.
Clause 2 will amend the current definition of \"telecommunication service\" to make explicit that this includes the leasing of telecom cables.
Clauses 3, 4 and 5 will amend sections 5, 5A and 5B respectively to clarify IMDA's existing powers to levy fees and charges for licences, spectrum rights and satellite orbital slots. These amendments are to clarify IMDA's existing powers and are not intended to grant any new powers or impose any new obligations on regulated persons. Clauses 3, 5 and 6 will also make it clear that a licensee is not entitled to a refund of licence fees if its licence is suspended, cancelled, terminated or reduced in duration by IMDA or at the request of the licensee. Similarly, clause 18 will clarify that it is an offence for a telecom licensee whose licence has been suspended to establish, install, maintain or operate a telecoms system or service.
Clause 7 inserts a new section to provide that where a person uses shared radio frequencies, that person must accept that interference may occur and that IMDA is not liable for any interference. This amendment is no different from the principles governing the sharing of radio frequencies already set out in IMDA's Telecommunications (Radio-communication) Regulations. Nonetheless, before allocating radio frequencies for sharing, IMDA will continue to carefully consider and assess the impact and whether there will be potential for interference to existing users.
Clause 12 amends section 26(1) to allow IMDA to issue or approve codes of practice or standards of performance authorising the collection, use or disclosure of personal data by telecoms licensees without end users' consent. This amendment is in line with exceptions already set out in the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) and will be applicable for instances, such as network planning, maintenance, as well as for facilitating interconnection and interoperability between telecoms licensees. Aside from these purposes, the PDPA will continue to apply.
My Ministry has also proposed a suite of enhancements to provide greater clarity to the sections of the TA relating to consolidations and corporate governance. Clause 14 will clarify the specific circumstances in which IMDA's directions with respect to consolidations have overriding effect. Clause 15 inserts a new section 32DA to empower IMDA to issue directions to enforce conditions of approval for mergers and acquisitions involving a designated telecoms licensee, business trust or designated trust. Clause 16 takes into account industry comments from the public consultation and clarifies the specific conditions that IMDA may impose for its approval of CEO or Board of Director appointments in designated telecoms licensees.
Lastly, clause 20 will allow IMDA to issue regulations on the wiring of telecoms cables in access networks deployed by telecoms system licensees. Such regulations are currently limited to the public switched telephone networks belonging to public telecoms licensees which rely on copper cables. The amendment ensures that IMDA's regulatory framework for the deployment of telecoms cables stays relevant as copper cables are increasingly being phased out and replaced by optical fibre cables.
Mdm Speaker, this Bill before the House today ensures that the TA can remain relevant and effective amidst a rapidly changing industry environment. IMDA is committed to working closely with the industry and various stakeholders to develop the necessary operational and implementation details relating to these proposed amendments.
The telecommunications industry is a fast-paced one. My Ministry will continue to stay abreast of developments, both locally and internationally, to ensure that our legislative and regulatory frameworks continue to facilitate a conducive environment for businesses to grow and thrive and for consumers to benefit from competitive and high quality services. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on this important Bill that will impact the future of telecommunications in Singapore.
I would like to focus on two aspects of this Bill. Firstly, on the proposal in the Bill to empower IMDA to establish a framework for further regulating and facilitating access to rooftop space for the deployment of mobile equipment. Given the possibility of a fourth mobile operator entering the market, I would like to know if IMDA would be imposing a cap on the total number of mobile operators that can deploy their telecommunications equipment on the same building.
Further, would the Ministry consider a strategy for all the operators to share base stations, like how operators currently use the NetLink Trust infrastructure for fibre broadband, for example? So, you do not clog up your rooftops with too many base stations or you have too many inline within the building repeater cells, for example. This may be especially important if they are moving to a new 5G network in the future based on new infrastructure, thus sharing may provide economies of scale for the operators and be more cost-effective for consumers, too.
On this point about access to rooftop space, there are already existing agreements in place to govern this. How will the Ministry protect landlords with these existing agreements in place? I ask this as I wonder if the new regulations will enable operators to cancel these existing agreements with immediate effect and request to relocate their base stations in the same building under new terms.
In addition, will the amount of rent-free space that IMDA currently allocates under its Code of Practice for Info-communication Facilities in Buildings (COPIF) for telecommunications deployments in buildings be increased to account for this proposal?
The other area I would like to raise a point on is the proposal to empower IMDA to establish an Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme. I applaud this scheme but seek more clarity on how it will be implemented. Will the ADR scheme be administered by the Government? What sorts of disputes can consumers bring to the ADR operator? Will consumers have to pay for ADR services and will the outcome of the ADR process be legally binding? How is the proposed ADR scheme different from some of the existing mediation channels available to consumers today, such as CASE or the Singapore Mediation Centre? These are important questions to ask and gain clarity on.
Mdm Speaker, a structured mediation process is a good step, but it must protect the interests of the consumer to ensure high quality and a high level of service. Mdm Speaker. I rise in support of the Bill.
Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill and I promise to be brief. I would like to raise three points in my speech. First, with regard to health; second, with regard to access; and third, with regard to safety.
In terms of health, with the growing number of space stations and telecommunications access points in Singapore, there is some concern on the ground on impact on human health. According to the American Cancer Society, people exposed to radiofrequency radiation can be affected and there are potential health risks.
Recently, in South Korea, there have also been a series of protests against THAAD system – which the American military would be deploying – which is based on radio signals and telecommunications signals. Overall, it is supposed to protect South Korea against any hostile North Korean aggression. But the protestors' complaint was largely that the authorities were not forthcoming with any information on the potential risks, in terms of electro-magnetic waves, on the hundreds of villagers who live and farm in the region where the THAAD system would be deployed.
Secondly, in terms of access. There is section 32D where the IMDA has the power to issue their actions, \"override the provisions of the Business Trusts Act, Companies Act, Limited Liability Partnerships Act, Trustees Act and the Futures Act\". Some of those I have spoken to felt that this was quite overarching in terms of the number of Acts that it overrides and grants access to many of these private buildings. Therefore, could the Minister perhaps explain whether there has been any response during the public feedback with regard to granting of access and whether there are some key areas of hindrance?
In terms of cable-cut incidents that the Minister has mentioned earlier, many of these equipment are based in public buildings, some of which would be HDB blocks. Access to rooftops of these buildings can sometimes be circumvented. So, in terms of safety of equipment and the potential for deliberate acts to disrupt telecommunications in Singapore, could the Minister comment on how this would be prevented, going forward? Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, I rise in support of this Bill. These amendments include operational improvements and also provide clarity on how telecommunications operators are regulated.
The amendments also lay an important foundation for the introduction of next generation mobile technology, which includes the building up of our Smart Nation sensor network.
Madam, allow me to share three suggestions for the Ministry to look into.
Firstly, on the objections by owners or occupiers of the land or building to a telecommunications licensee accessing their property, can the Minister share how many of such written objections have been lodged over the past three years? In addition, on how many occasions over the past three years have the authority authorised the works to be carried out, despite the objections and following the inquiry?
The amendments to section 14 add an additional step where the \"Authority must notify the public telecommunications licensee concerned to resolve the dispute with the objector due to the objection\". Also, \"on receipt of the Authority's notice, the public telecommunications licensee must take genuine steps to resolve the dispute with the objector due to the objection\".
Can the Minister clarify how long the telecommunications licensee is given to try to resolve the dispute? And is there a timeframe provided for the Authority to hold an inquiry from the time a written objection is lodged?
I expect that most of the time, there should not be strong reasons for objection, but, in some cases, owners could have legitimate reservations and this should be promptly looked into.
Secondly, we should ensure that the additional efforts to deploy mobile equipment provided by this Bill do lead to better connection.
I understand that the installation of mobile equipment is primarily for the economic benefit of mobile operators. With this in mind, would the Ministry consider ensuring that operators ensure a guaranteed minimum standard of broadband service to all customers?
This would go beyond service levels on coverage, but include a requirement on speed. For example, all 4G customers within a certain area of an installed mobile broadband equipment should be guaranteed a certain Internet speed.
If speeds fall below a certain level, the operator must respond within a certain time to remedy any issues. Such a regulated guarantee would also provide more comfort to owners that the equipment installed on their roofs will benefit them as well.
Third, a minor point on an inconvenience faced by consumers. Consumers should have a choice on which networking equipment they can use, now that amendments have been proposed for Internet and mobile operators to have a choice on where best to install their equipment.
Currently, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) often require customers to use a default modem and router, which is rented or bought from the ISP.
This means that if the customer has an existing router or modem, they will not be allowed to use it. For example, unless you are subscribing to the most expensive plan, SingTel currently requires that you use their own modem.
I had a personal experience with this inconvenience. Recently, I bought a new wireless router. However, when my ISP's support came, I was told that I would not be able to use it. So, I ended up buying a device which I was not allowed to use in my own home. Speaking up on behalf of consumers, would the Ministry consider taking steps to change this?
Madam, apart from the clarifications requested and the suggestion for improvements, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Ong Teng Koon (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill. Given the rapid developments in the telecommunications and media industries, the proposed amendments to the Telecommunications Act (TA) and Media Development Authority of Singapore Act (MDAA) are, indeed, timely.
Allow me to first talk about the proposed amendments to the Additional Dispute Resolution mechanism. It is laudable that IMDA is taking proactive steps to strengthen consumer protection.
I have been approached by many residents who have outstanding issues with the telcos. For various reasons, they did not or could not use the current dispute resolution mechanisms. Therefore, I think it is useful to create an alternative.
A meaningful dispute resolution mechanism needs to: be affordable for individual complainants; accommodate consumers of all language and educational backgrounds; run efficiently, with conclusions reached in a timely manner; create binding outcomes; and generate more benefits than it costs to run.
The benchmark to beat is the Small Claims Tribunal where mediation services cost $10. The mandated mediation sessions are conducted by Registrars. Therefore, affordable mediation services conducted by neutral professionals are already available. How will the ADR improve on this and how much will the ADR charge consumers for this service?
A related and pertinent question is the funding of the ADR. What volume of cases does IMDA expect to refer to the ADR? And if small, this raises questions about economies of scale. Who will pay for the overheads, as well as the direct legal costs of engaging mediators? Will these costs eventually be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher bills?
ADR must be accessible to members of the public. Many people, especially the elderly, may be intimidated by the legal process. They might worry about costs or about complex arguments, especially if their primary language is not English. ADR must be simple enough such that aunties and uncles from the heartlands can navigate without fear.
IMDA must create a standardised process for dispute resolution with clear guidelines. For example, will there be a fixed timeline, to prevent either side playing for time? Conversely, we need to safeguard against frivolous or vexatious cases. Consumers who lodge clearly baseless cases could be penalised, but what qualifies as baseless and how will IMDA set the bar?
A second aspect of the proposed amendments to the TA deals with Mobile Deployment Spaces on rooftops. Mobile services are integral to our daily lives. We now expect to stream high definition video while sitting in an MRT train. This demand for bandwidth will only continue to grow as services and consumers get more sophisticated. An adequate network is the necessary foundation. I, therefore, laud the IMDA for securing rooftop space for deploying national infrastructure.
As we always do in land-scarce Singapore, we will need to balance competing demands for rooftop space, and rooftop space is already hotly contested. Essential utilities like water tanks, recreational facilities like rooftop gardens, and clean energy sources like solar panels – these are all potentially valid alternative uses. IMDA needs to navigate the balancing act on two levels.
First, between alternative uses of the space. How will the allocation of Mobile Development Space be determined? How will IMDA work in tandem with the other relevant agencies, such as HDB, EMA, URA and others, to determine the optimal allocation of space? And how does IMDA intend to \"future proof\" this? Many rooftop installations are long-term infrastructure assets that cannot easily be removed.
Commercial rooftop solar panels make this more complex. Space for services means forgone revenues – a quantifiable opportunity cost. How does IMDA intend to protect the property rights of the building owners?
Second, how will space be allocated amongst various telecommunications providers? How will we ensure that such arrangements survive future developments, such as new market entry?
We have seen infrastructure and network sharing arrangements become standard industry practice in many countries. Telcos can choose to share only the passive elements, such as towers and masts, or include the network elements in the sharing arrangements. Would IMDA consider encouraging our telcos in this direction to mitigate the space constraints that we face?
Apart from space allocation, there is also the issue of costs. Building owners may have improved their rooftops, for example, through waterproofing. The deployment of mobile assets may affect or damage such arrangements. How does IMDA intend to establish reasonable cost allocation measures?
The amendments require telcos to pay \"appropriate costs of deployment\", such as increasing load-bearing capacity or improving aesthetics. How will IMDA define \"appropriate costs\"? What happens if there are disputes? I think a clearer set of rules at the outset will help to minimise this problem in the future.
Finally, I would like to discuss the enhancements to strengthen the oversight of the telecommunications industry. It is prudent for IMDA to closely regulate mergers and acquisitions in the telecommunications industry. As previously noted, telecommunications services are an essential service and national infrastructure must be safeguarded.
At the same time, we need to maintain the effectiveness of assets to foreign investors. The telecommunications industry is fast-moving. Winners today are often forgotten tomorrow and cross-border investment is common, which can be beneficial. Our own telcos themselves are significant regional players.
How does IMDA intend to balance these two contradictory tensions – the need to protect national interests, while also extracting the benefits that cross-border investments could bring? How do we ensure that greater enforcement will lead to greater welfare, broadly defined?
The same considerations apply at the CEO or Board level. On what criteria will IMDA decide to not approve a potential CEO or board member? Will companies have sufficient insight into the process to adequately prepare their positions?
Madam, in conclusion, these amendments are important to safeguard critical communications infrastructure. The introduction of an ADR, clarification of rooftop space usage and strengthening of the oversight mechanism are important steps to create a more robust framework for the telecommunications sector in Singapore. This Bill will help to advance Singapore's position as a Smart Nation and leading telecommunications hub in the world. Therefore, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.
Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Madam, I thank the hon Members for their support and comments. My response will focus on Members' comments which are directly related to the Bill at hand.
First, Mr Zaqy Mohamad and Mr Ong Teng Koon asked about the overall administration and design of the ADR scheme.
Madam, the proposed amendments will empower IMDA to set up an ADR scheme for both telecoms and media services, which will include appointing a neutral and independent ADR scheme operator. As mentioned in my opening speech, IMDA will hold a public consultation exercise on the operational design of the scheme once the empowering legislative framework is in place. As this is the first time such a scheme is being rolled out by IMDA, IMDA will learn from other jurisdictions with similar programmes and consult affected stakeholders to ensure that the scheme meets their needs.
Both Mr Zaqy Mohamad and Mr Ong Teng Koon also asked how the proposed ADR scheme improves upon existing dispute resolution platforms. Today, Madam, consumers can bring their disputes to general purpose platforms, such as the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE), the Singapore Mediation Centre and the Small Claims Tribunal. Our proposed scheme will differ in two ways, Madam.
Firstly, unlike existing platforms, the ADR scheme will be dedicated to the resolution of disputes between subscribers and their telecoms or media service providers. As such, disputes usually relate to specific billing and contractual issues. Having a dedicated scheme that is familiar with the technicalities of service plans and packages will help to ensure a smoother process for all parties involved.
Secondly, Madam, the scheme will require mandatory participation for specific telecoms and media licensees. And this is unlike participation in the existing media platform which is voluntary, aside from the Small Claims Tribunal. And the ADR outcomes will also be binding where settlements are reached.
In relation to the concerns over funding and charges for the ADR scheme, IMDA's current thinking is that the licensees will provide the bulk of the funding. A nominal fee will also be paid by subscribers because we want to dissuade frivolous claims. Although only approximately 400 disputes were escalated to IMDA in 2015, the actual number of disputes is likely to be higher, as some subscribers may have given up on pursuing their disputes. So, Madam, in order to contain the costs of running the ADR scheme and, of course, to ensure its sustainability, IMDA is exploring the possibility of appointing existing mediation service providers, such as CASE, to help us in rolling out the scheme. This will allow us to share overheads and, of course, more importantly, skilled mediators across platforms. These details, Madam, will be further consulted on once the legislative framework is in place.
Madam, Mr Zaqy Mohamad also touched on several operational aspects of how IMDA will facilitate the deployment of telecoms infrastructure in buildings, such as whether there is a cap on the number of mobile operators deployed in a given building. Madam, as mentioned in my opening speech, the proposed amendments are to facilitate the deployment of telecoms infrastructure and are intended as general empowering provisions for IMDA. The details of how IMDA will operationalise these powers will still need to be studied in consultation with stakeholders, as the issues on the ground can be complex and addressing them directly in legislation will not be straightforward. So, once the Bill is passed, we will commence this consultation exercise through its review of COPIF so that we could get further feedback from the industry and the licensees.
Mr Zaqy Mohamed also asked how the amendments will affect existing contractual agreements between building owners and mobile operators for mobile deployments. Madam, I would like to reiterate that these amendments will not affect existing contracts which should carry on until their expiry. In relation to the Member's example of a mobile operator cancelling his existing contract in order to relocate to the same building so that they get rent-free, I understand that similar cases were raised when COPIF was first introduced in 2013. But since then, IMDA has not seen such cases being surfaced. Removing and reinstalling mobile equipment is, indeed, very expensive. Mobile operators are also hesitant to accept protracted disruptions to their mobile coverage while a new contract is being negotiated. The bottomline is that it is not in their favour to do the relocation.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad and Mr Ong Teng Koon also asked how the optimal allocation of Mobile Deployment Space (MDS) and associated costs of mobile deployment on rooftops are determined. To clarify, Madam, the COPIF today already requires that building owners provide a specific amount of rent-free MDS to mobile operators upon request and that mobile operators compensate the building owners for the associated costs of mobile deployments. And these costs may include security escorts to rooftop access, increasing load bearing capacity of the building and the utility bills for running mobile equipment. So, with the proposed amendments, it is envisaged that building owners must provide rooftop space as MDS if the mobile operators request it.
However, Madam, the total amount of MDS aside, the principles of allocating MDS amongst multiple mobile operators and the framework for compensating costs associated with the mobile deployments will remain consistent with existing COPIF practices for a start. Any unresolved dispute between the building owners and mobile operators over issues, such as competing uses or compensation, can also be escalated to IMDA. IMDA will then work with relevant agencies to strike a balance between the property rights of the building owners and the provision of good quality telecoms services to the public.
So, whenever there are disputes, we will step in. We will basically bring the parties in and see what is the best solution possible. I agree with the Member that we need to provide the best coverage possible for our consumers.
Finally, Madam, in relation to Mr Zaqy Mohamad and Mr Ong Teng Koon's question whether to encourage our telecommunications operators to have more infrastructure sharing arrangements, particularly when there are space constraints or the potential for economies of scale, I would like to share with this House that it is already being practised. In fact, IMDA facilitates the sharing of certain infrastructure amongst licensees where it is technically challenging to replicate or there are physical constraints. And this includes the sharing of spaces on existing monopoles and cell towers, as well as sharing mobile deployments in places, such as MRT tunnels. For MDS in buildings, the COPIF currently limits the total amount of mobile deployment space that is set aside. And where there are multiple operators competing for the same space, this space must be shared amongst them. If additional space is required, the mobile operators would have to commercially negotiate for more from the building owners.
Madam, Mr Louis Ng asked for specifics on the notification and objection processes for telecommunications licensees to access buildings to deploy their infrastructure. On average, Madam, IMDA receives about 30 such objections every year from building owners or occupiers involved in this process. IMDA has been able to resolve most cases through informal mediation, without having to issue any formal directions for the works to be carried out. As for timelines, the TA does not state a fixed timing for resolving disputes. Each case is unique and IMDA will set a reasonable amount of time for all parties to reach a happy resolution. Thereafter, if the dispute remains unresolved, the telecommunications licensee will inform IMDA and IMDA will typically hold an inquiry within the next 14 days. So, we will step in as quickly as possible to make sure we can resolve the dispute.
Lastly, Mr Ong Teng Koon asked how IMDA balances between the benefits of foreign investment and the need to protect national interests when regulating mergers and acquisitions, as well as when approving CEO and Board of Director appointments. First, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify that Singapore has a liberalised telecommunications market whereby IMDA does not impose restrictions on foreign ownership and control in telecommunications licensees. However, IMDA does maintain oversight over such transactions and appointments to ensure that they do not cause significant harm to market competition, consumers and public interest.
