1 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the progress of Sinovac vaccine approval; (b) whether Singapore is still considering to continue qualifying other vaccines that are claimed to be linked to blood clots; and (c) what is the likelihood for a need for another dose of vaccine in a year’s time.
2 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Health whether the Government is in discussions with Pfizer and Moderna for the need for a potential COVID-19 booster shot to be administered.
\tThe Minister for Health (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 1 and 2 in my Ministerial Statement later today?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Enhance Road Safety Apart from Licensing Cyclists","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Transport in enhancing road safety, what other measures can the Ministry consider besides licensing cyclists.
4 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport given that cyclists are more vulnerable on the roads, how can it be ensured that (i) cyclists are protected against inconsiderate and reckless drivers and (ii) the rights of both cyclists and motor vehicle drivers are deconflicted.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Mr Chee Hong Tat) (for the Minister for Transport): Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 3 and 4 together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Thank you, Sir. Sir, more people have taken up cycling since the pandemic started. This is a good development, as cycling is a convenient, environmentally friendly and healthy way to travel. The key is to ensure safety – safety for different groups of road users.
Where possible, we will separate bicycles from motor vehicles by providing cycling paths. We are building more cycling paths, within and between towns, from about 460 kilometres today to more than 1,300 kilometres by 2030.
However, it is not always possible to have separate paths for motor vehicles and bicycles. There will be many instances and locations where motorists and cyclists have to share the same road space. To enhance road safety, it is important to have clear rules for motorists and cyclists, and for everyone to follow these safety rules.
For on-road cyclists, there are existing rules under the Road Traffic Act which they must follow. For example, cyclists must comply with all traffic rules, such as adhering to traffic light signals and avoiding the use of expressways and tunnels. They should also ride as near as possible to the far-left edge of the road. This means they should keep to the left on the leftmost lane unless they are turning right or making a U-turn. On single-lane roads, cyclists are required to ride in a single file, so they do not obstruct passing vehicles.
The majority of cyclists follow the safety rules. But there is a minority of errant cyclists who use their mobile phones while riding, refuse to stop at red lights, ride in the middle lane of a major road, including expressways where bicycles are prohibited, and some of them react aggressively when they are called out for their actions. We will enforce against such behaviours. Errant cyclists can face up to a $1,000 fine and a six-month jail term for the first offence, with higher penalties for repeat offenders.
There are also motorists who drive recklessly and endanger the lives of others, including cyclists, and we will take enforcement actions against them too. We should bear in mind that cyclists are more vulnerable than those travelling in motor vehicles. The Active Mobility Advisory Panel (AMAP) will review ways to raise awareness amongst motorists on how to share road space safely with cyclists and other users.
Ultimately, there needs to be more graciousness, consideration, as well as give and take on the roads. Other countries have done it and I believe so can we. Beyond enforcement, the more enduring solution is public education. In his written Parliamentary Question, Mr Dennis Tan asked if we have a public education campaign on safe practices for cyclists and pedestrians. Since 2018, LTA has offered the Safe Riding Programme (SRP). This is a voluntary education programme that is free of charge, with both theory and practical components for all active mobility device users, including cyclists. LTA is revamping the SRP and will work with Traffic Police to reach out to road users and encourage public participation. We intend to roll out the new SRP in the next few months.
AMAP is also reviewing if our safety rules need to be strengthened and whether existing penalties need to be increased. For example, it is studying suggestions from the public on whether cyclists should be required to ride in a single file at all times on the roads and if there should be limits on group sizes for on-road cycling.
On whether to license on-road cyclists, there are mixed views from the public. Some are in support of licensing, so that errant cyclists can be more easily identified and punished. Others have expressed concerns that licensing on-road cyclists will increase compliance costs and affect the livelihoods of Singaporeans who are using their bicycles for work and commute. AMAP will adopt a fair and balanced approach in doing its review by consulting widely and hearing from different groups of stakeholders.
Most jurisdictions, like the Netherlands and Denmark, do not license cyclists. Vienna licenses children aged 10 to 12 who ride alone on roads, to ensure they are educated with road traffic rules, but adult cyclists are not required to have a licence. Tokyo requires bicycles to be registered, but the purpose is to deter bicycle theft and not to enhance road safety. Beijing used to register bicycles too, but decided to abolish the scheme in 2004 as they found it to be costly and ineffective.
AMAP will review the practices in overseas jurisdictions and study the different options and trade-offs carefully before finalising its recommendations.
Sir, road safety is a collective effort by the community, requiring each of us, all of us, to play our part. Beyond reviewing the safety rules and penalties, I urge all road users to drive and ride safely, be considerate to one another and, in doing so, make our roads safer for everyone.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.
\tMs Poh Li San (Sembawang): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State. It is good to know that MOT does not intend to license cyclists. I have one supplementary question on enhancing safe cycling in Singapore. PCN and cycling paths across the whole of Singapore will take time to build. Can LTA embark on selective improvements to infrastructure that can enhance safety? For instance, widening of existing shared paths that are already too narrow and also adding more signages and markings on roadways, especially at road stretches with typically higher cyclist traffic and also junctions with blind spots.
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Sir, I thank Ms Poh for her supplementary questions. First, to clarify, AMAP is currently still doing its review. It has not come to any landing point at this moment. It is studying carefully the different options and trade-offs.
What I shared earlier in my main reply was to highlight some of the practices in overseas jurisdictions where they do not license cyclists or bicycles, but they have other ways of improving road safety. So, we do need to look at these carefully. I believe where Ms Poh and some members of the public are coming from is that licensing may seem like an attractive idea to improve road safety, but, in practice, and based on the experiences in other countries, whether that is, indeed, an effective way or are there other more effective ways, that is something AMAP is carefully studying.
Sir, I agree with Ms Poh that while we look at how to expand our cycling paths, our Park Connectors, in the meantime, there are also other ways to improve the infrastructure, to improve road safety in our towns for all users. Just to give an example, in Toa Payoh, where I am looking after the town, we are working together with LTA, PUB and also the other agencies to cover up some of the open drains and convert them into wider footpaths. And in doing so, as Ms Poh pointed out, there will be more space for different groups of road users: pedestrians, cyclists. This is an important effort that must be complemented by users putting safety as a priority. The footpaths may be wider, but you must still ride safely and you must still look out for bicycles, other devices and other pedestrians when you are walking along these footpaths.
At the end of the day, I think what is most important is a combination of good infrastructure but also safety consciousness, placing priority on safety for all users.
\tDr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): I thank the Senior Minister of State for that sharing. The most important was on public education and I totally agree with the importance of public education. Would the Ministry consider conducting safety lessons in schools? That is one of the early touchpoints where we can educate our children. But most importantly, in that context, would the Ministry consider working closely with MOE to inculcate this, put it into the curriculum so that our students are given better ideas of safety and road safety in the future?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Sir, I am unable to answer on behalf of MOE on this point. But I just wanted to highlight that, currently, Primary school students do go through activities to teach them about road safety. There is also a collaboration with Traffic Police and LTA to bring our students to the Road Safety Park and to expose them to different aspects of road safety. I think this is something which requires continuous reinforcement along the way.
I am not sure whether we want to put it into the curriculum because the curriculum is already, I think, very heavy with different content. This is something which we can find other ways of raising awareness, not just with students but also with other groups of road users. I mentioned earlier the Safe Riding Programme. LTA is working on this with Traffic Police and I hope that when the revised programme is ready, we can encourage the public to participate in this.
\tMr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply to my question. I wanted to find out whether it is possible for the deployment of Auxiliary Police officers to help educate cyclists and motorists at this moment and pending the review and improvements to the infrastructure. I have noticed that in certain areas where cyclists like to go to, they normally cycle in a group and occupy the entire left lane. It is causing danger to themselves and also to motorists on the roads. Often, I find there are arguments as to who has the right to the lane.
I agree with my colleagues who spoke earlier; I think education is key. And so, pending the review, is it possible for LTA to look at public education and enforcement, to make sure all cyclists keep in one single row —
\tMr Speaker: Please keep the preamble short.
\tMr Gan Thiam Poh: Yes, thank you. And just to keep to the extreme left lane.
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with Mr Gan that education and enforcement need to go hand in hand. That is what we have been doing.
Mr Gan may be aware that we have been enforcing adherence to safety rules. And this is a joint effort by Traffic Police and LTA. We do need to recognise as well that when cyclists are on the road, they are more vulnerable compared to those who are travelling in motor vehicles. I also urge drivers to bear in mind that if you are driving past cyclists, please remember that they are more vulnerable on the roads. And I think it is important to also remember that the current rule on a multi-lane road is that it is not against the rule for cyclists to ride on the left-most lane but riding two abreast. They need not be in a single file. This is the current rule. They are only required to ride in a single file if they are riding on a road with a single lane. That is mainly to prevent obstruction to traffic. But on a multi-lane road, and if they are riding on the left-most lane, they are currently allowed to ride two abreast.
There are some on-going discussions with different groups of stakeholders on whether this is a good practice or not.
From one perspective, it does help to enhance safety for the cyclists. I think some cyclists also agree that the group should not be too big, but they say if they are riding in a reasonably sized group, the cars that are driving past, treat this group as though they are one slow moving vehicle. You pay more attention to looking out for them, being more aware of their presence on the road. There are some valid reasons as well why this rule is currently crafted.
But as I have said earlier, AMAP is reviewing, they are looking at the trade-offs. And I think they would consult widely with different groups of stakeholders before coming to the final recommendation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Net Investment Returns and Net Investment Income Components in Contributions to Government Budgets","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) for each year in the last five financial years, what is the percentage of the Net Investment Returns (NIR) and the Net Investment Income (NII) that contributed to the Government's Budget as Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC); and (b) what is the estimated percentage of the NIR and the NII to be contributed to the Government's Budget as NIRC for this financial year.
\tThe Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, Sir, from FY2016 to FY2020, the Net Investment Income (NII) and Net Investment Returns (NIR) taken into the Budget as Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) was the maximum 50% allowable under the Constitution. We plan to take in the maximum 50% of NII and NIR for FY2021, in view of the expected overall Budget deficit.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): I thank the Minister for his answer. I have got two supplementary questions. The first is, under the NIRC, I just wanted to understand if it is both the expected real rate of return that is estimated and is it also that of the net asset base.
The second is, in terms of the 2021 numbers, as I understand, there would be the similar 50% that will be taken in 2021 as with 2016 to 2020. In terms of the increase in the absolute NIRC contribution, may I ask the Minister what would that increase be attributable to? Would it be based on the higher rates of return or higher net asset base?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer to the first question is yes. It is a combination of both, obviously. The absolute dollar amount that we get from NIRC will be both a function of the smoothened net asset base as well as the expected long-term rate of return. That is the NIRC framework.
As to the components which contribute to the FY2021 figures, I do not think we have the breakdown today. Because there would be a process based on what the smoothened base is and then, what the expected long-term rate of return is, and there are processes in place, as we have described in this House, to ascertain each of these figures which then are submitted to the President's Office for the President's approval.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua, next question.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"GST Vouchers' Offset of GST Paid by Lower-income Households","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) over the last three years, what average percentage of GST paid by the lowest 20% of households (by income) is offset by all forms of GST vouchers; and (b) what is the breakdown based on one-off versus permanent GST voucher schemes.
\tThe Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, Singapore operates a comprehensive and progressive system of taxes and transfers to support our citizens in meeting their needs, including housing, education, healthcare, public transport and a safe and secure environment.
The GST Voucher (GSTV) is one permanent scheme that provides support to lower and middle income households and seniors for their living expenses. It comprises an annual cash payout, annual MediSave top-up for those aged 65 and above and quarterly utilities rebates (U-Save) for Housing and Development Board (HDB) households.
In some years, there were additional one-off GSTV special payments. This was the case in the past three years. In 2019, a GSTV – Cash special payment was given to celebrate Singapore's bicentennial and to support Singaporeans who need more help. An additional $20 of U-Save rebate was also provided each year from 2019 to 2021 to mitigate the impact of the introduction of the carbon tax. In 2020, additional U-Save rebates were given to all eligible HDB households to help Singaporeans cope during the extraordinary uncertainty brought about suddenly by COVID-19.
From 2018 to 2020, the permanent GSTV scheme offsets an average of 84% of the annual GST payable by the bottom 20% of Singaporean households, on a per household member basis. So, that is for the permanent scheme.
The GSTV special payments in 2019 and 2020 were equivalent to an offset of 33% of the GST payable by the bottom 20% of Singaporean households, again, on a per household member basis. This is on top of the 84% offset under the permanent scheme. In other words, in this extraordinary year, households in the bottom 20% got more from both the permanent and one-off GST Vouchers than the amount of GST payable.
An enhanced GSTV scheme will continue to be part of the progressive system of taxes and transfers that we have in Singapore, ensuring that lower income households receive more benefits than the taxes that they pay.
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): I thank the Minister for the answers. Especially in light of COVID-19, I think there is a lot of concern as to inequality, especially if you look at the household income from work, I think it is the lowest 10% that saw the hardest hit in terms of income. So, in terms of the supplementary questions, I have got two.
The first is in relation to the enhanced permanent GST Voucher scheme, in terms of the target amount of offset for the households involved, what is the target in terms of how much of the GST that would have been payable and how much of it do you want to offset? And what is the percentage of Singaporeans that will come under this GST Voucher scheme?
The second is also in relation to that. If I look at the cut-off right now, in terms of the assessible income criterion, that is about $28,000, which works out to about $2,300 a month, which is significantly lower than the median monthly income from work of about $4,500. So, I just want to understand, in terms of the scope of this permanent GST Voucher scheme, the amount of help that could be rendered to the middle income households.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. Inequality is certainly an issue that the Government is very focused on. We have been tackling this issue through a whole range of measures – Workfare, GST Vouchers, Senior Employment Credit, a whole range of different social support measures – for at least 20 years now. And you can see from the statistics that, in fact, the Gini coefficient in Singapore, post-tax and transfers, has been coming down. So, our measures are working. We will continue to do more to address inequality and social mobility, particularly, given that the concerns of COVID-19 and the impact of the pandemic are being felt disproportionately more by the lower income groups.
As to the enhancements to the permanent GST Voucher, that is something we are studying. We have committed; the Deputy Prime Minister did say when we talked about raising the GST rate, that we will also look at enhancing the permanent GST Voucher, not just providing a one-off offset but enhancing the permanent layer of the GST Voucher. We are studying that and will certainly get back with details when we are ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Restricted Inflow of Foreign Workers on Population and Companies' Operations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the restricted inflow of workers to Singapore has affected companies in Singapore and their ability and capacity to meet business commitments; and (b) what measures are being considered to mitigate the impact on companies and the products and services they provide to Singaporeans.
8 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Manpower (a) from November 2020 to April 2021, how many In-Principle Approvals (IPA) and successful Entry Passes respectively have been granted to Work Permit and S Pass applicants from the construction, marine and process sectors on a monthly basis; and (b) whether the Ministry will expand the list of source countries from where companies in these sectors can employ foreign workers to work in Singapore.
9 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the contraction in total employment of non-residents by 181,500 throughout 2020 is also matched by a decline in the total population of non-residents in Singapore in the same period; (b) what are the reasons why non-residents who lose their jobs in Singapore may not be required to leave immediately; (c) how many non-residents who lost their jobs in 2020 have been allowed to remain in Singapore; and (d) how many non-residents who lost their jobs in 2020 have been re-employed in Singapore.
\tThe Second Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I take Question Nos 7, 8 and 9 together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Tan See Leng: Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Pritam Singh asked about the restricted inflow of workers and what we are doing to support businesses affected by these restrictions.
Businesses have, indeed, been affected, quite badly, particularly with the Construction, Marine Shipyard and Process (CMP) sectors being the hardest hit as they rely heavily on migrant workers for jobs that few locals would want to work in. In 2020, the number of Work Permit holders in the CMP sectors declined by nearly 60,000 or about 16%.
We are very mindful of the manpower crunch that these firms face today. Besides providing financial relief to help them, we are also taking steps to alleviate the manpower shortage. From November 2020 right up to April 2021, we granted entry approvals to an average of 5,100 S Pass and Work Permit holders per month. However, restrictions on inflow of workers from higher risk countries is likely to persist for some time. This is as the size of the inflow coming in has to be reduced when the COVID-19 situation deteriorates in these source countries from where they come from, and we can only increase these inflows when the situation in these home countries improve. Because this is the only way we can ensure the safe inflow of the workers, whilst managing and mitigating the risk of transmission in our community.
So, to help businesses tap on workers from other countries, the Government recently announced that we are increasing the existing foreign worker levy rebates for Work Permit holders in the CMP sectors from $90 to $250 per Work Permit holder per month. This will last from May to December 2021. Employers can make use of these rebates to bring in workers from alternative sources, such as China, where the workers are generally higher skilled and, at the same time, command higher wages.
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and Building and Construction Authority (BCA) also recently announced a temporary scheme to allow these new Work Permit holders from China to obtain their skills certification in Singapore, since some of the Overseas Testing Centres in China have not resumed operations. BCA and the Economic Development Board will continue to engage firms and we will continue to review if additional measures are needed to help the CMP sectors through this crisis.
In the meantime, we encourage businesses to retain their existing migrant workers and tap on other workers that are already here in Singapore.
Mr Leong Mun Wai asked if the non-resident employment decline in 2020 of 181,500 was matched by the decline in total population of non-residents within the same period. The answer is yes.
He also asked about repatriation arrangements. When a work pass expires or is cancelled, we typically require the worker to leave Singapore in two to four weeks. This depends, of course, on the pass type. Time is given for the employer to arrange repatriation and also for the worker to settle his or her own personal affairs, such as closure of bank accounts and termination of leases.
Each year, about 30% of all work pass holders do not continue employment with their original employer and have their passes expired or cancelled. If the work pass holder is able to find new employment before repatriation, there is no reason for us to purposefully force this worker to return to his home country, for him to incur additional recruitment fees from overseas employment agents, to undergo additional COVID-19 testing and, on return to Singapore, to serve up to 21 days Stay-Home Notice (SHN). Furthermore, making the worker do this unnecessary round-trip would increase the risk of him returning with a COVID-19 infection.
\tOn the other hand, however, if the work pass holder does not find new employment before the deadline, we ensure that his former employer will fulfil its obligation to successfully repatriate the worker.
If we had insisted that the worker had to leave Singapore even though he has already found an employer, we would have had to allow the entry of nearly double the number of workers last year, and this would further strain our SHN facilities. Of course, the alternative would be to compound further the manpower difficulties faced by businesses, as what the hon Member of Parliament Ms Jessica Tan and also Mr Pritam Singh have highlighted.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for replying to the Parliamentary Question (PQ). We have heard about anecdotes of companies applying for entry permits for their workers 30, 40, sometimes almost 50 times for one In-Principle Approval (IPA). It sounds like a large number; and, of course, the companies get frustrated. On the other hand, there is also an acknowledgement that the Government has to control the COVID-19 situation as best it can. So, it is a very fine balancing act.
Nonetheless, I have three supplementary questions for the Minister.
First, how long is MOM proposing to extend the IPA of Work Permit and S Pass holders respectively in view of their repeated unsuccessful entry pass applications? I understand MOM extends it one time as a given. That means if the IPA is for three months for the Work Permit holder, MOM will extend it automatically. Is this going to continue?
The second question is: would MOM be amenable to reimburse IPA application fees if, for whatever reason, the applying company decides, \"Look, I don't think it is possible to continue with this uncertainty\". So, would MOM consider reimbursing the IPA cost if the entry pass just does not come through?
The third question pertains to the second part of my two-part PQ. Some contractors have suggested non-traditional source countries like Vietnam as a potential source for workers. I know there is a long tail to this, it is not a case of just getting a person from any country; there is a whole process of training, and so on and so forth. Would this be something the Ministry would look into?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Mr Pritam Singh for his questions. For the IPA, the In-Principle Approvals, and the entry approvals or the final entry approvals, there are actually two separate independent processes. Obviously, we do receive and we do give out a lot more IPAs than the entry approvals.
One of the key challenges of this pandemic is the fact that the situation is extremely fluid and dynamic. Why do I say it is fluid and dynamic? Because of the source countries where our workers come from, the situation back in many of these source countries – I think you have seen in the news – what we are seeing are successive waves of infection. So, as a result of that, you find that at the point of application of the IPA, as long as it fulfils the requirements of what we have in terms of what is needed for them to come in, we grant the approval. But to regulate the control in terms of the onboarding of these migrant workers coming into Singapore, we do it via the entry approval route. And that is dependent on the risk quota which we are able to accept. It is also a function of certain Not-to-Land (NTL) Restrictions, for instance, that the MTF decides and, at the same time, also a function of how many of these SHN facilities we have available.
Earlier on in the year, we announced the set-up of the Migrant Worker Onboarding Centre, which is a one-stop centre to screen all of them, so as to make sure that it is safe before they go into the community. So, it is also a function of the number of beds that we have. Because of that, you find that the IPAs usually will far exceed the number of actual entry approvals coming into Singapore. So, I hope that part of it is cleared up.
To the Member's point about whether we can grant an extension – depending on the different Pass types, whether it is EP, S Pass and Work Permit – to the IPAs with different lengths of validity, today, the default answer to the point about the renewals and the automatic extension of IPAs – that is what we are now doing. However, we are seeing that because of the backlog of cases – that backlog has increased significantly. As a result, even if you allow for an automatic extension of that IPA, it does not make sense because that extension is going to go months ahead without any certainty as to whether, ultimately, we can grant the entry approvals. That is where the challenge is today. Because we have no way of telling how the pandemic, the control of the situation, the number of infections, the successive wave of infections from many of these source countries where we get our workers from, can actually provide certainty of control of the outbreak of these infections.
So, to that end itself, I guess the long answer to your question is that the extension of the validity of these IPAs is something that we are now reviewing. Because if it is too long again in the future, it does not make sense.
To the second point about refunds and reimbursements, indeed, we are considering that as well. We are trying to find a more nuanced way, so that we can make it a lot easier.
For the diversification of source countries, across the different Ministries – MND, BCA, ourselves, as well as MOT and ICA – we are exploring that collectively and we have started to reach out to counterparts in many of these other source countries, the non-traditional sources, to see how we can onboard them. But, obviously, this would take time because there are also language and cultural issues. These are things that we have to take into consideration.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.
\tMs Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): I thank the Minister for his response. I do have just one supplementary question. With regard to the industries, I know that the marine shipyard, construction and process industries have been most impacted. But I am also concerned about the small and medium enterprises or SMEs in terms of the services and their ability to continue to operate outside of these industries. There are some jobs – especially for Work Permit holders – that many of these SMEs are facing difficulty in terms of the ability to renew the Work Permits for, as well as to get sufficient workers for jobs that they are finding hard to fill, even as they look at alternative sources in Singapore.
So, my question to the Minister is, in terms of the extensions for existing Work Permit holders or S Passes for workers in Singapore, can that be considered, especially for the SMEs, because one or two workers make a big difference for them in terms of their ability to continue to operate?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Ms Jessica Tan for her very, very pertinent and very important question. Indeed, at this particular point in time, we are in crisis mode. So, all the appeals that come from all sectors, we will consider and we will review them. That is the reassurance that we can give.
On top of the appeals to grant extensions, we should also take note of the tremendous slew of measures that the Government has put forth to support SMEs – in the form of Job Support Scheme, the Job Growth Incentive. On top of that, we have got quite a number of other schemes to try and support our entire economy and our industry. So, it is not just one aspect or measure to help the SMEs only. Ms Tan will be comforted to know that the Government has also put in a very comprehensive set of measures to help support them as well.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
\tMr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have one clarification for the Minister. The Minister confirmed that last year, there was a contraction of about 180,000 in non-resident employment and there was also an outflow of these people from Singapore. Recently, there is also a number that said that there is a shortage of about 60,000 workers in the CMP sectors. So, can I confirm whether there has been a re-entry of 130,000 foreign workers into our country in the last few months?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Mr Leong for his question. If I may sort of couch it this way: net net, in the entire industry itself, from March of 2020, right up till April this year, for the CMP sectors, which include the Work Pass as well as the S Pass, there is an average net outflow of 2,400 workers a month.
If you just take construction alone, the net outflow is about 1,800 per month. For the services sector, which we sort of follow through, we are about 42,000 lower than last year, same period, that means March 2020. So, that represents a net outflow of 3,200 per month. This is just for the services sector.
So, if you add both the CMP sector plus the services sector, the net outflow is about 5,600 per month.
From November last year till April this year, when we started to resume opening up the inflow of workers to address our severe acute shortage in all of our industries, on the average per month – as I have alluded to in my earlier statement – 5,100 workers came in for that few months. We could not sustain that inflow because of the fact that – as I have said – the situation is very dynamic and very fluid. The moment in any of these source countries the infection rates go up, we would have to throttle the number again.