Mr Alex Yam raised concern about section 32(d). I wish to clarify that the amendments will specify the exact laws which can be overridden by directions issued under section 32(d). This is narrower than the existing section 32(d) as directions could previously take effect despite any written law. And these amendments were presented during public consultation but we did not receive any comments on this part.
Finally, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Alex Yam asked about minimum guaranteed mobile broadband speeds and allowing consumers to use third-party routers for Internet access, as well as health and safety in relation to mobile deployments. As these issues are not directly related to the Bill at hand, I invite the Members to file separate Parliamentary Questions and I would be happy to discuss these in Parliament.
Madam, in conclusion, with telecommunications becoming an increasingly integral part of the economy and everyday life, it is important that our laws keep up with the fast-paced developments in the industry. I am confident that this Bill will ensure that the TA continues to remain relevant and effective for regulating the telecommunications industry.
Moving forward, my Ministry and IMDA are committed to working closely with the industry and various stakeholders to develop and implement these amendments in detail and to creating a conducive regulatory environment for both businesses and consumers. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim]. (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":"Fire Safety (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Desmond Lee): Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
Pipelines are used to convey large quantities of petroleum and flammable materials from one location to another, for example, from the jetty where petroleum and flammable materials are unloaded off tankers to storage tanks in oil refineries.
Let me first explain how pipelines are laid. This will help Members to better understand the amendments that we are making to the Fire Safety Act (FSA).
Most of the pipelines that convey petroleum and flammable materials are on Jurong Island, while some are on the mainland. Pipelines can run above or underground. When they are above ground, multiple pipelines run together in pipeline corridors, where they are supported on piperacks or pipetracks. Underground sections of pipelines do not lie on any piperack or pipetrack and are either supported by structures, such as concrete slabs, or run through service tunnels.
It is important to ensure the safe conveyance of petroleum and flammable materials and for there to be quick and effective response to any incident involving pipelines. As such, under the current Act, \"pipeline owners\" have to obtain a licence under the Act. The licensed \"pipeline owners\" have to adhere to safety standards in the design, construction and maintenance of the pipelines. They also have to ensure that there is regular inspection and maintenance of the pipelines and put in place emergency response plans.
In a pipeline corridor, one party manages the piperacks or pipetracks. However, the multiple pipelines that run through a corridor usually serve different users and premises. As a result, there could be one corridor with multiple pipeline owners managing different pipelines within that corridor. This has posed operational challenges for SCDF on the ground as they have to deal with multiple parties with their own maintenance regimes and emergency response protocols for multiple pipelines within one and the same corridor.
This is not ideal from a safety standpoint as no single party will have oversight and responsibility for the safety of all the pipelines running together in that corridor. More critically, it may not be immediately clear at the onset of an incident, such as a fire or explosion, which licensee is responsible for responding to the incident. This will impact the timeliness and effectiveness of incident response efforts.
To ensure that these pipelines are properly managed, SCDF's intent is to clarify the definition of \"pipeline owner\" under the Act, so that in the situation where there are multiple pipelines in a pipeline corridor, SCDF will only license one appropriate party for all the pipelines within that corridor. The appropriate licensee should be the owner or lessee of the piperacks or pipetracks, who has overview of the safety of all the pipelines within its corridor.
Madam, this is the main change that the Bill seeks to achieve. The Bill amends part (a) of the definition of \"pipeline owner\" in section 2(1) of the Act so that the party who owns or leases, and has management and control of the piperack or pipetrack will now be licensed as the \"pipeline owner\". This will allow SCDF to license the owner of the pipeline corridor as the single licensee responsible for all the pipelines in the corridor.
I earlier mentioned that pipelines can run both above ground and underground. For a pipeline corridor that traverses between two premises, there may be some segments that lie above ground and other segments that lie underground with no piperacks and pipetracks. In such cases, the owner of the pipeline corridor will be licensed for the entire pipeline between the two premises, including the underground segments that lie in between.
Where the pipelines to be licensed run completely underground, there is no piperack or pipetrack. The Bill will, therefore, clarify that part (b) of the definition of \"pipeline owner\" applies for such cases and the party who owns or leases and uses the pipelines will be licensed as the \"pipeline owner\".
The Bill also makes a consequential amendment to the definition of \"relevant pipeline\" under section 2(1) of the Fire Safety Act, to clarify that there may not be a piperack or pipetrack at certain sections of a pipeline.
Mdm Speaker, the amended Fire Safety Act will allow SCDF to better regulate pipelines by licensing only one appropriate party who will ensure the safety and effective incident response for pipelines that run together. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, I support the Bill's intention to appoint one risk owner to ensure the integrity of the entire pipeline corridor, from the point of supply to the point of discharge.
As a regional hub for oil and gas, Singapore is covered with submarine and land lines connecting areas, such as Pulau Bukom and Jurong Island, to the mainland.
Pipelines carrying flammable materials are exposed to high risks, including rupture and oil spillage. Just last month, governors in a few American states declared a state of emergency after a pipeline carrying petroleum ruptured in central Alabama, spilling more than 300,000 gallons of fuel in an ecologically-sensitive area and causing fuel shortages.
This is a reminder that we cannot be complacent and should enact legislative changes before accidents occur.
This Bill will ensure that we have single-piece accountability for the integrity of our pipelines. This will mean more efficient decision-making during emergency responses. The frequent usage of pipelines leads to the reduction of wall thickness, creating higher chances of wall rupture. Thus, in the long-term, the integrity of pipelines would also be more secure if one party is liable to conduct inspections, maintenance, train operations, staff and other such responsibilities.
Madam, I would like to ask a few questions on this Bill.
Firstly, how easy or difficult is it to convert from the current arrangement to the desired single-party arrangement? How would the Ministry choose which party to license? Have we also sought feedback from the companies about these proposed changes?
Secondly, in an arrangement where there are multiple pipes within a pipe network, how would the Ministry define a \"pipe corridor\"? Would the entire pipe network be considered as a single pipe corridor, meaning there is only one owner, or would it be considered as multiple pipe corridors, meaning that there are a few owners held accountable?
This is an important point to raise because the integrity of the entire pipe network is dependent on the integrity of the weakest pipe, and maintenance of the entire network needs to be consistent. I raise this question simply to seek clarity on the definition in the Bill. I appreciate it is difficult to explain this question in words and, as such, I have provided the Senior Minister of State with a drawing illustrating this point. I also needed that drawing to understand what was written here.
Thirdly, can the Minister share what are the commercial implications of this change?
Madam, these questions notwithstanding, safety is always of utmost importance, and I stand in support of this Bill.
Mdm Speaker: Senior Minister of State Desmond Lee.
Mr Desmond Lee: Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for his hand sketch. Mr Louis Ng asks what the commercial implications of this change might be.
SCDF's policy intent has always been that where there are multiple pipelines that run together in a pipeline corridor, one appropriate party should be licensed as the \"pipeline owner\". This has largely been achieved since the pipeline licensing regime was put in place through the Fire Safety Act amendments in 2013.
This round of amendments clarifies the definition of \"pipeline owner\" in the Act, to ensure that the appropriate parties will be licensed. SCDF has been working closely with the \"pipeline owners\" who will be licensed following these amendments and the necessary measures are already largely in place today. As such, there are unlikely to be significant commercial implications arising from the proposed legislative changes.
Mr Ng also asked about SCDF's licensing approach to a pipeline network with multiple pipelines that branch out from a point of supply to separate destinations – whether the network would be licensed under one party or multiple parties. The answer is: different parts of the pipeline network are owned and managed by different parties and, accordingly, the appropriate licensee for each part will necessarily be different. We want to ensure that where pipelines run together, there is a single party that is accountable for that segment of the pipelines, rather than having different licensees being responsible for different pipelines that, in effect, run parallel to each other and lying side by side. However, where some pipelines branch off into an adjacent corridor owned and managed by another party, then that party is the most appropriate person to be licensed for that segment of pipelines running along his corridor.
Different corridors may, therefore, have different licensees, but every licensee is held to the same standards. Under SCDF's regulatory framework, every \"pipeline owner\" has to meet SCDF's stipulated safety standards for the maintenance of their pipelines. This ensures that there is both integrity and consistency in the maintenance efforts across the entire pipeline network.
In addition, the licensed \"pipeline owners\" are also required to put in place comprehensive emergency response plans. When an incident occurs, the respective \"pipeline owners\" are responsible for the emergency response and mitigation efforts for the segments of pipelines for which they have been licensed. Should an incident occur at the boundary of two adjacent pipeline corridors, SCDF will activate both licensees for immediate emergency response.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Desmond Lee.] (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":"National Registration (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Desmond Lee): Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
This Bill seeks to strengthen the operational effectiveness and efficiency of the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA). It will also allow ICA to provide more convenient registration services to the public and to enhance security in Singapore.
Madam, the key amendments are mainly in four areas, namely: (a) collection of personal identifiers; (b) registration of names; (c) appointment of registration officers; and (d) powers of enforcement and investigation.
First, the Bill amends the Act to allow ICA to collect more forms of personal identifiers.
Currently, ICA collects photographs and fingerprints from Singapore Citizens (SCs) and Permanent Residents (PRs) as personal identifiers. These are collected during the National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) registration and re-registration process.
As technology improves, other forms of personal identifiers may be used to complement existing identifiers.
Clause 2 of the Bill allows the Minister to set out in the Schedule the types of personal identifiers that may be collected under the Act. These new personal identifiers are restricted to images, measurements or recordings of an external part of a person's body; or measurements or recordings of a person's voice. These personal identifiers will not involve the taking of body samples obtained through invasive means, such as blood samples.
A new personal identifier we intend to collect are iris images. This has been included in the Schedule, along with photographs and fingerprints currently collected by ICA. ICA plans to start collecting iris images from SCs and PRs from next year. To ensure that the collection of iris images will be easy and convenient, it will be collected as part of the NRIC registration and re-registration process. Iris images will also be collected as part of the passport application or renewal process.
Iris scan is a proven technology. It has been in use in countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands, since the early 2000s. Passport holders from European Union countries can voluntarily enrol their iris images with German and Dutch immigration authorities as well. Once this is done, immigration clearance to enter these countries through some major airports can be done using iris images. Authorities can verify the identities of these travellers by comparing their iris images against what had been previously enrolled.
Some other countries, like the United Arab Emirates (UAE), have also mandated the collection of iris images from their citizens to facilitate immigration clearance. UAE mandated collection of iris images from all citizens since 2013. The enrolled iris images are used to verify the identity of citizens when they travel in and out of the country.
The collection and verification of iris images are similar to taking a photograph. It is convenient, contactless and non-intrusive and can be completed in seconds.
The use of iris scan technology will augment current identity verification methods using photographs and fingerprints. A person's appearance can change over time. A person's fingerprints may also wear out over time as he gets older, or if he does a lot of manual work. ICA has received feedback from some travellers who found it difficult to use the automated clearance gates at the checkpoints. Poor fingerprint quality could also be a reason. These travellers had to be directed to the manned counters instead. This has been a source of intrigue and, sometimes, even frustration to these travellers and also to fellow travellers queuing up behind them to use the automated lanes.
The use of iris scan technology can help reduce such problems by providing an additional avenue for persons to verify their identity. Once implemented, persons can continue to use ICA's automated facilities at the checkpoints, even if their fingerprints may have faded over time. This will smoothen the immigration clearance process for individuals and also benefit other travellers, by reducing overall queue times. The end result is more efficient and effective immigration clearance at our checkpoints.
Madam, the second area of amendments gives ICA the powers to refuse the registration of certain types of names. Clause 5 sets down the mandatory and discretionary rules concerning the name of a person to be entered into the national register. Clause 16 makes a related amendment to the Registration of Births and Deaths Act (RBDA) concerning the registration of a child's name at birth.
Most individuals and parents try their best to come up with good and meaningful names for themselves or their children. The vast majority of names are thus registered with no issue. However, ICA has, from time to time, received requests to register names that are inappropriate. These situations are not common, but they happen. Inappropriate names include names that may be impractical, names that may be offensive, or names that may be confusing or misleading.
Clause 5 makes it mandatory for a name to be expressed using the modern English alphabet, though it may include one or more permitted characters gazetted under the new section 9A(2) of the RBDA. Without this, individuals could attempt to register names which are composed of non-English characters or even numerals or punctuation marks. Many people will find it very difficult to pronounce or read these names. They can cause difficulties in identifying the individual which may result in practical inconveniences or even security risks.
The length of a name must also not exceed the character limit of ICA's systems. The current character limit is already long, at 66 characters. We have to be practical and impose a limit on the length of names. Otherwise, names that are too long would be truncated in official documents and could lead to potential misidentification, posing security risks.
In addition to the mandatory rules, the Commissioner is given the discretion to refuse the registration of a name that: (a) contains anything that represents or resembles a title, a rank or an award, such as \"Sir\" or \"Professor\"; or (b) uses any expression or abbreviation to signify lineage, such as \"bin\" or \"son of\" or \"daughter of\", which does not correspond to the person's gender in the national register. Such names are misleading and could potentially cause confusion.
The Commissioner is also given the discretion to refuse the registration of names which are obscene, offensive or contrary to public interest. The Commissioner will carefully consider the circumstances of each case, before he exercises his discretionary powers of refusal to register the names.
The third area of amendments makes clear ICA's powers to appoint non-ICA employees as registration officers.
Clause 3 of the Bill sets out the classes of persons that the Commissioner can appoint as registration officers for the purposes of the Act, or any particular provision of the Act. These include public officers, employees of public authorities and employees of prescribed institutions. Prescribed institutions have to be specified by the Minister in the subsidiary legislation and can include private entities. Only public officers can be appointed as registration officers for the purposes of certain enforcement and investigation related powers under sections 15B, 16, 16B or 16C.
The amendments will allow the Commissioner to appoint non-ICA employees as registration officers for any particular provision of the Act. This will allow ICA to partner other Government agencies or private entities to deliver certain registration services more conveniently to the public and at more locations.
ICA will only allow non-ICA employees to perform very specific functions, which will be carefully selected and tightly scoped. One such registration function is to enrol iris images during the NRIC re-registration process. Once collected, these images will be directly transmitted and stored in ICA's database. Non-ICA employees will not have access to individual personal records in ICA's database.
ICA has considerable experience partnering external agencies in this manner, with the necessary safeguards on security and privacy. Currently, ICA already partners SingPost to deliver some services to Singaporeans. These include alternate site collection of identity cards and passports.
Madam, the fourth area of amendments empowers ICA officers with powers of investigation and enforcement under the Act. For instance, ICA officers will be empowered to seize suspicious identity cards and to perform related investigations.
Clauses 8, 9 and 10 of the Bill provide registration officers with additional enforcement powers, as well as new powers to investigate offences under the Act. Currently, Police officers enforce NRA offences. Providing ICA officers with these powers will serve to improve ICA's effectiveness in the administration of the entire spectrum of NRA-related issues, from the issuance of NRIC to the enforcement and investigation of offences under the NRA.
Clause 8 introduces new sections 15A and 15B. The new section 15A gives registration officers the powers to take possession of any document suspected to be false or invalid, when such a document is produced during registration or alteration of a person's particulars in the national register.
The new section 15B gives registration officers and Police officers the powers to demand the surrender of a suspicious identity card. This includes cards that are suspected to have been obtained under false or misleading information; or been used in the commission of offences under the NRA; or been issued or altered by any unauthorised party.
Clause 9 amends section 16 to give registration officers the powers to conduct searches under this Act.
Clause 10 introduces new sections 16A, 16B and 16C. Section 16A, in particular, requires registration officers to comply with the Criminal Procedure Code when making arrests. Section 16B gives registration officers powers to investigate offences under the Act, whereas section 16C allows for registration officers to initiate criminal proceedings by issuing a notice to the suspected offender to attend Court.
Mdm Speaker, we have put in place safeguards to prevent misuse of these enforcement and investigation powers. For example, the Commissioner cannot appoint registration officers with powers under sections 15B, 16, 16B and 16C, concerning the surrender of identity cards, arrest, search and investigation, unless they are public officers. In addition, we intend to grant such powers only to ICA officers and not to any public officer.
The above amendments will serve to improve ICA's effectiveness in the administration of the entire spectrum of NRA-related issues.
Madam, in conclusion, this Bill will enhance ICA's operational effectiveness and efficiency, and allow ICA to deliver better and more convenient registration services. The collection of additional personal identifiers, such as iris images, will also enhance Singapore's security through strengthening the identification of individuals. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. However, I have some questions regarding some of the changes.
As a former Police officer, I am deeply aware of the various threats that Singapore may face, especially from those abroad who seek to infiltrate our country to cause harm and destruction. Therefore, I am supportive of the amendments proposed for the Act, which aim to strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of our border security operations.
One of the proposed amendments is the collection of iris images from Singapore citizens and permanent residents as an additional identifier, to enhance the accuracy of identity verification. Developed countries, such as the US and the United Arab Emirates, have already adopted iris-scanning technology and it is timely that we do so, too.
However, I would like to ask the Minister for Home Affairs to elaborate on how ICA would be collecting iris scans of our residents, particularly from those with mobility issues and are constrained to their homes due to ill health. How will ICA make the collection of iris scans more convenient for those who may not see the need to register, such as those who do not travel out of Singapore often or at all, or those who are not able to visit the collection centres during normal working hours due to their work arrangements?
While the collection and identification of the iris images are contactless and non-intrusive physically, the idea that the Government is collecting iris scans is new to many Singaporeans. Residents have asked me how personal data, such as fingerprints and iris images, can be protected from being lost or misused. Can the Minister, therefore, elaborate on measures to safeguard these personal data? Also, how will ICA educate the public on the purpose and need to gather iris scans and assure them of the protection of data?
Another key proposed amendment is the appointment of non-ICA employees as registration officers. Due to the scale of this exercise, it may not be practical for ICA to depend solely on its officers to register thousands of residents on a daily basis. A more effective way is to tap on personnel from the public and private sectors by appointing them as registration officers, so that more locations can be made available for the collection of iris scans.
Can the Minister, therefore, clarify on the roles and powers of registration officers from the private sector? Firstly, if a private company is tasked with collecting the personal identifiers, does it have to submit names of employees who will take on the role of registration officers? Secondly, do these registration officers have to be permanent staff of the company? Thirdly, what measures would there be to ensure the registration officers protect the data collected and encrypt them in an appropriate manner? Lastly, how can the public differentiate between registration officers from the private and public sectors?
All registration officers must understand the importance of protecting these sensitive data and practise due diligence accordingly. Clarifications to these questions would help us better understand the administrative and enforcement duties of these non-ICA registration officers.
Mdm Speaker, the use of iris scans signifies the next age of our border security operations and I would like to understand how such technology will be implemented at our checkpoints. Is there a specific timeframe for iris scans to be implemented at all our checkpoints? Would iris scans eventually replace fingerprint technology or would that serve as an add-on? If so, would iris scans slow down the immigration clearance process, taking into consideration the varying volumes of travellers at our different checkpoints? Finally, I would like to also understand if iris scans would be effective for people with existing eye conditions, such as cataracts, or those who wear very thick prescription lenses.
I look forward to the clarifications from the Minister. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Speaker, the National Registration (Amendment) Bill seeks to make changes to the law governing the national register and NRIC in light of current realities and technology developments. I do not oppose the thrust of the Bill but I have a number of queries about the context for the amendments and a few requests for clarification and assurance on how these provisions will be implemented.
Firstly, under the amendments to section 19, under clause 13, punishment for destruction of an identity card is $3,000, although the imprisonment term can be up to two years and can be implemented together with a $3,000 fine. Furthermore, the existing rules – and this is independent of the current Bill – are that replacing a lost NRIC costs $100 for the first loss and $300 for the second loss. These penalties are relevant to low-income, multi-problem households.
Madam, I am sure many of us in this House have encountered low-income residents who sought to appeal for a deduction or waiver of those NRIC replacement costs on compassionate grounds. As an FSC volunteer in the past, I have met a number of low-income Singaporeans who have long lost their NRICs and who were deterred from seeking help from social work agencies and Government agencies by the prospect of having to pay for replacing their NRICs or, worse yet, charged with an offence they and their families will suffer as a result.