So, I hope that gives Mr Leong a sense of how acutely or how grave the shortage of workers is today in our industry.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Recent Cases of Gastroenteritis in Education Institutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in light of recent cases of gastroenteritis in various education institutions (a) what are the findings from the investigations conducted; and (b) what actions have been taken to manage such incidents and prevent them from recurring in future.
\tThe Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Since the start of 2021, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) and Ministry of Health (MOH) have conducted joint investigations into 27 incidents of Gastroenteritis (GE) outbreaks involving more than 800 people. Of these incidents, 18 were associated with education institutions, with 14 in preschools alone. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Minister for Sustainability and the Environment\", Official Report, 11 May 2021, Vol 95, Issue No 30.]
Despite only being four months into the year, this is reaching the level of 2019, when 18 out of 33 GE incidents in education institutions occurred in pre-schools.
GE is the inflammation of the stomach and intestines, characterised by vomiting and diarrhoea, and can be commonly caused by pathogens, such as viruses, bacteria and parasites. Viral GE can be transmitted from person to person or through surfaces contaminated by an infected person’s vomitus or faeces. GE can also be spread through contaminated food and water.
The joint investigations by SFA and MOH seek to identify the source and cause of contamination, as well as the corrective measures to be taken. The outcome of the investigations depends on factors, such as whether patients seek medical help and testing and whether the source is still present during investigations.
For the recent incidents at education institutions, investigations suggest that poor housekeeping practices in schools and lapses in cleaning, including within schools' in-house kitchens, could have contributed to the GE outbreaks. For instance, ineffective cleaning agents were used to sanitise areas contaminated with vomitus and faeces. Chopping boards and knives for raw meat and cooked food were also found kept together instead of separately, thus increasing the risk for cross-contamination.
Government agencies, including MOH, MOE, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) and SFA, are working closely to adopt a multi-pronged approach to reduce GE incidents in education institutions. We are particularly concerned about pre-schools, given that young children are more vulnerable.
We undertake measures, such as issuing guidelines and advisories on environmental hygiene and good food safety practices and health screening of staff and students. We also brief teachers, food handlers and cleaners on good cleaning practices, personal hygiene and food safety practices. SFA will enhance the food safety training framework for food handlers to better equip them with the knowledge and skills to ensure food safety.
Later this year, we will implement the environmental sanitation regime for premises, such as pre-schools, under the Environmental Public Health Act. Premises managers and their appointed environmental control coordinators will have to develop and implement an environmental sanitation programme at their premises in accordance with sector-specific standards. These efforts will strengthen environmental hygiene to help reduce the spread of diseases, including GE.
It is a collective effort to combat GE outbreaks in our education institutions. Education institutions must play their part to keep their students safe by upkeeping high standards of environmental and personal hygiene and food safety at all times. Parents and care-givers should also keep their sick children at home until they recover, so as to facilitate a healthy and safe environment for all students.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Singapore's Commitment Towards Net-zero Carbon Target","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether there are plans to review Singapore's commitment towards a net-zero carbon target and by when; and (b) beyond the targets set out in the Singapore Green Plan 2030, what are the key strategies to halve emissions by 2050, given that industries contribute to approximately 60% of Singapore's total carbon emissions.
\tThe Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Climate change is an existential challenge for Singapore and we take it very seriously. We have continually reviewed and enhanced our climate targets and preparations. Last year, we submitted our enhanced 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) and our Long-Term Low-Emissions Development Strategy (LEDS). This year, we launched the Singapore Green Plan 2030, which sets out a roadmap towards sustainable development and net-zero emissions.
Our goal is to peak emissions around 2030 and halve our emissions by 2050. We have put in place a broad-based carbon tax so that companies internalise the cost of carbon, and we will be reviewing the tax trajectory and level, post-2023, to reflect the increased urgency for climate action. We aim for our energy and chemicals sector to be amongst the best-in-class in energy and carbon efficiency globally. We have introduced an enhanced set of Industry Energy Efficiency schemes to give a stronger push for industrial facilities, including those of small and medium-sized enterprises, to be more energy-efficient.
In the long term, to achieve our mitigation aspirations, we will pursue three key strategies. First, we will transform our industry, economy and society to adopt more renewable energy, be more energy-efficient and reduce energy consumption. Second, we will invest in and draw on low-carbon technologies, such as carbon capture, utilisation and storage and low-carbon hydrogen. Third, we will foster international collaboration in areas, such as well-functioning carbon markets and regional electricity grids.
We will continue to raise our ambitions over time, despite our constraints as a small city-state with limited alternative energy resources. How soon we can achieve net-zero emissions will depend on factors, such as global advancement in low-carbon technologies. We are strengthening international partnerships to expand our options to reduce emissions.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.
\tMs Poh Li San (Sembawang): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for her clarifications. I have one supplementary question. To halve the absolute carbon emissions to 33 million tonnes carbon dioxide by 2050, given that industries account for the lion's share of the carbon emissions, are there strategic plans for the next three decades to: one, switch to cleaner power production plants for our national power grid, such as hydrogen or even biofuels, to replace LNG; and two, shift away from energy-intensive industries, such as petroleum refining, petrochemicals, semiconductors or even data centres?
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Member for the supplementary question. The short answer to her supplementary question is that we will consider all options. Given that this is a very long-term initiative, we need to consider all options that are good for us, in order for us to have the resource, economic and climate resilience going into the future; including meeting our goals on carbon.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Developing Core of Leaders in Science and Education to Support Green Plan 2030","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Prof Koh Lian Pin asked the Minister for Education whether there are coordinated steps being taken at the national level across Institutes of Higher Learning to (i) assemble a Singaporean Core of current leaders in science and education to support and advise the Government in implementing the Green Plan 2030 and (ii) continue to strengthen this core to future-proof Singapore against climate change, sustainability and other emerging challenges and opportunities.
\tThe Minister for Education (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, there is a strong pool of expert researchers and scientists in our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), in particular, our research-intensive Autonomous Universities, who are able to support the implementation of the Singapore Green Plan 2030. This is not confined to a specific discipline or background, as our approach is to draw on the diverse expertise available to support the implementation of the Green Plan. So, all the relevant Ministries involved in the Green Plan will tap on this expertise when they spearhead efforts for their respective domains.
Our researchers' areas of expertise cover a wide range of sustainability-related fields like climate science, waste management and food safety. For example, the National Research Foundation funds the Cooling Singapore project, which is co-led by the Singapore-ETH Centre and the Singapore Management University (SMU). The project studies ways to mitigate the Urban Heat Island effect. Assoc Prof Winston Chow from SMU, a Singaporean expert in Urban Climatology, plays a key role as Principal Investigator.
The Ministry of Education and the IHLs have also been actively building a pipeline of Singaporean and Singapore-based researchers and experts on sustainable development. For example, since the inception of its PhD programme in 2014, the Nanyang Technological University's Asian School of the Environment has trained more than 40 PhD students on topics like sea level rise and other climate hazards. The School also features a blend of research expertise, like Asst Prof Janice Lee, who looks into the impact of land use changes on biodiversity conservation and human livelihoods in Southeast Asia; and Prof Benjamin Horton, who is an internationally-respected expert in sea-level change.
The Government will continue to work closely with the IHLs on the implementation of the Singapore Green Plan and to further develop our manpower pipeline in sustainability-related research.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Credibility of Carbon Products to be Traded through Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Ms Janet Ang asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in light of Singapore's ambition to become a global trading hub for climate-related services, what is being done to ensure the credibility of carbon products to be traded through Singapore and to reduce Singapore's exposure to the risks of carbon trading.
14 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in view of Singapore’s import of the first carbon-neutral liquified natural gas cargo (a) what agreement is in place to require the cargo suppliers to provide a statement of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of each cargo; and (b) what mechanisms will be applied to monitor the carbon credits used to offset the GHG emissions of each cargo.
The Second Minister for Trade and Industry (Dr Tan See Leng) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 13 and 14?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Tan See Leng: As announced under the Singapore Green Plan 2030, Singapore aims to be a leading carbon services and trading hub, as we seek to create new business opportunities and jobs in the green sector for Singaporeans. Our country, Singapore's robust legislative, commodities trading and financial services foundation has put us in a good position to grow an internationally-trusted carbon services and trading eco-system in Asia.
Today, the carbon trading eco-system in this region comprises primarily of the trading of voluntary carbon credits. These credits are used by companies to meet their voluntary corporate climate targets, alongside other decarbonisation strategies.
The main risk for buyers in voluntary carbon credits markets has been on the integrity and the quality of such carbon credits. The Government is working with industry, with international and local experts, as well as environmental groups to address this risk.
First, we are developing a taxonomy and guidelines on the quality of these carbon credits. Second, we are exploring the use of technology to improve the verification of these credits. In December 2020, DBS and Temasek, with Google Cloud, NUS, Verra and the World Bank as partners, launched the Sustainable Xcelerator to improve the efficiency of verifying emissions reductions and sequestration. Third, the Emerging Stronger Taskforce Alliance for Action on Sustainability is also looking at establishing a marketplace and exchange to improve transparency in carbon credit transactions.
Alongside carbon trading, there are opportunities in the carbon services market. For example, we aim to anchor key activities in Singapore, such as in project development, carbon credits trading, financing and measurement, reporting and verification services. We will continue to work with like-minded partners to support the development of an overall well-functioning global carbon market, and build capabilities and capacities to grow our local eco-system.
To answer Miss Cheryl Chan's question, organisations can use carbon credits, alongside other decarbonisation strategies, to mitigate the greenhouse emissions resulting from their operating units or businesses. Today, this is done on a voluntary basis to meet companies' climate targets.
Pavilion Energy has announced that it had imported the first carbon-neutral liquefied natural gas cargo into Singapore in April 2021. Under this commercial arrangement, Pavilion Energy required its suppliers to provide a statement of greenhouse gas emissions of each cargo, measured from the production of the gas to the delivery to end-users in Singapore. Pavilion Energy then offsets these greenhouse gas emissions by retiring a corresponding amount of carbon credits sourced from its portfolio of carbon offset projects in Peru and China. Pavilion Energy has published the amount of emissions it has offset from the two projects, which are certified under the Verified Carbon Standard and the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standard.
While the Government today does not regulate voluntary offsetting activities, we are working with the industry, international and local experts, as well as many environmental groups to develop – as I have alluded to earlier on – a taxonomy and guidelines on the quality of these carbon credits. The guidelines can then be adopted by companies undertaking commercial agreements in carbon offset activities.
\tMr Speaker: Miss Cheryl Chan.
\tMiss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister for his very comprehensive reply. I am heartened that we are taking a lot of active actions in terms of what we are doing around carbon credits and how we are going to measure that on an international basis. I have one supplementary question for the Minister.
Given the fact that we are now trying to do all these carbon sequestration with other countries overseas, over time, there will come a challenge between countries putting up their carbon taxes as well as how we are going to exchange this in terms of carbon credits. Is the Minister able to give us an insight on what are Singapore's plans if the carbon taxes do rise to a certain significant sum in other countries, because it does not make economic sense in terms of carbon credit offsets between countries?
\t
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank the hon Member Miss Cheryl Chan for her very insightful question. Indeed, I think this is a point of concern alongside many, many other competing concerns that we have. Today, we have an Emerging Stronger Taskforce. We have also got an AfA that we have set up to look at sustainability in terms of a broader overall picture not just from the carbon credit, carbon trading and carbon tax's point of view but to see how sustainable they would be on top of our overall energy story in our own country's energy roadmap moving forward for the next foreseeable 10, 20 to 30 years.
I think these are early days. We are happy to take feedback and suggestions and, as I have alluded to earlier in my answer, we are actively sourcing and working with partners not just locally, internationally, but as well as with many of the environmental partners to see how we can nuance this in a very, very good and strategic path to ensure not just our own sustainability but, more importantly, our own resilience, moving forward.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Janet Ang.
\tMs Janet Ang (Nominated Member): I thank the Minister for the comprehensive response to my Parliamentary Question. There were recent media reports on the sale of meaningless carbon credits by a top US supplier. I originally had two supplementary questions, but the Minister has answered my second one. So, I will just tackle the first one.
How does the Government plan to increase the awareness amongst Singapore companies with this relatively new product? We know Singapore has worked so hard to attain a stellar reputation as a credible and trusted hub and partner. As the Minister has shared just now, I am very excited to hear about all the opportunities as well as the work that we are doing to develop a taxonomy and guidelines and so on. How are we going to engage the companies in Singapore so that they will not be scammed or they can be better prepared as they prepare for their alignment to the Singapore Green Plan 2030?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Ms Janet Ang for her question. I think there are different types of carbon markets today. Suffice to say – I hope I am not over-simplifying them – that, broadly, there are two broad categories. They are the compliance markets and then you have the voluntary markets. The compliance markets are created. They are regulated by mandatory national, regional or international carbon reduction regimes. One of the examples is the European Union ETS, which is the world's first carbon market. Of course, at the international level, discussions are also underway at the UN Conference for Climate Change. Again, this kind of meetings seeks to recognise the use of carbon credits to offset national emissions.
On the other hand, what I have shared with Members earlier on are voluntary markets. They function outside of these compliance markets. They enable companies, individuals to purchase carbon offsets on a voluntary basis to manage their carbon emissions. This is in addition to other decarbonisation strategies. They do not have an intended use for compliance purposes. So, these compliance credits may, in some instances, be purchased by voluntary non-regulated entities. They are not broadly accepted into a compliance regime unless they fulfil a broader perspective. And therein lies the challenge which the hon Member has alluded to.
At our end, we have actually been working with the different groups to see how we can nuance this approach and the key thing is to articulate and communicate this strategy and also educate many more of our companies to embark on this roadmap and to come onto this platform with us. Many of the companies looking to invest in Singapore, particularly from the semi-conductors to even data centres and so on, they have also moved on to source for many of these carbon credits.
I think it is now an opportune moment for us to work collectively together to nuance this approach and, at the same time, bring many of our own enterprises locally, as well as regional SMEs that have decided to sink roots here in Singapore, along with us. So, I thank the Member for highlighting this. It is certainly one of those targets that we not just aspire to do, but we have every intention to fulfil.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":" Prevalence of Hazing and Bullying Incidents in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Education (a) how prevalent are incidents of hazing and bullying in the schools in the past year compared to a year ago; (b) whether the Ministry is aware that such incidents are shared by students on social media platforms; and (c) whether a student's character is one of the criteria used in selecting his/her suitability for a leadership role in school camping activities.
\tThe Minister of State for Education (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Education (MOE) takes a serious view of bullying and hazing, and works with schools to send a clear message to all students that hurtful behaviour has no place in our schools. The number of bullying incidents reported in 2019 was about two incidents per 1,000 primary students and five incidents per 1,000 secondary students. These remained the same in 2020.
Schools monitor the cyber environment to the best of their abilities, taking both educative, preventive and intervention measures to address any bullying incidents. Schools educate students to be kind and responsible. When schools come across incidents of hurtful behaviour online, they take immediate action to investigate the incident, carry out appropriate disciplinary actions and provide counselling support for the students involved. Peer support leaders also help to keep online spaces safe and positive and alert teachers when needed. All students are taught the safe channels to report serious incidents, inappropriate practices or hurtful behaviours.
Character is a key consideration in the selection process of student leaders and other student helpers for camps. Camp activities are supervised by teachers, and student leaders and helpers are removed from their leadership positions and disciplined if there is wrongdoing. They will also be guided to learn from their mistakes.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of State for answering the question. I have one supplementary question. I am happy to see that the trend has not increased, as the Minister of State has mentioned. But every single bullying or hazing incident is one too many, especially for schools and where kids are involved. My simple question is: what action has MOE taken against those involved in these incidents and will more mitigation measures be taken to reduce and address this issue and, hopefully, reduce the numbers, going forward?
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for the supplementary question. Indeed, every bullying incident is one too many. When there are reported incidents, the disciplinary committee teachers will conduct a disciplinary inquiry. They will pair disciplinary measures with counselling, if necessary, and, if there is a need for disciplinary action, they can take a range of penalties, for instance, from corrective work orders to suspension and, if the student perpetrator is a source of threat and danger to other students, they can consider expulsion, if necessary.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Shahira Abdullah.
\tDr Shahira Abdullah (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have one supplementary question. In light of the recent Ngee Ann Polytechnic case in which male students were urinated on and which a male student came out to say that it was just mindless fun and it was something consensual, would MOE consider teaching consent to youths at a younger age so that they can be better protected from bullying as well?
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for her question. There is no place for degrading behaviour in our schools and IHLs, even if the students were to find it fun. I think this is not something that we encourage.
The schools emphasise Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) and we are rolling this out starting from Primary schools to Secondary schools and our IHLs. During CCE, our students are taught the values of respect, about care, empathy. They are also taught to recognise boundaries, how to manage personal boundaries and, when their actions overstep them, they are reminded that, should such behaviours be displayed, there can be disciplinary and even legal consequences, if such cases are reported to the Police.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Higher Sea Freight Costs on Exports to Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Trade and Industry as sea freight costs are rising around the world (a) how will this affect the prices of exports to Singapore; (b) what impact will this have on our supply chains; and (c) whether the Government will help to mitigate the increased costs by reviewing port charges.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, Sir, sea freight charges have been rising due to the confluence of factors globally, including the COVID-19 pandemic, reduced vessel capacity, imbalance in the supply of containers and volatility in consumer demand. In our engagement with businesses, we understand that some have absorbed the higher freight costs in the near term, while others are considering passing on the costs.
For supply chain resilience, we have adopted a multi-pronged strategy involving import diversification, local production and stockpiling. Import diversification allows us to ensure a continuous supply of goods at competitive prices should any of the sources be disrupted. We have also been working with local companies to strengthen their business continuity plans to better cope with possible supply chain disruptions.
Specific to port charges, ships calling at Singapore pay port charges to the Maritime Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) and to terminal operators for port-related services, such as vessel traffic management and cargo handling. However, Singapore’s port charges, which have remained unchanged during this period, are unlikely to impact sea freight charges, as these are set by shipping lines based on market supply and demand. PSA has also worked with shipping lines and businesses to manage possible shipping delays by better anticipating and minimising congestion at the port.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of State for her answers. I have two supplementary questions.
First, the Minister of State mentioned about the factors being the container shortages affecting the sea freight prices, going forward. Can the Minister of State share whether that trend is likely to continue, going forward?
Second, how is the Government working with local businesses to maintain supply resilience and manage freight costs? That is quite key, especially in view of Malaysia's latest movement control order (MCO) that we just found out about.
\tMs Low Yen Ling: Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Member Mr Saktiandi Supaat for his supplementary questions and I would like to assure the House that the Government has put in place very robust strategies to ensure supply chain resilience and also to ensure that we facilitate the movement of our goods efficiently.
\t
I have highlighted the four contributing factors. For example, one of the contributing factors is reduced vessel capacity. Earlier on, Second Minister Tan See Leng also mentioned that some of that could be because of an uptick in COVID-19 cases and because they would have instituted lockdowns and some of this capacity constraints would come about because of that. So, the situation remains fluid and dynamic.
But having said that, I want to reassure the Member that to cushion Singapore's supply chain against the present global volatility, the Government has strengthened our efforts on several fronts, mainly three.
Firstly, for essential supplies, we have adopted a three-pronged approach: first, import diversification; second, local production 30 by 30; third is our stockpiling.
Import diversification is important because it allows us to ensure that we have a continuous supply of goods at very competitive prices should any of the sources be disrupted.
The second important strategy is MPA works very closely with our port operator, PSA, to anticipate and minimise congestions at the port. This is to make sure that we can turn around and facilitate the movement of the goods efficiently and, at the same time, also to minimise the freight costs for businesses.
Thirdly, industrial supplies are critical. So, for industrial supplies, we have been working with our companies based in Singapore on their BCP plans to better cope with possible supply chain disruption.
I will give a quick example of how we are going the extra mile in the Ministry of Trade and Industry and Enterprise Singapore by working closely with MPA and PSA to support our local companies through our trade associations and chambers (TACs). For example, a few months back in anticipation of Chinese New Year, Enterprise Singapore facilitated the discussions between the Meat Traders Association with PSA and the Singapore Logistics Association during the peak Chinese New Year period to better manage the perishable stocks coming in.
We will continue to lend a hand by facilitating conversations between businesses and also the trade and industry associations with the shipping liners and also freight forwarders on how to optimise supply chain flow.
One way we can do that is that the TACs can secure container capacity; also, the second approach is to consolidate the container volume demand amongst key industry players to maximise the container capacity and thereby manage cost.
On the second question regarding yesterday's announcement by Malaysia on its MCO, allow me to quickly recap. One year ago, in March, when Malaysia first implemented their MCO, we were able to work closely with them to secure the continued supply of fresh foods from the country. Most of our wholesalers and retailers received their goods without significant disruptions to their operations.
Malaysia's announcement yesterday on the MCO covers predominantly social activities. Prime Minister Muhyiddin emphasises that all economic activities are permitted to operate during the MCO. Given this, farms and factories in Malaysia will still be able to run and logistics companies can continue to service our imports of goods and services. Hence, we do not expect our supply chain to be significantly disrupted by the MCO at this time. We will continue to monitor the situation, work very closely with our businesses and our counterparts in Malaysia to mitigate any possible disruptions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Keeping Grocery Prices Affordable for Singaporeans Given Rising Prices in Global Commodity Markets","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Trade and Industry given the rising prices in commodities markets around the world, whether there are steps which the Government can take to ensure that prices for groceries are kept affordable for Singaporeans as far as possible.
\tThe Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, Sir, in recent months, global food commodity prices have risen due to strong global demand and tight supply, with the latter caused by adverse weather conditions and restrictions on food exports by some food-producing countries. As a small and open economy that imports our essential food supplies, Singapore has been affected by these developments. To reduce the impact of rising commodity prices on groceries, we have diversified our food import sources and also provided targeted assistance to lower income households.
Today, we import food from more than 170 countries. During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, when many countries had to deal with food shortages, Singapore was able to ensure the continued availability of most of our fresh food supplies and key essential items. Through our deliberate efforts to diversify our import sources, we were able to keep the prices of food supplies and daily necessities competitive. Such resilience in the essential supply of our food and daily necessities is made possible also because of our excellent connectivity and commitment to keep our ports and key transport operations running even at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.
To help Singaporeans cope with the increase in prices in daily necessities, the Government continues to work with cooperatives, such NTUC FairPrice, on Community Support programmes, such as the price freeze on essential items under their house brand during the period March 2019 to December 2020.
For low-income and vulnerable families, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) continues to provide ComCare Assistance to support their daily living expenses, such as food, clothing, transportation and communications. MSF regularly reviews the ComCare schemes to ensure that the assistance given takes into account changes in the prices of essential items and feedback from stakeholders who work closely with the low-income.
We will always do our best to protect our supply of essential food commodities and keep prices stable. However, these are extraordinary times and it is likely that we will continue to see volatility in the prices of food supplies and essential products due to global uncertainties, such as delays in transportation due to border controls and shortage of shipping capacity.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Local Communities' Reaction to Anti-Asian Hate Crimes Overseas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"18 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) how are our local communities responding to the observed anti-Asian hate crimes overseas; and (b) how prepared is Singapore in guarding against racist or any form of anti-social sentiment from spilling over into Singapore.
\tThe Minister of State for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth): Mr Speaker, the recent spate of anti-Asian hate crimes overseas has been troubling. As a multiracial and multi-religious country, we denounce all forms of racism, irrespective of which ethnic community is being targeted and wherever in the world it may take place.
Hate crimes and speech fracture our society and threaten the harmony that we worked hard over generations to build. Repeated exposure to hate crimes and speech deepens feelings of prejudice and distrust, and sows discord between different communities. It can also desensitise individuals and normalise unacceptable behaviour. That is why we must be unwavering in our efforts to prevent hateful and divisive sentiments from taking root in our society.
Here in Singapore, we have a multi-pronged approach to deter hate crimes and speech, while at the same time, working with society to strengthen cohesion and enlarge the common space. Allow me to share three ways.
First, we have laws that prohibit and punish hate speech and we will not hesitate to take swift action against anyone who sows enmity and threatens to undermine our racial and religious harmony. Under the Penal Code, it is an offence to: one, utter words, make gestures, or place any object in sight of a person with deliberate intent to wound the religious or racial feelings of that person; two, to promote enmity between different groups on grounds of religion or race; and, three, to commit acts that are prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony.
Second, we encourage public discourse to promote mutual understanding and respect. And in this, we all have a part to play. That is why we launched BRIDGE in 2017, which is a series of community-driven initiatives to foster a better understanding and appreciation of the diverse religions and races in Singapore. These are driven by community partners who provide safe spaces and opportunities for dialogue and mutual learning and are supported by the Government.
Over the years, we have seen how these programmes bring different communities together to candidly and respectfully discuss sensitive issues of race and religion. For instance, the “Regardless of Race” dialogue series organised by OnePeople.sg addresses current issues on racial harmony, such as xenophobia, that surfaced during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Another recent example is the Mission:Unite Hackathon that the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) organised in November last year, which invited youths to take action by pitching innovative ideas to nurture a stronger society. The winning ideas included a mobile game that was aimed at developing empathy for diverse communities, by bringing users through life milestones and challenges.
Third, in a world that is increasingly fragmented and polarised, we must be committed to growing the common space in which all Singaporeans can live, work and play together, and share in the experiences that bind us.
In this spirit, MCCY works with other Government agencies and community partners to provide opportunities for Singaporeans to have meaningful interactions with one another.
For example, events organised by the People’s Association (PA) or the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles (IRCCs), as well as arts and heritage, and sports organisations provide opportunities for people of diverse backgrounds to come together.
We are also bringing together Singaporeans by expanding opportunities for volunteerism and co-creation. In the spirit of Singapore Together, we have initiated about 20 Alliances for Action (AfAs), which are action-oriented cross-sector collaborations to tackle complex issues, including an SG Together AfA on Emerging Needs and Volunteerism.
Over the past year, many Singaporeans had demonstrated their readiness to stand together with their fellow Singaporeans in upholding social solidarity, especially when our racial and religious harmony is threatened by hateful sentiments or terrorist acts.
But despite our best efforts, we are not immune to hate or xenophobia. Last Friday, there was an alleged racist attack on 55-year-old Mdm Hindocha Nita Vishnubhai. Mdm Nita said she was brisk-walking from Choa Chu Kang MRT station towards the stadium when she had a run-in with a man who shouted racial slurs at her for not wearing her mask above her nose and then, he kicked her in the chest before running away. Mdm Nita had lodged a Police report and the Police are investigating.
So, while we guard against the virality of COVID-19, it is more important for us to guard against the virality of hate and xenophobia. We should never take the peace and harmony we have today for granted and Singaporeans must take a firm stand against hate speech and crimes, as one united people.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Tin.
\tMs Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): I thank the Minister of State. I appreciate the strong stance that the Government has taken in stating that there is no place for any racism or any xenophobic sentiment within Singapore society.
I would like to ask whether there has been an increase in reports or observations of such racist behaviour precipitated by the COVID-19 crisis. Because if this is happening now, I wonder what would happen in future if other crises hit us.
One of the recent cases include an expatriate being aggressively confronted in a park very recently. That is a very public scene. But there may be other such instances that may be more subtle but no less in damage. So, for victims who are subjected to such racial attacks, what kind of recourse may they have?
\tMr Alvin Tan: I thank the hon Member for her supplementary questions. She is absolutely right. COVID-19 has exacerbated feelings of distrust and also feelings of insecurity amongst people all over the world. As I have mentioned earlier, we are not immune to these feelings, where people are worried about their jobs, their health, where lockdowns and concerns about job opportunities have taken form.
But we must not allow that to take root in Singapore. The recent incidents – I mentioned one earlier in Choa Chu Kang; and the Member mentioned the one in Pasir Ris – are symptoms that we have to address very robustly. As I have mentioned earlier in my reply to the Parliamentary Question, there are two ways to do it: one is the legal and law enforcement route, where the Penal Code is there to protect and to bring people to justice; the second one is even more important, which is the community and social aspect, which we must work at. And it is a work-in-progress since the founding of our nation to continue to bring different races and people together.
So, while COVID-19 has taught us to social-distance, we must make sure that we do not socially distance from our different races and our different religions, but we bring people closer together against the forces that threaten to pull us apart.
\t
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Ministerial Statements, Minister for Health.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 19-22, 24-27, 30-32, 34-39, 42 and 44-90 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 23, 28-29, 33, 40-41 and 43 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":"Fourth Update on Whole-of-Government Response to COVID-19","subTitle":"Statements by Minister for Health and Minister for Education","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for Health (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to update Members on the COVID-19 situation. Minister Lawrence Wong and I will address Oral Question Nos 1 to 19 and Written Questions 19 to 23 from yesterday's Order Paper, and Question Nos 1 and 2 from today’s Order Paper, as well as a question filed by Mr Seah Kian Peng1 for a future Sitting.
Sir, it has been 16 months since our fight against COVID-19 started. I last updated the House in January this year when we rolled out the national vaccination programme.
To date, we have confirmed a total of 61,378 cases of COVID-19 infections, and 31 of them have passed on. The COVID-19 situation remains fluid. Globally, we are seeing surges in daily new cases in several countries. Locally, after half a year of low community cases, we have seen several clusters of infections over the last two weeks – a cluster involving an ICA officer and his family members, one at Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH), another at Tuas South Community Care Facility (CCF), a cluster at Pasir Panjang Terminal and, most recently, a cluster at our airport terminals.
We have also detected several unlinked cases, 10 in the last week. This suggests that there are unknown cases in our community that caused these infections, which is a cause for concern because, for each unlinked case, there is an unknown source. That is why it is called \"unlinked\". For as long as we cannot identify the source, there is a risk that they may be spreading the infection.
New COVID-19 variants have also emerged that challenge our knowledge on the virulence and transmissibility of COVID-19. To date, we have detected 10 different COVID-19 variants among local and imported cases. A detailed breakdown was shared in MOH’s press release on 4 May.
Such variations in viral strains are not unexpected. It is in the nature of viruses to mutate. Therefore, we must expect to see new variants emerge from time to time. However, some variants are of greater concern because of their increased transmissibility, severity of illness caused or ability to break through vaccines.
It is also not surprising to discover variant strains in Singapore. We cannot completely shut out our borders, close down the causeways, our seaport and airport because Singapore is not self-sufficient in many things and we need to maintain our supply lines and global connections to survive. The virus will then find ways to infiltrate us.
Sequencing results indicate that the recent clusters at TTSH, ICA and Tuas South CCF were driven by the B.1.617.2 variant that was first detected in India. Three of the recent cases at our airport terminals also tested preliminarily positive for B.1.617.
While the definitive characteristics of this variant remain unknown, the large clusters and rapid transmission we see locally are concerning as they suggest that infections of this strain can spread quickly and widely. This is similar to the overseas situation where resurgence of cases is likely driven also by new variants.
The emergence of several clusters, new variants as well as the rising number of unlinked cases mean the risk of community transmission has gone up. Therefore, we must stay vigilant and tighten our safe distancing measures in the community to slow down and prevent transmission of the virus, even as we make progress in our vaccination programme. We have also tightened our border measures to reduce the risk of importing cases. Minister Lawrence Wong will elaborate on these shifts in his Statement later.
Let me give an update on the cluster at TTSH. The first case of the TTSH cluster was confirmed on 28 April. It was a staff nurse who developed acute respiratory infection (ARI) symptoms that day. She dutifully reported her symptoms. She was immediately tested and, despite the fact that she had completed her vaccination earlier in the year, she was confirmed to be COVID-19 positive. I should point out that this does not mean that she is the first infected case and had brought COVID-19 into the wards. Investigation is still on-going. But her responsible act enabled us to pick up the cluster at TTSH.
Our immediate priority in such situations has been to contain and isolate the infections so that they do not spread to the larger community. Hence, we immediately threw a containment ring around this first detected case, quarantining close contacts and testing everyone who could have been in contact with the individual. This included all staff and patients of the affected Ward 9D. By the next day on 29 April, we had identified three staff and six patients of Ward 9D who were infected.
One of these patients had started to display COVID-19-type pneumonia symptoms at this time too. As he had entered Ward 9D earlier on 20 April, testing and quarantine were, hence, further extended to all staff who worked in Ward 9D from 20 April, as well as discharged and current inpatients and visitors to Ward 9D from 20 April. Testing was also expanded to include all in-patients and all staff working in the main ward block.
After this first round of testing was completed, all other TTSH staff were also screened. For additional precaution, patients and staff from the main ward block were also retested a second time. We then threw a larger ring around TTSH, inviting discharged patients and visitors who were in the hospital during the affected period to also be tested. They are not close contacts and, hence, have a lower risk of infection, but we offered to test them out of an abundance of caution and to give them peace of mind. For every case detected, a large ring was drawn around them for testing and isolation, and we locked down all wards that had exposure to the infectious cases.
In total, as of 10 May 2021, close to 2,500 individuals had been quarantined; 12,500 individuals had been tested as part of the special testing operations. This is in addition to 12,000 staff, 1,000 patients as well as those who have been quarantined. A total of 43 cases were confirmed, comprising 10 staff, 26 patients and seven visitors or household members. We will continue to monitor these individuals who have been exposed and retest them where necessary, as some of them may be incubating the infection.
Of the 43 COVID-19 cases in the TTSH cluster, seven staff and two patients had received full doses of the COVID-19 vaccine. They were all either asymptomatic or only exhibited mild symptoms and none of them required oxygen support. Of the 34 individuals who were not fully vaccinated, six required oxygen, two are in intensive care and one has, sadly, passed away from COVID-19 complications.
While the numbers are too small to draw firm conclusions, the findings do indicate that vaccination provides critical protection even against COVID-19 variants. We know that while vaccination does not eliminate the risks of infection totally, it does provide significant protection against infections and help to reduce the severity of the disease. It is also likely to reduce onward transmission. I, therefore, urge everyone to get vaccinated when it is offered to you and continue to comply with safe management measures even if you have been vaccinated. This will help to keep all of us safe.
TTSH has implemented a series of measures to prevent further spread within the hospital. Besides locking down the affected wards, TTSH has also stopped all new admissions to the hospital, restricted visitors and reinforced infection control, hand hygiene and PPE compliance for all staff.
Even while we were dealing with the cluster, work was also on-going to understand the source and cause of the infection. Investigation is still on-going and more will be shared when it is ready.
We have also learnt several important lessons.
(a) This particular B1.617.2 strain appears very infectious and there will be other variants just like this.
(b) Without vaccination, infection among healthcare workers would have been much worse.
(c) While vaccine breakthroughs are possible, vaccines can help to prevent severe illnesses.
(d) Vaccines can also reduce risk of further transmission, although the extent of which this is true is still being investigated.
(e) It is clear that vaccination is most effective when it is part of a whole suite of precautionary measures, such as mask-wearing, safe-distancing, accurate testing, thorough contact tracing, and timely isolation. I will talk more about vaccines later.
Since the TTSH cluster happened, there have been reports of healthcare workers there being shunned in public or refused services. I know this comes from a small minority of Singaporeans. The great majority are thankful for the sacrifices and contributions of our healthcare workers, including those from TTSH. We know you have been working tirelessly in difficult and uncertain conditions. Despite the stressful situation caused by the outbreak, you continue to do your best to care for our patients. I believe I speak for the great majority of Singaporeans, all of us in MOH and everyone in this Chamber, that we are all solidly behind you. [Applause.]
Sir, while we are in the midst of what appears to be a re-emergence of cases in our community, we are in a stronger position today compared to a year before. We know more about the virus. We have strengthened our healthcare system, built community care facilities, expanded our testing capacity, enhanced our contact tracing capability, introduced safe-distancing measures and embarked on vaccinating our population, which I will touch on next.
We started COVID-19 vaccinations in Singapore at end 2020 and we continue to make steady progress with our vaccination programme. As of 9 May, about 1.8 million individuals have received at least one dose of the vaccine and of which about 1.2 million individuals have received their second dose and completed the full vaccination regimen.
Take-up has been encouraging. About two-thirds of eligible persons aged 45 and above have received the COVID-19 vaccination or booked their vaccination appointments. However, we need to continue to encourage more to be vaccinated especially among the seniors, given their age, they are the most vulnerable. I urge all of us to encourage our elderly family members too.
We will be inviting subsequent age bands to receive vaccinations from the latter half of May. However, as vaccine supplies continue to be limited, vaccinations will be progressively extended in smaller age-bands. We thank everyone for your patience. If vaccine supplies arrive as scheduled, we will complete the vaccination programme by the end of this year.
Sir, I spoke about vaccine effectiveness earlier. We knew from the start that vaccine breakthroughs are possible. But vaccination would still significantly reduce the chances of infection. For example, based on a study published in Lancet, Pfizer vaccines can reduce risk of asymptomatic infection by 91%. Vaccination also prevents severe reactions to the infections and is likely to reduce onward transmission.
Locally, as of 10 May 2021, 30 local fully vaccinated cases tested positive for COVID-19. There were another 24 imported cases that were already vaccinated.
Most of our local cases of infected vaccinated individuals were asymptomatic. None had severe COVID-19 disease requiring more intensive care. This is consistent with the international experience and emerging evidence that vaccines are highly efficacious in protecting against severe COVID-19 disease and likely to reduce the risk of transmission.
There is also a question on re-infected cases, which are known to be possible from overseas and local experiences. As of 10 May 2021, 26 cases have been assessed to be re-infections. We are still investigating whether these are due to the general waning immunity over time or the lack of cross-protection against specific variants of COVID-19 that the individual is naïve to. We will provide an update when we know more.
Overall, the benefits of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines continue to outweigh the known risks and we must continue to encourage Singaporeans to be vaccinated.
One area of concern is the emergence of new COVID-19 variants from time to time. There is intense on-going global scientific evaluation for these variants, which our experts are also participating in. The current global consensus is that COVID-19 vaccines that have been approved can provide protection against these variants because these vaccines elicit a broad immune response involving a range of antibodies and cells. We will continue to monitor development in this area and assess whether our vaccine programme needs to be adjusted.
Members have also asked about vaccination for children below 16 years old, people with mild allergic reactions and the need for a third booster shot.
Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna are currently only approved for use in persons aged 16 and 18 years old and above, respectively.
The initial data provided by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna at the time of the Pandemic Special Access Route (PSAR) interim authorisation did not include data regarding their use in younger populations. The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) has been examining the supplemental data that has since been submitted for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine to assess if the vaccine meets safety and efficacy requirements for authorisation under PSAR for use in adolescents aged 12 to 15 years. HSA will also do so for the Moderna vaccine when data is submitted to them. We will share more details when the studies are completed.
As for children below 12 years of age, clinical trials are still on-going and may take more time before enough data is available.
Mr Gerald Giam asked if patients who experience mild allergic reactions from the first dose can take their second dose. Persons who have been assessed by a doctor to be allergic to the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccination are currently contra-indicated from the vaccine and should not continue with the second dose.
We understand that individuals who cannot be vaccinated or cannot complete the vaccination may be concerned that they are not protected from COVID-19. These people are kept in our records and we will inform them when there is a suitable vaccine for them or when new evidence that shows that current vaccines can be administered to them is available. At the same time, as more of us are vaccinated, we also protect them indirectly.
As for booster shots, data on the need for it is still emerging from both international and local studies. We will share more when we know more. Meanwhile, get the two shots first.
HSA and the Expert Committee for COVID-19 Vaccinations will continue to monitor on-going studies in areas, such as the extent to which vaccines can prevent onward transmission, the durability of protection provided by vaccines and the effectiveness of vaccines against emerging variants of concern, and will provide updates when available.
Members have asked about adverse effects following vaccinations. As of 18 April 2021, HSA has received 2,796 suspected adverse events reports associated with the use of COVID-19 vaccines. This represents 0.13% of doses administered but the majority are non-serious adverse events. Only 0.004% of our doses administered had reported serious adverse events.
In general, the observed trend of adverse events within Singapore is consistent with those reported overseas. The most commonly reported adverse events are not serious. This includes dizziness, fever, muscle ache, pain at the injection site, headache and allergic reactions. These symptoms generally resolve within a few days.
Most of the patients here have recovered or are recovering from these adverse events. We have also not seen any local cases of unusual blood clots associated with low platelets that have been reported with other vaccines used overseas.
HSA has released the details of reported adverse events on 6 May 2021, which will continue to be published on a routine basis.
HSA continues to actively monitor and review the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines. In addition to monitoring reports from international regulatory counterparts, HSA also reviews reports from local healthcare practitioners on adverse events following vaccination regardless of whether causality can be established. HSA has appointed three expert panels to review neurological, cardiac and hypersensitivity adverse events, such as anaphylaxis, which occur following vaccination. This will allow for prompt and appropriate actions to safeguard public health and advance vaccination safety.
Ms Sylvia Lim asked for an update on the Vaccine Injury Financial Assistance Programme, or VIFAP for short. As of 3 May, 104 applications have been received. Of the 75 applications reviewed so far, 45 applications have been rejected and 30 applications were assessed by the independent clinical panel to have met the qualifying criteria. These include 21 cases of hypersensitivity allergic reactions, four neurology-related cases, three cardiology-related cases and one haematology- and dermatology-related case each. All of them have since been discharged from hospitals. The remaining 29 applications are pending.
Miss Cheng Li Hui asked if we will recognise overseas vaccinations that are not approved by HSA. As Members are aware, the Minister for Transport, Mr Ong Ye Kung, has shared that we are in discussion with several regions on the mutual recognition of vaccination certificates for purposes of travelling. We will release details once arrangements are finalised.
A few Members have asked about the progress of the evaluation of Sinovac and other vaccine candidates.
As part of our efforts to secure a diversified vaccine portfolio to improve our chances of securing a suitable vaccine that is safe and effective for our population, we entered into what we call advance purchase agreements (APAs) with several pharmaceutical companies, such as Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech and Sinovac, last year, even before these vaccines completed their clinical trial. This was how we managed to start our vaccination drive with Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines early.
Based on the schedules that had been planned for and committed under the advance purchase agreement with Sinovac, Singapore has taken delivery of a shipment of the vaccine. HSA is currently carefully evaluating Sinovac and a few other vaccines for use in Singapore and we will update the public when we have made progress.
While there has been a concerted effort to encourage the take-up of COVID-19 vaccinations, such as educating the public on why vaccinations are needed, we are aware of vaccination misinformation too. Mr Pritam Singh asked what we are doing about this and how we can address this.
Overall, public education remains a cornerstone of our vaccination programme. Government agencies have been using multiple platforms, including print and broadcast media, social media, direct messaging platforms and Gov.sg, to communicate essential information about COVID-19, including its vaccines, to all segments of society.
When the situation calls for it, we will also not hesitate to use legislative levers, such as POFMA Correction Directions, to stop individuals from spreading misinformation and fear-mongering.
All of us have a role to play in stemming the spread of misinformation. Once again, I urge everyone to check that the information they receive comes from reliable sources and make the effort to verify before sharing them.
Sir, we have hit a bump on our path to recovery and the coming few days and weeks are critical as we seek to uncover and break all chains of transmission. This came at an unfortunate time as I know many Singaporeans are looking forward to the upcoming Hari Raya and Vesak Day celebrations. However, the recent community cases show that there remain risks of COVID-19 outbreaks locally and we need to remain vigilant to avoid an uncontrolled resurgence of community cases.
I want to thank Singaporeans for your understanding and appeal to everyone to follow the safe distancing measures to prevent further spread of COVID-19 and keep Singapore safe even during these festive seasons.
The past year has been a tumultuous year. One of the biggest challenges was striking a right balance between saving lives while preserving livelihoods. Our response has not always been perfect. But we have built many new capabilities to meet the new challenges as they emerge. We will continue to learn, improve, be nimble in our response and adapt as the situation evolves.
COVID-19 is a global crisis. Our recovery is contingent on the world's ability to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. With the pandemic still raging in many parts of the world, our fight against COVID-19 will continue for a while yet.
I will be handing over MOH to Minister Ong Ye Kung shortly but I will continue to co-chair the Multi-Ministry Task Force together with Minister Lawrence Wong and Minister Ong. I would like to take this opportunity to thank members of the task force for their support, which has allowed us to mount a whole-of-Government response to the pandemic.
I want to particularly thank the healthcare professionals – doctors, nurses, allied health – both in the public and private sectors for their support in our public health and medical aspects of our COVID-19 response.
Finally, I want to thank all Singaporeans for your support and your patience. Sometimes, we had to move very quickly and adjust our measures in quick succession, which we know can be very disruptive. I am glad that Singaporeans could come together as a nation, make personal sacrifices to adapt to the new normal and all of us can stand shoulder to shoulder in our fight against the COVID-19 pandemic.
This ability for all of us to strive together is the most critical element in our response to COVID-19 that will make all the difference in the eventual outcome. Let us continue to work as one and I am sure we will emerge stronger together from this crisis. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: The Minister for Education will be making a related Ministerial Statement. I will allow Members to raise points of clarifications on both Statements after this Statement. Minister Wong.
The Minister for Education (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been fighting this virus for more than a year. From the start, we have said this is a marathon, not a sprint. Really, no one knows how long the pandemic will go on for. Vaccination is a key to ending the pandemic but it will take a very long time to vaccinate the world.
Meanwhile, the virus is not waiting for us. It is changing and mutating quickly. New variants are spreading faster than the current pace of vaccinations worldwide. These variants are more infectious and potentially more virulent and more resistant to the current vaccines.
So, there is still a long road ahead of us in this fight against COVID-19. We do not know how the path of the pandemic will evolve and we must be mentally prepared for a long road ahead with many curveballs and many more twists and turns.
One scenario is that the virus will never go away. It becomes endemic to the human population. We will then have to learn to live with it. At a personal level, this means we try to lead our lives as normally as we can but manage the impact of the virus by getting vaccinated every year and taking sensible precautions.
As a country and economy, we will then continue to connect with the world to earn a living but we set up strong border defences, establish protocols for safe business travel, partner safe countries to open up our borders and keep hospitalisations and fatalities as low as possible.
We are not there yet but we are planning ahead, looking at different scenarios of how the pandemic will unfold and preparing our drawer plans and responses. In this journey, we are bound to face some bumps and setbacks. We worked together to overcome some of these difficult challenges last year.
After we exited the circuit breaker, we set out a three-phase roadmap to re-open our economy and to resume activities. We highlighted then that this re-opening process was not going to be a straightforward one and there would be potential stops and starts along the way because the virus has not been eradicated in our community and new cases can leak through our borders despite our precautions and safeguards. So, the more we open up and the more activities we undertake, the higher the risks of new cases breaking out in the community.
How do we manage COVID-19 and protect both lives and livelihoods under these very difficult circumstances? Several Members – Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Don Wee, Mr Alex Yam, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Leong Mun Wai and Mr Seah Kian Peng – have raised questions about our border measures. So, let me provide some perspectives.
One option for us is to shut our borders and minimise the flow of people into Singapore. Larger, continental-sized or resource-rich countries like China, Australia and New Zealand have taken this approach. They are able to keep things going with their own resources and people and sustain a living with their own domestic demand.
But Singapore is in a completely different position. We are a little red dot fully plugged into the world. Trade and travel are our lifeblood. For us, these are not just good-to-have; they are existential issues. They are how, as a country, we earn a living and remain relevant to the world. In other words, we can keep our borders closed for a short time, but not over a prolonged duration. That is why after we exited the circuit breaker last year, we also progressively lifted our travel restrictions and allowed travellers to come in, but in a controlled and safe manner.
We recognised then that there would be a risk of some imported cases leaking into the community and we had taken several steps to strengthen our precautions and safeguards. For example, we put in place a system of regular testing for those working at the checkpoints and borders. We prioritised vaccination for them and those working in our Stay-Home Notice (SHN) facilities – the hotels. Vaccination rates are now above 90% for aviation and maritime; and 85% for the SHN facilities. We stepped up our testing protocols with pre-departure and on-arrival PCR tests. We tightened our SHN regime and ensured that the hotels we use for SHN have proper infection controls and security measures.
We also continue to update the SHN regime to respond to the evolving public health situation here and abroad. Some Members have suggested extending the SHN to 21 days. Indeed, we did so initially for the incoming Construction, Marine and Process (CMP) workers, because they would be living and working in higher risk settings. So, these workers would serve out 14 days in the SHN facility, followed by seven days in the Migrant Worker Onboarding Centres.
We also applied a 21-day SHN for arrivals from the few countries where the variant strains originated: the United Kingdom, South Africa, India. But these strains are now circulating everywhere in the world. So, it has become increasingly difficult to target just countries where the strains originated.
I should clarify that there is still no medical evidence that the new variants have a longer incubation period. But variant or not, there is always a very small tail risk of such long incubation cases. That is why we have moved recently to a tighter 21-day SHN regime for travellers from all higher risk countries during this period of heightened alert.
Ms Nadia Samdin asked if it is possible for vaccinated citizens and PRs who travel abroad to serve their SNH at home. At this stage, we prefer to take a more cautious approach and have all travellers from higher risk countries serve the SHN in dedicated facilities. But we will continue to review and consider options for the future, especially as we gain a better understanding of the new variants and when more of our population are vaccinated.
Mr Yip Hon Weng also asked about the business travellers who do not need to serve SHN. We have explained before that we allow a small group of such travellers for essential work reasons. We control the risks tightly by keeping the numbers small and requiring them to adhere strictly to a controlled itinerary. We also subject them to frequent testing while they are in Singapore to ensure they are free from the virus. The scope and usage of such travel passes are subject to constant review and close monitoring to ensure they are used in a safe manner, while minimising risks to the community.
Importantly, besides the SHN and testing protocols, we control tightly the overall flow of travellers coming into Singapore. This is a dynamic process. We adjust the travel flows from each country regularly based on our assessment of the public health situation. Once we observe any deterioration in any country or region, we will throttle down the numbers and impose stricter border restrictions for that country or region.