An NRIC is crucial to interact with Government agencies to exercise the rights and responsibilities of a citizen. Rather than risk deterring at-risk persons from coming forward to ask for help, would ICA consider adopting a similar approach to that taken by our public healthcare institutions? And that approach is that no one will be denied medical help because they cannot pay. Similarly, can ICA publicly say or message that while certain penalties may apply on a case-by-case basis, no one will be denied an NRIC replacement because he cannot pay?
Next, Madam, I would like to speak about clause 5 which places some limitations on what names can be registered. One of these rules is that the name cannot exceed the number of characters permitted by the electronic form of the national register, which the Senior Minister of State confirmed is 66 characters.
As a matter of practical reality, of course, very few people would want to register a name longer than 66 characters. I fully recognise that, but there would be some individuals and families who want to. If a family wants to give their child a name that is too long or someone wants to do a deed poll to the same effect, will they be given sufficient time to consider how to abbreviate their officially registered name to 66 characters?
Madam, I think back to the British colonial period, when registration officers in Singapore would often misrecord people's names because they did not understand the language of the person whose name they were recording, resulting in names that were worded in strange ways that were at odds with the intentions of the parents or the person.
In those days, people had to live with the results of that. I hope that parents and individuals doing deed polls who find themselves on the wrong side of these new rules would have enough time and space to discuss alternatives with the registration officer, rather than being pressured to agree to an officially approved abbreviated version of their name, on the spot, as it were.
Madam, also on clause 5, I would like to ask for some contextual information. Since every act of legislation should be a response to a real-world problem or a problem that is likely to happen, my question is: have there been a significant or an increasing number of persons wanting to register their names that might be deemed to contain an impermissible reference to a rank or an award or deemed to be offensive or contrary to the national interest?
I would also like to question the terms \"offensive\" and \"contrary to the public interest\". These are broad-sweeping terms that will give ICA very broad latitude in denying the registration of a name, setting up a tension with the right of individuals to choose their names and their children's names. Could the Senior Minister of State cite some examples of names that will be contrary to the national interest that it has encountered or, at least, indicate broadly what types of names will these be? Will these be, for example, names that contain expletives?
Clause 14 allows the Minister to collect new personal identifiers, such as an iris scan which reflects developments in personal identification technology. I would just like to confirm − I believe I heard this earlier − with the Senior Minister of State that the intention is for the Government to eventually migrate everyone, all Singaporeans and Permanent Residents, to this new iris scan identification and collection.
If that is the case, if my understanding is correct, then, no doubt, this is possible when people replace their NRICs and passports. But for those who are not replacing their NRICs and passports anytime soon, what would be the logistics or undertaking in such a massive exercise of collecting iris scans from every Singaporean and PR? What would be the schedule associated with that?
Next, Madam, section 3(4)(c) allows the employee of a prescribed institution to act as a registration officer. This opens the way for private corporations to perform national registration tasks on contract. Would national registration officers working with private contractors, as with their public sector counterparts, be asked to sign the usual undertakings under the Official Secrets Act regarding the safeguarding of official information?
Also – and here I return to an issue I have raised in the House in another context – would the Ministry conduct a privacy impact assessment, or PIA, before outsourcing national registration functions to companies, given the highly sensitive nature of personal identifier information, including possibly iris scan information? And how highly sought after such data would be by criminal syndicates?
Also, the Bill does not expressly deal with contracts with the outsourcing contractors themselves. Unlike private organisations, the Government is not bound by the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA). In previous parliamentary debates over the PDPA, the Government has said that it is bound by its own internal rules. The PDPA requires private organisations to ensure that organisations which process data on their behalf, or data intermediaries, comply with the PDPA protection and retention obligations.
To ensure a minimum standard of protection and reduce the compliance complexity for its outsourcers, I would like to suggest that MHA should, at the minimum, treat all organisations it is contracting with for the purpose of national registration, like data intermediaries, under the PDPA. Terms and conditions in its tenders should also take into account the PDPC's guidelines on this issue for private organisations.
Next, the amendment to section 16(2A) allows a national registration officer to break open property, forcefully remove obstruction and take possession of documents found during a search. This gives search, seizure and use of force powers to national registration officers, which the Senior Minister of State would confirm would be ICA officers only and not private sector persons, but, nevertheless, therefore, extending Police powers to another group of personnel outside of the Police. I would like to record my concern on this point. Is this extension of Police powers really necessary or desirable? Can Police officers simply perform these tasks on behalf of national registration agencies?
Lastly, and in conclusion, I have a technical question. The explanatory note to this Bill states that \"no extra financial expenditure would be entailed by this Bill\". If iris scanning technology is to be purchased and deployed on a considerable scale, would this not result in a considerable increase in financial expenditure? Thank you, Madam.
Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the National Registration Amendment Bill. There is a global movement in several countries to tighten registration and security. Brazil has recently announced plans to share biometric data from their electoral registry with the federal government for a unified Brazilian identity card project. This is unprecedented in South America. Japanese tech firm NEC has also developed new technology biometric scanners to identify even new-borns and infants to monitor vaccination rates in developing countries. A prototype has run in India and it was used to capture biometric information from 300 children. In the Straits Times on 5 November, it was also pointed out by a senior cybersecurity official of the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence that Singapore can be a model for building a resilient national critical information infrastructure with regard to national data registration.
In terms of the pertinent issues with regard to the Act, the Senior Minister of State has mentioned earlier the timeframe for rolling out the iris scans. This will take place at various stages when renewing your identity card or passport at border controls. My clarification is, if this was an important part of our security and national registration framework, would the Ministry not consider that this be done as a one-time exercise to allow for all citizens to be registered as quickly as possible?
Related to that, the Senior Minister of State has also related its security implications. Therefore, my second clarification lies with long-term visitors to Singapore ‒ whether they be workers, foreign workers, expatriates ‒ would it not be in the interest of security to also have this done for them?
The changes that are contained within the National Registration Bill are important. But there are, of course, some misguided Singaporeans who may view it as Orwellian measures designed to control Singaporeans. This is one perception that I think needs to be handled carefully and communicated effectively so that it would not have an impact on the Government's standing. Education is essential and I hope the authorities will undertake the necessary measures to allay misconceptions and allegations of invasion of privacy.
With regard to powers that are assigned to registration officers to investigate, could I clarify with the Senior Minister of State if there has been a recent increase in the number of offences that warrants a shift of investigative powers from the Police to ICA? Would there also be a transition period for this to take place?
With regard to names, registration officers currently at hospitals also undertake the registration of children's births. Therefore, would ICA be training these registration officers with regard to the types of names that are allowed or not allowed, or will all names be permissible at registration but denied further downstream by the Registrar or Commissioner?
Also, in terms of cultural sensitivities, under the Schedule, it is indicated that names that relate to titles or positions will be disallowed. But in certain cultures, titles are also born of alien names. Will cultural sensitivities, therefore, also be managed?
Under clause 3, as I have mentioned, the registration officers may change relatively often, depending on their employment with that particular organisation. How will ICA manage the appointment of registration officers that may go through some amount of flux?
A couple of years back, it was also reported in the local papers, and also then aired in the international media, about an individual with a name closely resembling that of a comic superhero. Some joked that even his poor father's name seems to also represent. But in his cultural background, it appears that it is relatively common in Java. So, with regard to names that may appear offensive or may have long-term impact on a child, what are ICA's guidelines on these?
Madam, the amendments that are provided for under the National Registration Amendment Bill are important and timely. Notwithstanding some of the clarifications that I have sought, I wholeheartedly support the Bill.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, one of the key amendments of this Bill is the introduction of iris imaging, and my speech will focus on that point.
We have sufficient proof that iris imaging is far more accurate than all other biometric identifiers available today. Compared to fingerprints, which can wear off, iris scans have a much lower chance of false matches.
It has already been tried, tested and deployed in other parts of the world – from airports, to banks and smartphones. This year, the UN started to use it to identify refugees. In the private sector, industry watchers also consider it the next big thing.
Thus, if new technology is available for a safer Singapore, then we must seize it – and I am encouraged that this Bill does reflect the Government's vigilance and eagerness to seize opportunities to strengthen security.
That said, in order for us to reap the full benefits of this new technology, I would like to raise a few questions.
Firstly, on the safety of the data collected, as has been previously raised by my fellow colleague, there have been many discussions about the collection of biometric data, since identity theft and security breaches are becoming increasingly sophisticated. Iris scans are especially sensitive because they are so powerful. The most advanced scanners can identify many people in a split second, even from a long-range. The data is almost fool-proof and is permanent. If this data falls into the hands of people with mal-intentions, the consequences can be dangerous. The public could have questions on how secure the database will be, whether third parties, apart from the Government, will have access to the data and so on. There will always be teething issues with the introduction of any new technology, especially one as personal as this, and we should have ready answers. In this light, can the Minister share plans on how it will ensure that the new data collected will be secure? How does the Ministry plan to satisfy the public about this?
Secondly, on user acceptance. Some people might be skeptical – even fearful – of new technology like this, which could be seen as a page out of a science fiction novel. For the older generation, there could be misconceptions ‒ will it hurt my eyes, does it involve lasers? For the younger generation, there could be discomfort from what they see as additional Government \"surveillance\". Certainly, the technology has been tried and tested, but how does the Ministry plan to educate the public to debunk these myths?
Thirdly, I would like to find out more about the technology deployed at the immigration checkpoints. I have read that iris scanners are able to detect stress through indicators, such as movement of the eyeballs. Once stress is detected, the system will immediately alert authorities. If this is truly available, it would be a real step-up for security at our checkpoints. Can the Minister share if the iris imaging technology we will acquire can provide this extra layer of security?
My final point is to ask which Ministry and Government services will have access to, and use of the data. Apart from immigration and perhaps, the Police, are there plans for schools, hospitals and other relevant services to also use the data for identification – perhaps not immediately, but in the longer term?
Madam, in this era where criminal methods are becoming increasingly sophisticated, the Government needs to invest in superior technology. Iris scans have surely proven its effectiveness and I am in full support of it. But in order for us to reap its full benefits, I hope we have strict safeguards in place, particularly for data protection. Madam, these points notwithstanding, I stand in support of this Bill.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. It has been over two decades since the Act was last amended. I agree that the various amendments proposed are necessary to update ICA's operations and to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of our border controls.
A significant amendment is clause 14 which inserts a Schedule, including the personal identifiers that may be collected. The collection of iris images and, in some cases, recordings of voices, can help to strengthen our identity verification methods.
Iris scans are a proven technology. It is contactless, convenient and highly accurate. It even works in the presence of clear contact lenses and non-mirrored glasses. Due to these advantages, several countries, such as the UK, the Netherlands and India, are using this technology.
However, it is not without its weaknesses. There have been studies that showed that cataract surgeries could change the iris texture and may impact iris pattern recognition. In addition, there is also research suggesting that irises are susceptible to ageing effects that change their appearance over time.
Another concern is the possibility of recreating synthetic eye images that match digital iris codes used by iris-recognition systems to identify people. Some researchers had already found a way to replicate such images, \"creating the possibility of stealing someone's identity through their iris\". Would the Minister share what measures we have in place to overcome these potential problems and threats to our new iris-recognition system?
Next, I would like to state my support for the amendment to provide our ICA officers with the powers to investigate offences under the NRA. This would be much more efficient and effective than relying only on our Police officers to do so, as is currently the case. The administration and operations would be more streamlined under this new arrangement. This would also free up our Police officers to focus on other criminal investigations.
Lastly, the move to refuse the registration of inappropriate names is overdue. Now, ICA will have the power to protect our young from offensive names, however rarely it occurs. It is particularly important to reject misleading and confusing names which can be used to deceive the general public. Madam, I conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mdm Speaker, I rise to support this amendment Bill. This Bill seeks to amend the Act to expand types of personal identifiers of persons registered or required to be registered under the Act that may be collected by ICA. Although I support the Bill, I wish to highlight the need for robust and stronger safeguards with respect to privacy and security arising from the collection of biometric data.
The collection of iris scans from Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents could begin as early as next year, according to ICA, as an extra personal identifier, besides photographs and fingerprints. MHA says that iris scanning is \"a proven technology\" that is \"convenient, contactless and non-intrusive\". I join Members who spoke earlier on their concerns on both counts of privacy and security.
As scanning of irises is contactless and non-intrusive, the technology could potentially scan irises covertly, as opposed to the scanning of thumb prints, which requires active participation of the person being identified. Iris scan technology can be taken from as far as 12 m away, according to scientific sources highlighted publicly. These developments are perceived as Orwellian because they allow iris cameras to be unseen and to operate in a non-consensual surveillance mode.
Once an iris becomes a digital file, that file will need to be adequately protected against attack. Systems can be hacked, biometric identifiers could be stolen and misused.
What are the safeguards which have been and will be put in place to address these privacy and security concerns in collecting biometric data, such as iris scans? How will these safeguards be communicated to the public to allay concerns?
On a different note and point but also on the National Registration Identification system, I had raised previously as a Parliamentary Question earlier this year but reiterate again the need for ICA to renew and re-issue our NRICs again during the later years of our life and at selected intervals because the pictures on the NRIC may be outdated and inaccurate. I urge ICA to do this and at no cost impact to Singaporeans. This updating exercise will also help in the iris scan roll-out.
Mdm Speaker: Senior Minister of State Desmond Lee.
Mr Desmond Lee: Mdm Speaker, Members have asked questions broadly on the four areas that I have covered earlier ‒ collection of iris images; how data that ICA collects will be safeguarded; appointment of non-ICA employees as registration officers; and the powers to refuse the registration of certain types of names.
Let me start first with the collection of iris images. Mr Melvin Yong asked how and when iris scan technology will be implemented at the checkpoints and how this will affect the efficiency of the checkpoint clearance process. He also asked if iris scans will eventually replace current fingerprint verification.
Madam, ICA plans to introduce iris scan technology progressively at our land, air and sea checkpoints within the next two years. This will complement the current fingerprint matching process at immigration clearance and give ICA another way to verify a traveller's identity. This will enhance border security. Travellers using the automatic clearance lanes who find that their fingerprints cannot be matched, can also use iris scans, instead of being re-directed to manned counters. So, more Singaporeans and Permanent Residents will, therefore, enjoy automated clearance at our checkpoints, with the reduced need to be diverted to manned checkpoints. This will improve the overall efficiency and efficacy of our immigration clearance process.
Mr Louis Ng asked about whether iris scanners can detect stress through the movement of eyeballs, to bolster border security. While potentially useful, our sense is that this technology does not appear mature at present. We continue to look at all these methodologies and will make decisions as they mature.
The collection and verification of iris images are very safe and will not harm our eyes, and the process is similar to taking a photograph ‒ convenient, contactless, non-intrusive and can be done within a matter of seconds.
Mr Alex Yam asked whether existing NRIC holders will be required to enrol their iris images and when ICA intends to begin doing so. Mr Yong wanted to know if this process can be made convenient for the public. And Mr Leon Perera asked about when this iris enrolment can be done outside of these three phases – registration, re-registration and passport collection.
Madam, ICA intends to start collecting iris images from Singapore Citizens and Permanent Resident from next year. To make it convenient for people, ICA will do this as part of ICA's existing interactions with the public. And these include compulsory NRIC registration and re-registration. So, there are two phases, one at 15 and one at 30, as well as during passport application and renewal process.
ICA will enrol an individual's iris images when he collects his new NRIC or passport. There is, therefore, no need to make a separate trip to ICA Building just to have your iris image collected. So, we build it into the existing process and we collect it as and when people make use of ICA's existing services.
Mr Melvin Yong asked about how we will help people with disability or serious illness. The ICA Home Visit Team will enrol their biometric identifiers like iris images at their homes, when they register or re-register for their NRICs. This is an existing service, and all that the applicants need to do is provide documentary proof of their condition or their caregiver can do so on their behalf.
Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Patrick Tay asked how personal data will be protected and whether the information will be shared with third parties.
ICA has security measures in place. First, ICA has strict user access controls. Only authorised ICA officers can access the database as part of their work. Regular audits are conducted. Those caught misusing the data will be punished. Second, sensitive data like fingerprint and iris images are encrypted before storage in a secure database. Third, ICA servers are protected by physical and software measures, in line with international security standards. Fourth, the National Registration Regulations tightly regulate and restrict the instances under which personal identifiers, such as fingerprints and iris images, may be shared. Unauthorised access or disclosure is an offence.
Ms Joan Pereira said that iris patterns may be affected by cataract surgery and that these patterns may also change over time as a person ages. Mr Yong also asked a similar question.
Mdm Speaker, almost all personal identifiers will have their inherent vulnerabilities or limitations. This is already the case today for fingerprints and photographs, facial features. So, for instance, fingerprints can fade with time or if the person does a lot of manual work. A person will also look different with age. So, if you register at 15 and when you are 30, the photograph will look different over time. The person can also alter physical appearance or assume a fake identity by replicating another person's fingerprints. Based on reports by the National Institutes of Standards and Technology of the US Department of Commerce, iris patterns are relatively stable over time and have lower mismatch rates, as compared to other biometric identifiers.
For those whose iris images cannot be effectively scanned or enrolled due to medical reasons, such as cataracts, ICA will continue to rely on other identifiers, such as fingerprints or facial recognition, to identify such individuals.
Mr Melvin Yong also asked about people who wear very thick glasses. When we enrol iris images, we will request that they remove their glasses in order for the image scan to be more accurately scanned or enrolled.
Ms Joan Pereira asked if identity theft can be committed by replicating a person's iris patterns. Like other biometric identifiers, it is certainly possible. But studies have shown that this requires very sophisticated equipment and is harder to do so accurately. Biometric systems also have built-in mechanisms to ensure that the presented biometrics are authentic.
Carrying out identification using iris images alongside other existing identifiers will make the overall system more secure and robust and make identity theft harder to commit.
Having said that, we cannot be overly reliant on technology and the human dimension is still very important. We will continue to deploy our officers to look out for tell-tale signs or suspicious behaviour amongst travellers that may indicate a possible identity theft.
Mr Leon Perera asked about whether there would be processes beyond what I have just identified for the enrolment of irises. At this point in time, in order to minimise inconvenience to members of the public, we are limiting enrolment to those interfaces that ICA already has with members of the public ‒ registration at 15, and re-registration in subsequent years. And, of course, when a person applies for a passport, there will also be another opportunity and touch-point to enrol the iris. This would necessarily mean that enrolment of the entire population will take quite some time. But let us start with the initial touch points first. That will already allow large numbers of Singaporeans and PRs to have their iris images enrolled.
I will move on to the appointment of non-ICA employees as registration officers. Many Members spoke about this. Mr Alex Yam and Mr Melvin Yong asked why non-ICA employees should be appointed as registration officers. Mr Leon Perera asked whether these non-ICA employees would be subjected to the Official Secrets Act and other forms of security measures and undertakings. Mr Alex Yam asked if this was a productivity measure.
Mdm Speaker, ICA's objective is to partner other agencies and the private sector to deliver certain registration services more conveniently to the public, specifically to provide services at more locations. ICA will be highly selective about what we appoint non-ICA employees to do. These may include functions, such as the issuance of NRICs and enrolling of iris images. They will not be appointed to perform sensitive functions that require them to access, retrieve or alter individuals' personal information in ICA's records.
ICA has also put in safeguards. These includes strict user-access controls to prohibit non-ICA employees from accessing, retrieving or altering any information, such as an individual's personal records, from ICA's systems. Personal information collected by these employees will also be transmitted directly to ICA. Non-ICA employees will not be allowed to edit the information. Their role is to guide the public through the enrolment process and not to manage the information collected.
For greater accountability, ICA will only appoint full-time staff of these entities as registration officers. Private entities will be required to submit to ICA the particulars of each employee whom they intend to appoint with these registration duties. And each of them will have to be individually appointed as a registration officer by the Commissioner of ICA. This will be done only after ICA has assessed the entity and each individual for their suitability, and conduct necessary screening measures. So, apart from the suitability of the institution and the individuals, Mr Leon Perera asked whether there will be a privacy impact assessment or security impact assessment conducted. The entire framework will be put under scrutiny in order to ensure that privacy is secured. In addition, under a new section 3A, these officers and individuals who are appointed by the Commissioner of ICA will be deemed to be public servants for the purposes of the Penal Code.
Every registration officer is required to produce an identification card or document as evidence of the officer's authority. And this will clearly state whether he is from the public sector or he is from one of these external entities that we appoint to carry out some of these functions. If he does not do so, members of the public are well advised not to comply with any order or demand by these individuals.
Madam, I will now move on to the powers to refuse the registration of certain types of names. Mr Alex Yam said that parents should think of the consequences of giving undesirable names to their children and asked if ICA could come up with a set of guidelines on allowable names. Mr Leon Perera wanted to know if time would be given to parents who register names that may not be registered under these new rules instead of being compelled to make a decision there and then, on the spot.
I will deal first with Mr Leon Perera's point. Certainly, this is a very important decision for parents and will affect the children all through their lives. The kind of names to give is not an issue that we expect parents to take lightly. Neither do we want to put them in a position to be rushed. So, certainly, in the rare instance where the name suggested may not comply with the rules, the officers will give the parents ample time to reconsider. Even with the registration of a child's birth, there is a period of time given to parents to make that registration.
Madam, we fully agree that names should be given responsibly and that has, indeed, been ICA's experience so far. So, in response to Mr Leon Perera's question about how often we see such inappropriate names or names exceeding 66 characters, the answer is very few and far between. This is the power that is embedded in the registration legislation of many other developed countries. The legislative language referencing public interest also exists in these other countries. ICA does not intend to prescribe a set of guidelines on allowable names, since the vast majority of names are registered without issue. It is not our intention to regulate the kinds of names parents choose for their children.
Instead, ICA will assess each name at the point of registration to ensure that they do not flout the conditions stipulated in the new section 6A. And names that do not meet the mark will be refused registration. The Commissioner may also refuse to register names that are obscene or offensive. The Commissioner will have to carefully consider each case on its own merits before he exercises his discretionary powers to refuse registration, a power which ought to be exercised sparingly.
Mr Leon Perera asked for examples of names that could possibly flout public interest. I have given a few earlier. Those that used titles like \"Sir\", \"Professor\", \"President\"; names that are offensive or that use expletives. One other example could be names that could possibly be deemed derogatory or highly offensive to any particular race or religion. Again, bearing in mind that this is the parents' right to express the kind of name they would like for their children to carry through their life, we will exercise these powers very sparingly and carefully.
Madam, Mr Patrick Tay asked if ICA can provide NRIC replacements at selected intervals of a person's lifetime due to fair wear and tear and outdated photographs, while Mr Leon Perera asked whether ICA can give more assurance to people who have lost their NRICs, especially if they are impecunious or unable to afford the fee for replacements for either the first or subsequent replacements.
Let me deal with the second query first. ICA considers each application for waiver holistically, taking into account a range of factors. ICA will consider waiving the replacement fees fully or partially for cases where the loss of IC was not through negligence but due to circumstances beyond the cardholder's control, for example, their wallet was stolen or they faced financial difficulties.
Madam, we certainly understand that NRICs are critical for many functions ‒ whether interfacing with Government or in daily life in Singapore. The loss of an NRIC poses not just inconvenience to the individual but also tremendous risks to him or her in terms of identity theft. People could use their ICs to borrow from loan sharks. Identity thefts could also pose national security risks. Criminals, syndicates or even terrorist organisations could use Singapore identity documents or NRICs maliciously. Therefore, it is important to reflect proper safekeeping of the NRIC in the law. We balance the need to emphasise that responsibility with the ability of people to afford the replacement fees. In relation to affordability, I have given the Member the answer that ICA will assess each case based on the person's circumstances and the circumstances under which the identity card was lost.
In relation to Mr Patrick Tay's earlier question, currently, a person registers and receives his first NRIC at the age of 15 and he then has to re-register to receive a second NRIC at 30, with an updated photograph. ICA is looking at introducing another NRIC re-registration at a later phase of a cardholder's life so that the information captured, such as the photograph, will be more up-to-date. ICA will release more details in due course.
Finally, Madam, Mr Leon Perera also asked about the explanatory statement of the Bill which states to that the Bill will not result in any increase in public expenditure. This is, indeed, the case. The enactment of the Bill and its execution will not cause an increase in public expenditure itself. Because when ICA puts the systems in place, MHA will include this amount as part of the Supply Bill and we will reflect that expenditure under that Bill.
Mr Leon Perera: Mdm Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his replies. Just a quick point of clarification on the denial of registration of impermissible names because of character limit or other reasons. The Senior Minister of State mentioned that this is very rare. Would the Senior Minister of State be able to share with us his broad ballpark estimate, based on the number of cases ICA has seen of the number of names that are likely not to be approved to be registered each year under these new rules, very broadly speaking?
Mr Desmond Lee: Madam, I do not have these estimates. Suffice to say, as I have said earlier, these are few and far between.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Desmond Lee]. (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":"Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment No 2) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Tan Chuan-Jin): Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
The Child Development Co-Savings Act (CDCA) covers a range of benefits in our Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) Package. Members may recall that we amended the CDCA earlier this year. We provided for reimbursement to employers who gave the voluntary week of paternity leave, as well as payment to self-employed men for lost income for the second week of paternity leave. We also extended the Child Development Account (CDA) benefits to all eligible children, regardless of their parents' marital status.
We are now amending the Act to introduce further support for parents in caring for and bonding with their children.
The key amendments arise from the enhancements to paternity leave, shared parental leave and adoption leave. These enhancements had been announced at the National Population and Talent Division's Committee of Supply in April this year. Amendments covered in the Bill include amendments to better support mothers on different working arrangements, as well as various amendments to align legislation with policy intent.
This Bill will also amend the CDCA to extend certain leave benefits to unwed parents, a move I announced earlier this year.
I have often said that a father's role in the family is not just to put food on the table, but also to be a good role model to guide his children and mould their values and character in a positive way. We need to make the conscious choice to be active fathers and we have to cultivate this mindset from the start.
We know that it can be challenging to ensure we have work-life balance, but it is important for us to adopt an active parenting lifestyle. Our children grow up faster than we realise and they should be our priority now, not later. We need to make the effort to spend both quantity and quality time with our families when we can. It should also not be leftover time. We need to actively weave in time with family into our schedule.
We want to better support fathers to achieve this through the proposed amendments. Hence, we are making the second week of paternity leave mandatory. This was announced by the National Population and Talent Division in April, eight months ahead of time, to give employers sufficient time to prepare. Both weeks of paternity leave are fully funded by the Government. The amendment is intended to take effect from 1 January 2017 to benefit children born on or after that date.
We are also increasing Shared Parental Leave from one week to four weeks. Couples will now have more flexibility in caring for their newborn and can work out an arrangement that best suits them. As with the current one week of Shared Parental Leave, the four weeks will be shared from the mother's maternity leave. Shared Parental Leave is also fully funded by the Government. The amendment is intended to take effect from 1 July 2017 to benefit children born on or after that date.
The combined enhancements to paternity leave and shared parental leave means that a father can take a maximum of eight weeks leave in his baby's first year – comprising two weeks of paid paternity leave, four weeks of paid shared parental leave if his wife so elects to share, six days of paid childcare leave and one week of unpaid infant care leave. These leave enhancements support fathers in experiencing the joys and challenges of parenthood with their wives.
We will also be enhancing Adoption Leave, to better support adoptive mothers in caring for their adopted infants. Adoption leave will be increased to 12 weeks. This is three times more than the current four weeks. Similar to what is provided for maternity leave, the Government will fund the last eight weeks of leave if the adopted child is the first or second child, and the full period of 12 weeks, if the adopted child is the third and subsequent child. The amendment is intended to apply to adoptive mothers whose formal intent to adopt is on or after 1 July 2017.
We will also extend maternity leave to unwed mothers, to better support the child's developmental and care needs. An unwed person adopting a child would also be eligible for leave. An unwed adoptive mother would be eligible for adoption leave. An unwed man adopting a child would be eligible for paternity leave. The amendments are intended to take effect from 1 January 2017 to benefit children born on or after that date or, in the case of adopted children, the formal intent to adopt is on or after that date.
Mdm Speaker, we choose to have children and naturally want to invest our time, energy and love on them to ensure that they grow up to become contributing members of society. While families raise children, instil values in them and nurture them, the Government will continue to complement these efforts by supporting families in their care-giving responsibilities.
I encourage all parents to make good use of the leave schemes, to be there for our children and inspire them to do the same for generations to come. And my heartfelt thanks, especially, go to the employers who play an important role in supporting families' aspirations. With that, Madam, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mdm Speaker, it seemed not so long ago that quite a few Members of Parliament and I had appealed for more support for fathers to be active in the child-raising process and where this show of support was manifested in the form of one week's legislated paid paternity leave in 2013. In fact, I recall speaking for this in Parliament for six consecutive years.
I am thus delighted that the Government has now decided to mandate the second week of Government-paid Paternity Leave (GPPL) to be effective from January next year. It is a double celebration for me, both as a Board Member of the Centre for Fathering and as the Government Parliamentary Committee chair for MSF.
Many new parents I know welcome the slew of measures as lending weight to nurture a generation of caring fathers and purging the traditional mindset of the woman as de-facto caregiver for newborns.
It is, indeed, good news that shared parental leave has increased from one to four weeks. However, it is still up to the mother whether to decide to share her maternity leave with the father. Placing the decision in the mother's hands seems like a mixed signal from the Government. When sharing leave is still left to parents to decide, I am not sure if the take-up rate by fathers will be as rapid as we would like. As is – I asked a Parliamentary Question on this a few months ago – I note that the number of paternity leave fully taken up by eligible fathers has not been as high as one would expect.
Perhaps, the next step is to consider independent leave for each parent.
I also welcome the amendments to extend maternity leave benefits to unwed mothers and unwed persons who wish to adopt. This is a very significant move and much welcomed by all single mothers. Indeed, it took some time coming but I am glad that through the persistent efforts of many Members of Parliament, including those who have retired, the Government has listened and answered our call.
Still, I am wondering if more can be done for this group of single unwed mothers with plans to improve other aspects of unwed mothers' lives, like entitling them to receive the $8,000 Baby Bonus Cash Gift, and allowing them to rent or, even better, own a roof over their heads from HDB. Is MSF supportive of improving housing options to this group, although I know this comes under MND's purview?
Imagine the stress of a pregnant, unwed mother having to deal with basic housing issues on her own, in an undignified manner and unable to feel a sense of security, nor provide a secure environment for her child once he or she is born.
Madam, if I may, I think after this large step of granting greater equality to single parents, this is perhaps the last step the Government ought to take with regard to parenting, for a while at least.
I have, for many times in the past, argued for the Government to do less and for the people to do more. In this, family life, children and how we define success, not just as parents, not just for our children, we need people, society and individuals to decide whether it is time to reset our highly competitive and academically-focused norms.
The Government can and should put in place Bills like the Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill. We should give greater support to fathers. We should continue to give greater support for adoptive mothers. We should most certainly give even much more support for single unwed mothers.
But this is only half the story, and perhaps the easier half of child development. The Government cannot stop this ceaseless race, these endless comparisons that parents subject their children to. People accuse the Government of setting up high-stress exams; I say, it is neither the Government nor the schools which put the stress on children – it is the parents.
Parents blame the PSLE not because it is an exam, but I believe it is because it is a nation-wide exam – one that allows a child in Woodlands to compare himself against another in Chancery Lane, against another in Bishan. Once we take away the common points of comparison, the argument goes, we no longer have this frenzy. Perhaps so, the comparisons can actually stop right now. They stop when we, as parents, stop. When we look, as we should, at child development in a manner that takes into account their health, growth and well-being.
Mdm Speaker, this is what today's Bill was meant to be. It was tabled because we, the legislators, want to encourage young Singaporeans to have babies, to experience the joys of parenthood, to dream and love and cry over the little lives that come out of a happy union.
Today, we can amend the law to better fulfil these ambitions, but it will take many more tomorrows because we can change the world into a better place for the children of Singapore. To do that, we need more than just the law. We need to rethink what it means to be a parent, what it means to support our children's development. Madam, I support the Bill.
Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mdm Speaker, twice this year, we have amended this particular Act – perhaps two baby steps in the right direction towards a pro-children and pro-family society.
Having children is not an easy decision to make. Children complete us as families. As a father of two young sons, we wake up every morning feeling tired, dishevelled, covered with spittle and spilt milk. But amidst all of these is joy. Amidst all of these is a sense of fulfilment. And so, while it is not easy for complete families to raise children, it is perhaps even tougher for families that may not have the joy of being complete, through various circumstances, sometimes not of their own doing.
Unwed mothers, single fathers make courageous decisions to carry on with the pregnancy with all its attendant risks, pains and for single fathers to also take up the mantle to care for their children. These amendments that are proposed today help them in this journey.
There were people who have pointed out: will these moves encourage a journey away from the traditional model? But as I have mentioned earlier, it is already not an easy decision for them to make to carry on and have these children. They could easily have said, \"End this. Have an abortion. Carry on with life\". But they have made the difficult decision to carry on to bring the child to term and give the child a fighting chance.
I made a point earlier this year during the Budget debate that while all these benefits are useful, they are not the end-all and not the solution. There are still dramatic changes to the family model, not just in Singapore, but the world over. The way we live our lives, the way we work, our commitments, our own life expectations, our wants and our needs shape the way we view the family. And so, it takes a lot more than laws, as Mr Seah Kian Peng has mentioned. This is a long journey for us to get to this point to have these amendments put in place.
When I was younger, I perhaps shared the same views. I thought, \"Why get married? You have the freedom. You make decisions on your own. You are unencumbered, you are free\" – figuratively speaking. But then, perhaps, as fate would have it, love came along. We got married, settled down and have two wonderful young children. But time has also passed very quickly. My eldest son will be three years old very soon, and three years seem to have gone by so quickly. I think for all of us in this House, as well as many Singaporeans, we work long hours, and so, there are sometimes a lot of lost opportunities.
And so, I would like to make a case once again for single parents. They bear the burden of raising their children on their own. What we have put in place in terms of leave, in terms of Government-paid paternity benefits are useful, but there are still many hindrances in their way. They are solely responsible for the welfare of their children. We have not made moves in terms of the Baby Bonus, the cash quantum, and in terms of housing. While they have children, while they are parents, they do not qualify for parenthood tax benefits. While we do not want to encourage any move towards single parenthood, I do not think many of them made the decision on the fly, saying that, \"Hmm, how about being a single parent?\"
I hope the Government, although many of these are outside of the purview of MSF, will consider them for the sake of the children.
We have also talked a lot about how we can better improve care for children as they grow up. The Government must take the lead in this. The Government can change perceptions. We talked about childcare facilities. One question would be: how many Ministries or agencies currently actually provide childcare facilities within the workplaces? There are provisions under the law. But how many?
While we encourage private sector and other employers to do so, perhaps, as the Government, perhaps as a public organisation, we should take the lead in that area. Children are the focus of these amendments. And I hope that with these amendments, we will move towards a more compassionate, merciful society when it comes to viewing unwed mothers. They have it tough enough and, very often, they come from backgrounds that may not give them the advantages to raise their children single-handedly. They have multiple issues and, if we do not extend a further hand to them, their children may undergo similar circumstances in the future.
Mdm Speaker, I think what we are doing today is a big baby step in the right direction. But as with children growing up, there is a lot more angst to encounter and a lot of changes to adapt to. Mdm Speaker, I support the amendments.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Speaker, this Bill recognises that equality matters for the promotion of family life. While it is important to continue to promote parenthood within the ambit of marital unions, there is a need to balance it with the recognition that not everyone is so fortunate to be able to sustain a happy marriage, or even obtain it.
Economic pressures, relationship problems or errors of judgement may be to blame for marital breakdowns or unwed pregnancies. But the most important thing is that children should not be punished for the prejudices and mistakes of adults.
I believe that putting the well-being of the child at the centre of social policy affecting the family is the key to the balancing act. I, therefore, support this Bill to equalise the various parental leave schemes for unwed and adoptive parents. Our children will stand most to gain from these equalising moves. I would like to raise two issues.
First, protect the family life of contract workers. The economy is fast-changing to what has been termed as the gig economy and, according to MOM's Labour Force Report last year, 11% of our workers are employed on term contracts. This percentage will grow, as it is a worldwide trend for developed economies that are restructuring. It has been predicted that 40% of workers in the US will be independent contractors by 2020.
The profile of short-term contract workers is also changing. They are getting younger, possessing professional credentials and making the conscious choice to be term contract workers. In the coming years, more of the children benefiting from the enhanced parental leave schemes will see their parents working on term contracts. These parents, and their children, will need better protection of their entitlements for this legislation to be meaningful.
Employers have been known to avoid leave obligations by signing workers on contracts that are shorter than three months and renewing them with breaks in between. I am aware that the tripartite partners have set up new guidelines in June this year where employers are encouraged to treat contracts renewed within a month as continuous and grant leave cumulatively.
In the short term, I urge MSF to work with MOM to track whether employers are following the guidelines and to intervene when they are not, so that \"encourage\" will become \"strongly encourage\". In the longer term, I ask that the Government enact comprehensive laws to better protect term contract workers, as this group is fast becoming a substantial group in the new economy.
Second, without housing security, parental leave can be meaningless. I would like to echo the hon Member Mr Seah Kian Peng on the importance of housing security. This is the biggest issue for divorcees and unwed single parents. Other than income security and retirement adequacy, housing security is a key foundation stone for our social security system. I cannot stress enough that having a secure roof over one's head is crucial for the proper development of children. It is not just a physical need. This is an emotional need.
Children who grow up in a home that is more or less permanent will experience familiarity and love, while those who need to constantly move around will experience psychological stress due to the uncertainty of residence. Some studies have shown that for adults, moving homes can be more stressful than divorce and relationship breakdowns and changing jobs. What more for children who need the certainty in their environment to grow up nurtured and feeling secure?
The Ministry must be aware of the housing problems faced by divorcees with custody of young children and unwed single parents with young children. Most often, these parents are women, who are thus faced with the dual roles of breadwinner and caretaker. Unwed single parents are not allowed to purchase a subsidised BTO flat because their family unit is not considered an eligible family nucleus. But what can be more nuclear than the parent-child relationship?
For the sake of the children, I urge the Government to expand its definition of \"family nucleus\" to include unwed single parents. Placing unwed single parents in the singles category, who can only buy a flat when they reach the age of 35, is a double whammy for the children. The Government is depriving the children housing security when they need it most at the very young age at the most crucial phase of their development. Not only that, by treating their parents as singles, the Government is also refusing to recognise the children and sending a terrible signal of shame to the children, who are innocent and should not suffer the sins of their parents.
Maybe, to balance against the need to promote parenthood within the ambit of marital unions, the Government could choose to make an exception for a parent, regardless of marital status, to apply for a 2-room BTO flat at any age. I believe this will be an acceptable compromise, balanced in favour of the well-being of children.
For divorcees with young children, the problem is with hefty mortgage loans linked to the HDB flats that they co-own with their ex-spouses. Most will be compelled to sell their flat. Many will have to purchase smaller flats and their children will face the psychological stress of dislocation and relocation.
Low-income divorcees will find themselves and their children in a terrible situation, as they will not be able to afford to purchase a flat and will not be eligible for a public rental flat until five years later. Economic disruption may become the norm, but we should keep disruption to family life minimal.
The problem may well be that the HDB flat has long been treated as the matrimonial home rather than a more inclusive definition of the familial home. I urge the Government to consider expanding its definition to fit in with the times. We need to have the courage to change the social infrastructure to meet changing social structures and economic circumstances.
Mdm Speaker, we already have the Family Justice Courts and the family justice paradigm placing the well-being of children at the centre of their work. MSF has made reforms that move in the same direction, as the previous and current amendments to CDAC show. These are laudable moves and I support the Bill. But the work is only beginning and the reforms need to be holistic. I hope the Government would move next to tackle the whole housing issue.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. There is a beautiful saying about motherhood: \"Being a mother is like having a piece of your heart running outside of you\". Most of us have experienced such love. And I would go further to say that such love extends to both parents and, frequently, to our extended family as well.