That was the approach we took recently because of the rapidly deteriorating COVID-19 situation in India. In April, we reduced entry approvals for long-term pass holders and short-term visitors from India. Later, we moved to ban all travellers from India. This ban was extended to the entire South Asian region from the start of May.
Let me share some numbers to provide a better perspective. Pre-COVID-19, we had 200,000 travellers coming through Changi Airport every day, both on transit as well as entering Singapore. This plummeted during the circuit breaker when we closed our borders temporarily. After the circuit breaker, as I mentioned, we eased some of our travel restrictions. By November last year, we had about 820 arrivals a day. Eight hundred and twenty arrivals a day, compared to 200,000 transit and arrivals. Between December and March this year, the figure has been stable at about 1,200 arrivals per day.
One reason for the increase in arrivals is that we had taken in more migrant workers for the Construction, Marine and Process (CMP) sectors as well as foreign domestic workers. This group was also the largest contributor to our imported cases – they account for about 40% of the imported cases over the recent six months. But even as we increased the flow of these workers, we also implemented a tighter screening and quarantine process for them. So, these imported cases were already in SHN when we detected them and they were not in contact with the community.
But the inflow of CMP workers we have allowed up to now is still unable to meet our needs. Because every day, every week, every month, many migrant workers have left to go back to their home countries. Whatever numbers we are bringing in barely replace those who have left. Our companies, including many SMEs, urgently need new workers to make up the shortfall and have been applying to MOM for approval to enter Singapore, as you have heard just now in the Parliamentary Question that was posed to Minister Tan See Leng. The application backlog has been building up significantly, even before we imposed the latest set of travel restrictions on the South Asian region. And now, the manpower crunch has worsened.
I fully understand and share the desire amongst many to be tight on our border measures. In fact, we have maintained a tight posture, as I have explained, and we will continue to do so. But we also need to be very clear what this means for Singapore and Singaporeans.
Contractors will be especially hard-hit. Building projects will be delayed. In particular, we can expect many new BTO projects to be delayed by one year or more. Private home buyers may also face delays of varying lengths.
Likewise, companies in the marine and process sectors will be badly affected. They will find it hard to deliver their existing projects on time and a few may even have to forgo new opportunities and projects. These are important sectors that we have taken decades to build. They hire thousands of Singaporean engineers and executives, and they remain crucial sources of highly skilled jobs.
The manpower shortage will not be confined to the CMP sector; it will have a cascading effect on the whole economy. In fact, any company seeking to bring in workers from higher risk countries will now face considerable delays. The waiting time for an entry approval could be more than six months. Our big concern is that if companies continue to face difficulties or are forced to close, we could then end up with higher unemployment and job losses for Singaporeans.
Stresses will be felt in our society too. Singaporeans will find it harder to reunite with their families abroad. Families applying for new foreign domestic workers to care for their children or elderly will have to wait for at least two months.
These are the consequences of keeping our borders tight. I hope Members will help to explain this to your constituents when you receive appeals, be it to shut down borders completely or to relax the restrictions to allow their workers or foreign domestic workers to come in.
Meanwhile, the Government will do more to assist the CMP sector which is bearing the brunt of the impact. The industry has been working very hard to become more manpower-lean. But this will take time. That is why MND has set out new legislation to allow existing construction contracts to be adjusted to take into account the increase in manpower costs; we are debating that later.
As announced recently, CMP firms will receive higher Foreign Worker Levy rebates from May to December 2021. The rebate for each Work Permit Holder will be increased from $90 per month to $250 per month. We will also continue to work with the CMP employers to find safe ways to bring in workers to alleviate the manpower shortage.
Beyond the CMP sector, as well as the aviation and tourism-related segments, there are signs of improvement in the broader economy. Barring a setback to the global economy and provided we are able to keep the COVID-19 situation under control, we should be able to continue with our recovery trajectory.
But things are very fluid and the outlook remains uncertain. The Government will continue to keep a close watch over the economic situation and consider how best to support those who need more help to adjust. At the same time, businesses will also need to be more agile and to start factoring the need to pivot plans or operating models at short notice. We will all need to learn to adapt quickly and be more nimble in this new uncertain and rapidly changing environment.
Even with the tightest of border controls, there may still be imported cases leaking into the community. I shared earlier that countries like China and Australia have adopted a tighter border regime than us because they can afford to rely on a larger base of domestic resources and demand. But even these countries have detected cases of new variants in their communities.
So, we cannot just rely on border measures to keep out the virus. We also need to have a full suite of protective measures and safeguards in our community. When a new case pops up, we move in quickly to isolate all the close contacts and ring-fence them, as we have been doing. We cast a wide net and conduct mass testing for all persons with possible exposures to the infected case, like what you have seen recently, when we went in quickly to test everyone in the schools or everyone working in the airport. Thus, we try our best to prevent large clusters and outbreaks from happening.
Despite these efforts, there will be a few occasions when we will need more general movement restrictions. For example, with the recent Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH) cluster, the transmission was detected some time after the virus was introduced into the ward. We have tested all the hospital staff, patients as well as visitors and tried to ring-fence the cluster. But we could not be sure if there were still hidden cases out there in the community. That is why we have decided to tighten the overall rules pre-emptively – to reduce our movement and social contacts more generally, so that we can reduce the risks of transmission and curb any further spread of the virus.
I recognise that these measures pose considerable inconvenience to all Singaporeans. As Minister Gan Kim Yong said just now, there are several public holidays coming up in the month of May. Many activities and plans have had to be adjusted. I know, in particular, this must be very disappointing for our Malay/Muslim community, having to observe these strict rules during Hari Raya and to curtail your normal family visits for a second year. Likewise, for the Buddhist community during Vesak day.
I hope everyone understands why the latest measures are necessary and I thank everyone for taking them in your stride. I seek your cooperation to abide by them – not just with the letter of the law but also the spirit of it. I think it is very important for us to understand that we are now on the knife's edge and our community cases can go either way over the next few weeks.
We have a chance of getting things under control by the end of the month. But, as we know from experience, it only takes one lapse or one irresponsible action for an infection to spread and that infection may end up being a super-spreader event in the community. So, let us all do our part: work from home, cut back on social activities and interactions, and stay home as much as possible during this period.
This is not the first time we have had to deal with spikes in community cases. But compared to a year ago, our capabilities have significantly strengthened. Our testing capacity is much larger. We tested about 35,000 swabs per day in the past week and have the lab capacity to test up to 73,000 per day, or even more, with pooled testing.
Trace Together and SafeEntry are now more pervasive, which means we can contact trace and ring-fence cases more quickly. We are also regularly testing persons in higher risk settings and undertaking surveillance testing for symptomatic individuals, which was how we uncovered many of the cases reported over the recent days.
Importantly, vaccination is a major game changer. We have not vaccinated everyone yet but we have covered most of our older population as well as our healthcare and frontline workers at the air and sea ports and our SHN hotels and dormitories. This puts us in a much safer position.
Our experiences over the last year have shown that if we act quickly to contact trace, isolate, test and, if we all exercise individual and social responsibility, we can effectively suppress the spread of the virus. We have brought down infection rates in the community before and we can do it again.
We must also continue to support one another. Many have been fighting COVID-19 for more than a year. For example, our healthcare professionals testing, vaccinating and treating patients; our contact tracing teams; our public officers across multiple Government agencies; our Safe Distancing Ambassadors and Enforcement Officers and many, many more serving on the frontline. It has been very tough for all of them. So, to them, we say, \"Thank you, keep your spirits up and all of us are behind you every step of the way.\" [Applause.]
The best way to support our frontline workers is to take all the prevailing measures seriously – do our part to reduce the risks of transmission and, when vaccination is offered to you, take it up as soon as possible. Avoid spreading falsehoods or unverified information that can cause needless fear or foster divisions and suspicions in our society. Remember, the virus does not respect ethnicity or nationality. This is not a Chinese virus or an Indian variant. This is a global pandemic – the virus and its variants are out there everywhere in the world. So, there is no place for discrimination, racism or xenophobia here in Singapore. We must continue to stand together, look out for one another, so that we can all get through this together. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker, working together over the past year, our overall situation has improved. Yes, we have had our share of setbacks, but we have learned and we have bounced back from them. Importantly, we have seen the Singapore spirit shine brightly throughout these challenging times. So, let us draw confidence from what we have been through; let us brace ourselves for the rest of the marathon, complete the race together and emerge stronger at the finish line. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I thank the Ministers for their detailed statements. I am a healthcare worker, with brothers and sisters in the Labour Movement in the Healthcare Services Employees' Union (HSCU). I have got brothers and sisters on the TTSH frontline.
Sir, it has been very hard for many healthcare brothers and sisters at TTSH. I hear of nurses who have been told by their landlords to move out at short notice. I know of a young mother of a newborn at home, her husband works at TTSH. He has had to move out of the home to keep her and her fellow healthcare workers working at another hospital safe from COVID-19 transmission between hospitals.
Can I ask the Ministers what is being done to help affected TTSH workers: nurses who cannot find a place to stay, healthcare workers who cannot find a Grab or a taxi to bring them to the hospital or to take them home after a shift; families which have been separated by necessary COVID-19 precautions who need help with childcare, help with getting the kids to continue in school? Is there a hotline for affected TTSH staff to call? Can the Ministry set up a care team connecting the different Government agencies to provide help to affected TTSH healthcare workers, especially for challenges that may be beyond the reach of individual hospital management?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Sir, I thank Dr Tan for raising this issue. Indeed, this is a very worrisome trend. As I have mentioned my speech, we have observed a minority of our resident Singaporeans taking steps to protect themselves at the expense of our healthcare workers' well-being. Some of them have been asked to move out of their homes by their landlords. Some of their co-workers are shunning them. I think these are wrong.
We are struggling because, on one hand, we know this is wrong and we should not condone such actions. But on the other hand, we are concerned about the well-being of the healthcare workers and we do need to find ways to help them and support them. So, MOH and the Multi-Ministry Task Force have been working together with the hospitals – TTSH as well as the other hospitals – to provide support for the affected workers. In fact, we have moved in to arrange with hotels for accommodation, to provide alternatives to these healthcare workers who have been affected.
Let me say that this should not be an excuse for the landlords to kick them out on the basis that there is now alternative accommodation and say why not just move over to the hotels rather than staying on in the flat? So, I think it is still our preference to encourage our landlords to understand the situation, to play their part to support our healthcare workers in the work that they do. I also want to urge Singaporeans to show their support to these healthcare workers. Because they are putting themselves in harm's way in order to protect us. So, let us work together to protect them.
Mr Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.
Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, first, I want to thank the two Ministers for their comprehensive Statements. And, certainly, I think all of us want to thank all the healthcare workers for continuing to protect all of us, given that this COVID-19 pandemic will continue to throw more curve balls at us.
I have a few supplementary questions for the Ministers. Minister Gan has mentioned that the vaccination supplies are limited. Indeed, they are, and very precious at that. First, what other drugs are being tested by HSA? We know that two of them have been certified; Sinovac is being tested. What if Sinovac is not approved? Do we have arrangements with the other drug companies that can increase the supplies from the other two companies, so that Singaporeans who have not been vaccinated can be assured that they will certainly get that vaccination?
The second supplementary question, I know it is a bit further ahead, but we always like to plan ahead: booster jabs and second jabs. Soon, for those of us who have had our jabs, one year will be up. What next?
And the third supplementary question is, I would like to know what is the all-in cost for each vaccination that is given. I think it is important that every Singaporean and everyone who is working here knows how much we are spending to get all of us safe.
And that leads me to the last question. Minister Lawrence Wong talked about the implications, the overall costs of all this. All of us, whether in Government, business and public, consumers, we need to expect that for all these, there are consequences; that the end of the day, somebody has to pay for all this. I think consumers, the public, probably also would have to expect that certain costs will have to go up. I think we just need to be prepared for all these. Businesses need to absorb, need to find ways to work around some of these. The Government, I am sure, will continue to help subsidise some of these. But I think the public and consumers too need to think about what are the implications for all of us, as all of us are in this together.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Sir, I thank Mr Seah for the clarification.
First, on the vaccine supply. Indeed, the vaccines continue to be limited in supply. Also, partly because there is still a resurgence of new cases every day in many other countries and, therefore, the global supply of vaccines is limited and not just the quantity but the logistics are also challenging. Therefore, we need to do what we can to diversify our sources and to ensure that our supplies that we have contracted arrive on schedule. And when we roll them out, we encourage Singaporeans to get vaccinated as soon as possible.
As to what other vaccines are being studied, we have a diversified portfolio beyond Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Sinovac. We have several other alternatives with which we have entered into advance purchasing agreements. But I am not at liberty to share the details because many of these agreements contain confidentiality clauses that limit us and our ability to share details. But as and when these contracts materialise, as and when we are able to supply and to deploy these vaccines, we will share more details with fellow Singaporeans.
Mr Seah also asked about booster jabs. As I have mentioned, let us focus on the current vaccine roll-out. I understand that some Singaporeans are anxious and want to know, should the booster jab be required, what we need to do about it. Let me share that we have put in place a planning team to look at how we can deploy booster shots, starting probably next year, towards the end of the year or beginning of next year. So, the operational plans are being drawn up and we will be able to deliver booster jabs, if it becomes necessary.
At the end of the day, it may turn out to be similar to the flu jabs that we get every year. Because of the variants, because of the different virus and bacteria that we are confronting, so we need to continue to have booster jabs for our flu vaccines. Similarly, for COVID-19, it may come a day that we have to continue to have regular booster jabs. And we are putting in place plans to operationalise that.
In terms of the cost of vaccination, it varies from vaccine to vaccine. Actually, a significant part of the cost is not in the vaccine Itself but in the logistics of it. The cost in organising the vaccination centres, mobilising the healthcare professionals, providing support for vaccine recipients; and all these are costly.
But if you compare it with the cost of the impact on lives, on livelihoods, I think it is a small price to pay and we need to continue to prepare ourselves and to focus on the vaccination programme. Roughly, it may cost about – and this is off the top of my head and I need to verify that – off the top of my head, roughly, it costs about $100 per vaccine per regimen and that it will include some of these peripheral costs and so it is not cheap. But it is important for us to continue to press on with the vaccination programme to minimise the cost on the economy and the cost of lives.
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I also would like to thank the two hon Ministers for their detailed Ministerial Statements. The point made by Minister Lawrence Wong about not engaging in xenophobia is something that chimes with me.
Sir, hon Members would know that there was a serious incident that was reported in the press yesterday that strikes at the very core of what we are as a nation.
It was alleged that a Singaporean woman of Indian descent was assaulted by a man who used racial slurs and kicked her for not wearing a mask. This and another racial incident come in the wake of the community spread, once again, of COVID-19, this time, attributable to a variant coming from the Indian subcontinent.
The tension appears to be fanned by posts with false or misleading narratives in the social media and circulated through WhatsApp and other platforms.
I seek clarification from the Minister for Home Affairs for his assessment of the security situation arising from these racial incidents connected to the pandemic. What steps will the Government take to nip this in the bud to address the situation?
Mr Speaker: Minister K Shanmugam.
The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I thank the Member for his question.
The facts we have are as reported in the media. Last Friday, 7 May, in the morning, a 55-year-old Indian lady was brisk walking towards Chua Chu Kang stadium. She said that she lowered her mask below her nose to prevent breathlessness. A man wearing a light-coloured t-shirt, accompanied by a woman, shouted at her to put her mask above her nose. She told him that she was exercising. The man then shouted at her again, used a racial slur, and she responded to him, \"God bless you\" and began to walk away. She said that the man then ran towards her and landed a \"flying kick\" on her chest, causing her to fall. She had scratches on her arms and hands. She lodged a Police report that night and she said that she would seek medical attention on 10 May – yesterday.
The matter is under investigation. The attacker is believed to be a Chinese. Investigations need to be done before we can come to any conclusions. But such conduct, unfortunately, is consistent with some of the other things that have been happening and, if the facts are as stated by the lady, then it appears to be racist conduct.
We have seen racism around the world during this pandemic: in the US, for example, Asians, particularly Chinese, being attacked; the virus being described as \"Chinese virus\" or \"Wuhan virus\", as if viruses have nationality. And we condemn that. Equally, we have to condemn such behaviour in Singapore.
I have said previously there has always been racism in Singapore like in other countries but we have managed it and, over time, we have sought to reduce it. But it has been stirred up recently.
Around the world, economic pressures have led to populism and the populists have been seeking political profit by exploiting people's fears over jobs and economic insecurity, blaming foreigners and blaming immigrants for all of a country's problems.
In Singapore, we have avoided the worst of such populism but people are concerned for their jobs, and naturally so. Amongst Singaporeans, there are legitimate concerns about foreigners taking over our jobs. The concern is fair and the Government's duty is to protect Singaporean jobs.
But these concerns have been fuelled by unacceptable practices, for example, unfair employment practices that favour hiring foreigners and discriminate against our locals. It is a minority who behaves like this, but it naturally makes Singaporeans unhappy. MOM has taken steps to deal with these bad practices.
But what has been happening also is that parties have been deliberately stoking the fears, encouraging racism, xenophobia and dog whistling, much like what we have seen in the US. That is dangerous and dangerous for Singapore because, first, it will be expatriate Indians, then it will come to Singaporean Indians. Anyway, not everyone can distinguish between foreign-born Indians and Singaporean-born Indians. The lady who was attacked has been a citizen for 25 years.
If we go down this route, eventually, all Indians can be targets of hate, the so-called \"outgroup\" which I referred to in a Ministerial Statement a couple of years ago. It is not the case now – far from it – but expression of overt racism is still there only amongst a minority in Singapore. The majority of Singaporeans are decent and not racist. But if we continue to fan the flames of racism, we will get to a more uncomfortable position.
There are also websites which deliberately fan racism. They are anti-Government; that is perfectly okay, but do not play with race. Comments on these sites – Indians being called cockroaches, rapists and so on – we should be ashamed that in the name of free speech, we allow such comments. This bad behaviour and open expression of racism, I invite all here to condemn. And when called out, we cannot seek to justify such racist behaviour by saying, \"Oh, it is because of Government policies\" or \"It is because of the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA)\" or that the Indians are behaving badly or that we are entitled to be racist and xenophobic because of these things.
Just ask whether racism and xenophobia can ever be justified on these grounds.
There have been several canards about CECA, promoted by a whispering campaign. If anyone here believes that CECA is a problem, put it up for a Motion, debate it openly and let us hear whether Singaporeans benefit or lose from it. I am looking at you, Mr Leong. I invite you to put up a Motion to debate CECA. You know that most of what is said about CECA is false.
And what is happening on the ground? We are picking up from different coffeeshops. This morning, a friend of mine overheard in a coffeeshop a conversation among five elderly gentlemen. They discussed the incident covered in the media of an Indian expatriate family. We do not know the facts; several highly racist comments targeting Indians. So, it is getting into the ground and being repeated. This will become normalised if we are not careful.
I hope responsible Opposition parties will take a stand on this, notwithstanding that many of these sites that promote xenophobia support you.
Singapore is 725 square kilometres of rock. We have to make a living by being open to the world. We will fail if we allow racism and xenophobia to become prevalent. It is contrary to everything that has made us successful and proud to be Singaporean. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In reply to the Minister's comments just now, we are very interested to take up the CECA issue at some point in time. I think we still need to understand the situation more, like what the Minister has said.
However, I must state at the outset that the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) and myself are not being xenophobic. We are just stating the economic effects some of these free trade agreements have had on our economy – the feedback gathered from many suffering Singaporeans.
We still need to know the situation better but we are definitely not xenophobic and, definitely, racism has no place in our overall thinking. It is all about economics, about livelihoods and, today, we are here talking about COVID-19. It is also about livelihoods, about lives over economy. Sometimes, we may have to give up some of our economic benefits for the sake of lives. But at the end of the day, we still need to balance and see what is good for our overall livelihoods.
So, I will take up the challenge from the Minister – that we will take up this issue at an appropriate time in the future.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank Minister Gan for his reply to my Parliamentary Question and that those who have experienced allergic reactions to the first vaccine would not be able to take the second dose. I just want to confirm that that is correct. Can I confirm that this applies to all allergic reactions or is it only to anaphylaxis? And what kind of adverse events will rule out patients from taking the second vaccine? I am concerned that if we set the threshold too low, many people will be ruled out from their second dose after reporting allergic reactions and this will impact the overall immunity rate of our country.
Secondly, I understand that all hospitals have started mass swapping all their staff and patients. When COVID-19 cases were discovered in Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH), the hospital completely stopped accepting new admissions and many patients were diverted to other hospitals. Should cases be uncovered in other hospitals after the mass testing, will they, too, stop accepting new admissions? If so, the remaining hospitals may get overwhelmed.
I am not saying that we should not conduct mass testing, but do all hospitals have a business continuity plan to avoid a complete lockdown if new cases are discovered?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with Mr Giam that we need to be very careful in calibrating the criteria for exclusion from the vaccination because we do want as many Singaporeans as possible to be vaccinated. But I must say that I am not a doctor. So, I cannot give the Member a medical advice here. My suggestion is that if you go down to the vaccination centres, there are medical professionals there, they will make an assessment and it will have to be on a case-by-case basis.
Generally, if you have anaphylaxis, you will be excluded from the vaccination. But different forms of allergic reaction will have to be assessed by the medical professionals. But generally, if the allergic reaction is mild, you should be able to continue to receive vaccinations.
But we have to be careful because we do want to minimise adverse reactions, particularly those which are more severe. So, it is a calibration and we will have to leave it to the medical professionals to make an assessment on the ground.
Mr Giam also asked about our contingency plan for hospitals if there are cases where clusters are found. They all have a contingency plan and they will continue to see their patients. What we want to do with Tan Tock Seng Hospital is because the clusters are big and we need time for us to ascertain that there are no other underlying transmission of infection within the hospital before we reopen the hospital for new patients. So, this is something that we are working on.
But it is again important for us to test all our workers at this point in time because we are concerned that similar situations might happen in other hospitals. If we do not detect the clusters and cases fast enough, it will become a widespread transmission within the other hospitals and this will be an even bigger problem.
Sometimes, some may say it is better not to know. But, as far as I am concerned, I think it is better to know than not to know. At least, if we know that there are cases, we can deal with it, we can implement contingency plans to manage the patients and to also help the healthcare workers in these hospitals.
So, I would urge Singaporeans to also refrain from going to emergency departments. If it is not an emergency case, not an urgent case, then go to our primary care clinics and get your issues attended to. If it is an emergency, if you are having a stroke or have a heart attack, if you have problems, do go to the emergency departments and we will take care of you.
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Yia Swam.
Dr Tan Yia Swam (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, thank you. I want to thank Minister Gan for acknowledging the dutifulness of the staff and all of Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH). I am married to a TTSH staff and many TTSH families are now made to live apart to reduce risk to other hospitals, to better support the needs of Singaporeans.
But I am concerned about possible on-going community spread. Would there be a consideration to make it compulsory to swab all patients visiting a hospital, whether inpatient or outpatient?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: It is something that we are studying but it is not easy to swab all patients because some of them would already have symptoms and some of them may already have pre-existing conditions. Some of them, even after swabbing, could be negative. They could also be infected by visitors and they could also be within the incubation period and they can become positive thereafter. So, it is important for us to put in place safe distancing, safe management measures even within the hospital to ensure that precautions are taken. The staff, healthcare workers must wear the necessary protective wear, whether it is PPE, depending on the setting; even in the inpatient wards or outpatient areas, precautions have to be adopted.
We cannot assume that after swabbing, everyone would be safe. But we are looking at to what extent we can extend the testing for visitors and for patients that are admitted into hospitals.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Many of my residents and friends who have taken the jab at the vaccination centres, they have had very good experience. They said the staff are patient and efficient. Kudos to the staff at all the vaccination centres in Singapore. Meanwhile, I have supplementary questions for the Ministers.
We know that Changi Airport Terminal has a cluster and it is developing. So, what are the lessons learnt from the clusters as they are developing in Changi Airport and what impact does it have on the upcoming Shangri-La Dialogue and the World Economic Forum that are to be held in Singapore?
Last but not least, I would like to touch on a point by Dr Tan Wu Meng to say that taxis are shunning the Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH). Before I proceed, I would like to declare my interest as the ComfortDelGro Taxi CEO. I would like to assure the House that the taxis, especially the ComfortDelGro taxis, are not shunning TTSH or other clusters like Changi Airport. In fact, a cabby had just texted me that he has been encouraging his fellow cabbies to not shun TTSH.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, the experience from the latest cases picked up in Changi Airport as well as the clusters we have seen from ICA and Tan Tock Seng Hospital so far suggests that, as Minister Gan mentioned in his earlier speech, this strain or the variant that we are experiencing now is more infectious. Each time we pick up an infected case, we are seeing larger clusters. More people are being infected than, say, the experience last year.