Our society recognises the value of these bonds through our policies. The CDCA Bill is a solid step to further support parenthood in Singapore.
Our parents welcome the additional maternity leave, for it affords them more precious moments with their new-born child. Both our unwed mothers and adoptive parents also welcome the increase in maternity leave.
Taken together, it signifies a further step in making our society inclusive and it also signifies that every Singaporean child is precious. So, there is much to celebrate with the passage of this Bill.
Today, I would like to speak about two other groups which can benefit more from support. One, foster parents, especially those who are related to the children. Two, adoptive parents who have tried unsuccessfully to have children. Taken together, families from these two groups may not be large. But they, too, are part of this society, and the children from these families, too, are precious. They deserve our full support.
Historically, foster and adoptive parenthood has been well-accepted in our society, especially in post-war Singapore. While this number has diminished in our society, many of us know elderly relatives who have been fostered or adopted. Foster and adoptive parenthood is, therefore, an accepted part of our societal fabric. I, therefore, believe we can do more to strengthen support in these areas.
Let me start by talking about fostering in Singapore. Today, more than 5,000 children have benefited from MSF's Foster Parents Scheme. But against MSF's current target of 500, we only have around 300 foster children and 250 foster parents. So, there is still some way to go in achieving MSF's goal.
The existing MSF criteria are: one, resident of Singapore, at least 25 years; two, medically fit to care for children; three, household income of at least $2,000 a month; four, preferably married couples; and five, preferably experienced in caring and living with children.
I understand that there is also a monthly allowance per foster child, with more support for a child with special needs.
To strengthen foster parenting in Singapore, I hope that the Government can provide foster parents with similar rights as adoptive parents with regard to leave. Specifically, I hope that foster parents can benefit from childcare and extended childcare leave, adoption leave, shared parenthood leave and unpaid infant-care leave. Why? Because foster parents have parenting duties, just like other parents, and many of them struggle to do so. Therefore, such leave will go some way to help them out.
In addition, to enlarge the pool of foster parents, I hope MSF can relax its income criterion of at least $2,000 per month, especially for relatives, such as grandparents, uncles and aunties. The logic behind the income criterion is understandable. However, there are retirees who have assets but no income who could provide excellent fostering care. Some of these could be relatives who have a deep love for their foster children.
Also, foster parents could also tap on our society for resources to help our children, for example, MSF's monthly allowance I spoke about, as well as all the various social safety nets that we have strengthened over the years. But, of course, we can also have a safeguard where MSF's assessment and approval are needed to overcome this criterion.
Lastly, I hope that the Government can vest MSF with the power to recommend to the Family Justice Court, when necessary, legal guardianship for a selected group of foster parents. We all know that family dynamics can be complicated in cases where fostering is needed. Sometimes, it would be wise if the foster parents, especially relatives of the foster children, could get legal guardianship. Currently, it costs six to nine months and $5,000 to $7,000 of legal fees to achieve that, which could be a burden to some foster parents. So, if MSF is empowered to recommend legal guardianship as needed, we can cut out unnecessary costs.
Next, I would like to talk about easing the financial burden on adoptive parents. Let me share on the state of adoption today. There is less adoption than it used to be. In 2014, 352 children were adopted, which is a sharp drop from 732 a decade ago. The number of adoption agencies has also gone down by half. For Singaporeans who embark on the adoption process, it is a costly process. Why? Well, there are not many children available for adoption locally, as many unwanted pregnancies have resulted in abortions. So, many potential adoptive parents have to look at adopting from overseas, especially if they want someone who can fit well into their family circumstances. However, internationally, many countries are strengthening their adoption guidelines, and understandably so. The net effect is that the cost of adopting overseas, usually through an agent, has gone up considerably. I was told that the cost ranges from $25,000 to $50,000 to adopt from overseas.
I can think of two ways to encourage and strengthen adoption in Singapore. Firstly, perhaps our Government can consider providing a small grant to subsidise foreign adoption cost for Singaporean couples who have failed repeatedly to conceive. Why? Even after the recent generous increase in subsidies for IVF in public hospitals, many Singaporean couples who tried unsuccessfully to conceive have to still incur costly and repeated IVF treatment, especially if they do so in a private hospital. These couples would also have drawn down on their MediSave funds. As such, a small grant to offset this cost, perhaps helping all but couples in high-income brackets, would be welcomed.
Secondly, with regard to the Parenthood Tax Rebate, I also hope that MSF and MOF will extend it to beyond married adoptive parents, to single adoptive parents who are previously recognised as married under Singapore law, or older single close relatives to the adopted child.
In conclusion, in the course of my work, my grassroots volunteers and I have met several foster and adoptive parents. For example, there is a pair of grandparents from Kebun Baru, whose daughter, a single mother herself, has passed on. So, this pair of grandparents are striving and doing their best to be adoptive parents to their grandson. They are both in their 60s and 70s. They are both struggling to have full-time jobs, so that they can support their grandson who is also their adopted son. From what I can see, they have no less love for their grandson than any parents out there.
And then there is a 52-year-old widow in Kebun Baru whom the press affectionately called the Bao Lady. She is a hawker supporting three children of her own. She also takes in unwed mothers, as well as homeless children of all races. She is a wonderful foster parent well-loved by the children.
These two families which I have highlighted here – one bonded by blood, the other bonded by conviction, choice and love – can get more help.
So, I hope that the Government can examine the possibilities that I have proposed and add them to this excellent CDCA Bill in due course, because this small group of families deserves our full support, because every child in Singapore is precious. Mdm Speaker, I fully support this Bill.
Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Madam, the Bill is a step in the right direction in recognition that parenthood is a joint responsibility of both fathers and mothers. It also acknowledges the growing role of fathers in smaller nuclear families. The Bill also addresses the perennial concerns of single mothers as it provides needed relief to them.
While I fully support the changes to the Bill, I also would like to seek clarifications on the following clauses stated in the Bill.
In section 9(8), 12AA, it is stated that employees who are terminated with just cause cease to be entitled to Adoptive Leave, Government Paid Maternity Leave and Government Paid Paternity Leave. Many workers, especially lower income workers, may not know this. If the employer were to dismiss a pregnant employee, should the employer be made to inform MOM as a default, instead of having the employee to lodge the complaint with MOM as these leave entitlements are associated with employment? In other words, can this be done by default? I know this comes under the purview of MOM, but education awareness can be a joint effort of both Ministries.
Some unscrupulous employers may find ways and means to shrug off their responsibilities under the Act and resort to easy ways of termination. This issue has been raised and addressed in the past. However, with the slowing economy, more can be done to protect the interest of these working mothers and fathers as well as pregnant women. These issues can be jointly addressed by both Ministries, too.
How are the benefits calculated for a woman who was employed or self-employed overseas if at the time of delivery of her child the mentioned woman is a resident in Singapore and ceased to be employed or self-employed overseas? What is the documentary proof required preventing abuse, that is, inflated claims? In the computation of claims, a weekly index is used limiting the claims to a maximum of six days whilst the self-employed, such as hawkers, operate seven days a week. Can the period be stretched to seven days on a case-to-case basis, based on appeal?
On recovery of payment, the Bill states the Government \"may\" instead of \"shall\" recover Government Paid Maternity Leave and Government Paid Maternity Benefit beyond statutory limits. What would be the circumstances where such payments would not be recovered? As such payments are classified as civil debts, what are the channels to recover these debts?
Pertaining to section 12E, what is the number of cases of shared parental leave being shared between spouses since its introduction? If the numbers are low, how best can we promote sharing of parental leave between fathers and mothers and realise the importance of joint parenting? The intention of shared parental leave certainly includes the responsibilities of not only mothers but fathers in raising children. As a society, there must be a more concerted effort to push for shared parenthood.
Madam, I strongly support this progressive Bill that is relevant to not only the current context of what family is and constitutes, but also for the future. Be it a single parent or dual-parent family nucleus, the Government has shown, that at the end of it all, it is the child's interest that is of paramount importance and that no child should be deprived, penalised or robbed of parental love through no fault of theirs. The various leave schemes for both natural and adoptive parents are a welcome one. With that, I thank the Minister for the changes and I support the Bill.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mdm Speaker, I rise to support this Bill and welcome the enhancement as it is a move in the right direction to support shared parenting. However, I urge that we pay attention to the consumption rate of paternity leave as only 40% of fathers used their one-week paternity leave in 2015. More needs to be done to help young fathers overcome mindset and workplace constraints to improve this consumption rate.
Besides enhancing leave schemes for young parents, the Government should consider caregivers of elderly and other dependants as well. It is suggested that we allow flexing of medical leave provided under the Employment Act for caregiving needs.
I have four points to make on unwed fathers, maternity protection, stay-at-home moms and foster parents.
First, unwed fathers. Enhancements have been made to grant fathers of adoptive children two weeks of paternity leave. While unwed mothers are now entitled to full maternity leave of 16 weeks, are there considerations made to allow unwed fathers to enjoy the same? While they may be few but, due to circumstances, there may be fathers who have to bear the responsibility of caring for the infant in the absence of the baby's mother.
Second, maternity protection. Female employees who are pregnant or on maternity leave are protected by law from being dismissed or retrenched. Can the protection be extended beyond pregnancy and maternity leave period so as to give security and assurance to mothers who return to work after childbirth? The transition back to work after maternity leave ends is not an easy period as they learn to cope with balancing demands of work and the needs of their babies. While they were away, their jobs may have been reallocated by employers and, upon their return, these mothers may face possibilities of re-deployment or even redundancy. As a result, these mothers may eventually be out of the workforce, whether by choice or not, and it becomes a lose-lose situation for both the mothers and our economy.
The International Labour Organization Maternity Protection Convention No 183 states that, \"The standard also prohibits employers to terminate the employment of a woman during pregnancy or absence on maternity leave, or during a period following her return to work, except on grounds unrelated to pregnancy, childbirth and its consequences, or nursing. Women returning to work must be returned to the same position or an equivalent position paid at the same rate.\"
Third, stay-at-home mothers. Studies have shown that women choose to leave the workforce mainly due to family commitments and whether they are raising children or caring for elderly dependants, their contribution is invaluable to our society and nation's development. However, the work that these women are doing goes unpaid and they are relying on financial resources of their spouses and loved ones alone. Without financial independence, their retirement adequacy is questionable. Hence, it should be a priority to provide support and interventions to help these women in securing their retirement.
Two ways. Firstly, transiting PME women back to work. As the educational standards of the workforce rise and women choose to have children later, more and more who leave the workforce are PMEs in mid-career. This loss to the talent pool can be mitigated by enabling seamless transition of these women back to work. While many of their skills may have become outdated or irrelevant in the many years when they were at home, these PME women do possess skills and experience which can be transferable to new jobs. Various Professional Conversion Programmes (PCPs) targeted at mid-career PMEs can be enhanced to make the jobs more attractive to back-to-work PMEs, the women especially, in terms of pay, career prospects and flexibility in work arrangements.
At the same time, improving on the delivery mode for training and duration will entice more to make the commitment to embark on the PCP. Besides the Career Support Programme (CSP) and PCP, to give confidence to these women and also potential employers, I suggest the introduction of a Returnship Programme spanning four to six months to facilitate the matching of women jobseekers and employers. During the returnship period, women jobseekers are given guidance and training to update their skills, better understand the job and ascertain her suitability for the position. Upon successful completion of returnship, women jobseekers can embark on PCP for further training to make the career switch. This can all be done through an enhancement of the current CSP and PCP.
Second, income supplement. Besides granting CPF Cash Top Up Relief to encourage spouses and loved ones to voluntarily contribute to the CPF accounts of these stay-at-home moms, the Government should recognise the value of the unpaid work done by these women. Can the Government also regularly top up the accounts of these mothers directly?
On the Workfare Scheme, can mothers who are younger than 35 years old and a spouse having a higher than $70,000 assessable income who engage in part-time, temporary or freelance jobs be entitled to cash supplement, CPF contributions and training grants, too? This is to encourage mothers to stay connected with the job market and keep their skills updated while they are away, thus making an entire transition back to the workforce in future a much easier and smoother one.
Finally, extension of childcare leave to foster parents. Expansion of leave to single parents and adoptive parents is laudable. Perhaps, it is timely to also consider extension of childcare leave to foster parents fostering young children so that they can spend time helping the foster children to settle into their new home. The Fostering Scheme under MSF provides care arrangements for children who have been abandoned, neglected or ill-treated by their parents or guardians, or those whose parents or guardians are in ill-health and, therefore, unable to look after them.
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling: Mdm Speaker, I welcome the amendments introduced to the Child Development Co-Savings Act (CDCA) and believe that these will serve to enhance the support for parents to better care for their children. Some of the amendments have made the definition of parenting more inclusive and give flexibility to accommodate different parenting styles, particularly in the areas of adoption and unwed parents, and provide clarity on administrative matters related to parental entitlements.
The Bill shows that we have positively progressed on some topics where there is a growing trend and our willingness to recognise and accept some diversity in family nucleus. I remember a few striking cases of my own residents who attempted to have their own children but they were unable to due to age and also medical conditions. The tremendous efforts these families undertook to adopt the children from overseas impressed upon me that it is not the financial aids that we provide that are material to them, but the acknowledgement from society that they are akin to the child's natural parents for their love in raising the child as though it is their own and also the fairness in including them under such benefit schemes that really makes the difference.
Similarly, for cases where marital status used to be the qualifying criterion, with the introduction of the new amendments, this would help quite a number of families with differing circumstances. As I believe Child Development Account (CDA) touches the lives of every child and family in Singapore, the schemes implemented therein should not only encourage the families to have more children, but to give those children who are from vulnerable background a boost and also a better quality in life.
Today, the CDA fund is given to every child at birth and can be utilised when it is used at the approved institutions. With the introduction of the Baby First Step Grant and dollar-for-dollar matching benefits that were introduced on 24 March 2016, this gives a further financial relief to all the families.
However, I feel that the low-income families may not be able to benefit fully from this scheme. Firstly, some families are not aware of all the approved institutions where the funds can be used, including those indirect expenses. Secondly, they do not have the immediate financial means to capitalise on the matching grants even if they understand and wish to save for their children's future. Thirdly, some families with challenging backgrounds are using this pretext of lack of funds to delay enrolling their children for pre-school or childcare.
With this context and to further support some of these families, I would like to ask MSF to consider how and what can be done to maximise the usage of the CDA funds, especially for the low-income families. I would like to suggest four areas.
First, to assist parents who are already receiving the aids from the Social Service Office or those with low-income capped at specific limits and who have young children and school-going children in maximising the usage of the CDA funds. If required, MSF or even an appointed guardian can disburse and utilise the funds for the children's benefit instead of giving the cash amount directly to the families under their name.
Second, to enable automatic transfer of any unused CDA funds for the child's post-Secondary or Tertiary education.
Third, to facilitate our public donors who wish to contribute funds to these low-income families by topping up the CDAs of the needy in order for the savings to receive these matching grants.
And fourth, to permit the parents or even trustees to tap on the CDA funds to purchase education endowment or insurance policies for these children.
Through some of all these above suggestions, we can better support those children in need and enable social and financial support to be given by willing individuals, apart from the child's natural parents or even legal guardians. This also extends the aid beyond the early childhood and Primary schooling years of the children and better utilise the funds provided.
In conclusion, I support the amendments and some of the positive changes that will impact these families.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, I stand in support of this Bill, which is essentially about the most finite part of our relationship with our children. It is about the time we have with them, it is about the time we spend with them.
I fully and wholeheartedly applaud MSF for the amendments they are proposing in this Bill and for levelling the playing field for fathers, for adoptive parents and for single unwed parents. These amendments move us one huge step forward towards becoming a more inclusive society.
Parenthood has been one of the greatest joys in my life and it remains close to my heart to see that every parent in Singapore is able to watch their child speak their first words, walk their first steps and hold their hand every step of the way.
Ample research has shown that the bonds forged between parent and child in the earlier stage of his or her development is a one-time opportunity. Once the window closes, it closes forever.
Thus, this remains one of my highest priorities: contributing my thoughts and suggestions about parenthood.
With regard to this Bill, firstly, I firmly support the additional week of mandated Government-Paid Paternity Leave and the increment of Shared Parental Leave eligible to fathers. These changes send a strong signal of the Government's resolve to put family first.
The Minister had previously stated that in 2013, about 28% of fathers took the Government-Paid Paternity Leave; in 2014, it was about 36%. Can the Minister share what the percentages are for 2015 and, to date, for 2016, and most importantly, what steps the Ministry will be taking to increase the percentage of fathers taking the paternity leave?
Secondly, I applaud the Ministry for a radical shift in the support given to adoptive parents. This is reflective of a Government policy which keeps up with the times as adoption becomes more common.
While I applaud these changes, I would like to ask the Minister why adoptive parents are not given the same benefits as birth parents. Why does adoption leave only apply to children under 12 months old? Why do adoptive mothers who qualify for leave still get only 12 weeks of maternity leave compared to the full 18 weeks?
I understand that adoptive mothers do not require extra time to recuperate after childbirth, but it is still important to note that adoptive mothers – like birth mothers – require time to bond with their babies.
Could we further consider the age of the child to determine the length of parental leave accorded to adoptive parents, and consider giving adoptive mothers the full 18 weeks of maternity leave if they have adopted a new-born or a baby under a certain age?
Thirdly, I have met many unwed parents. I hear about the struggles they face, the risks they are exposed to. By introducing these changes, we are levelling the playing field for children born to unwed parents and reducing the disadvantages they face from birth.
However, can the Minister share what are the factors delaying the complete levelling of this playing field?
Lastly, Madam, I spoke at the Second Reading of the Child Development Co-Savings Bill in May this year and I spoke about my wish to have the power to turn back time.
In that speech, I said, \"As much as I try to live a life without regret, there will always be regrets, always a wish that we could have done things better, always a wish that we could have spent more time with our loved ones. Time spent with our children is precious and should be cherished, the memories created will last forever and are priceless. We can't buy time and we can't turn back time. We can't get back the hours, the minutes and the seconds lost. But we can every day treasure and value the time we have with our children and our loved ones.\"
I did not mention this earlier but when I wrote that speech and, in particular, those few paragraphs, I was thinking about my late father who passed away last year and whom I miss dearly. He worked hard but he did not work hard for himself or purely for money. He never wore branded clothes or liked expensive things. But he worked hard for his family, his company and his staff members. He never really had time for family and he passed on before he retired, before he was about to have more time for family, especially his grandchildren.
There is a quote, which reads, \"Spend time with those you love. One of these days you will either reply, \"I'm glad I did,\" or \"I wish I had\".\" For my father, I am sure his reply was: \"I wish I had\" and, with him, I wish I had, too, but I know that I cannot turn back time and I will have to live with that regret.
But for my children, I will make sure my reply is \"I'm glad I did\" and I hope everyone will ask yourselves this question as you embark on your parenthood journey and even those already on this journey.
I mentioned in my previous speeches that this journey has changed me and it continues to change me. My daughter remains the most stubborn person in my family, she continues to say \"no\" all the time, even though it is actually more \"nos\" now – to be exact, it is five \"nos\" at a go: \"no, no, no, no, no\". Probably more cute when she says it. But she has also learnt new words. Her favourite words are now: \"Daddy, what is this?\" or \"Daddy, what is that?\" I swear she even says this in her sleep. Every day is like an exam now! Thankfully, for parents these days, there is something called \"Google\"!
Madam, I hope Members in this House enjoy the stories I share about my daughter and about my parenthood journey because there is going to be more stories, as my daughter now graduates to become a big sister. I am happy to announce we are expecting our second child [Applause]. And that was a promise I made. But there was a one-for-one offer and so I am happy to announce we are also expecting our third child – we are having twins!
Just saying the word \"twins\" makes me feel tired already but we are extremely excited about welcoming our two little girls. I look forward to welcoming them into this world and to spending time with them. But I have to say that after these two little girls, this factory is closed.
On a more serious note, I am grateful for the amendments in this Bill, especially as a father, as it gives us more time to spend with our children. I am grateful that this sends a strong signal about the importance of spending time with your children, and I am hopeful that, in the future, when asked about the time spent with your children, everyone will reply, \"I am glad I did\".