So, what this means for us is that we really need to take this seriously. We should take all the safe management measures and all the infection protocols very seriously. People who need to wear PPE need to be very diligent about this. Those who are in close contact or doing high-risk jobs need to be very diligent about wearing of masks, for example, and make sure they are wearing a proper mask. So, these are all basic things but I think it is worth re-emphasising.
The other point is that testing can be a big help. We have seen how, through very frequent testing, either by doing a special sweep of everyone or doing it on a regular basis, we are able to pick up cases very quickly. So, that is an important point that we should not give up. Vaccination is important but testing remains an important way for us to detect the virus quickly.
When we talk about events that are coming up, certainly, we will apply all of these lessons – infection control, safe-management measures and frequent testing – to ensure that these events can be conducted safely.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. I have a clarification for the Minister for Health and one for the Minister for Education.
First, to the Minister for Health. Before I do that, I would just like to assure him that I, too, feel nostalgic that this may be the last time that I would have the chance to pose health-related questions to him after the last 10 years. So, the feeling is mutual in that sense.
On to my question, it is about the Vaccine Injury Financial Assistance Programme which he gave some figures on just now. Earlier, he said that there were 104 applications received and about 30 applications were adjudged to have met the qualifying criteria. So, does that mean that these 30 claims are going to be allowed and some payment is going to be made on these 30 claims? Then, he also mentioned that there were 75 that were rejected. I would like him to clarify the reasons for rejection because, from the portal for submission of the application, it appears that every application has to be accompanied by a doctor's certification that the side effect is related to the vaccination. So, for these 75 rejected cases, was there actually an accompanying medical certification that the side effect is related to the vaccination? And could he clarify why those applications were rejected?
For the Minister for Education, the recent round of tightening measures included some that affected the fitness industry. I think he is aware that this has caused a lot of unhappiness and anxiety, as it affects the livelihoods of trainers and also the customers. Subsequently, there was a slight adjustment to this announcement to say that low-intensity activities would be allowed to carry on indoors. But I understand that this has been accompanied by a requirement that the patrons have to bring their own equipment to the fitness studios or the gyms, which, to most people, would be a disincentive to go to the place in the first place because these are things you go to the studio for because you cannot do them at home.
So, I would like to ask him whether the Government will review this requirement because it is already setting capacity limits, it is saying that the activities have to be low intensity, masks have to be on at all times. If there can be some additional measures, such as requirement to wear gloves and so on, would the Government re-look at this requirement for customers to bring their own equipment to the fitness studio?
Mr Speaker: Minister Gan. I am actually interested in the answer to the second question. There is an impact on our gym here in Parliament as well.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Thank you. Let me just clarify that 75 have been evaluated; 45 were rejected, 30 were approved. That is the number; not 75 are rejected. Among those that were rejected, some of them, the panel will have to assess whether it is more likely to be associated with vaccination or not. There is also a balance of probability that they have to assess. And some cases did not qualify because the severity did not meet the mark of a severe reaction. Some of it may be rashes, maybe some swelling, but does not require extensive medical care and, therefore, may not qualify for the application.
So, there are a variety of reasons. But suffice to say that they are all assessed thoroughly by an independent panel before they were approved or rejected.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, our approach towards these high-risk activities has been consistent, in the sense that if you look at what we have done for nightclubs, karaokes, for example, we have not allowed these activities which we think are of higher risk, but the premises have been allowed to pivot to other activities which are permissible. Last year, Members will recall, Zouk, maybe even now, has been transformed and changed to different kinds of activities.
So, in that sense, we continue to apply the same approach now to gyms and fitness centres. Why did we specifically identify this activity? Because we have seen evidence of spread in other places, we have had infected persons use gyms and fitness centres in Singapore, and we have been very worried of large clusters potentially breaking out in these settings. Because in a gym fitness centre, it is an enclosed space, many people are there, very often without masks on, spreading a lot of droplets each time you are exercising, shouting or whatever you are doing in the gym, Zumba or whatever that lesson is, the chances of a spread within that environment is very high. That is why we have decided, during this period of heightened alert, this is one of the highest risk kinds of activities; better to put a stop to it temporarily. But if the operators are able to pivot or do something differently, something of lower risk, then we will be able to allow it.
On the specific issue of equipment, we will be prepared to look at it. There is concern, obviously, because there will be infection, not just through droplets but also fomites and touching the surfaces. Remember how last year we encouraged everyone not to use your hands to touch your face? That basic advice still remains. You can still get infected by contact.
So, that is the reason why we suggested people bring their own equipment, but we will continue to monitor the situation very closely. And we will see if there is any possibility of modifications along the way, depending on how the next few days and weeks unfold.
Mr Speaker: Minister Ong Ye Kung, you have a clarification?
The Minister for Transport (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thought I would just add more to the answer that the Minister for Education had given to Mr Ang Wei Neng on the lessons learnt for Changi Airport. We know that the sea port and the airport are points of vulnerability when we have a pandemic. So, in fact, just this morning, we got information that, in Taiwan, their biggest airline has been infiltrated by the virus. So, they are tightening up rules on pilots. So, even for Taiwan, which has kept itself domestically very safe, the virus will find itself through the borders.
Airport, sea port, causeway, these are our points of vulnerabilities, regardless of where the variants and the virus come from. We have been implementing a very tight posture both for sea port and airport. The workers all observe safe management measures, masks on, some are even in full PPE when they carry out their work. We test them regularly – some on a seven-day cycle, some on a 14-day cycle – which is why we are able to pick up these cases quite quickly this round when we had the outbreak of cases.
Thirdly, it is to push them for vaccinations. They were one of the first to go for vaccination. Mr Ang asked about the airport. At the airport, in total, we are talking about 46,000 workers; 26,000 are what we consider more high-risk. They may come into contact; actually, they do come into contact with travellers, so they are higher risk. For that group, 92% are fully vaccinated. Then, there is an outer ring that does not come into direct contact but we, nevertheless, consider them exposed to some risk. That is another 20,000. And for that group, more than 80% have had at least one dose.
So, we have taken all these measures, but the mutant virus still found its way through the kink in the armour.
So, what are the lessons learnt? I think never be complacent, not even when you are vaccinated; never be complacent.
What are we doing? I put out some information two nights ago, but let me just briefly recap. The first thing when something like that happens is to press the reset button and contain the problem. Put two rings immediately, that Minister Lawrence Wong and Minister Gan Kim Yong mentioned. First ring, who are the close contacts, quarantine and then isolate. Second is the wider ring, who could have been affected; put them all through testing. So, today, we are putting several thousand through a one-time special operation. It should be carried out these few days; started yesterday.
Members should expect that, as we do such special operations, we will be picking up cases in the next few days. So, please do expect some cases coming out from the airport because we are doing a very massive one-time sweep.
Beyond that is to put in place greater, more effective segregation measures, so that airport workers who are more risky do not mix with other workers or members of the public. So, places like the canteen and food court, we now do takeaways for them, so that we do not mix them.
Thirdly, we continue to do surveillance and the testing. One thing we can possibly do – and I have to discuss this with the Minister for Health, besides the PCR test once every 14 days – is how can we intersperse it with something like the antigen test, something faster? We are also developing a breathalyser test, something that can pick up quickly even though it may be less accurate. But the speed with which we pick up cases is absolutely critical. And, lastly, push those that have not gone for vaccination to go for vaccination as fast as we can.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): I would like to thank both Ministers for their very helpful Statements. Just two points of clarification for the Minister for Health.
Firstly, he mentioned that HSA is studying the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for adolescents and children. I understand that the US Food and Drug Administration has just approved the use of the Pfizer vaccine for children aged 12 to 15, and this is just a very recent development. So, I am wondering, assuming that HSA finds that it is safe to do so, can we assume that we will proceed to vaccinate school-going children above the age of 12 with the vaccines that we have?
My second clarification is on the vaccination effort. I think the Minister for Health shared very heartening figures about the progress that we have made. The majority of people over 60 years old have been vaccinated. Given how key this vaccination effort is to our fight against COVID-19, I am wondering if MOH is studying the example of a handful of countries which have been very successful and made very rapid progress in vaccination – Israel is one example. I believe roughly 90% of those over 60 years old in Israel have been vaccinated in a very short time. Are we studying those examples to see what lessons we might be able to learn in order to accelerate the speed of this vaccine roll-out in Singapore?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Sir, as I have mentioned in my speech, HSA is now evaluating the use of Pfizer-BioNTech for the younger population. And I believe the results should be out quite soon. Once the results are out and if it is, in fact, deemed effective and safe for deployment to the younger population, we will roll out the programme to vaccinate the younger population, also shortly. So, be patient with us, we are doing the assessment. I have to also explain that the assessment differs from country to country. While WHO and some countries may have approved the use, we still need to assess the efficacy and safety of this vaccine in our own context. So, it will take some time and I believe the results should be out shortly.
Mr Perera also asked about whether we have learnt the lessons from other countries on the promotion of vaccination. Yes, indeed, we watched what the other countries do and we try to learn as much as we can from them, whether it is through promotion, through messaging and even through family members to encourage them.
I think all of us will understand that every country is different, the culture is different, the context is different and beliefs are different. Therefore, we also have to evolve our own system of outreach to encourage people to sign up for vaccination. I must say that I am encouraged by the take-up rate so far. But I think it is always the last 20% to 25% that is most difficult to reach. Therefore, I would encourage all of us, Members of Parliament, as well as grassroots leaders, to do what we can to reach out, especially the harder to reach, the older population, to help to explain to them the importance of vaccination.
I do house visits myself, before the recent tightening of the measures. I bring along my grassroots leaders to see whether we can persuade the individuals, the seniors at home, to sign up and we help them sign up on the spot because many of them are waiting for their children, and their children will be very busy and unable to help them. So, we tried our best to reach out to them and make it easy for them to sign up. We also organise activities on the ground; to invite the seniors to come down, explain to them why vaccination is important and to also help set up a station to help them sign up on the spot.
I think there are quite a few things that we can do and we can have our own way of reaching out to the seniors, to see how we can further promote vaccination among them. Again, it is also important to stamp out false information, misinformation and rumours that may stop them or discourage them from getting vaccinated. So, I would encourage all of us to verify our message that we have received before we virtually just forward them to all our friends. Please verify them. If they are not true, please do not forward them.
Mr Speaker: Ms Ng Ling Ling.
Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank both Ministers for the updates and the tremendous efforts put in by everyone to safeguard life and livelihoods for Singaporeans during this difficult time. One clarification is that with the resurgence of the community cases happening just a few months after our Phase Three re-opening from end of December last year, and with the roll-out of vaccination, what is the learning? And how might we plan our re-opening differently this round, after the current tightening measures, ending May, especially with the June school holidays coming up? Should we be prepared for the measures to maybe last for a longer period?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, as I think we have highlighted and shared, there is no place for complacency. Assuming we are able to curb the current community cases, bring things back under control, yes, I think there is a chance we will be able to then get back on track with our re-opening plans. But really, even if we were to be able to do that, there is no place for complacency in our community.
We all still need to realise, whatever we do on our borders as you heard just now, even for places that have been very, very tight – China Australia, Taiwan – cases leak through. Leaks will happen. Even in our community, it is not likely that we have ever throughout this whole period been able to eradicate the virus. There has always been a low level of circulation.
So, even if we can get today's outbreak under control and we start resuming more activities, there is no place for complacency. We must remain alert, vigilant and uphold all the necessary safe management measures.
Second, vaccinations, as I have said, is an important game changer. Today, you have heard where we are now, we are making good progress. By May, June, July, we will continue to scale up and get more of our population vaccinated. The more we do so, for example, once we cross 50% of the population getting vaccinated, all the models and all the studies suggest that then, even if a cluster were to happen, the number of people infected will not be as large. It would be more contained and we will be safer.
So, if we stay alert, stay vigilant, uphold all the prevailing safe management measures, continue to press forward with our vaccination programme, then I think there is a good chance we can remain on track with our re-opening plans.
Mr Speaker: Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, a quick response to Minister for Home Affairs on his short statement. Yesterday, the Head of the Workers' Party media team, Mr Leon Perera, put out this Facebook post, this is 13 hours ago: \"It is important that as a society, we each do our part to help make sure that difficult times bring out the best and not the worst in Singapore. We should take heed of incidents like this as it is a reminder of the part we all play to deny acceptability to acts of hate such as this appears to be.\" This was in response to the Police announcement that it was investigating a man accused of using a racial slur and kicking a 55-year-old woman. Insofar as the Minister for Home Affair's statement is concerned, indeed, we are in agreement. There is no place for racism in Singapore – no \"ifs\", no \"buts\".
I have two supplementary questions with regard to the Statement by the Minister for Health.
The first pertains to the HSA safety update that was recently released. It covered the suspected adverse event reports and I think this is a very important document released by MOH, because there is significant misinformation fuelled by not just misinformation alone, but different understanding of the safety of the vaccine. So, it is not necessarily misinformation, but genuine concerns that people may have. As usual, when you are concerned, you tend to be more animated and this can take on a life of its own. So, my request to the Minister is to consider whether this very useful document can be made into an infographic for easy sharing amongst members of the public, particularly the last 20% to 25 % that Minister said is hard to get through to with regard to the messaging on vaccination. The Workers' Party Members of Parliament have been doing their part to encourage older Singaporeans, in particular, to get vaccinated.
My second question is, again, to the Minister for Health. This pertains to the cluster at Tan Tock Seng Hospital. We have some residents – as I am sure Members in this House also have – who are in Tan Tock Seng Hospital because of some terminal illness or who are very ill. And the cluster at Tan Tock Seng Hospital has resulted in the visitation hours for family members of some of these patients to be severely curtailed. I am requesting the Ministry to consider whether there could be some regime to help these family members to have a bit more face time with their ill or terminally-ill family members.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Sir, the answer to both questions is yes. We will try to make our report as easy to understand as possible. Maybe we will rely on \"Mr Phua Chu Kang\" to help us convey some of these messages. I believe some of you have seen the recent video that we have put out, which has been very effective in communicating some of these messages. We will see how we can make it simpler, easier to understand and to also avoid misunderstandings and rumours.
Secondly, on the visitation to Tan Tock Seng Hospital, I think the Member would understand why we need to tighten our visitation rules because we do want to prevent any infection that is in the hospital from spreading to the community and also to prevent visitors bringing in new infection to the hospital that will complicate the management process at the moment. But we do understand that there are family members who want to visit their elderly, their frail loved ones, particularly those who are terminally ill. They want to spend time with them and the hospital will make exceptions. And if you do come across any of these cases, you can either appeal to the hospital or to me. We will make adjustments and we will make allowance for them to visit as much as possible, but to also take into account the various precautionary measures that have to be put in place.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Ministerial Statement. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Health (a) whether there are any quotas set for the total number of people entering Singapore each day; (b) if so, whether there are specific limits for each country; and (c) what are the top five countries and the corresponding number of visitors from each of the five countries in the last two years."],"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister of Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill 2021 is a Bill containing proposals from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and Ministry of Transport (MOT).
I will speak first on MHA's proposals, which achieve three objectives: firstly, to raise the penalties for some offences; secondly, to implement a theory test for the use of power-assisted bicycles (PABs) on roads; and thirdly, to enhance Traffic Police's operational efficiency.
Dr Amy Khor, Senior Minister of State, will cover MOT's proposals to strengthen the land transport system, namely in the areas of autonomous vehicle trials, re-imposition of vehicle taxes and security searches of commuters using our public transport system.
Let me start with some background on MHA's proposals.
Our roads have become safer over the years. From 2010 to 2019, the annual number of traffic fatalities has dropped by close to 40% from 193 fatalities in 2010 to 118 fatalities in 2019. The number of fatalities decreased further to 85 in 2020, although this was partly due to the COVID-19 situation when there was less traffic, especially during the circuit breaker period.
Traffic Police (TP) and the Land Transport Authority (LTA) have taken steps to improve road safety.
First, TP stepped up public education efforts to get motorists to drive safely. TP also conducts targeted public education for vulnerable road users, such as motorcyclists and elderly pedestrians.
Second, TP also stepped up enforcement and expanded its enforcement camera network to improve detection. In 2020, TP installed 12 more red light cameras. There are now close to 300 traffic enforcement cameras deployed to detect and deter speeding and red light running.
Third, raising penalties to deter irresponsible driving behaviour. In 2019, TP increased the amount of composition sums it offers for all traffic offences. The maximum jail terms and fines for serious traffic offences, such as dangerous driving and driving under influence, were also raised in the 2019 Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill.
Fourth, LTA has installed infrastructure to make our roads safer. This includes School Zones and Silver Zones with lower speed limits and features to slow traffic.
I would like to emphasise that the improvements in road safety are not only due to TP's or LTA's efforts. Road safety is a shared responsibility between drivers of motor vehicles, users of active mobility devices and pedestrians. I would like to thank everyone for being gracious and responsible road users.
Notwithstanding that our roads have become safer, we have identified a few other areas where road safety can be improved.
Let me start with illegal speed trials. They seriously endanger lives. During these trials, racers far exceed the speed limit. They also exhibit other dangerous behaviours, such as swerving in and out of lanes suddenly and without warning.
In December 2018, Police arrested five drivers for their suspected involvement in a case of dangerous driving and illegal racing along Lim Chu Kang Road. They raced at speeds averaging at least 110 kilometre per hour along a stretch of road which has a speed limit of only 70 kilometre per hour. They were racing while there were other users on the roads. The consequences of an accident between them and these other innocent road users could have been devastating.
Illegal speed trials have become a concern. From 2015 to 2017, 10 persons were convicted of this offence. From 2018 to 2020, TP arrested 31 persons for illegal speed trials. This is a stark increase compared to the previous three years.
To increase deterrence, clause 22 increases the maximum jail terms and fines for taking part in or promoting illegal speed trials. This aligns the penalties for illegal speed trials with those for offences of similar severity, such as dangerous driving endangering life.
That said, we recognise that offenders taking part in speed trials do not necessarily use their own vehicles. For vehicles used in illegal speed trials, the Court is required to order the vehicle to be forfeited under section 117 of the Road Traffic Act or RTA, if the Public Prosecutor makes a written application for forfeiture. Clause 23 amends the forfeiture regime so that forfeiture is not automatic.
Under the amended section 117, the Court need not make an order for the forfeiture of the vehicle if the Court is satisfied that: firstly, the person who committed the illegal speed trial offence was not the owner of the vehicle; and secondly, the person had used the vehicle without the owner's consent. This is fairer and better in line with other egregious RTA offences, such as dangerous driving causing death, where vehicle forfeiture is not mandatory.
Next are offences relating to protective helmets worn by motorcyclists and pillion riders. Helmets are a key safety feature for motorcyclists and pillion riders, just like seatbelts for drivers and passengers in cars.
Currently, it is an offence for pillion riders not to wear an approved helmet. There is no present duty on the motorcyclist to see to this. Clause 19 will now make it an offence for the motorcyclist who fails to ensure that his or her pillion rider wears an approved helmet. This mirrors the duty that we place on drivers of other motor vehicles like cars to ensure that their passengers are wearing seat belts.
Clause 19 further raises the maximum jail terms and fines for the existing offence of importing or selling unapproved helmet models. They will be aligned with the penalties for not wearing approved helmets.
Next, the Bill also deals with individuals who obstruct, prevent or defeat the course of justice in road traffic incidents.
A vehicle owner has an obligation to provide information about the offending motorist when the owner's vehicle has been detected to be involved in an offence under the RTA or any of its rules. TP has encountered cases where the owner and offender-driver collude with another person to falsely declare to TP that another person was instead driving at the time of the commission of the offence.
Individuals involved in such schemes deserve to be more severely punished. Clause 20 creates a new offence aimed at individuals who conspire to mislead the authorities. For the owner or offender-driver who causes or permits to provide false or misleading information; or intentionally alter, suppress or destroy information that identifies the offender-driver. Secondly, for those who pretend to be the offender-driver.
The maximum jail terms and fines for these offences will be higher than the penalties for the existing offence of wilfully or recklessly furnishing false or misleading information. This more appropriately reflects the severity of the offence.
Next, road rage offences. Under existing law, the Courts can disqualify a motorist from driving if the motorist commits certain Penal Code offences in the context of a road rage situation. Examples of such offences include voluntarily causing hurt and causing death by a rash or negligent act.
Clause 13 expands the list of offences in section 42 to include any offence under any written law instead of limiting the provision to a list of prescribed Penal Code offences. This is because there are offences that were previously not in the list, but may be committed in a road rage situation, such as criminal intimidation. This approach gives the Courts greater discretion to impose disqualification in appropriate cases to better punish and deter road rage behaviour.
I will now speak about the introduction of a theory test for the use of power-assisted bicycles, or PABs, on roads.
The Active Mobility (Amendment) Bill was passed by Parliament on 4 February 2020 to require riders of personal mobility devices and PABs to pass a theory test before they can ride on public paths. As PABs are allowed on both public paths and roads, it is only logical that we need to require PAB riders to pass a theory test before they can ride on roads. Clause 15 gives effect to this. I highlight two main aspects of the amendments and how we intend to operationalise them.
PAB riders will only be required to undergo a single theory test before they can ride on either public paths or roads. This theory test will be administered by LTA. The theory test handbook can be found on LTA's website. More details of the test will be released in June. The theory test will comprise modules on both path and road safety. It will educate PAB riders on active mobility rules, road traffic regulations, the code of conduct and safe riding behaviour.
The new section 47G makes it an offence to ride a PAB on any road without having passed the theory test. Under the new section 47K, it will also be an offence to employ or intentionally or negligently allow a rider to ride a PAB on a road if the rider has not passed the theory test. This mirrors existing offences in the Active Mobility Act for the usage of PABs on shared paths.
I will now move on to the third objective of the Bill, which is to enhance TP's operational efficiency.
First, to improve detection of traffic offenders, clause 20 introduces more reporting requirements for companies that own vehicles.
When a company's vehicle is detected to be used in a traffic offence and the motorist is unidentified, TP relies on the company owner to provide information to identify the motorist. However, TP has encountered uncooperative companies. Some companies only get back to TP after being issued with numerous reminders while others do not get back to TP at all. This hampers TP's ability to take to task motorists who commit traffic offences.
To ensure that companies provide TP with information to identify offender-motorists in a timely manner, section 81 is proposed to be amended to require companies to designate a \"responsible officer\" to see to the timely reporting. For companies, the responsible officer will be someone holding the post of chairperson, managing director or company secretary, or any position that is analogous to these offices.
The responsible officer will have the duty to ensure that the company keeps proper records of motorists who use the company's vehicles. If the company fails to provide information to TP to identify the motorist who had used the company's vehicle, the responsible officer may be held personally liable. This approach will help to ensure that records are properly kept and the company promptly provides the necessary information to TP.
We will increase the period for which companies are required to keep records of the motorists who drive their vehicles from six months to one year. Some cases are highly complex and require extensive investigations, such as those involving multiple parties or where video footage is not readily available.
Next, we will streamline the process of empowering TP officers to cancel notices to attend Court.
Today, to empower a TP officer to cancel an accused's notice to attend Court, Police must first publish the TP officer's name in the Gazette. This is cumbersome and hampers operational efficiency as the list will need to be updated whenever there is staff movement.
Clause 26 removes the requirement to publish in the Gazette the name of each TP officer so empowered. TP officers will continue to be empowered through appointment by the Deputy Commissioner of Police.
We will repeal two obsolete provisions.
Clause 12 removes the provision that empowers TP to require vocational drivers to report to them and produce their fingerprints. This provision is obsolete, as TP already has the powers to compel any person, including vocational drivers, to report to TP and identify themselves.
Clause 25 removes the provisions pertaining to the ticketing of traffic offences. This provision is obsolete, as TP no longer issues on-the-spot tickets and compounds all traffic offences that are not prosecuted in Court.
Mr Speaker, while the safety on roads has improved, we cannot be complacent. This Bill is necessary to help make our roads even safer, by enhancing our measures against irresponsible behaviour and enacting the regulations for PAB riders. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, few of us in the House today would have arrived without being at some risk – of having an accident on the road, of being grazed, or bumping someone's fender, or something even more serious.
Over the years, TP has done exemplary work and, with its partners and the cooperation of the public, brought down road traffic fatalities significantly. This is the point that the hon Minister of State made just a few minutes ago. It is clear that there has been a downward trend over the past 10 years, even discounting last year where there was a circuit breaker imposed.
However, elderly pedestrians and motorcyclists continue to be involved in a disproportionate number of traffic accidents resulting in injuries or death. Motorcyclists were involved in more than 63% of fatal accidents in 2020. Half of the fatal accidents involving elderly pedestrians were due to jaywalking.
It is clear that legislation must not be the only policy instrument to protect our most vulnerable on the roads. Instead, there must be greater awareness, education and behavioural change. These informal norms work together with legislation to instil in each road user a culture of safety and mutual respect. It is against this context that I now proceed to review the Bill, which I support.
I start, however, by highlighting an area involving road safety that the Bill does not cover. In August 2018, I spoke in Parliament about the need to hold vehicle owners and operators of vehicles involved in fatal accidents owing to mechanical failure liable – and criminally liable – for these accidents. This liability must be commensurate with the weight of consequences – I had highlighted specific cases where death was caused because of poorly maintained vehicles.
I also articulated the need for legislation to cover the area. The Road Traffic Act focuses on driver conduct. The Workplace Safety and Health Act focuses on vehicular accidents causing injuries to the employer's own workers. Neither applies to accidents that caused injury or death to third parties, owing to mechanical failure.
We might argue, as the hon Senior Minister of State who replied to me then did, that we may rely on the Penal Code which makes it a crime for a person, who, through his rash or negligent act, causes death. The same provisions may make corporations liable too. The problem, however, is that this is a general provision and a blunt instrument when it comes to a vehicle owner or operator in charge of maintenance.
What is needed is a specific provision that makes it clear that a vehicle owner is liable so long as the lack of maintenance played a contributory factor, it is not necessary that it plays an effective factor, which is the Penal Code's requirement. What I am arguing for, therefore, is a lower threshold on which liability can be proven. I also pointed out that it would be easy for a corporation to escape liability because of the absence of a provision in law to impute liability to corporations as a result of a default on the part of its employees for not maintaining the vehicles.
Just earlier this year, I asked the hon Minister for Transport what is the average number of vehicles that caught fire per year in the last five years owing to mechanical failure. The hon Minister informed that there are 200 vehicular fires per year but for the majority of the fire incidents, it would be difficult to pinpoint the cause of the fire. Notwithstanding that, I think it is safe to assume that a significant percentage of these fires are caused by poorly maintained vehicles.
I am not alone. The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) thinks so as well. Its officers carry the buck of extinguishing such fires on roads and putting their own lives at risk and I think we should listen to them. In its own advisories, it states as follows: (a) most vehicle fires in Singapore occurred while the vehicles are travelling on the road; (b) the primary cause of these fires is due to ignition sources, such as overheating and electrical faults within the engine compartment. SCDF also highlighted the need to service the vehicles regularly at authorised vehicle workshops to prevent vehicles from catching fire.
It is time to make vehicle owners criminally responsible for fatalities and injuries arising from accidents caused by their poorly maintained vehicles. It is also time for vehicle owners and workshop owners to be criminally liable if they have made illegal modifications to vehicles that are involved in accidents causing fatalities and injuries where these modifications played a contributing factor to the accidents. I believe this is the point that hon Member Mr Derrick Goh would expand on in his own speech.
With that, let me come to the Bill proper. I have three points to make.
First, on the point about ensuring pillion riders wear safety helmets, I obviously support that. The issue I seek clarification on is the age of pillion riders. Under paragraph 36 of Road Traffic Rules, it is stipulated that no person riding a motorcycle or scooter on a road shall carry any child below 10 years of age. In comparison, pillion riders on PABs must be at least 16 years old. Why is there a difference in age? This affects the viability of parents escorting their children with PABs, especially school children in Primary schools. I would have thought that, if anything, it would be the other way around because the motorcyclist is likely to be travelling faster than a PAB rider.
Second, vehicle forfeiture in situations where the motorists engage in speed trials. I support the stiffening of penalties for illegal speed trials. They put other motorists and road users to great danger. My question concerns the proposed section 117(7) of the Road Traffic Act which makes the vehicle forfeiture regime non-mandatory where such vehicles are used for speed trials.
It is stated in the provision that the Court \"need not\" make an order for forfeiture where the person who committed the offence is not the owner of the vehicle and he used it without the consent of the owner. How about a situation where the owner did not know that his vehicle was being used by the offender but he was wilfully blind? In other words, he suspected, he could have asked but he did not. However, he did not specifically know that his vehicle was used by the offender. I would be grateful for a clarification on the policy reason for the proposed change, as I understand the original reason for imposing mandatory forfeiture is to deprive would-be offenders from easily accessing vehicles for commission of offences.
Third and finally, I come to the definition of a \"responsible officer\" under the proposed section 81 of the Road Traffic Act that the hon Minister of State outlined. Under the proposed section 81, where the owner of the vehicle is a company, a partnership or an unincorporated body, it is the owner's responsibility to keep a proper record of the vehicle's usage and the persons driving the vehicle. So far so good.
In the proposed amendments, it is also provided that the owner should designate at least one of the responsible officers to ensure that a proper record is kept – it is a personal responsibility. The personal responsibility is reposed on the chairperson, managing director or the company secretary of a company or positions analogous to any of these offices.
As the hon Minister of State mentioned, failure to do so attracts liability, criminal liability. With respect, this seems rather draconian. What is the rationale of making the chairperson, managing director or company secretary personally responsible for maintaining a proper record of a vehicle usage? Would it not be sufficient to require that the board appoint an employee to be a responsible person? Is it possible to write in a provision to state that the responsibilities on these senior officers are discharged, once such an appointment is made?
Mr Speaker, Sir, today, when our movements are curbed because of the COVID-19 safe management measures, we better appreciate the true value of easy mobility. Safety, respect for all users and a thoughtful, fair approach must govern the use of our roads. This Bill gives us the promise of a step in the right direction. It solves some legal issues, but the need for public education, improving the safety culture and deepening the respect amongst road users – all those remain work-in-progress. I support the Bill.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, in recent months, several of my residents have been killed or maimed as a result of irresponsible driving by others. These tragic accidents could have been easily avoided. I thus agree with the overall rationale underlying this Bill to enhance safety on our roads, as well as to strengthen security on our public transport. That said, I have some queries and concerns about the provisions relating to illegal car racing, giving of false information to Police and the expanded powers of search on bus and train commuters.
First, illegal car racing. Clause 22 of this Bill will increase the penalties for the offence of conducting illegal competitions or trials of speed involving vehicles, in short, racing. Earlier, the Minister of State for Home Affairs highlighted that there has been an increased incidence of such offences.
In recent months, the public focus has been on the fatal crash at Tanjong Pagar that claimed five young lives. Based on questions from other Members of this House, illegal car races may be taking place in our neighbourhoods. Anecdotally, I have also received significant feedback from residents about vehicles racing at high speeds within Aljunied GRC – such as along Tampines Road, the Upper Serangoon Road Viaduct and Lorong Ah Soo – several times a week. I have been liaising with TP and LTA for several months over such threats to public safety.
This Bill proposes to significantly increase the punishment for the offence of illegal racing, by doubling the maximum imprisonment and more than doubling the maximum fines. While such an enhanced punishment will send a stronger deterrent signal to would-be offenders, I believe that those seeking such thrills will still try their luck, unless there is greater certainty of being caught.
Earlier, the Minister of State mentioned that there are currently about 300 cameras nationwide to detect such offences. To this end, could the Ministry confirm if law enforcement is stepping up further its capacity and operations to increase the likelihood of detecting illegal racing on our roads?
Next, giving of false information. Clause 20 of the Bill proposes to change the law regarding the offence of giving false information to Police about the identity of the driver who committed an offence. We are aware of such cases where a vehicle owner falsely tells Police that another person was driving the vehicle in order that the owner escape punishment for a traffic offence.
I agree with the proposed section 81(3A) which will make it an explicit offence for that other person to pretend or falsely represent that he was the driver. He, too, will be liable for possible imprisonment. Hopefully, this will make it more difficult for vehicle owners to find fall guys to take the rap and thereby pervert the course of justice.
Clause 20 also proposes to increase the punishment for this offence, in particular, the maximum fine. It is now proposed to raise the maximum fine to $10,000. I note that just four years ago, the maximum fine had been raised from $1,000 to $5,000, a five-fold increase. Now, it is being doubled. Could the Ministry clarify why there is a need to do so? And, in particular, is there any indication that drivers are not deterred by the current levels of fines?
Finally, searches of bus and train passengers. Clauses 24 and 31 of the Bill provide for security screening of passengers upon entry into buses, bus interchanges, and trains and premises of the MRT and LRT. Although powers of search already exist in the Road Traffic Act and Rapid Transit Systems Act, these powers covered only passengers’ belongings but not searches of the passengers themselves. This Bill will expand these powers to cover frisk searches of passengers.
Given the evolving security situation, including the threat from self-radicalisation, I do appreciate the rationale for this expanded power.
Sir, I do not expect the power to do frisk searches to be widely used and I hope I am not wrong. Nevertheless, I have a particular concern about these provisions.
The term “frisk search” is defined in the Bill as “a search of an individual by quickly running the hands over the individual’s outer clothing”. Frisk searches thus involve physical contact with the person being searched. My main concern revolves around the persons empowered to conduct frisk searches.
To explain the basis of my concern, allow me to briefly describe the various actors in our security landscape. In our security eco-system, we have SPF officers, Auxiliary Police, unarmed security and other lay enforcement personnel. The levels of training of these groups are vastly different. Compulsory training of SPF officers requires six to nine months of residential training, while Auxiliary Police do residential training of eight to nine weeks or less than three months. Unarmed security training can be completed in about a week or two. I assume outsourced enforcement officers also undergo less intensive training.
Sir, the nature of deployments for these different actors has typically been deliberately calibrated with these differences in mind. Those with less training typically handle more routine tasks, such as controlling entry to premises, guarding installations or manning security equipment. On the other hand, the SPF officers are expected to handle trickier situations involving the exercise of judgement and discretion and working with the community.
Of course, over the years, there has been some convergence and overlap, as the training of APOs and unarmed security has been enhanced to enable them to perform more tasks than before. But the need to draw a line is still solid and sound.
The Bill proposes that frisk searches may be conducted by Police officers and those defined as “senior approved persons”. “Senior approved persons” are, in turn, defined to include members of the Auxiliary Police, security officers engaged by the public transport operator, and outsourced enforcement officers. It is not clear to me that there is any requirement of seniority in the categories mentioned, so the term “senior approved persons” may, in fact, be a misnomer.
More importantly, is enabling non-SPF actors to conduct frisk searches by force appropriate? For comparison, let us look at another piece of legislation. In the Public Order Act, Part III on Special Events Security reserves the power to search persons entering a special event area to SPF officers only; others, such as Auxiliary Police and private security are empowered to do less-intrusive forms of security checks, such as checking bags and manning scanners. This sensible demarcation is a recognition that a bodily search is an intimate security check which should only be performed by highly-trained persons. This Bill today marks a departure from that approach.
Concerns, naturally, arise. Are Auxiliary Police, security officers and the outsourced enforcement officers suitable to perform frisk searches? Do they have the requisite training, not only on how to perform the physical act of search, but also how to handle any confrontations that may arise? Another concern would be about searches on female commuters. Where are the precautions on how searches on women should be conducted, in order to have strict regard to decency?
Finally, the Bill provides that it is an offence for commuters not to comply with any request or order of a Police officer or approved person, on pain of punishment of a fine of up to $1,000. Since commuters have to comply, it is only reasonable that officers be easily identifiable. Clauses 24 and 31 provide that a Police officer in plainclothes or an approved person must declare his office to the person before he or she is required to comply. The only category of officers who are required to produce identification cards to the public are outsourced enforcement officers.
May I ask why is it not provided that all Police officers and approved persons must show their warrant cards or identification cards if asked by the public? This Bill seems to be a lowering of the standards set by the Road Traffic Act itself, as section 128 of the Act currently requires Police officers not in uniform to produce their identification card to the public when asked.
In my opinion, requiring plainclothes officers to merely declare their office is not sufficient, and cases of impersonation of Police officers happen all the time. I am concerned about what these mean for safeguards for the commuter.
Sir, in conclusion, as I stated at the start of my speech, I am supportive of the goal of enhancing safety on our roads and strengthening security on our public transport. Nevertheless, it is important that the provisions are coupled with strong capacities to detect offences. It is also critical to ensure that the risk of misuse of search powers on commuters is minimised.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill preserves the safety and security of our roads while allowing for new forms of vehicles to ride alongside our existing systems.
I have three points of clarification on the Bill.
My first point is about the language for the theory tests for riders of Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs) and Power-assisted Bicycles (PABs).
I commend the Ministry’s amendment to improve road safety by ensuring that PMD and PAB riders are well-equipped with a basic knowledge of the roads, just as all other vehicle riders already are.
LTA’s website states that the handbooks for the tests are currently available in English and will, subsequently, be translated into Chinese, Malay and Tamil. Can the Ministry share if the notices to inform existing riders of the need to take these tests will also be delivered in multiple languages, so that non-English speaking riders will be fully aware of this development and not be blindsided because of a language barrier? Can the Minister of State also share if the test itself will be available in Chinese, Malay and Tamil?
My second point is on the cost of theory tests for PMD and PAB riders. As we can see on the roads, a sizeable number of our PMB and PAB riders are food delivery riders who work tirelessly to make ends meet. The test fees may be an additional cost and source of stress for them. Can the Minister share if the test fees will be kept low or whether the Ministry has plans to subsidise test fees for PMD and PAB riders who fall below a certain income bracket, to ensure that this test does not pose an additional burden on them?
My third point is on the authorities’ power to conduct security checks on public transport. The new section 127B provides a uniformed officer and authorised employees the power to conduct frisk searches. Such authorised employees, such as the bus operator, bus interchange operator, a security officer or an outsourced enforcement officer.
The new section 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) provides that women who are searched by a Police officer or ICA officer must be searched by a female officer, unless certain exceptions apply.
While maintaining the security of our public transport systems is vital, I believe it is equally important to maintain a sense of dignity for all women undergoing searches, which the new section 83 of the CPC addresses. Can the Minister of State clarify if a similar limitation applies to frisk searches under this Bill?
On this note, can the Ministry also commit to ensuring all relevant persons who may be considered an “approved person” under this amendment undergo the necessary training so that we can prevent instances where frisk searches are conducted erroneously? Notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill is introducing, among other things, the requirement of a competency test certificate for a rider to ride only a road-only power-assisted bicycle (PAB). Sir, I think it is reasonable to require all users of our busy roads to have a basic working knowledge of the rules of the road and the driving or riding etiquette vis-à-vis other road users, including pedestrians, motorists, PAB users and cyclists. This is important for the safety of other road users as well as law and order. After all, for our roads to be safe, the predictability of the behaviour of all road users must be there, at least to a large extent, barring a small number of errant users which should then be subject to the penalties of our laws.
Some people have cited the cost of requiring certification as a cause of concern. I hope that the Government will ensure that the certification course and associated course fees are kept low at all times and that those who cannot afford the fees can receive financial assistance for these fees so that they are still able to use such forms of transport and that there should not be too regular renewals.
The behaviour of many PAB users and, indeed, cyclists on the road seemed to imply that many riders either do not know the law or choose to disregard the law, for example, riders beating red lights or riding against traffic.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I also read from recent media reports that the Government has asked the Active Mobility Advisory Panel to study whether to require registration of bicycles or licensing of cyclists, including considering the possibility of requiring cyclists to take a theory test if they wish to ride on the roads.
At first glance, this may not be a bad idea though it will not be popular with some riders. I would urge the Panel and the Government, in considering whether to have such requirements for cyclists or bicycles, to consider the regularity of breaches of Road Traffic and Active Mobility Rules by cyclists. Ask ourselves whether we see such acts on an almost everyday or regular basis: beating red lights, cycling against traffic, cycling without helmets when on roads, not keeping on the left lane. And how many of us cyclists actually know that it is, for example, illegal to cycle on the right side of a motor vehicle when not overtaking or planning to make a turn to the right?
We see frequent social media postings on some of these acts and even a small number of cyclists challenging riders or pedestrians when they were reminded. When there is consistent taking of liberties by cyclists, this factor should be taken into consideration for it reflects prevailing riding culture, the lack of respect for the law and consideration for other road or footpath users, not to mention the occasional road rage, in turn, tarnishes what many other road users think generally of cyclists and will breed a lack of respect for cyclists. It does not help us cyclists in getting more respect and space from motorists on the road and even from pedestrians.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I first brought up the issue of riding culture in my speech at the debate of the Active Mobility Bill in early 2017. I said that despite riding in East Coast Park since I was young, I had in later years avoided cycling there because it has become unsafe. I said that cyclists do not always obey the directional signs or keep a proper lookout for pedestrians or other cyclists. Many pedestrians walk on or across the cycling path without caring for the safety of cyclists. Many cyclists cycle on the footpath. And I said that I have seen accidents in the park over the years, accidents that can be avoided if we had the right cycling culture. And I also said that the cycling culture in East Coast Park reflects the cycling culture nationally. I also said that, to improve our cycling culture, the Government must have the political will to do so.
I then reflected that around 10 years before that, I remember there was at one time a flurry of complaints in the newspapers about non-enforcement against errant cyclists, cyclists cycling on the wrong side of the road or beating red lights were already common occurrences then. I remember once the authorities replied to say that they had inadequate resources to address the problem. I said in my speech then that we missed a great opportunity to solve the problem back then in the mid-2000s. In those days, the only people who seemed to have broken the law were elderly cyclists. But after that, there was a huge influx of foreign workers and this meant a huge increase in the number of people using bicycles and many also followed the cycling culture, ignored the road safety rules because of lax enforcement. And then from the late-2000s, with the increase in white collar foreign labour, we also saw many taking recreational road cycling at the same time as many Singaporeans did. This was before e-bikes and e-scooters became popular.
Mr Speaker, Sir, regrettably, previous Governments had, over the years, failed to invest sufficiently to improve on our riding culture. So, do we now think that we need to improve our riding culture or do we think it is merely only a small number of cyclists who flout the law and that we do not need to improve our riding culture?
May I suggest that we should do more now? The number of recreational cyclists and e-bikes has continued to increase. The Government is building the much talked about extended cycling network. In recent times, the Government has also talked about looking at having more dedicated cycling lanes, which are non-shared footpaths, and are looking at cycling lanes on selected roads. But having more cycling lanes will not remove any existing cultural baggage. Riders, when left alone in such lanes, still need to be considerate, keep left, use the correct lights at night – which, by the way, many cyclists are not doing and there is inadequate enforcement.
Many people are still not happy with sharing the use of footpaths with cyclists; and in my view, this stems from the issues of riding culture too. I have spoken on this previously.
In recent years, the Government has had to deal with usage problems with our e-bikes and e-scooters, primarily stemming from a poor riding culture. It has been told to me in Parliament previously that the extended cycling network will not connect to the HDB blocks directly and there will still be a connection via footpaths. So, how do we ensure that PMD and PAB users will always dismount consistently and take a walk through the HDB block they are heading towards?
This is part of the problem leading to their ban from footpaths eventually. Sir, I am of the view that having a competency certificate or requiring bicycle, PAB or PMD licensing alone will not improve the situation, unless our riding culture improves. This, I think, is probably the most important and, arguably, the hardest objective we need to achieve.
In my speech for the Active Mobility Bill debate in 2017 and on numerous subsequent occasions in Parliament over the past few years, I have harped on the need to work on having consistent enforcement and adequate public education in order to improve our riding culture, whether for e-scooters, e-bikes or bicycles. This remains true till today.
I have cited my speech from more than four years ago just to highlight for today's debate that the issue with riding culture has been a tenuous one for a long time due to years of inadequate action in the past. Perhaps in the last four years, the Government has been too busy dealing with e-scooters after the Active Mobility Bill was passed, but I hope that the Government will address the riding culture once and for all for all groups.
As I have said on numerous occasions previously, consistent enforcement must go beyond occasional or even weekly spot-checks in selected spots and public education must go beyond just safe riding courses or online publicity to educate those who do not solicit the information by themselves. This is the thrust of the written Parliamentary Question I have filed for today. If people are used to riding in a certain way for years and they do not bother to find out about LTA's safe riding courses or go to the LTA's Facebook to watch their videos on these topics, how do you get the message to these people? How do you tell them to stop beating red lights and cycling against the traffic, and to get a helmet or use bicycle lights?
On footpaths, how do you persuade the many pedestrians to keep left and for all users to be considerate to each other?
If this is considered to be too difficult, we should not be surprised, as we did not do it earlier when we had fewer categories of cyclists and with less busy roads, no busy connector or footpath networks used by different types of users. It will boil down to political will. And we should not be half-hearted about this if we have invested huge resources for cycling in our extended cycling network and have nice plans for cycling lanes elsewhere, if we intend to take cycling and other forms of active mobility seriously, and if we still believe in active mobility for last-mile connectivity. If the LTA still harbours any wish for e-scooters to make a return as a choice transport for last-mile connectivity, we had better get our riding culture right, right now.
Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to enhance the safety of our roads and road users.
As a former Police officer and current unionist looking after the welfare of our transport workers, road safety is a topic very close to my heart. With close to a million road users plying our roads each day, we need to ensure that all of us get to our destinations safely.
My speech today will focus on three key aspects where road safety can and must be improved – the safety of autonomous technologies, the safety of cyclists and power-assisted bicycle (PAB) users and the safety of our migrant workers when travelling to work.
Sir, our Autonomous Vehicle (AV) regulatory sandbox was first established for a period of five years from 2017 to 2022. This is to facilitate the conduct of AV trials in Singapore and to support research and development in the industry. The Bill proposes to extend this regulatory sandbox for another five years, to facilitate even more trials until 2027.
I would like to ask LTA for an update on the various AV trials conducted here in Singapore in the past five years. How are we doing in respect to other key countries racing to develop AVs, which will include the United States, Germany and the Netherlands? Have our plans to trial autonomous public buses in Punggol, Tengah and the Jurong Innovation District been disrupted by the on-going COVID-19 pandemic? If so, can LTA provide the new timeline for these trials to take place?
As we continue to keep a keen eye on the development of AVs, it is also important that we look at the regulation of the Advanced Driver Assistance System, or ADAS. I was deeply concerned to hear about a fatal car accident in the US in April, which involved a Tesla vehicle which was believed to be operating on autonomous mode. While we impose strict safety standards on AV developers, how are we regulating seemingly conventional cars that are increasingly being equipped with new technologies, such as ADAS?
Car manufacturers have marketed such systems as an autopilot feature, which may give some drivers the illusion that they do not need to pay attention to the road when this feature is switched on. I hope that LTA could look seriously into this and review if there is a need for more regulation of such autopilot features and systems in cars.
Mr Speaker, according to a recent article by Lianhe Zaobao, 2020 saw 565 road accident casualties involving cyclists, PAB users and their pillion riders. This is a 23% increase from 2019. The article speculated that the increase could be due to more people taking up cycling as a hobby due to the pandemic and being unfamiliar with safe riding habits on the road.
Today, to allow our public buses to have a safe and smooth journey during peak hours, the Road Traffic Act prohibits almost all vehicle types from plying the bus lanes during operational hours. Cyclists, however, are allowed to cycle in the bus lanes in a single file.
Sir, the Highway Code recommends that motorists give 1.5 metres of space when overtaking cyclists. Let us do some simple math here. The minimum width of our traffic lane is three metres and the average width of our public buses is around 2.5 metres. It is simply impossible for our buses to overtake cyclists safely without infringing into the next lane. During bus lane operational hours, where there is peak hour traffic and where more buses are deployed, overtaking is both difficult and dangerous. Cyclists, in particular amateurs, are especially vulnerable if they do not know how to navigate safely the blind spots of a big bus.
As Executive Secretary of the National Transport Workers' Union, my bus captains have told me repeatedly that they are seeing more cyclists on the bus lanes. Many do not keep to the curb side and some ride two, or even three, abreast. Bus captains worry for the safety of cyclists and other road users when attempting to overtake them. It is also common for buses to have to overtake and re-overtake the same peloton of cyclists, as they bypass the bus at bus stops; and the dangerous cycle – pardon the pun – repeats itself.
I urge the Ministry to not allow cyclists and PAB users on bus lanes during operational hours. This is both for their safety and also the safety of other road users.
Sir, I was deeply distressed when I heard the news that the lives of two migrant workers were lost in a traffic accident involving a lorry and a tipper truck on 20 April. Less than a week later, there was another lorry accident which resulted in 10 migrant workers conveyed to the hospital.
The NTUC's Migrant Workers' Centre is assisting the injured workers in their recovery process and raising funds to help the families of the workers whose lives were lost in the tragic accident.
Safety concerns about how our workers are transported are not new. Regulations were amended back in 2011, following a spate of fatal road traffic accidents involving workers then. However, the recent accidents are a grim reminder that trucks and lorries should only be used to transport goods and not people.
The Labour Movement is engaging the Singapore Contractors Association Limited, or SCAL, to push for the implementation of separate transport arrangements for workers as soon as possible. NTUC is also engaging the relevant Government agencies to address implementation issues. We want our workers to get to their workplaces and back home safely every day.
While tripartite negotiations are underway, we should explore interim safety measures that can be adopted immediately.
First, we call on employers to hire a dedicated driver to transport their workers. This is to eliminate the issue of driver fatigue. Many companies, especially those outside of the construction sector, still require their workers to double-hat as a driver after a tiring full work shift. This unsafe practice must stop.