Madam, let me end with a beautiful quote from Jen Hatmaker and it reads, \"You will never have this day with your children again. Tomorrow they will be a little bigger than they are today. Today is a gift. Breathe and notice. Smell and touch them. Study their faces, their little feet and pay attention. Relish in the charms of the present. Enjoy today. It will be over before you know it\". Madam, I wholeheartedly support this Bill.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. As a father of a young daughter, it is perhaps only appropriate that I declare my interest. But unlike my fellow Member Mr Louis Ng, I do not have good news to update. Neither will I promise.
This Bill is very timely, especially during a time when our young mothers and fathers face tremendous constraints in managing work and family. There are two important messages in this Bill. One, families need greater support and we can help fathers to play a larger role in caring for their children. Two, every Singaporean child is important and must be given every chance to fulfil his or her potential. Let me take this in turn on how we can enhance them.
As my fellow Labour Member of Parliament, Mr Zainal Sapari, often reminds us, the younger Members of Parliament – he is a wonderful father to six lovely children, so he has every right to do so – that to be in your children's memories tomorrow, you have to be in their lives today. This Bill does include support and provision and time for parents to rightfully fulfil what he has advised us.
It is trite knowledge that our younger Singaporeans are finding it increasingly difficult to raise a family and have a meaningful career. Furthermore, they believe strongly in shared parenting. In fact, gender stereotypes on child-caring is evolving. It is already archaic to think that only women must bear the primary care-giving role. Legislating a second week of paternity leave and allowing for shared parental leave of up to four weeks cater for such demand and change. Fathers play an important role in a child's life, especially in the early years, with substantial downstream social and cognitive benefits.
The proposed provisions are also in line with an evolving change in gender-based family stereotypes and redefinition of traditional roles at home. While I am glad for these provisions, I am cautious for the eventual consumption of the additional week of paternity leave or shared parental leave. Only 40% of our fathers used their one week of paid paternity leave last year. This shows that our families might face structural problems. Common anecdotally-evidenced gaps include the lack of support from employers, especially smaller companies which might genuinely face operational constraints. Fathers with reservist duties are also hesitant to take leave. In fact, some employers have commented it is difficult to support two types of national service. Both employers and employees need help for this to be effective.
I still maintain that it is only right that we send a strong signal of support through legislation. But we will need to study its implementation. I would like to urge the Ministry to study in-depth the constraints faced by companies and fathers, and establish ways to improve the leave consumption rate. Mdm Speaker, let me continue in Chinese.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] : Mdm Speaker, I fully agree that we should legislate to give fathers an additional week of paternity leave. Nowadays, more and more young Singaporeans believe that both parents should be involved in taking care of the children. The traditional concept of mothers being the primary caregiver of children is also changing gradually.
However, during the first year of a newborn, the mother still plays the primary role. Hence, we need to help mothers ease the dual responsibilities of caring for her child as well as managing her career. This additional week of paternity leave will help fathers to play a more active role in taking care of the children and help reduce the burden on the mothers.
For first-time fathers, this is indeed timely by giving them the opportunity to lay a solid foundation for an ideal family. This measure also reflects Singaporeans' changing mindset with regard to what a good marriage and family should be like.
However, we cannot just legislate without considering the effectiveness. The take-up rate of paternity leave is still very low. I urge the Government to encourage more businesses to support their staff utilising paternity leave. If the Government wants to help our young families more comprehensively, can we also legislate that mothers can enjoy the statutory right to ask for flexible working arrangements during the first year of childbirth?
(In English): Mdm Speaker, let me continue in English. I am also very encouraged by the move to extend greater support for unwed mothers by extending full Government-paid maternity leave to all qualifying mothers, regardless of their marital status. We do acknowledge the value of a traditional family structure of a married couple with children. Yet, in reality, not all families come in the same form or structure. The child has no control of this. And he or she deserves every chance at a full life and fulfilling his or her potential.
Therefore, I support the extension of CDA to children born to unwed mothers. This is a big move towards greater inclusiveness. It will promote savings and help their mothers defray the cost of childcare or other needs.
Madam, while these measures have narrowed the gap between the entitlements of what a married woman with a child would get and that of an unwed mother, there are still areas where unwed mothers are not extended the same treatment.
First, as my fellow Member of Parliament, Mr Seah Kian Peng, has mentioned, the Baby Bonus scheme is still not extended to children of unwed mothers. Could the Government consider extending this to them, in full or in part, as this will go a long way in helping unwed mothers cope with the costs of raising a child, especially when they have to do so without the support of a spouse?
Next is tax relief. I also urge the Government to extend the following tax reliefs to unwed mothers: Working Mother's Child Relief, Grandparent Care-giver Relief, Foreign Maid Levy Relief and the Parenthood Tax Rebate.
This is because the money saved could go towards the needs of the child and, if we are to fully embrace the mantra \"Every Child Matters\", then we should treat them equally by not denying their parents access to these reliefs.
Unwed mothers and their child are still not regarded as a complete \"family nucleus\" and they are thus excluded from many of HDB's public schemes. They can only buy their HDB flats if they are 35 years old and above under the Singles Scheme. This means they have to rent a place if they are not able to live with their family or relatives. Rental units can be costly. Sometimes, family members are not able to accommodate them due to space constraints. Could the Government reconsider this fundamental need for lodging as these unwed mothers are often younger, and allow a concession in consideration of their plight and circumstances to purchase a HDB flat even before the mother turns 35?
We can always and certainly should do more but, today, this Bill is an important marker and milestone of progress in supporting our families. With this, I support the Bill.
Mdm Speaker: Minister Tan.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mdm Speaker, I thank all Members for supporting the Bill. To recap, the key amendments are based on enhancements which were announced earlier at my Ministry's and NPTD's Committee of Supply debates in April this year.
I am glad that Members, such as Mr Alex Yam, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Seah Kian Peng, Miss Cheryl Chan, Mr Desmond Choo, Assoc Prof Daniel Goh and Ms Thanaletchimi, support the extension of maternity leave benefits to unwed mothers. These will improve the outcomes of their children.
Assoc Prof Goh shared his concern about housing security for children of unwed parents and divorcees. I share that concern. He asked if the Government could include unwed parents in its definition of family nucleus in assessing applications for HDB flats. Mr Seah, Mr Alex Yam and Mr Choo asked if housing options can be improved for this group, such as allowing unwed mothers to purchase an HDB flat before turning 35.
Our public housing policy recognises the traditional family unit. That said, single unwed parents are not without housing options. Those aged 35 and above may apply for a new 2-room flexi flat in a non-mature estate or a resale flat and also enjoy housing grants. Those below 35 years old may apply for new HDB flats or resale flats jointly with their parents. As for divorced parents with young children, they are given priority under HDB's assistance scheme for second-timers when they apply for a new 2- or 3-room BTO flat in non-mature estates. Additionally, on a case-by-case basis, HDB also exercises flexibility to help divorced parents and single unwed parents buy a flat within their means, or to provide rental housing to those with no other housing options or family support.
Mr Patrick Tay asked whether unwed fathers could be granted paternity leave. It is generally the case that unwed mothers would be the main care-givers of their children. However, we will consider appeals by unwed fathers on a case-by-case basis. All working parents, regardless of marital status, can avail themselves to infant care and childcare leave to meet their care-giving needs.
Mr Louis Ng, Mr Alex Yam, Mr Seah Kian Peng and Mr Desmond Choo asked if more could be done for unwed parents. Some suggestions include the extension of Baby Bonus Cash Gift and tax benefits. It is good to take stock of the support we have given to all Singapore children to enhance child outcomes, regardless of whether their parents are married. I have said this a couple of times in this House and I think it is important for me to repeat it here again. These are education and healthcare benefits and they include the MediSave grant for newborns, and infant and childcare subsidies. All working parents, regardless of marital status, also get infant care leave, childcare leave and extended childcare leave and the Foreign Domestic Worker levy concession to support caregiving to enhance child outcomes.
I think many Members' concerns centre around children who come from more vulnerable backgrounds. If you compound that with unwed parents, it makes it even more difficult for them. We know that children of unwed parents from low-income and vulnerable families need even more support, which is why we are introducing KidSTART. It is a very important programme. It may be in its pilot stage but we hope and want this to work, so that we can extend this much more extensively amongst the vulnerable families, even starting from Year Zero when women can be identified at the pregnancy stage. Financial and social support is also available at Social Service Offices and Family Service Centres.
I urge Members to take note that, even for unwed mothers, there is a range of support available. With the recent changes and the changes we are putting in place, it extends it further.
However, it is also important to understand that we continue to believe in the importance of the family institution. We encourage married couples to have children. Hence, specific measures, for example, the Baby Bonus Cash Gift, tax benefits and Government co-funding for Assisted Reproduction Technology treatment and priority for housing, are targeted at married families. However, as mentioned earlier, for unwed parents, there are also ways in which we can support them through various schemes.
Let me now turn to the topic of adoption leave. Mr Louis Ng asked why the length of maternity leave and adoption leave differs. We are increasing adoption leave from four weeks to 12 weeks from July 2017. This is to strengthen the support to adoptive parents. Natural mothers currently have 16 weeks of leave. Maternity leave is longer by a month, largely because natural mothers need time to recover from childbirth.
Mr Ng also asked whether adoption leave could be extended to adoptive mothers of children older than 12 months. Similar to maternity and paternity leave, adoption leave is intended to support parents of infants in the first year of delivery. Beyond the child's infancy, all working parents – including adoptive parents – can take six days each of paid childcare leave when the child is below age seven, and six more days of unpaid infant care leave when the child is below age two, to spend more time to bond with their children.
Mr Henry Kwek touched on the need for our society to support adoption. He suggested a grant to offset foreign adoption costs for couples who have failed repeatedly to conceive. As the focus of adoption is to find a suitable family for a child, subsidising the fees charged by commercial adoption agencies is not the right solution in terms of protecting the best interests of the child. Mr Kwek also suggested allowing single parents who were previously married and have adopted a related child to benefit from the Parenthood Tax Rebate. We thank him for the suggestion, which we will study further. That said, all things being equal and in the child's best interest, we encourage parenthood within marriage. That is still something that we would like to see and encourage.
Members, including Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Kwek, also raised suggestions to support foster parents, through various measures, such as leave benefits. I agree with Mr Kwek that we should make it easier for foster parents to discharge their parenting responsibilities. We have about 400 foster parents caring for over 400 children today. Mr Kwek mentioned about the Bao Lady. In fact, I visited her and spoke to her and her family. They are really quite amazing. I visited various foster families as well. It is quite encouraging to see families with such capacity to love, not just for their children but for many children over many years. It really makes a difference to these children whose families may not be ready to take them in and look after them for a period. Foster parents play a very significant role. We are heartened to see that Singaporeans are willing to go that extra mile to care for vulnerable children. We certainly want to encourage more Singaporeans to come on board to be foster parents. We will keep the suggestions in mind as we continue to develop foster care.
I will now move on to the topic of stay-at-home mothers. Mr Patrick Tay asked if the Government would consider putting in place Returnship Programmes to help match women jobseekers and employers. He also suggested providing an Income Supplement to stay-at-home mothers and for Workfare Scheme benefits to be extended to a select group of such young mothers. I think this is an idea that we can consider, though we should take a hard look at all the current job-matching services and to minimise duplication of efforts. But I think this is something that we should work at.
I want to assure Members that we recognise and value the contributions of stay-at-home mothers in caring for their children. Today, eligible stay-at-home mothers already enjoy all the measures under the Marriage and Parenthood package except, understandably, those related to employment, such as leave benefits. They will get the Baby Bonus Cash Gift, the Child Development Account (CDA) benefits, MediSave Grant for newborns, Foreign Domestic Worker levy concession, and basic child and infant care subsidies. We appreciate the suggestions from Members and will take them into consideration as we continue to study ways to enhance the family-friendly environment in Singapore, to support both working and non-working parents.
Mr Patrick Tay is right that there are other caregivers, such as those of the elderly and other dependants. He suggested allowing flexing of medical leave under the Employment Act with them, as they may not qualify for the current leave benefits. We will study these suggestions as well. While we want to support such caregivers, we also need to consider the impact on businesses and the overall leave support already in place for employees.
Let me touch on protection for workers and employment-related concerns raised by Mr Patrick Tay. Mr Tay asked to extend protection beyond pregnancy and maternity leave for female employees. We will work with tripartite partners in the next round of review to study this, while being mindful not to change the laws so drastically that it results in unintended consequences, such as resentment against mothers and impact on gender bias because this could impact on their employability. This is something that we have to be careful about. Nonetheless, it is an important area to look at. In the meantime, we will continue to encourage employers to adopt flexible work arrangements to support families.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh highlighted the need to protect contract workers as this group is fast becoming a substantial group in the gig economy. I agree. In fact, when I was in MOM, this was an area that we flagged out for close attention. But we also realised that this whole space is quite complex because there are many, many different types of contract work. MOM will work with our tripartite partners to study this suggestion further, taking into consideration the overall leave provisions already in place by employers and the care-giving needs of workers.
Ms Thanaletchimi raised four technical areas for clarification under this amendment Bill. Firstly, she asked what measures will be taken to ensure that workers who are terminated without just cause know their leave entitlements upon termination of employment. MOM encourages employers to implement fair and non-discriminatory employment practices. The Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP) takes an active role in looking into complaints of unfair employment practices and will refer cases to MOM for enforcement if found to be true. Any employee who feels discriminated against can approach TAFEP for assistance.
Secondly, Ms Thanaletchimi asked about the process of calculating benefits for a woman returning from overseas to deliver her child, especially if it seems to be an \"inflated claim\". We will determine the amount of Government-Paid Maternity Benefit for such a woman based on documents, such as her payslip. Where there is reason to doubt the documents or the claims, we will ask further questions and may not always approve the claim.
Thirdly, she asked how the weekly index works for a person who works seven days a week. The weekly index simplifies the provisions of the Act and does not change entitlement. A self-employed person who works seven days a week and takes the full maternity leave continuously will be paid based on seven days a week. Where maternity leave is taken flexibly, it will be based on the number of days she works in a week, or 48 days, whichever is lower. This mirrors the computation of entitlement for employees on continuous and non-continuous leave.
Fourthly, she asked about the circumstances and mechanism under which the Government will recover over-payment of Government-Paid Maternity Leave and Government-Paid Maternity Benefit. As with other civil debts, the Government has the option to commence legal proceedings to recover over-payment of Government-Paid Maternity Leave and Government-Paid Maternity Benefit. In practice, we will seek to recover through calls, letters or physical visits if necessary.
Finally, let me make a technical clarification. Ms Thanaletchimi said that employees whose services are terminated with just cause cease to be entitled to Adoptive Leave, Government-Paid Maternity Leave and Government-Paid Paternity Leave. I would like to clarify that a woman only forfeits Government-Paid Maternity Benefit, and, even then, only for the relevant employment period where she is dismissed with sufficient cause. If she had worked satisfactorily in other jobs in the 12 months preceding delivery, she can still receive a Government-Paid Maternity Benefit amount based on income earned from those jobs.
Miss Cheryl Chan suggested some enhancements relating to CDAs. Miss Chan would be pleased to hear CDA monies can be used to purchase the child's premiums for MediShield Life or MediSave-approved plans. At the end of 12 years, unused CDA monies are also automatically transferred to the child's Post-Secondary Education Account which can be used for post-Secondary education fees.
She also suggested that the Government facilitate donors or payments of cash assistance into the CDAs of children from low-income families, so that they can benefit more from the CDA scheme. We are mindful that low-income families face more challenges in saving into the CDA. This is why we have introduced the CDA First Step of $3,000 earlier this year. This is directly provided into newly opened CDAs, without parents having to save first. We also reach out to lower income families through touchpoints, such as the Social Service Offices and Family Service Centres, to increase awareness about the CDA.
We also welcome initiatives by society to help families defray the cost of child-raising. One such example is the OCBC Starter Scheme, which was introduced in 2012 and will end in December 2016. Under this scheme, if lower income parents saved $50 in CDA, OCBC would contribute $100 into the account. As the Government provides matching contribution of $150, the children will effectively receive co-savings of $250 in return for the $50 saved.
Let me now move on to leave for fathers. The Government is mandating the second week of Paternity Leave from 1 January 2017 and extending Shared Parental Leave from one week to four weeks from 1 July 2017. On Mr Louis Ng's request for the updated take-up rates for Paternity Leave, this was 38% in 2014 and 42% in 2015; an improvement of 4%. It is not bad, but we hope this will increase further. Really, fathers should just take it up. The 2015 figure is still increasing and will only be finalised at the end of March 2017, when the deadline for the submission of claims is over. On Ms Thanaletchimi's request for statistics, about 4,000 fathers have taken shared parental leave as at the end of August 2016.
Mr Seah Kian Peng asked if independent leave can be considered. We are now increasing paternity leave and shared parental leave. For any further leave enhancements, we need to balance the needs and concerns of both employees and employers. We will also look into Mr Desmond Choo's suggestion for an in-depth study of constraints faced by companies and fathers in consuming these two leave schemes.
The enhancements to paternity leave and shared parental leave signal the Government's strong support to encourage fathers to spend more time caring for their children. Shared parental leave also provides parents the flexibility to decide and to choose their leave arrangements to care for their newborns, based on their respective family's circumstances. We really hope that more fathers will make use of the enhanced leave to be involved in child-raising. That being said, ultimately, it is for the father to decide whether to take the leave or not. Maybe we should persuade mothers to convince fathers to take the leave.
I thank Mr Louis Ng for sharing his good news. Congratulations! And I encourage Mr Desmond Choo to work harder. I also thank Mr Louis Ng for his interesting parenting experiences. I am sure many of us who are parents here will have our respective interesting stories as well. Indeed, those of us who can look back and honestly say, \"I am glad I did\", remember the lessons we learnt as parents.
Children enrich our lives in the most unexpected ways, just as we fathers play an important role in the family. We are not just breadwinners, but we are role models for our children. We really need to be active and present in our children's lives, especially during our child's formative years.
In MSF, when we look at the various social issues, there are two common denominators that we pick up, as we connect the dots and trace it back. A lot has got to do with a stable family environment and, especially, the presence of the father. The other point is about making an impact in the formative years, where the greatest development is experienced by our child. Are we there shaping those formative years? Mothers are usually there, but fathers need to be there as well. This is something that we can encourage and support but, ultimately, the individual parents must make those choices.
Fathers can shape a child's confidence immensely in their development. I fully agree with Mr Seah Kian Peng's point that, as parents, we should be focusing on the child's health, growth and well-being. Parents sometimes do not know what impact their comparisons have on their children. In some situations, the child loses confidence in his ability and he starts to wonder if he will be unloved by his parents the moment he fails to meet their expectations. Fathers have the means to demonstrate unconditional love and support to the children. I urge all of us to do so.
I also agree with Mr Alex Yam on the importance of recreating a pro-family and pro-children environment. The physical environment is important. There are 35 Ministries and Government agencies with childcare facilities within their buildings. While this will certainly help working parents, more and more young fathers are willing to make use of these facilities and not just expect the mothers to do so. That is encouraging.
Families for Life as well as Government agencies provide parenting and family events and workshops at the workplaces. I encourage more fathers to avail themselves of these and to be more engaged in pro-family workplace programmes.
When the two weeks of mandatory paternity leave kick in next year, we hope that more fathers will take the opportunity to actively bond with their children from the time they are born. Like Mr Patrick Tay, I also hope more fathers will use the shared parental leave so that they can further bond with their children.
These leave enhancements are focused on the critical infant period. But fatherhood continues beyond infancy. One important tagline says, we are \"Dads for Life\". I hope that we, as fathers, will continue to be involved and always present in our children's lives. It may be different for everyone, and we all need to find our own way to connect and bond with our children. It need not be something elaborate. It could be through simple everyday activities like reading a bedtime story, kicking a soccer ball around, going out to cycle or just going out for a meal. It may surprise some of us but, to our children, it is not what we do, but that we are doing it together with them.
Active fatherhood also strengthens marriages. Fathers show that they care and are committed to their wives and their families when they share the parenthood journey. The journey may be a bumpy ride with ups and downs, but we learn along the way to be better parents ‒ together with our spouses. It is also these ups and downs that result in the creation of special moments and memories, memories unique to our families, memories which we will always hold dear to ourselves and memories which will last us a lifetime. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
Mdm Speaker: Yes, Mr Seah Kian Peng.