Drivers should also be required to have a vocational driving licence before they can transport passengers. This is a step-up from the current requirements for migrant worker drivers to pass the local Class 3 driving exam, as vocational training will focus on safety when transporting passengers. Mandatory licensing also allows our authorities to screen and track drivers for any adverse driving records.
Second, the co-mingling of goods and passengers should be outlawed. Co-mingling of goods and passengers is unsafe and is potentially fatal. If not properly secured, passengers risk being pinned by these heavy goods and machineries in the event of an accident, or even a sudden braking of the vehicle. Between goods and passengers, there should only be one onboard the vehicle at any one time.
While the number of accidents involving lorries may have gone down over the past 10 years, the risk for major injury and fatality per incident is high. If employers persist to use lorries to transport their workers, we want to reduce the associated risks significantly. We can do so by securing the passengers with proper seat belts and by restricting the lorry's travelling speed when transporting workers.
In her earlier reply to Parliamentary Questions filed on this topic, Senior Minister of State Amy Khor highlighted that a workgroup had studied such issues back in 2008 and found that the cargo beds of lorries were not constructed in a manner for seat belts to be retrofitted safely. That has been more than 10 years ago. I am glad that Senior Minister of State has indicated that the Ministry would review the issue again together with the tripartite partners and factor in new advancement in vehicle manufacturing and seat belt technology.
We also need to review the speed limit when passengers are on board goods vehicles. As Senior Minister of State Amy Khor mentioned, lorries are already subjected to a speed limit of 60 kilometres per hour. But is this safe enough?
One research paper suggests that passengers in cargo areas are 7.9 times more likely to lose their lives in the event of an accident. Therefore, I do urge LTA to re-look the issue and limit the permissible travelling speed of lorries when they are used to transport passengers.
Sir, the Labour Movement is keenly aware of the difficult economic situation that many employers are facing today. I hope the Government can help offset the financial burden employers will face when enhancing the transportation safety for our workers.
I have some suggestions. We could exempt buses used to transport our workers from COE, similar to how school buses are already exempted today. We could also provide an early adopter grant to incentivise employers to purchase or lease buses to transport their workers. I believe that this is a necessary price to pay to ensure the safety of the many workers who have left the comfort of their home country to help build our nation.
Sir, in conclusion, we can do more to enhance the safety of our roads for vulnerable groups. Cyclists and PAB riders should not cycle on busy bus lanes during peak hours, and our migrant workers, and all workers, should have safer transport to work. With that, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Chee Hong Tat has a clarification.
The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I would like to clarify a couple of points that Mr Dennis Tan made in his earlier remarks.
First, I want to thank Mr Dennis Tan for highlighting the importance of having a good riding culture. He also mentioned that he feels that licensing of bicycles and cyclists alone is not going to be effective because this needs to be accompanied by a safe riding culture. This point, I agree with him.
Mr Dennis Tan also said that there needs to be enforcement going together with education. Again, this is a point which I agree with him.
I just wanted to highlight, Mr Speaker, that I am not sure whether Mr Dennis Tan was in the Chamber earlier when I answered the Parliamentary Questions from Ms Poh Li San and Mr Gan Thiam Poh. They filed questions on road cycling and on safety, and I answered their Parliamentary Questions earlier today.
In my reply, I actually addressed some of these points that Mr Dennis Tan raised. I said, for example, that enforcement and education need to go hand in hand. I also talked about the practices in other countries, of how they promote cycling safety without having to license cyclists or bicycles. I gave some examples in my reply.
Importantly, I also acknowledged Mr Dennis Tan's written Parliamentary Question and I said – and if I may just read from my earlier reply: \"In his written Parliamentary Question, Mr Dennis Tan asked if we have a public education campaign on safe practices for cyclists and pedestrians. Since 2018, LTA has offered the Safe Riding Programme (SRP). This is a voluntary education programme that is free-of-charge with both theory and practical components for all active mobility device users, including cyclists. LTA is revamping the SRP and will work with Traffic Police to reach out to road users and encourage public participation. We intend to roll out the new Safe Riding Programme in the next few months.\"
Sir, I wanted also to clarify what Mr Dennis Tan said earlier about how four years ago he has been raising Parliamentary Questions on riding culture. We formed the Active Mobility Advisory Panel in July 2015, more than five years ago. The panel was set up precisely to bring together different groups of stakeholders to look at how to improve road safety and how to promote a safe riding culture, a point which I think Mr Tan also feels strongly about.
Over the years, I think the Members of Parliament in this House from both the PAP and the Opposition – and I believe also our Nominated Members of Parliament – have raised concerns and given suggestions on how to improve road safety. I think this is something we should acknowledge and not give the wrong impression that suggestions, comments and proposals for enhancing safety have only come from the Workers' Party.
Mr Speaker: Dr Shahira Abdullah.
Dr Shahira Abdullah (Nominated Member): Sir, the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill deals with the issue of safety, whether on the roads or on various modes of public transportation. I feel this is timely.
Firstly, because of progress in technology, autonomous vehicles (AVs) no longer seem like something from a faraway future. I am excited and welcome the extension of the regulatory sandbox for a further five years. More synergistic cross-collaborations between the Traffic Police, LTA and AV developers would pave the way for better AVs that are road-safe-by-design.
Secondly, power-assisted bicycles have become a common sight on the roads. This will inevitably lead to more instances of accidents involving cyclists and motorists. According to LTA, there were 417 road accidents involving cyclists and PAB users from January to November 2019. It also means that when accidents happen involving a car and a cyclist, the cyclist will usually be at a greater risk.
In March 2021, a 42-year-old food delivery rider on an e-bike was killed following an accident with a Mini Cooper along Hougang Avenue. On 3 May 2021, a 49-year-old leisure cyclist was killed in an accident involving a shuttle bus at NTU. By all public accounts, she was a new cyclist who had only just bought her bicycle the week prior to the accident.
Therefore, the recommendation to have certifications for PAB users on roads is an important step towards improving the safety of motorists and cyclists on the road and is long overdue.
In addition to these theory tests, may I also ask if there will be concomitant increased enforcement action and penalties on the road for errant cyclists as well? I feel that this step has to go hand in hand with the education of cyclists to ensure that knowledge of good rider habits is put into practice.
Could I also ask if there may be provisions to improve accessibility for seniors to take this certification test? For example, the certifications could be conducted in various languages. For the less digitally savvy seniors, could provisions also be given to allow them to take physical tests instead? The costs of the certification renewal could also be kept low for the seniors or less abled who require use of the PABs for mobility.
The cost should also not be a hindrance to maybe food delivery riders who may need to depend on PABs for their livelihood.
Thirdly, developments in the region have also required us to be more vigilant of possible threats from within or outside of Singapore. It has been deemed that there is a need to legalise security searches on a person on the public transport system.
However, I would like to advise caution. The powers accorded to the officers seem wide-ranging. Therefore, officers authorised to do such work must be well-trained in identifying suspects using objective criteria that must be set out beforehand. This is especially pertinent for the purposes of the revised section 127B, which empowers officers to frisk individuals and to request that one or more garments of the bus passenger or entrant – that may be conveniently removed – be removed and for the garment to be inspected.
In a multi-racial and multi-cultural society, we must always be mindful of actions that may imply racial or ethnic bias and constantly guard against it. Therefore, it cannot be understated that clearly written policies on these details may be more important than ever. There must also be set protocol and adequate infrastructure for the searches carried out by officers to be done in a dignified and respectful manner.
For example, if searches have to be conducted on female commuters, should there also be some sort of initiative where when frisk searches are done, there should be some sort of recording which can protect the rights of the officers and commuters if there are any contentious reports? Only when this is done will citizens be confident that decisions are made fairly and ensure public safety.
Last but not least, in relation to safety on the roads, I would like to talk about the recent accidents that involved migrant workers on the roads.
In a span of two weeks, two accidents claimed the lives of two young men – 28-year-old Mr Sugunan Sudheeshmon from Kerala and 33-year-old Mr Tofazzal Hossain from Bangladesh. Both left behind young families they were supporting. At the same time, more than 20 others were injured in these accidents. Just a few days ago, there was another accident involving a Police van and lorry, which left 17 men injured.
According to the Traffic Police, three people died and 244 people were injured in similar accidents last year and, for us, it is only the first half of the year.
It seems like the measures we have in place may not be enough to protect the lives of these young men and this needs to change. I am cognisant that changes may incur more financial costs to the construction industry. But how do you determine the value of human lives? Therefore, I feel that any change in safety standards has to be legislated for it to be duly enforced.
How can we make it safer for them? The gold standard would be to use buses to transport them. In fact, Bahrain has already outlawed lorries. I am aware this means additional costs which are likely to be borne by all stakeholders. With the rising property prices and delays in BTO flat completions, there will definitely be a further strain on everyone involved. However, I believe that, as a modern, developed country, this is something we do have to work towards in the long term.
But what can we do in the meantime? Minimally, seatbelts should be mandated on lorries. Earlier on, Senior Minister of State Amy Khor had said that the lorries are not built to withstand the forces needed to hold the seatbelts. I feel that this strengthens the finding that lorries are not safe for carrying people. I echo what Member of Parliament Mr Melvin Yong has said previously – that trucks and lorries should only be used to transport goods and not humans.
Additionally, after a long day of work, workers on trucks may also fall asleep and, while being transported in such a state, it will be difficult for them to react to cushion any major movements made by the lorry.
How do we counteract this?
Reinforcements on these lorries should be considered. Similar to what fellow Member of Parliament Mr Alex Yam brought up about SAF having seat belts for their five-tonners yesterday, should we revisit the discussion on how SAF has been transporting their men and how we can adapt such measures to these cases?
I welcome the announcement that there will be a review on this issue with all the relevant stakeholders. There is a saying that safety rules are written in blood. Let us not add to it.
Notwithstanding what I have asked to be considered, on the whole, I feel this Bill protects the lives of everyone on the road and, for that, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, while we agree with the Bill before us today, I have a number of concerns and clarifications that I would like to make in relation to three areas of the proposed amendments to the Road Traffic Act.
First, relating to certification and licensing. A major focus of the Bill is the licensing and certification of riders of “test-needed-to-ride-on-road vehicles”. These are power-assisted bicycles (PABs) that are prescribed by the rules under the Active Mobility Act 2017, and the new rules require that riders of such vehicles be certified to have passed a prescribed test of competence for that class or description of vehicle and the test of competence will cover riding on public paths and roads.
The rationale for introducing such a test of competence is to improve road safety and to make our roads and footpaths safer for pedestrians, riders and motorists. I agree that we must take action to reduce the number of accidents on our roads and public paths, and my Workers’ Party colleagues have spoken about this matter on previous occasions.
I would like to raise a point of concern that I had in relation to the introduction of licensing. I would like to seek some clarifications relating to the requirement for a competency certificate for power-assisted bicycles that are test-needed-to-ride-on-road vehicles.
First, how would the certification process be rolled out and the requirements phased in to ensure that all riders who wish to continue riding their vehicles are not left in a position where they are unable to obtain their certification before the requirements kick in? This is especially important as many riders do rely on their vehicles for work and to move around.
Second, in relation to the requirements to obtain certification, the Minister of State mentioned that there will be some form of safety code knowledge to be tested as part of the certification process. But how would the test be tailored to allow for the specifics of riders, as opposed to more conventional road users, particularly in view that some of these riders will be allowed on public paths and roads? Also, would there be a minimum age and how will minors be regulated?
Lastly, on licensing, I would like to raise some concerns about the requirement for certification in general. All of us in this House have residents who rely on these test-needed-to-ride-on-road vehicles for their livelihoods. Some of these delivery drivers rely on such vehicles as their sole source of income and some are sole breadwinners for their families. Many older Singaporeans, too, rely on these vehicles to get around and they may not be so conversant in English.
Indeed, I have come across such residents who have shared with me their struggles in passing certification requirements in fields as diverse as chefs in the F&B industry to forklift drivers. Many of them have been doing these jobs for decades and excel with carrying out these jobs on a practical level, but struggle to pass the paper examinations. The result is often an impact on their livelihoods as they are unable to be employed in the very jobs they have been carrying on for years.
I hope that we learn from the experiences of our fellow Singaporeans who were affected by previous certification requirements and ensure that the certification process is simple enough so that it remains accessible to all of our residents and that they do not end up being unnecessarily tripped up by red tape. The overriding objective of certification should be to raise awareness of road safety and to educate, not to treat it like an examination to score road users.
Will there be the option to take the test in languages which our older Singaporeans are more conversant in? What provisions will be made for the small minority of riders who may not be so literate and able to sit a test? What assistance will they be given to learn and understand the safety requirements in order to be able to pass the test?
Next, I would like to move on to another large theme of the Bill before us: the theme of enhancing road safety. There are many provisions being introduced through the Bill, from enhancing safety for our road users to ensuring the security or safety of persons who use our public transport networks. Yet, there is one area of safety which does not feature and that is the safety of migrant workers.
Just last month, two migrant workers lost their lives and scores more were injured in a series of accidents involving lorries, and there was one just a few days ago. These workers were riding in the backs of lorries, in an area meant for cargo. Given that there are approximately 300,000 such workers in Singapore, this is a large number of our population who face dangerous commutes on a daily basis.
This issue has been under scrutiny for over a decade, with calls stemming back to 2009 being made – many by colleagues in this House – to ban the transport of workers in the backs of lorries like livestock or goods. We must not forget that these are workers who leave behind their homes and families and slog for long hours under all weather conditions to build our homes and to repair our roads.
Yet, section 126 of the Road Traffic Act still has a provision banning the use of goods vehicles for passengers, unless, I quote, \"(a) the person so carried is in the employment of the owner or hirer of the vehicle and is proceeding on his master's business and is carried in accordance with rules prescribed under section 77(6); or (b) the person so carried is a sick or injured person carried in a case of emergency\".
Such a practice is dangerous to not only the migrant workers themselves, but it also poses real risks to other road users. As mentioned previously, this topic has been debated as far back as 2009, and yet 12 years, and numerous other deaths and injuries later, we are still arguing about whether this is an appropriate way to treat migrant workers.
While I am glad to hear that NTUC is looking at this matter, I note that the reason always given whenever such calls are being made is that to allow any safer ways of transporting migrant workers would mean increased costs. Leaving aside what this says about us as a country where we can argue that \"increased costs\" is a good enough reason to turn a blind eye to lower safety standards for \"lower tier workers\", I believe this argument is flawed.
First, because it ignores a more fundamental problem in our labour system that we are still struggling to address and that is our addiction to cheap labour, often at the expense of productivity increases. Despite many pointing out the danger and unsustainable nature of our approach of importing cheap labour in sectors, such as the construction and marine industries, not much has been done by enterprises to shift away from this model towards a more productive, less labour-intensive model. While this is a topic for another day, it would naturally flow that any increased costs by more stringent transport safety standards would have less of an impact if we are not so reliant on employing a large force of cheap, low-skilled workers in our building sector.
Additionally, as we have been looking at our ITM 2.0 roadmaps, is this not a good time for us to start looking into the entire way the construction industry is structured, to really find long-lasting, sustainable solutions that maximise productivity and minimise labour input?
Second, this argument is also problematic, as we did not shy away from mandating safety measures, such as seat belts on all school buses, when an accident, which killed an 8-year-old boy in 2008, saw a retrofitting of seat belts on all school buses. A sum of $35 million was set aside by the Government to help owners of small buses implement this.
Finally, it was reported last week that the number of people injured or killed while on board lorries has been falling in the last 10 years and, indeed, comparisons are drawn between the lower number of casualties involving accidents on lorries compared to all motor vehicles. This is actually a non-starter, as the statistics quoted include the number of injuries for all road users, and crucially include motorcycles, which have a higher casualty rate. Additionally, as the Senior Minister of State Amy Khor said yesterday, each life lost leaves behind a family that is grieving and each injury has the potential to leave a worker unable to continue working to support his family.
Referring to other countries where such similar practices are allowed should not be our first reaction. Why do we not instead compare ourselves to countries which better respect the safety of such workers by holding ourselves to the same high safety standards of those countries? Why can we not learn from them how these countries address the very same concerns that we have, while at the same time mandating that workers are transported in a safer manner?
We must seriously consider mandating that all migrant workers are transported in buses or mini-buses. The drop in tourism due to COVID-19 has resulted in many buses and mini-buses with spare capacity – perhaps this is a good time as any to start the transition, with some kind of Government support. The re-purposing of such currently idle or under-utilised buses or mini-buses would be welcomed.
In any event, we should also have a proper study of the costs – both as an absolute number across the industry and as a percentage of total construction costs – associated with enhancing safety measures for the transport of our migrant workers, together with a good look at the labour model for our construction industry in order to have a more meaningful conversation on this topic, rather than have vague statements being made about costs each time the topic is brought up. I am glad to hear from Senior Minister of State Amy Khor that this will be one of the matters to be considered.
Last but not least, I turn to the extension of frisking powers to \"authorised persons\" mentioned in clauses 20, 24 and 31 of this Bill. Subsection 9 of the new section 23A of the Bill defines these \"authorised persons\" as: one, an officer or an employee of the Authority; two, an employee of an auxiliary police force in uniform; three, an employee of a licensee authorised to operate a rapid transit system using train or railway premises; four, a security officer (within the meaning of the Private Security Industry Act) engaged by a licensee mentioned in paragraph (c); and five, an outsourced enforcement officer.
This is a wide group of persons. While there are good reasons to step up security due to persistent concerns about terrorism and the security of our transport networks, this amendment continues the trend of expanding key Police powers to persons who may not be fully trained in law enforcement. As in previous cases of extending Police powers, the language of the Bill does not discuss the training that these “authorised persons” will receive to exercise their powers with sufficient care and due diligence.
Police powers must be wielded judiciously and carefully, and adequate training must be given to counter the risk of abuse, including but not limited to excessive enforcement, harassment and even sexual assault, particularly in view of the inclusion of frisk searches; this is very important. Because of these concerns, could we not directly build safeguards into the relevant provisions? For example, in view of the expansion of powers to include frisk searching, we could, as earlier suggested, mandate that only female authorised persons are allowed to frisk search other women. Another example would be to use body cams to reduce the likelihood of abuse and overly vigorous use of such powers.
Some further concerns that I have include confusion or lack of awareness by members of the public should they be stopped and searched. This may lead to such incidents accumulating and, ultimately, will prove damaging to social cohesion in Singapore, while undermining trust in actual law enforcement officers. What steps will need to be taken to ensure that this does not happen?
In conclusion, while we support the measures put in place by this Bill to improve safety and security across our transportation networks, I hope that the Ministry can consider my concerns and suggestions to further improve our transport system and to make it a safer and fairer one for all. Despite these concerns, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, section 126(1) of the Road Traffic Act prevents goods vehicles from being used to transport passengers, but subsection (a) allows an exception for workers to be carried on a goods vehicle owned or rented by their employer if they meet the rules prescribed under section 77(6). I propose to add a provision to the Bill to repeal section 126(1)(a) of the Act and to mandate that workers can only be transported in vehicles with passenger seats.
In July 2010, a Parliamentary Question was asked of the Minister for Transport to consider legislating that employers must transport their workers in buses. The Minister replied that we should allow the measures to improve workers’ safety on lorries to take effect and study their effectiveness before concluding that they are insufficient and going for a ban.
These measures – fitting lorries with canopies and side railings, increasing the deck space per seated worker – have been in place for 10 years. Despite these vehicle-related safety measures, driver-related measures, enforcement and penalties and public education, we are continuing to see fatalities and injuries from workers being transported on lorries.
The Workplace Safety and Health Act imposes a duty on employers to take reasonably practicable measures to ensure the safety and health of persons at work. Employers facing environments, such as working at heights, lifting operations and operating heavy machinery, must put in place safety measures, and these have prevented needless injuries.
WSH 2028 vision works towards reducing Singapore’s workplace fatality rate to less than one per 100,000 workers by 2028, and a pervasive adoption of the Vision Zero culture where stakeholders are committed to preventing all forms of injury and ill-health at work.
It is clear that the current measures for transporting workers as passengers on goods vehicles is not enough and must be improved. The Government has taken strong action in the past in reaction to deaths that could have been prevented. After a fatal school bus accident in 2008, seat belts for small school buses were made compulsory in 2009. To cope with the increased cost, the Government gave out $22 million in financial assistance for small buses to be retrofitted with seat belts. We should now similarly prioritise human lives over increased costs. Financial assistance for businesses with difficulties complying can be explored. We can also explore whether there is spare capacity in the form of tour buses now under-utilised that will make this a good time to implement new measures.
The workers affected are primarily migrant workers, who form one of the most vulnerable groups in our society. The neglect of their protection and welfare has long been a bone of contention in our society. Reactive responses only when death occurs in traffic accidents, domestic helper abuse or dormitory infections are not enough. The pandemic has shown us how choosing the easier or cheaper path can come back and bite us eventually.
It was announced yesterday that MOT will review this issue, taking into account all views and suggestions. Can MOT let us know how much time is needed for this review? Lives are at stake here and we hope for speedy action to be taken.
Further to the issue of safe transportation of workers, Progress Singapore Party would like to highlight that this would be a good time for a holistic review of all the areas related to the protection of migrant workers, for example, dormitory conditions, recruitment costs, job mobility and strengthening enforcement of breaches by employers.
Mr Speaker: Mr Abdul Samad.
Mr Abdul Samad (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to share some ground feedback as well as propose some suggestions with regard to the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill.
Firstly, let me state that as a fellow member of the public, I welcome the move to improve the safety of our road users and pedestrians.
At the same time, as a union leader, I am aware that this amendment would affect the freelance and self-employed delivery riders who ride road-only power-assisted bicycles, or PABs for short. Just less than one and a half years ago, many of these vocational riders transited from Personal Mobility Devices to PABs. They are, therefore, concerned with the increasing regulations and its impact on their source of income and livelihood.
The amendment seeks to require PAB riders to undergo a competency test and to be granted a certificate before riding the vehicle on the road. A proportion of vocational PAB riders, such as food delivery riders, have shared their concerns with us that they will find it challenging to pass the theory test due to language or technology barriers.
To ensure that vocational PAB riders are adequately prepared to meet this new requirement, I would like to call for Government assistance to equip them with the appropriate learning tools and relevant training to cater to the needs of the vocational riders.
The current Safe Riding Programme offered by LTA is more suited for the general population. I would like to seek MOT and LTA's support in funding a training programme for vocational PAB riders to better prepare them for the theory test and instil safe riding behaviour. NTUC will work closely with MOT and LTA to better support them through the training programme and eventually passing the competency test.
NTUC is also working with LTA to ensure that while the questions in the competency test address the appropriate standards of road and public path safety, the questions will also be manageable for PAB riders to comprehend and answer.
The changes arising from the passing of the Bill should be implemented with a reasonable timeline, providing vocational PAB riders an adequate runway to get their certification.
With the passing of the Bill, adequate support should be provided for the riders and the new regulations should not impede the workers' source of income and their livelihood.
I would also like to touch on another aspect that is close to my heart and the heart of the workers.
As we push to enhance the safety of our road users and pedestrians, let us also pay attention to the safety of our freelance and self-employed workers. Amongst the vocational PAB riders, food delivery riders are heavy and frequent road users with long hours of riding and have a higher risk of getting into an accident. I am sure that their families worry for them every day.
Today, we have many freelance and self-employed workers who work for various delivery platforms. I would like MOM to clarify the duty of these delivery platforms towards their freelance and self-employed workers under the Workplace Safety and Health Act.
Unlike a regular or contract employees, freelance and self-employed workers do not enjoy the statutory benefits provided for under the Work Injury and Compensation Act, or WICA, for work-related injuries. More needs to be done to ensure freelance and self-employed workers are compensated for work-related injuries. In Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Let me now say a few words in Malay. As I have shared in my English speech, I acknowledge that the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill would affect the freelance and self-employed delivery riders who ride road-only power-assisted bicycles. To ensure that vocational riders are adequately prepared to meet this new requirement, I would like to call for Government assistance to equip them with the appropriate learning tools and relevant training. NTUC will be working closely with the relevant agencies to better prepare the affected workers.
As we push to enhance the safety of our road users and pedestrians, let us also pay attention to the safety of our freelance and self-employed workers. Today, these workers are not compensated for work-related injuries – more needs to be done to protect them.
(In English): Mr Speaker, with this, I support the Bill. NTUC looks forward to working closely with the relevant agencies to better prepare the affected workers.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, based on the Land Transport Master Plan 2040, cycling plays a key role towards a car-lite Singapore. However, as more cyclists take to the roads, there has been an increase in hostility between cyclists and motorists, and even pedestrians. The proposed amendments to the Road Traffic Act would require power-assisted bicycle riders to pass a theory test. This is before they can ride their power-assisted bicycles on the roads or on the pavements. The amendments are aimed at making the roads and pavements safer for everyone.
Many Members today have spoken on cycling. The conduct of cyclists on the roads has been the topic of frequent, sometimes intense, debates on social media. In the course of policymaking, we need to take into consideration the views of cyclists as well as other road users. Ultimately, we want safety for all road users.