Mr Seah Kian Peng: I have just one clarification for the Minister. I note the increase in the number of fathers who have taken up paternity leave – it is a 10% increase, from 38% to 42%. I urge the Minister to look into the underlying reasons for the low take-up to get to the source. Indeed, we all want to make sure that the two-week mandated paternity leave will be fully taken up. But I think if we do not address the source, we are not going to get there. So, I urge the Minister to look seriously into this.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: I fully agree with the point. We do want them to consume it. I think we would conduct further studies and review what exactly are the impediments and what we could do to help make sure that these schemes that we are putting in place actually get used and achieve the desired outcomes that we want.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Tan Chuan-Jin]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
With more than 90% of world trade being carried by sea, seafarers play a vital role in enabling the world's economy. As one of the world's busiest ports, Singapore welcomes some 12,000 seafarers daily to our shores. We also have one of the largest ship registries in the world. Some 58,000 seafarers work on board Singapore-flagged ships.
Singapore is committed to enhancing the well-being of seafarers. In 2011, Singapore became the first Asian country to accede to the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC), an instrument adopted by the International Labour Organization (ILO) to establish minimum working and living standards for seafarers. Recently, the ILO amended the MLC to protect seafarers abandoned by their shipowners. These amendments to the MLC will come into force on 18 January 2017.
As a state party to the MLC, Singapore is obliged to give effect to the amendments. The amendments will require shipowners to procure insurance or other financial security to provide necessary support for abandoned seafarers, as well as to meet compensation claims for the death or disability of seafarers.
The proposed Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Amendment) Bill 2016 seeks to amend the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) Act 2014 and to make a related amendment to the Work Injury Compensation Act.
Let me highlight the key provisions of the Bill. Clause 2 expands the scope of a ship-owner's obligation to repatriate a seafarer to include scenarios of abandonment. Clause 3 requires shipowners to have in force the necessary insurance or financial security from approved providers to cover shipowners' obligations. Such obligations include the repatriation of a seafarer and the payment of compensation in the event of a seafarer's death or long-term disability due to occupational injury, illness or hazard. Clause 4 empowers the Maritime and Port Authority (MPA)'s Director of Marine to grant and revoke the approvals of financial security providers. Clause 7 makes a related amendment to the Work Injury Compensation Act. It removes the requirement for shipowners to procure separate insurance if they have already done so under the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) Act.
Once the amendments come into force, Singapore-registered ships will be required to carry on board documentary evidence of the necessary financial security for inspection by foreign port authorities. Similarly, foreign-registered ships calling at our port will have to produce the necessary documentary evidence for MPA's inspection.
The seafarer unions and the industry have been consulted, and they are supportive of the Bill.
Mdm Speaker, Singapore is committed to protect the interests and welfare of seafarers. The proposed Bill ensures that we have the domestic legislation in place to give effect to the amendments to the MLC. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, Singapore was the first few countries to ratify the ILO's Maritime Labour Convention in 2011, signalling our firm commitment to protect seafarers against abuse and exploitation – one of the biggest lapses and criticisms faced by the shipping industry today.
Singapore is a global maritime hub, ranked among the world's top 10 largest ship registries with more than 4,500 vessels on our register. Because of our global position, we must take the lead to ensure that we are a hub which is not just efficient, professional and reliable, but one which is also responsible. In this regard, I stand in full support of this Bill to codify into law the amendments to the Convention.
In 2015, I was appalled to read about the alleged slavery and trafficking in the Thai fishing industry. I could not believe the human rights atrocities reported, which I thought was inconceivable in the 21st century. While this Bill deals with merchant and not fishing fleets, reports have shown that similar problems do affect seafarers on board merchant ships.
We have travelled far since 2006 when MLC was first introduced and ratified by Singapore in 2011, but implementation and enforcement in all 77 countries took time.
In the meantime, reports continued to surface on abuses ranging from inhumane working conditions to the systematic cheating of seafarers' wages. And one case linked the death of a Filipino seafarer to a recruitment agency in Singapore, though MOM later clarified that the illegal activities occurred outside our borders.
Madam, the high seas are wrought with little oversight, weak rules and abuse of workers. Seafarers are fully dependent on the ratification of international conventions to protect their fundamental rights. The implementation of these conventions will be difficult, especially after these new amendments broaden the responsibilities of shipowners.
But Singapore is one of the few developed countries among the port states and we should be a shining example, being one of the first to implement the new rules.
Compared to other port states, we have adequate resources and a strong governance system to ensure the human rights of seafarers are codified and enforced. This Bill enables us to be that shining example.
I support all changes introduced by this Bill, in particular, affording better protection for abandoned seafarers and requiring shipowners to provide financial security for the compensation of seafarers and their families in cases of a seafarer's death or long-term disability.
In the spirit of these commendable amendments, I have the following questions.
One, will the Employment Act or the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act also be extended to seafarers for non-injury employment issues which could be in line with MLC's principles on clear employment conditions?
Two, will the Ministry be taking additional steps to ensure enforcement of these additional protections, given that seafarers have few opportunities whilst on land to access NGO and MOM aid channels?
I want to say that I am heartened by Singapore's enthusiasm towards responsible business practices. Although in the short term, shipowners will have to absorb higher costs for compliance, in the long term, it will ensure business continuity for Singapore's ports.
As we face increased competition from growing ports in China, our strict compliance with international law will stand out as a competitive advantage. In our pursuit of flexible, commercially-focused policies, we must continue to raise the profile of the human element in businesses – particularly for industries with a global nature, such as shipping.
We must continue to recognise that the fundamental protection of a human being cannot be subservient to business objectives. With that, Madam, I stand in strong support of the Bill.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Madam, I declare my interest as a shipping lawyer.
This Bill wishes to introduce the amendments by the ILO to the MLC of 2006. Amongst other things, the proposed amendments will require shipowners to obtain financial security to cover up to four months of unpaid wages for their crew, repatriation costs and other expenses required of an abandoned crew, such as food, clothing, accommodation, drinking water, essential fuel for survival on board the ship, necessary medical care and any other reasonable costs or charges.
The amendments also introduce new mandatory requirements to ensure that seafarers who suffer death or long-term disability due to an occupational injury, illness or hazard are compensated fairly and without delay. The financial security required will be provided by marine insurance companies like Protection & Indemnity clubs, otherwise known as P&I Clubs.
Under this Convention, from 18 January 2017, all ships which are subject to this Convention will be required to carry and display onboard two certificates confirming that financial security is in place for: (a) the repatriation cost and outstanding wages; and (b) contractual payments for compensation for death or long-term disability. I shall refer to these certificates as MLC certificates for the remaining part of my speech.
Madam, the plight of seafarers who were abandoned by shipowners who have suffered from financial difficulties or denied their wages by their employers is something I am familiar with. I started work as a lawyer doing crew wage claim work for abandoned crew on board commercial ships in these exact circumstances which have given rise to the amendment to the MLC and, indeed, this enabling Bill.
In the second half of the 1990s, many shipping companies from the former Soviet Union countries faced bankruptcy. With the end of the Cold War and the break-up of the USSR, many of these shipping companies had struggled to survive. Their crew even had to arrest their own ships to sue for their own unpaid wages. Some of the crew were even emotionally reluctant to sue their companies as they had been sailing with their former state enterprises since the period of communist rule. Sometimes, these unpaid wages ran into months and even longer.
These days, we still see owners failing to pay crew wages when they run into financial problems, especially with the shipping industry being in the doldrums in the last few years. When companies collapse, they can leave crew stranded onboard with wages unpaid and, sometimes, even without funding for repatriation and, in some situations, even without provisions, as fleet management take time to work out solutions for the crew as well as with creditors. Some of us here may have read news of crew stranded onboard many ships all over the world which are owned by the Korean conglomerate, Hanjin. It may take quite a few months to settle these problems. I understand that a local company had a similar experience recently, albeit on a much smaller scale.
Typically, when a shipowner starts to owe its crew their wages, the crew may still continue to work on the vessel for a little while. The crew will often be alerted to take action when they know that the shipowner has other creditors, as, for example, when the ship receives a claim from trade creditors, or when their family is in hardship after not receiving their wages for some months.
There are practical reasons why crew may not take action for some time. It may not be convenient for the crew, given the way ship operations are run. Vessels have tight turn-around time and may not have much time in port. Crew may need to man the vessel even when the ship is in port. In some situations, the master may not grant permission for crew to go ashore. Sometimes, the owners or their agents may not allow the crew to go ashore and the agents' co-operation is required as they need to get the paperwork from local port authorities and also arrange for harbour launches to go to the anchorages to pick up the crew which can be costly to the crew.
Although in most jurisdictions, crew has the right to commence legal proceedings for unpaid wages and, under the Admiralty Laws for many countries, crew wages have higher priority than most other types of claims, in practice, crew may be reluctant to commence proceedings as they have to engage their own lawyers and fund their own litigation. Even if the crew manages to find a lawyer to file their crew wage claims, there may be competing claims in the same proceedings where a ship is arrested by creditors.
Crew wage claims may be only one of the competing claims among different creditors. If shipowners give up their ships, refuse to pay crew wages and let the ships be sold via judicial sale, all creditors will compete for a share of the sale proceeds. As crew wage claim takes higher priority than other claims, unpaid wages can often affect the claims of other creditors. However, that does not mean that crew will have it easy and their wages can always be recovered.
Sometimes, the crew wage contractual documentation may be far from ideal. For example, crew may be promised additional wages, overtime payment but, unfortunately, for the crew, the documentation from the shipowners supporting such payment may be less than perfect.
It is not uncommon these days to see competing claimants trying to overcome the higher priority which crew wages enjoyed over other claimants, by challenging such payments, often using intimidating and even lengthy Court applications, which come with the implied threat of legal cost, which may effectively pressure crew to settle for a smaller sum than as claimed.
Madam, with this Convention, the provision of the financial security from insurance companies for unpaid crew wage claims and death, disability claims as well as repatriation costs and provisions will provide some welcome assurances to the crew. Coincidentally, it may also be welcomed by other trade creditors as the crew wage claims may not eat into the judicial sale proceeds of abandoned ships which are arrested.
Madam, with this Convention, I understand that shipowners have to display their MLC certificates for the required financial security on board the vessel and the crew can contact the insurers directly. This seems rather convenient but, in practice, this will only work if the owners will allow the crew unrestricted access to the insurers, whether by phone, email or shore visits to the offices of insurers.
Madam, it is not uncommon to see owners disputing liability to crew for wages on the ground that their crew is employed by the ship managers or by manning agents directly. Sometimes, the owner did not pay the ship managers or manning agents for the crew's wages and, as a result, the latter may delay or fail to pay the crew. I am glad that, under this Convention, even if the contract is entered into between the crew and manning agents, and not with the owners, the crew can now look to the financial security under this Convention.
Much as this convention is a good and big step in the right direction and will bring comfort and assurance to many seafarers, I can still see some practical limitations, which I hope this Government and the world maritime community can continue to make efforts towards.
One, the financial security system is to secure up to four months' wages. If the outstanding wages exceed four months, the crew may still need to instruct their own lawyers to effect recovery of their unsecured amount. Hence, this convention does not fully assist the crew with unpaid wages of more than four months. There are a small number of shipowners whose crew may not be paid wages on a regular basis. They may, for example, be paid their full wages at the end of the contract term, which can be a few years. Meantime, they may be given, say, a small allowance. They may use such an allowance to buy daily necessities.
Often, when such crew try to stop work and return home, often due to unhappiness with poor working conditions, the owners may threaten not to pay their salaries in full. The crew's only option will be to leave the vessel and instruct lawyers to file a claim in Court. But the crew may not have the funds to do so. Some of the crew may even have entered into one-sided contracts with manning agents. Included in this category are some fishing fleets, which I understand come into Singapore port for various reasons. These are not Singapore-registered vessels. They are foreign-owned and have foreign crew. For the crew on these vessels, sadly, this Convention may be academic to them and will not really improve their lot.
Madam, I understand that for the purpose of the financial security required by this Convention to secure the various crew-related claims, the IG group, or the world's Protection and Indemnity clubs, who are the top-tier group of P&I clubs, are going to provide automatic additional cover, presumably with additional premium and they will provide cover to ships regardless of whether they belong to a flag-state, who is the signatory state to this Convention. This is great news, as it would ensure that the crew of more ships can enjoy the security intended under this Convention.
However, with regard to crew who are serving on board ships which are not entered with these P&I clubs or on board many more smaller home-trade vessels which are not as well regulated for various reasons, whether crew can enjoy protection under this Convention will depend on whether their ship has the requisite insurance coverage. We should not assume that this is a given in all cases.
Madam, under this Convention, seafarers have to be serving on board at the time of claim. The crew can only make any claim on the MLC certificates if they are still serving on board. It brings the possibility of owners repatriating seafarers by giving false assurances that outstanding wages of claims will be paid after repatriation. But once repatriated, the financial security may no longer assist the seafarers. And the seafarers will have to engage lawyers to pursue their claims.
Madam, I understand that all states which are party to this Convention are required to implement the requirements of this Convention in a way that ensures that the ships flying the flag of a state, which has not ratified this Convention, do not receive more favourable treatment. I also understand that all states which are party to this Convention are also obliged to have effective port state control to ensure ships entering its port meet the requirements of this Convention.
Madam, not all port or flag-states may be signatories of this Convention. Some ships which come into Singapore port may come from flag-states which are not signatories. To ensure consistent protection of crew under these provisions, port-states like Singapore which are signatories to this Convention must carry out consistent enforcement when vessels enter port. Singapore is a major maritime hub. We have one of the world's busiest ports. And we have one of the largest ship registries in the world. We have to do our part, both as a port-state as well as a flag-state, to ensure that shipowners comply with the IMO Conventions or regulations and to make this Convention and this Bill work. In this connection, may I ask the Senior Minister of State how will MPA ensure that all ships entering Singapore, especially those which are not registered with the Singapore registry, have their MLC certificates in place?
Madam, this Convention is certainly a good and big step in the right direction, in so far as it provides more protection and assurance in respect of repatriation cost, unpaid wages, compensation for death and long-term disability. However, I feel that there is still more that we can do to improve on the certainty of seafarers being paid their fair wages and being paid in a timely manner. Madam, I am in support of the Bill.
Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Madam, the minimum standards prescribed by MLC have done much to protect and improve the work environment of seafarers in accordance with ILO standards regulating merchant shipping.
Amongst other broad terms and benefits, it is important that conditions of their employment are taken care of. In addition, they must be sufficiently cared for in the areas of health protection, medical care, welfare, accident prevention and, if injury were to inadvertently happen, there must be sufficient assistance given for workplace injury which includes adequate compensation to ensure their long-term survivability. We need to ensure seafarers are able to return home safely at no cost in cases of abandonment or repatriation for reasons such as illness, injury, shipwreck, trading in a war zone or if the shipowner fails to fulfil his or her legal obligations to the seafarers.
Madam, while I fully support the Bill, I certainly hope that we could beef up penalties against irresponsible shipowners who commit unscrupulous actions, such as abandonment, or failure to pay salaries or not providing necessary maintenance and support. In other words, apart from getting the shipowner to repatriate the seafarer, what further actions can be taken against shipowners who commit such irresponsible acts?
Can the seafarers be reassured if the terms of coverage by a contract of insurance or other financial security will include all the liabilities included in the Work Injury Compensation Act?
It is equally imperative that the seafarers know their rights and understand what employers' obligations are. In this aspect, there should be greater transparency of cases of how repatriation have been managed by shipowners, awareness of the legislation to the various stakeholders, especially the seafarers, adequate education and easy access for seafarers to reach out for help, assistance and counselling.
In this aspect, the maritime unions have been and continue to do a great job in representing the concerns of these seafarers, especially when they are stranded at sea. Shipowners must provide financial security to assure compensation in the event of death or long-term disability of seafarers due to occupational injury, illness or accidents due to work hazards. The legislation now makes it even more concrete of their obligations in this aspect.
Madam, the Bill is a step in the right direction. One must value human lives and workers' rights for fundamental protection, prevention of accidents, incidents and, if it happens, provide both psychological and material support through expeditious treatment, smooth repatriation and fair compensation. With this, I am in favour of the Bill.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. However, on behalf of our unions and workers in this industry, I wish to raise two issues with regard to this Bill.
First, does the financial security system provide abandoned seafarers with direct access, sufficient coverage and expedited financial assistance?
The amendments have treated the abandonment scenarios envisioned in the MLC amendments as scenarios where shipowners are required to repatriate the seafarer. I have several questions.
Do the amendments allow the seafarer to tap on the contract of insurance or financial security to \"provide direct access, sufficient coverage and expedited financial assistance\" in scenarios of abandonment as envisioned by the amendments to MLC?
Can the contract of insurance be tapped on to pay for \"necessary maintenance and support\" of the seafarer, for example, adequate food, accommodation, drinking water supplies, essential fuel for survival on board the ship and necessary medical care when the seafarer has not been provided with such necessary maintenance and support by the shipowner? And can the contract of insurance be tapped on to pay outstanding wages to the seafarer when the seafarer has not been paid wages for more than two months?
Second, is it possible for seafarers to tap on the contract of insurance or financial security when the ship has been arrested or when the shipowner is under receivership?
The shipping industry has been squeezed on both the supply and demand sides: too many vessels, not enough scrapped, while global trade has slowed down. The Baltic Dry index, a measure of freight rates for bulk carriers that carry commodities like coal and iron ore, has plummeted by 95% since its peak in 2008. Even oil tankers are suffering. Container lines are now also in particularly bad shape. Sending a container from Shanghai to Europe costs half what it did in 2014, according to figures from the Chinese city's shipping exchange. More shipowners are expected to run into difficulties.
For example, the stranded crew of Hanjin Rome, owned by the bankrupt Hanjin Shipping Company, had sat off the eastern coast of Singapore. The vessel was placed under Court arrest here on 29 August after German shipowner Rickmers filed a civil claim for money it says it is owed by Hanjin.
According to the Maritime Port Authority of Singapore, once a ship is arrested, anything that enters or leaves the ship has to be approved by the Supreme Court, including change of crew. Crew members would have to apply for permission from the Supreme Court to be repatriated. In an arrested ship, at least half the number of officers, engineers and crew or watchmen, security guards must be on board at all times to meet the minimum manning requirement.
In the case where the ship has been arrested and where seafarers on board have not been provided \"necessary maintenance and support, including adequate food, accommodation, drinking water supplies, essential fuel for survival on board the ship and necessary medical care\", would the seafarers be able to tap on the financial security system to seek financial assistance in this regard?
In the case where a shipowner is in receivership and has not paid its seafarers' wages for more than two months, would the seafarers be able to tap on the financial security system to seek financial assistance in this regard?
Mdm Speaker: Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mdm Speaker, I thank the Members for their comments and their support for the Bill.
Mr Patrick Tay and Ms Thanaletchimi have spoken from the Labour Movement's perspective; Mr Louis Ng from a humanitarian perspective; and I have found particularly useful from Mr Dennis Tan, speaking from his insights as a very experienced shipping lawyer. I shall attempt to address some of the points that were raised.
Mr Louis Ng rightly pointed out that \"seafarers are fully dependent on the ratification of international conventions to protect their fundamental rights.\" And this is why Singapore was the first Asian country to ratify the MLC and why we are moving this Bill to bring the provisions of the Act up to date with the latest enhancements to the MLC. After all, it is a Convention designed specifically to address the needs of seafarers working onboard ships.
The Act today already includes a comprehensive range of employment rights and non-workmen injury compensation for seafarers, which makes it unnecessary to also extend coverage of the Employment Act and Employment of Foreign Manpower Act to seafarers. For instance, the Act provides a seafarer with the right to return home when he decides not to renew his employment agreement. His trip home will be paid for by his employer. There is no such provision for most other types of employees.
This Bill will expand the seafarer's right to return home when the shipowner fails to provide for his necessary maintenance, or owes his salary for more than two months. Mr Patrick Tay will be glad to know that the provisions in the Bill will allow seafarers to tap the insurance or financial security to pay for such items in case shipowners refuse to or are unable to do so. This is the added protection that is currently not available. The financial security provider will also cover up to four months of outstanding wages and other entitlements under the seafarer's employment agreement. So, it depends on what is in the employment agreement.
The same arrangement also applies to ships under arrest or shipowners in receivership. Should a shipowner face difficulties in tending to his seafarers' needs onboard an arrested ship, the local Court sheriff may arrange for a port agent to tend to the maintenance of the seafarers. In other words, seafarers can have better peace of mind that their well-being is not left to the mercy of the shipowners. The local Court Sherriff can appoint a port agent.
On a related note, I am glad to inform Mr Patrick Tay and also Mr Dennis Tan that the seafarers onboard Hanjin Rome, which was the vessel that was arrested in Singapore by its creditors, are in good health and their salaries have been paid on time. There is adequate food, water and medical supplies onboard the vessel. We know this because the unions, together with the Maritime Port Authority (MPA), made an inspection. And those who have requested for repatriation were repatriated by the shipowner. Should the owner of an arrested ship like Hanjin Rome renege on their repatriation obligations in future, then the provisions in the Bill will kick in to provide relief to the seafarers.
In response to the clarification sought by Ms Thanaletchimi, the insurance or financial security required must provide the same extent of coverage of employers' liabilities as under the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA). In other words, seafarers are no worse off being covered under the MLC Act instead of under WICA.
After the Bill comes into force, MPA will require a ship to carry documentary evidence, or MLC certificates, as Mr Dennis Tan refers to. These MLC certificates must be carried in order to show that necessary insurance or the financial security has been procured. And the shipowners must also let the seafarers have the contact details of the financial security provider ‒ the Member has already mentioned that. In the unfortunate event that a shipowner fails to comply with his repatriation obligations, the affected seafarers may contact the provider directly, or through the MPA, to request assistance.
Aside from the provisions in the Bill, I would like to assure Ms Thanaletchimi and Mr Louis Ng that MPA has measures in place to deal with irresponsible shipowners or employers. Seafarers can use the satellite phone or the Internet onboard the ship to get in touch with MPA to raise any matter of concern. I know that Mr Dennis Tan highlighted that, sometimes, the shipowners or the ship managers may make things very difficult for the seafarers. That is a very valid point, which is why I think it is very important to work with our unions. Work with our unions to educate the seafarers and also to provide to them alternative avenues of feedback, alternative avenues where they can raise their grievances. So, that is something that we take very seriously. Work in partnership with the unions to make sure that the seafarers' rights are not only protected on paper, but that they are, in effect, properly protected. Should any owner of a Singapore-registered ship fall short of fulfilling its obligations, MPA can take Court action to impose financial penalties or even de-register the ship from the Singapore Registry.
Furthermore, in its capacity as the port state authority, MPA can inspect all ships calling at Singapore. And a ship may be detained when it is found to be non-compliant with international conventions, including the MLC. And to the point that the Member made, consistent enforcement is absolutely right. I fully agree with the Member. And MPA carries out regular spot-checks to make sure that the MLC certificates are, in fact, being procured properly. And if MPA has reason to suspect that any vessel, whether they are flagged in Singapore or elsewhere, is not in compliance with any of these international conventions, then MPA will do whatever it can to make sure that these shipowners are taken to task.
Mdm Speaker, this Bill will fulfil Singapore's obligation as a state party to the MLC. As pointed out by Members, the MLC provides better protection to seafarers but, of course, it is not without its limitations. So, from the Government's perspective, we expect to continue to work together with the unions and to look for more avenues to improve the welfare and working conditions for the seafarers onboard Singapore-registered ships.
Mdm Speaker: Are there any clarifications? 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. – [Mrs Josephine Teo]. (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":"Grants to IMF's Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) and Second Minister for Defence (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mdm Speaker, allow me to read the Motion followed by saying a few words to recap the background of this Motion.
Mdm Speaker, on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister in Charge of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, I beg to move, \"That this Parliament, in accordance with section 6A(2)(d) of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act (Chapter 27 of the 2012 Revised Edition), resolves that the maximum amount of grants that the Monetary Authority of Singapore may give under a bilateral agreement (or its subsequent variations) to be made by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (on behalf of the Government of the Republic of Singapore) with the International Monetary Fund to support the Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust, is 14,510,000 Special Drawing Rights (or approximately 20,017,415 United States Dollars).\"
I will be moving a second Motion for a separate grant to the International Monetary Fund's (IMF's) Catastrophe Containment and Relief Trust later.
Singapore is making both grants as part of a multilateral effort to enhance the capacity of IMF to assist low-income countries. I will cover both grants in these short remarks.
The Bretton Woods Agreements (Amendment) Bill was passed in this House on 11 July 2016, and amendments came into effect on 7 October 2016, to enable MAS to make grants to IMF as part of international efforts to assist low-income countries. Before the amendments, MAS had powers to only provide loans and interest-free deposits to the IMF.
To recapitulate, the Bretton Woods Agreement Act (BWAA) institutes the following safeguards that apply when MAS makes grants to IMF.
First, MAS will provide financial assistance only as part of a collective action among IMF member countries. Second, in the interest of transparency, MAS will disclose publicly key information about the financial assistance. And, third, Parliament has to fix the maximum amount of the grants by a resolution.
I will now explain the context for the two grants, namely, the Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust and the Catastrophe Containment and Relief Trust.
First, the grant to the Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust (PRGT) will support IMF's concessional lending to low-income countries. In July 2009, the IMF agreed to boost its capacity to provide concessional loans to low-income countries in the wake of the global financial crisis. To fund the PRGT, 165 IMF member countries, including Singapore, agreed in 2012 to contribute at least 90% of the distributed profits from the sales of the gold holdings at the IMF.
Hence, Singapore's share of IMF's gold sales profits amounting to SDR 14,486,963 SDRs (USD 19,985,635) was pledged to PRGT in 2012 as part of a multilateral effort. Our pledge was conditional on the necessary amendments being made to the BWAA, which this House has passed the Bill.
The grant to the Catastrophe Containment and Relief Trust (CCRT) serves a more specific purpose. The CCRT will enable IMF to provide debt relief to low-income countries facing natural disasters and fast-spreading epidemics. In February 2015, IMF established CCRT in response to the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa. CCRT was partly financed with member countries' unutilised balances under the previous Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI)
In July 2015, Singapore joined the international effort to pledge its unutilised contributions of 224,994 SDRs (USD 310,393) in the previous MDRI to the new CCRT aimed at the countries facing catastrophic situations.
As a highly open economy and international financial centre, Singapore has a strong stake in preserving a healthy and stable global economic environment. Both PRGT and CCRT contribute to this purpose. We should do our part in multilateral efforts to strengthen IMF's capacity to assist vulnerable, low-income countries and enable them to benefit from global economic integration. Developing countries in our region, such as Cambodia, Lao PDR and Myanmar, will be able to benefit from these initiatives.
Mdm Speaker, MAS proposes to proceed with these two grants to IMF's PRGT and CCRT, comprising the monies pledged and the interest earned on the monies.
The proposed grants to PRGT and CCRT will adhere to the safeguards pursuant to BWAA. Following Parliament's resolution to fix the maximum amount of grants that MAS can allocate to IMF's PRGT and CCRT, MAS will publish in the Gazette key information about the grants. To further ensure transparency, MAS had also issued a press release on 2 November 2016 to inform the public of the grants and that it will be seeking Parliament's approval. Madam, I beg to move.
Mdm Speaker: Is there anyone who wishes to speak? No.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That this Parliament, in accordance with section 6A(2)(d) of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act (Chapter 27 of the 2012 Revised Edition), resolves that the maximum amount of grants that the Monetary Authority of Singapore may give under the bilateral agreement (or its subsequent variations) to be made by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (on behalf of the Government of the Republic of Singapore) with the International Monetary Fund to support the Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust, is 14,510,000 Special Drawing Rights (approximately 20,017,415 United States Dollars).\" (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Grants to IMF's Catastrophe Containment and Relief Trust","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) and Second Minister for Defence (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mdm Speaker, on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister in Charge of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, I beg to move, \"That this Parliament, in accordance with section 6A(2)(d) of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act (Chapter 27 of the 2012 Revised Edition), resolves that the maximum amount of grants that the Monetary Authority of Singapore may give under the bilateral agreement (or its subsequent variations) to be made by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (on behalf of the Government of the Republic of Singapore) with the International Monetary Fund to support the Catastrophe Containment and Relief Trust, is 226,000 Special Drawing Rights (approximately 311,781 United States Dollars).\" Madam, I beg to move.
Mdm Speaker: Is there anyone who wishes to speak? No.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That this Parliament, in accordance with section 6A(2)(d) of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act (Chapter 27 of the 2012 Revised Edition), resolves that the maximum amount of grants that the Monetary Authority of Singapore may give under the bilateral agreement (or its subsequent variations) to be made by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (on behalf of the Government of the Republic of Singapore) with the International Monetary Fund to support the Catastrophe Containment and Relief Trust, is 226,000 Special Drawing Rights (approximately 311,781 United States Dollars).\" – [Mr Ong Ye Kung] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Subscription to the International Development Association","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for National Development and Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): Madam, I beg to move, \"That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4(2) of the International Development Association Act, resolves that the total subscription of Singapore to the International Development Association be increased to a sum not exceeding One Million, One Hundred Thousand United States dollars (US$ 1,100,000).\"
Madam, the World Bank offers concessional loans and grants through the International Development Association or IDA. These concessional loans and grants are offered to its least developed member countries to promote economic and social development and reduce poverty. IDA was started in 1960 and has been replenished every three years or so.
Members might know that IDA has been playing a leading role in responding to complex global challenges like healthcare, education, gender inequality, climate change and institutional reform by focusing on some of the world's poorest countries. It has helped country recipients build long-term, sustainable capacities and put them on a path of self-reliance. To date, 30 countries have \"graduated\" from IDA's support. Some, like China and South Korea, have gone on to help finance IDA's programmes.
Some of our ASEAN neighbours have also benefited from IDA. In the last replenishment round, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Vietnam received a total of US$3.8 billion in allocations. Vietnam's education sector, in particular, has received support from IDA to deliver joint training programmes with reputable universities worldwide at their higher education institutions. Vietnam is also one of three countries slated to graduate from the IDA programme and will receive transitional IDA support to ensure a smooth graduation.
Overall, these are positive developments for Singapore because an improvement in the economic climate of our neighbouring countries will have positive spill-over effects on our own economy.
Singapore will do its part as a responsible international citizen to support IDA. We have been contributing to IDA replenishments since 2002. In 2010, we increased our share of contributions from 0.08% to 0.15% for the 16th round of replenishment. And this is part of our commitment to a wider international effort to support global developmental objectives. We maintained this share of 0.15% for the 17th replenishment exercise in 2013.
Now, we have an upcoming 18th round of replenishment for IDA, and the majority of IDA donors have supported a total replenishment size of US$75 billion over the period of FY18 to FY20. This will enable IDA to double its core resources to countries in fragile and conflict-affected situations, as well as channel resources for crisis response and pandemic preparedness.
To fund this 18th replenishment, IDA will, for the first time, also tap on capital markets to blend grant member contributions with market borrowings. And based on IDA's track record and capital adequacy, Standard and Poor's has assigned it a rating of \"AAA\" on long-term; and \"A-1+\" on short-term credit. This allows IDA to raise funds in a cost-efficient way from the capital markets. IDA will also strengthen client support by working with two other World Bank Group institutions – the International Finance Corporation and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency – to promote private sector development in recipient countries, especially those in fragile and conflict-affected situations.
Singapore strongly supports these initiatives to crowd-in private sector funding as a sustainable way of supporting global development. These innovations also mean that member contributions requested by IDA can actually be lower than that committed under the last replenishment exercise.
For this coming 18th round of replenishment, we will be maintaining our burden share at 0.15%. This was the same percentage as we had in the last round and translates into an amount of US$46 million from MOF's budget.
Every country that donates to IDA has a subscription share with IDA. Singapore's subscription amount today is US$911,709. With the new round of replenishment, we anticipate that our IDA subscription will cross the US$1 million mark.
Under section 4(2) of the IDA Act, Parliament's approval is required for total IDA subscription exceeding US$1 million. We are, therefore, requesting that Parliament approve that the total subscription of Singapore to IDA be increased to a sum not exceeding US$1.1 million. Madam, I beg to move.
Mdm Speaker: No one is taking the floor.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4(2) of the International Development Association Act, resolves that the total subscription of Singapore to the International Development Association be increased to a sum not exceeding One Million, One Hundred Thousand United States Dollars (US$ 1,100,000).\" – [Mr Lawrence Wong] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government Securities","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Senior Minister of State for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, \"That this Parliament, in accordance with Article 144(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore and section 11(1) of the Government Securities Act (Chapter 121A of the 2014 Revised Edition), resolves that the Minister for Finance be authorised to borrow, by the issue of Government Securities in Singapore under that Act, a further sum not exceeding Two Hundred Thousand Million Singapore Dollars (S$200,000,000,000), thereby in total a sum not exceeding Six Hundred and Ninety Thousand Million Singapore Dollars (S$690,000,000,000).\"
Madam, the Government Securities Act was set up in 1992 to provide for the issuance of Government securities in Singapore. The securities are issued not for Government spending, but to fulfil other specific purposes: the Singapore Government Securities (SGS) are issued to develop the domestic debt market; the Special Singapore Government Securities (SSGS) are non-tradable bonds issued primarily to meet the investment needs of the Central Provident Fund (CPF) and the Singapore Savings Bonds (SSB) are issued to provide individual investors with long-term savings option. The proceeds from the issuance of securities are not spent; they are invested.
There is a limit on the amount of securities the Government can issue, and this limit is authorised by Parliament. The last increase in the issuance limit was in April 2012, when Parliament approved the increase of the Government's issuance limit from S$320 billion to S$490 billion. The approved increase was projected to serve the issuance needs of the Government for five years till 2017.
As at March 2016, the outstanding amount of securities is S$429 billion, and we are on track to fully utilise the current limit by end of 2017. There is, therefore, a need to raise the limit to cater to the issuance needs for Government securities for the next five years beyond 2017.
The outstanding amount of securities is projected to reach S$690 billion by the end of 2022. About 84% of the increase is expected to be issued to CPF Board to meet its investment needs. We expect CPF balances to continue to increase due to growth in the resident labour force and wages, various Government transfers and CPF policy enhancements.
The remaining 16% of the increase would be primarily for MAS to increase the issuance of SGS in line with the growth of our financial markets to enhance the efficiency and liquidity of Singapore's debt markets in particular, and the issuance of SSB to individual investors.
The increase in issuance limit for Government securities has no impact on the Government's fiscal position. All the borrowings will be invested and not spent. Under the Protection of Reserves Framework in the Constitution, the Government will continue to have to operate on a balanced Budget and can only spend the reserves accumulated during its term.
I propose, therefore, that the ceiling for issuing Government securities be raised by S$200 billion, to S$690 billion. The proposed limit of S$690 billion will apply to the outstanding amount of Government Securities, and is expected to last us five years till 2022. Madam, I beg to move.
Mdm Speaker: Is there anyone who wishes to speak? No.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That this Parliament, in accordance with Article 144(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore and section 11(1) of the Government Securities Act (Chapter 121A of the 2014 Revised Edition), resolves that the Minister for Finance be authorised to borrow, by the issue of Government Securities in Singapore under that Act, a further sum not exceeding Two Hundred Thousand Million Singapore Dollars (S$200,000,000,000), thereby in total a sum not exceeding Six Hundred and Ninety Thousand Million Singapore Dollars (S$690,000,000,000).\" (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 Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed.\" – [Mr Chan Chun Sing.] (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 5.00 pm.
10 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what is the Government's assessment of the current state of bilateral relations with China after Singapore's alleged initiative on South China Sea disputes at the Non-Aligned Movement Summit in Venezuela and given Singapore's official stand on the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: The Global Times, a Chinese tabloid, made a false allegation that Singapore tried to unilaterally insert South China Sea-related language into the Final Document of the Non-Aligned Movement Summit in Venezuela. Since our factual rebuttals of the false allegations are known publicly, I will not repeat them here.
As Members know, Singapore has a long-standing and broad relationship with China. We celebrated 25 years of diplomatic relations and upgraded our relationship into an \"All-Round Cooperative Partnership Progressing with the Times\" last year when President Xi Jinping made a state visit. Singapore’s cooperation with China remains deep and multi-faceted. China is our top trading partner and we have been China’s top foreign investor since 2013.
Singapore has also been a consistent advocate of a free and open international trade system. We were a founding member of the P4, which subsequently developed into the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The TPP is intended to be an open and inclusive agreement. Singapore welcomes China to join the TPP when they are ready to do so, in the same way that we supported China's accession to the World Trade Organisation.
Singapore’s position as a non-claimant state in the South China Sea disputes has been articulated in this House on several occasions, including the Committee of Supply Debate in February this year. Prime Minister Lee also explained in considerable detail our position during this year’s National Day Rally. It will be useful for the Member and her party to state, for the record, whether they agree with the Government's position. If not, what is their position?
The Chinese leaders know Singapore's position and also understand that our bilateral relations extend far beyond a single issue. Hence, when Prime Minister Lee was invited to attend the G20 Leaders’ Summit hosted by China and met President Xi in Hangzhou this September, the two leaders agreed to strengthen our mutually beneficial cooperation based on the principle of mutual respect and mutual understanding. The Chongqing Connectivity Initiative, our third Government-to-Government project, is also making good progress.
People-to-people exchanges continue to be robust. Just recently, we hosted a Guangdong delegation under the Singapore Cooperation Programme to exchange views on developmental experience.
On the Government's part, we continue to support private-sector efforts through initiatives, such as the proposed upgrade of the China-Singapore Free Trade Agreement.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Analysis of Entrepreneurial Success and Failures in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"11 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) whether the Ministry will consider compiling anonymised case studies of entrepreneurial successes and failures in Singapore, with an analysis drawing out the concrete success factors and mistakes respectively, to be published as an educational tool for entrepreneurs, would-be entrepreneurs and organisations that fund startups.
Mr S Iswaran: The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and its agencies regularly profile successful entrepreneurs and companies through various platforms. This enables entrepreneurs to learn from the experiences of these examples in pursuing their business endeavours. The platforms include speeches given by political officeholders, outreach events, advertorials and online channels, such as the SME Portal managed by SPRING1. IE Singapore also profiles Singapore companies and their internationalisation experiences through its #SgGoesGlobal series on its website.
As success factors and business challenges may differ across industries, the Government also works closely with the trade associations and chambers (TACs) to provide sector-specific information to help budding entrepreneurs distil learning points from the failures or mistakes of companies in the same sector. Such information is typically shared with the entrepreneurs and existing businesses through channels, such as the TACs' respective outreach events or publications. For example, in June 2016, the Restaurant Association of Singapore (RAS) published a guidebook entitled \"Turning Passion Into Profits\", in collaboration with SPRING. The guidebook offers entrepreneurs tips and guidelines on how to set up and run \tfood and beverage (F&B) businesses in Singapore. In addition to case studies, industry data is also available in the guidebook to help entrepreneurs in the F&B industry assess the viability of their own businesses and gain a realistic understanding of operating challenges, such as financial and manpower resources.
Targeted assistance and support is also readily available through Government-facilitated seminars, workshops, dialogue sessions and mentoring services. These include IE Singapore’s iAdvisory series of seminars and workshops that provide companies with insights into market opportunities or business capabilities, and in-market workshops held in foreign markets to help local entrepreneurs connect with like-minded partners and gain in-market overseas experience. SPRING also works closely with Action Community for Entrepreneurship (ACE) to support the start-up community. Through dialogue sessions and one-on-one mentoring, would-be entrepreneurs can tap on the expertise of more experienced entrepreneurs to accelerate their learning and acquire a deeper appreciation of the challenges and potential pitfalls of setting up their businesses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The SME Portal is an online business portal managed by SPRING that contains relevant Government and commercial information and services for SMEs at various business stages. The portal also features stories of local companies from various industries that have overcome their business challenges."],"footNoteQuestions":["11"],"questionNo":"11"}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":1658,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Desmond Choo","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20161110/vernacular-Desmond Choo(1).pdf","fileName":"Desmond Choo(1).pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}