Since we have identified cycling as an important element in our move towards a car-lite nation, we cannot and should not relegate cyclists to the pavements. But cyclists must take on more accountability. Their behaviour, decisions and actions can give rise to accidents. I have four recommendations to promote safe and responsible cycling.
First, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must work on creating more dedicated cycling lanes. Many cities around the world, including Singapore, are experiencing a cycling boom since the COVID-19 pandemic started. This is largely driven by anxiety over shared enclosed spaces on board public transportation and a heightened interest in outdoor exercise.
I am glad to hear last week that LTA is considering converting sections of roads as well as the removal of roadside parking spaces, to make way for cycling tracks. This has been successfully done in Paris. The city saw a massive commuter shift to bicycles during the pandemic. Paris is a bustling metropolis with existing buildings and infrastructure in place – very much like Singapore. Yet, the authorities were able to swiftly create many new cycling lanes within months. They accomplished this by converting about 150 kilometres of roads to cycling lanes.
New cycling infrastructure will take years, even decades, to complete if they are to be built from scratch. I, therefore, urge our Government to consider this initiative seriously. It would be helpful if the cycling community can be involved and assist the LTA in identifying routes where dedicated cycling lanes can be created.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my second proposal is to have clearer regulations on cycling. Let me cite an example. From LTA enforcement reports, I understand that it is an offence to cycle against traffic flow. However, this is not immediately obvious to all cyclists. There is no explicit statement about riding against traffic flow in Section III of the Highway Code, which is widely assumed to be the only piece of law that governs conduct on the roads, nor is there anything on LTA's website about cycling on roads.
Unless someone is a lawyer or works at LTA, one might not be aware that there may be multiple sources of the law relating to cycling. Some cyclists, therefore, may break the rules because they are genuinely uninformed. Others may exploit the lack of clear information and do as they please. This creates confusion and dangerous situations on the roads.
A suggestion would be to further enhance the Road Traffic Act, specifically, to ensure that the Act is explicitly clear that it covers cyclists the same way as it does for motorists. Once that is achieved, we can then work on raising awareness that the law applies equally to cyclists as well.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my third proposal is to implement common traffic education and road safety regulations for cyclists and motorists. For example, motorists should be educated on the hand signals that cyclists use so that the intentions of cyclists are clear to motorists. Another recommendation is for cyclists to take a theory test like a CPR qualification before they can go on the roads.
I note with concern that there is a divergence between recommendations within the cycling community and the guidelines for cyclists on LTA's website. For example, LTA's website states that cycling two abreast is allowed on non-single lane roads and on bus lanes outside their operational hours. However, many people, including cyclists, believe that cycling should always be done in a single file. In fact, the Highway Code requires cyclists to \"ride in a single file when possible\".
Divergence results in one side assuming that the other is not compliant, thereby resulting in conflicts. We should align guidelines and recommendations for cyclists on the roads. We should avoid referring to road traffic rules as guidelines or as a code. This is to avoid any ambiguity as to their applicability. They should be clearly stated as laws to be adhered to and to be included in common road user education and theory tests. And if these rules are broken, the offenders should be brought to task.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my last proposal is for authorities and the Courts to reconsider how well-established legal concepts, such as the burden of proof, causation and duty of care, should apply to incidents on the road involving cyclists.
On one hand, in cycling-friendly cities like the Netherlands, Sweden and Germany, the concept of presumed liability is practised. This means that in an accident, the burden of proof is shifted from the more vulnerable road user like a pedestrian or cyclist to the driver of motor vehicles, such as cars and lorries, which are capable of causing more impact. This rule does not automatically abolish fault or impose liabilities over any single party. The accused may still disprove claims of fault in Court. Legislating for presumed liability may, indeed, help accelerate the progress of Singapore as a car-lite nation.
With the sheer amount of existing conflict between cyclists and motorists in Singapore, imposing a similar law may now widen the rift. But it is certainly something we should consider as part of improving safety and responsibility among users of shared roads.
On the other hand, the concept of duty of care in common law already requires a driver and, indeed, all road users, to adhere to a reasonable standard of care when using the roads. What this means is that even if it was possible for the motorist to show that it was the cyclist that caused the accident, the motorist would find it a lot more difficult to show that they have not breached their duty of care.
What if this was not the case? What if liability for a traffic accident involving a cyclist can be decided simply by causation? Simplifying how fault is determined in a traffic accident could lead to road users becoming more self-aware of their own conduct on the roads. This can reduce reckless behaviour and make roads safer for everyone.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, we need to seriously consider the above proposals to improve road safety and the accountability of road users. But ultimately, the \"motorists versus cyclists\" situation will never improve if we do not change our attitudes about each other to be more gracious and accommodating on the roads.
The \"me first\" culture on our roads must stop. Every single road user – motorists, cyclists or pedestrians – has a personal responsibility to reshape our road safety culture. Be kind, be patient and be considerate to one another. In doing so, we can improve road safety in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Ms Raeesah Khan (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, my speech will address two areas: improving infrastructure for cyclists and the expansion of search and seizure powers on public transport.
The Bill seeks to introduce licensing and certification regimes for users of bicycles and power-assisted bicycles. Given the number of accidents involving cyclists, this could help ensure that cyclists are well-acquainted with the relevant regulations, thereby improving road safety for all users.
However, apart from licensing and certification, perhaps we could look into improving road infrastructure as another possible solution.
As the Government seeks to promote active mobility amongst the public, it is crucial to ensure that our infrastructure will be able to keep pace with the expected increase in individuals opting for such modes of transport. LTA has already started looking into converting some stretches of roads into cycling paths to tripling the Cycling Path Network by 2030.
As part of these efforts, could the Ministry also consider studying the possibility of repurposing car lanes into bike lanes? This could potentially improve connectivity for cyclists while also contributing to road safety.
While the Government embarks on projects to improve our infrastructure for cyclists, I hope that the Ministry can also factor in the needs of cyclists who are persons with disabilities to ensure that infrastructure in the pipeline is inclusive.
For persons with disabilities, cycling is often a much easier way to get around than walking and it is estimated that about 40% of disabled cyclists use regular two-wheeled bicycles. Thus, while their disabilities may be invisible to some, research has shown that people with disabilities have a disproportionately higher need for protected cycling infrastructure and direct routes.
Obstacles, uneven surfaces and gradients could potentially cause discomfort to disabled cyclists or inadvertently exclude them from using the cycling paths as they may not be able to lift or push their bicycles. Infrastructure should also be designed to be able to accommodate wider, non-standard cycles, such as tricycles, tandems and recumbents.
On the expansion of search and seizure powers, while I understand the need for such measures to strengthen the preparedness of our public transport system against security threats, I have several queries for the Minister.
My first query relates to the training which will be provided to \"approved persons\", especially for those who are not Police officers or employees of an Auxiliary Police Force. Could the Minister share more about the training which approved persons will receive before they are authorised to frisk search commuters, if any? More specifically, does the Ministry intend to provide training and introduce guidelines to ensure the appropriateness and proportionality of action taken in relation to the assessed threat level? This could help prevent cases of abuse of authority, which include excessive behaviour, harassment or even sexual assault.
Additionally, how would the Ministry minimise the profiling of minorities and marginalised persons which may inadvertently arise in the process of identifying commuters to undergo additional security screening? Such profiling might amount to over-policing and could potentially be damaging to our social fabric. Perhaps the Ministry may consider publishing statistics pertaining to all frisk searches, including information on searches by gender, ethnicity, time, location and also justification.
The second query I have relates to public awareness and education. Given that security checks can be conducted by Police officers who are not in uniform, as well as approved persons authorised by LTA in writing, how would commuters be assured that officers who are conducting these security checks are legitimate? How would commuters know if officers are behaving in an appropriate manner? Does the Ministry intend to provide avenues for commuters to seek recourse and remedies should they encounter inappropriate actions taken by these officers?
On top of introducing safeguards to minimise the occurrence of such incidents, I hope that the Ministry will also consider conducting public education campaigns so that commuters can be aware of their rights with regard to security screening and frisk searches proposed by this Bill.
Mr Speaker, as we seek to expand the search and seizure powers beyond law enforcement officers, we should also ensure that proper and comprehensive training is provided to authorised personnel while ensuring that commuters are aware of the extent of these measures that they can be reasonably subjected to. This would help maintain trust in law enforcement while allowing us to remain vigilant against potential threats to our public transport system.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the implementation of a theory test for riders of power-assisted bicycles (PABs). This will help boost safety for the riders and other users on the roads. PABs are commonly used by delivery staff and it is not easy for them to make ends meet in this difficult economic climate. I am thus very concerned about the affordability of the tests and would propose that it be set at an affordable level. I would also urge companies who engage these essential workers to pay for the costs of the tests on their behalf.
Next, it will be a new offence for motorcyclists to carry pillion riders who are not wearing helmets. In addition, there are dangers posed by helmets which do not meet regulatory requirements or are of unsuitable sizes. I have seen children pillion riders wearing helmets which are too big for them. How will the Ministry ensure that motorcyclists provide their pillion riders with the correct type of helmets? Will there be more public education programmes to highlight the importance of wearing right-sized helmets?
I am very concerned about the safety of young motorcycle pillion riders, some of whom are only in pre-school or Primary school. Would the Ministry consider mandating the wearing of the correctly-sized helmets?
Another amendment of the Bill is to empower Police officers and authorised personnel to conduct security screening of bus and MRT commuters. While I support this measure to ward off potential security attacks, I have concerns about imposters taking advantage of passengers. As the Bill had stated, these personnel may or may not be in uniform, so it is really not easy for commuters to tell if they are genuine. Molesters or pickpockets may pretend to conduct frisk searches. Would the Minister share what measures are in place to reduce the likelihood of this happening?
Lastly, I would like to touch on the proposed amendment regarding the forfeiture of vehicles used for illegal road races. With the amendment, a vehicle involved will no longer be forfeited if the offending driver is not the owner and had used it without the owner's permission.
On one hand, this seems to be fair to the owners but, on the other hand, there may be instances where owners of the vehicles claim that they did not provide consent in order to keep the vehicles. However, in reality, they had given consent and provided the offending driver access to the vehicle. How would the Ministry be able to separate the genuine cases from the non-genuine ones? Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] \tMany delivery staff for goods and meals use PABs to earn a living. Hence, I urge the authorities to ensure that the test fees are affordable to them and I also urge companies which engage their services to pay the fees for them.
I am also worried about the safety of young pillion riders on motorcycles. Some of them are Primary school students who wear helmets which are too big. Would the Ministry consider requiring them to wear right-sized helmets?
The Bill will empower Police officers and authorised personnel to conduct security screening of bus and MRT commuters. May I ask the Minister what measures will be implemented to prevent those imposters who wish to take the opportunity to molest or steal?
As for the clause concerning the forfeiture of vehicles involved in illegal racing, I would like to ask the Minister how the Ministry would distinguish whether the owner of the involved vehicle did or did not provide consent to the offending driver.
(In English): Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. From 2018 to 2020, a total of 31 people have been arrested over four cases of illegal street racing. During the circuit breaker period, we have seen videos of an illegal street race along KPE where six men and two women were eventually arrested. In a separate incident, also during the circuit breaker period, 57 motorists in 50 vehicles were investigated for taking part in an illegal car race in Tuas. The roads of Lim Chu Kang, Seletar, Tuas have been observed at times to be used for drag competition, with multiple cars gathering at these locations to watch the race. And how can we forget the shocking deaths of five young men earlier this year after they sped through Tanjong Pagar?
These illegal racers not only put themselves at serious risk of harm, but also expose other road users and innocent bystanders to these risks. While I understand that some people are passionate about cars, these racing-related activities do not have a place on our public roads. We have been lucky thus far that no innocent bystanders have been hurt, which makes it even more important for us to act now to ensure that our roads remain safe for everyone who use them.
Hence, to keep our roads safe, I am in support of the increased penalties for racing and speed trials. In addition, to ensure that the right punishment is meted out to the right individual, I am also in support of the stiffer penalties for individuals who mislead the Traffic Police in their investigations.
Additionally, I am in support of disqualifying motorists for road rage. However, I would like to seek some clarification on this matter. What if the accused was a cyclist exhibiting road rage to a motorist? How do we ensure the consequence to cyclists and motorists can be equally meted out as we have seen videos of cyclists verbally abusing and punching motorists on several occasions already?
I support the penalisation of motorists who fail to ensure their pillion wears an approved helmet and the introduction of stiffer penalties for those selling poor quality non-approved helmets. I think that this legislation would provide a good baseline safety standard for helmets that should be used on our roads and improve the overall safety of our motorcyclists and their pillions.
I would also like to seek clarification on the penalising of motorcyclists who fail to ensure their pillion wears an approved helmet as well as the stiffer penalties for those selling non-approved helmets.
I appreciate and understand the intent in ensuring that helmets pass certain safety standards so that they can protect both rider and pillion. In Singapore, the standards follow the TUV SUD PSB Standard. It involves one-drop test on the front, back and side of the helmet, a penetration test using a sharp object falling on the helmet and a chin strap test using a weight pulling on the strap. These tests are conducted in batches, meaning dealers have to put about 1% to 4% of each batch of helmets that they bring in, that they import in, through these destructive tests.
According to the Singapore Motor Cycle Trade Association (SMCTA), the price of testing open face helmets is S$1,283 for a minimum of four pieces, with the next five pieces costing S$194 each. There is also an additional stamp duty of S$110. The high price, compulsory batch destructive testing and the small market make helmet testing an economical burden to both the dealers and the riders. The dealers will have to then pass on this cost to the riders and this may be a deterrent to the riders, especially if we have riders from the lower income group. Hence, while we seek to ensure better safety standards for more of our motorcyclists and their pillions, the economics of testing may hinder the intent of the legislation.
Given Singapore's small motorbike market compared to the world, by requiring an additional destructive test on an already small batch of helmets increases the helmet price prohibitively and may act as a deterrent for motorcyclists to get the good helmets that can keep them safe.
One way we can overcome this is if we can consider accepting other standards that are internationally accepted. Renowned bike helmet manufacturers like Shoei and Arai that are declared safe for MotoGP use, the \"Formula 1\" of motor racing, usually come with the ECE or SNELL standards. ECE refers to the Economic Commission for Europe safety standard, which is used by more than 50 countries, including Europe, and recognised by international racing bodies. World safety standards for helmets also include the US Department of Transportation (DOT) and SNELL standards.
We must also consider motorcyclists who have already purchased such high-end helmets with internationally-accredited standards but without the soon-to-be mandatory PSB certification. It would be economically costly for these motorcyclists to have to purchase yet another helmet when the present high-end helmet they have, such as those produced by Arai and Shoei, are already internationally-certified as safe.
In addition to considering accepting ECE and SNELL standards, some other proposed solution could be conducting the destructive test once per model rather than per batch and possibly making the testing free or at a highly subsidised rate to ensure affordability and, hence, enhance the safety of riders.
If, however, the concern was counterfeit products from these renowned manufacturers, perhaps the Ministry can consider dealers showing proof of source direct from manufacturer.
The challenge of scale in Singapore's small domestic bike market is even more evident if special helmets are required. For example, since the demand for a good kid's pillion helmet is small in Singapore, it does not make economic sense for a dealer to provide for PSB-approved kids' helmets. This may subsequently result in the child riding pillion having to wear an ill-fitting, oversized PSB-approved helmet as compared to a correct fitting helmet approved by the ECE or SNELL standards.
This seems counter intuitive to the intent of the legislation, which is to improve the safety of our motorcyclists and their pillions. In a Facebook video created by content creator TRI333PLE for the motorcycling community, the video showed how some expensive high-end helmets with SNELL and ECE certification performed better at impact testing as compared to cheaper PSB-approved helmet. As mentioned by a few riders, Mr Imran Ayub and Mr Sultan Shaheed, they want to be given the opportunity to provide the best safety gear for themselves and their loved ones.
Many welcome the new legislation for PABs as yet another way to keep our roads and pedestrian walkways safe.
I would like to highlight though that, especially since the circuit breaker in 2020, more and more people depend on PABs as a means to earn their income. We just have to consider the many Foodpanda and GrabFood drivers who use PABs to do their deliveries. For such cases, how soon can they sign up and go for the test such that their income will not be inadvertently affected by this new legislation? Should they fail the first-time round, how soon can they book for a subsequent test? Are we able to conduct these PAB tests using vernacular languages for those who are not as comfortable with English as a medium of instruction?
Another consideration is the cost element of such tests. How affordable will it be for people who really depend on the PABs for their livelihood? Is there a chance that we can provide subsidies, possibly via SkillsFuture, to defray the costs of these tests? While we improve the safety of our roads and pedestrian walkways, let us not put such groups that depend on the PABs for their livelihood at a disadvantage. Let us try to make it as quick and convenient as possible for them to get their certification so that they can continue using their PABs safely for their livelihood. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Illegal racers not only put themselves at a serious risk but also expose road users and those who are innocent to this risk. To keep our roads safe, I support higher penalties for racing and speed tests.
With regard to the higher penalties for unapproved helmets, I would like to seek a clarification. I believe this law will provide a good basic safety standard for helmets while improving the safety of motorcyclists and pillion riders.
However, there are also helmets that are safer and conform to international standards, such as ECE and SNELL. High-end helmets, such as Shoei and Arai, often come in limited numbers to Singapore. Given the fees and destructive testing required for PSB certification, it may not be economically practical to conduct destructive testing. As such, for these branded helmets, I hope MHA can consider other internationally accepted safety standards, especially for helmets from well-known manufacturers.
The new laws for power-assisted bicycles, or PABs, are another way to keep our roads and pedestrian footpaths safe. However, many people, like Foodpanda and GrabFood deliverers, rely on PABs to earn a living. Can they register immediately and undergo tests as soon as possible so that their incomes will not be affected by this new law? Can we conduct these PAB tests in the vernacular languages, such as Mandarin, Malay, Hokkien and so on, especially for those who are uncomfortable using the English language?
Another consideration for the PAB test is its affordability. Can we make the PAB test more affordable for those who rely on it to earn their living? Perhaps we can provide subsidies through SkillsFuture. In our efforts to improve safety on the roads and pedestrian footpaths, let us ensure that these PAB tests are affordable and can be taken easily so that they can continue to use PABs for their jobs as soon as possible.
(In English): In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, the increased penalties for racing, time trials and road rage will assist to make our roads safer. It is also important to enforce basic safety standards for helmets. However, I hope that the Ministry can consider approving other internationally accepted standards like ECE and SNELL so that our riders can equip themselves with safety gears that meet the international standards. With regard to the mandatory theory test for PAB riders, we need to ensure that rolling it out does not affect the livelihood of many who are now dependent on the PAB. Notwithstanding the clarifications above, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Derrick Goh (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, the usage and safety of our roads is important to our citizens. Over the years, this Government has put much effort into improving road safety through legislation as well as through non-legislative efforts.
Based on Traffic Police statistics, the efforts have shown to be effective. While traffic fatalities have steadily declined over the last 10 years in absolute terms and a similar downtrend is seen in road traffic injuries sustained, this improvement is even more significant if one considers the other side of the equation – that both road traffic and users have also increased.
Given the limited road capacity in Singapore and increased road traffic and shared usage, I am glad that we have continued to re-assess our approach in response to the evolving trends and threats in road safety.
The amendments to the Road Safety Act, or RTA, tabled in this House today are even-handed in approach, with enhanced penalties for higher risk areas, recalibrating penalties, for example, in vehicle forfeiture to reduce prejudice faced by non-complicit vehicle owners and added new offences as well as requirements factoring new trends related to road traffic usage. This legislation has also added new offences as well as requirements factoring the increase in PABs on the road.
I will now speak on the specific amendments.
On the issue of enhancing penalties for the existing offence of importing or selling unapproved helmets, I welcome this move. This amendment is an enlightened approach by looking more strategically at the supply chain to signal to both importers as well as sellers that the sale of unapproved helmets will not be tolerated.
Turning to the increase in penalties for illegal speed trials, I believe that this sends a strong signal to racers that their anti-social behaviour on the roads attract consequences.
The updated penalties are significant with the first offence carrying a fine of $5,000 and 12 months' imprisonment, making the monetary impact five times higher and doubling the prison sentence. Given the uptick in illegal speed trials in recent years, as mentioned by the Minister of State, it will, hopefully, deter and prevent needless loss of precious lives and damage to property, such as the devastating Tanjong Pagar car crash that happened a few months ago.
Apart from the obvious endangerment to life, illegal speed trials create other social ills that affect even more people in Singapore and, that is, noise pollution. Similar to Members of this House who have spoken on this topic before me, my residents at Nee Soon have shared that they are often woken up by the sounds of loud revving cars and motorcycles. This is due to motorists speeding from Yishun Dam to Avenue 1 in Yishun outside their homes in the wee hours of the morning. Residents are frustrated with little recourse.
I thank the Traffic Police and LTA officers for responding to our feedback where, most recently in March, The Straits Times reported that the joint operations at the Yishun Dam area netted 71 summonses. Of these, 54, or over three quarters, relate to illegal modifications and this is a very high proportion. These modifications include illegally modified engines and exhaust systems which are the source of noise pollution, causing public nuisance as well as enhancing engine power settings that increase the safety risks to the driver and other road users.
In trying to stem illegal vehicle modification, it was discussed in this House last March and the RTA was updated in 2017 to give more teeth to enforcement efforts against errant workshops to deter them from offering such services.
While enforcement against errant workshops can be challenging, I applaud LTA for some success in stemming this activity at the source. For example, last week, CNA reported that a workshop was charged with three counts of illegal vehicle modifications under the RTA.
Given the above, could the Minister of State consider more effective measures to be put in place to address this through better detection instead of what seems to be mainly an enforcement approach which is a cat-and-mouse game that is resource-intensive?
If our traffic enforcement officers are able to identify illegal vehicle modifications at roadblocks in the early hours of the day, one would expect vehicle inspection centres with specialised equipment to better detect such modifications to engine as well as exhaust systems even if they are not easily visible. Additionally, the vehicle noise test could perhaps be done under more realistic conditions where a vehicle is put under load and accelerated on a rolling stock to detect the “pop and crackle” sound. I hope more thought can be given to how we may overcome these challenges through better detection and if the Minister can provide further updates on this to better protect road users as well as our community.
On the topic of introducing a single theory test for PABs on the roads, I believe this would be helpful in ensuring that PAB users are aware of the road traffic rules and behave in a safe manner on the roads. However, I note that the theory test is envisaged to be online and the results are valid lifelong. I raise three questions for clarification on how this would be operationalised, as I am sure the public would be very interested.
One, if the test is to be done online, whether there will be special arrangements made for those who are not tech-savvy or not as literate, such as our elderly PAB users?
Secondly, given that the tests are valid lifelong, will there be any refresher courses required for PAB users if they are involved in a traffic offence?
Thirdly, whether the test will involve a fee and, if it does, are there ways to either subsidise or waive the fee so as not to impose a burden on residents, especially those in financial difficulties?
Before I end my speech, I wish to briefly mention about the issuance of fines for offences committed under the RTA. A number of my residents who have not been able to have their traffic fines waived because of the seriousness of their offences, such as beating a red light or speeding, have often appealed to be given the option to pay the fine in instalments. I hope the Minister will consider making instalment payments more readily available so that they can pay fines without being put in a difficult financial position, which is not the objective of the RTA.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the proposed amendments to the Act, which will create new offences to deter irresponsible behaviour on our roads and help make them safer for all users.
One of the amendments is the introduction of a mandatory theory test regime for users of PABs. I feel that this test will be very helpful. As PABs can be used on both roads and shared paths, it is prudent and necessary to ensure that the riders are thoroughly educated on safety measures, potential risks, road etiquette and regulations. They will benefit from understanding the importance of compliance, which will enhance road safety for themselves and other road users. Would the code of conduct require riders to render assistance to the other party in the event of an unfortunate accident?
It has been announced that the test, comprising multiple-choice questions, will be conducted online. Will the theory test be conducted in languages other than English for non-English speaking applicants? Would the Ministry consider making oral tests available as well? In addition, will the Government require riders who had been caught flouting traffic regulations to go for refresher training?
As many PABs are used by riders on delivery platforms, there is a need for these tech companies to review their reward systems, so that the riders will not be speeding to meet clients’ expectations at the expense of public safety and their own lives. The delivery charges could be based on mileages between points at a reasonable and compliant speed limit. Otherwise, tech companies could be equally liable for offences if their systems encourage excessive risk-taking at the expense of public safety.
Companies which employ riders who use active mobility devices on public paths are required to cover them with third-party liability insurance. I would like to suggest that all riders purchase insurance for themselves and to meet third-party liabilities, too.
Lastly, enforcement will always be needed to ensure compliance and one of the ways is to utilise technology to tag the PABs. May I ask if the authorities plan to tap upon technology to enhance safety for all road users, especially to deal with reckless hit-and-run riders? With that, I conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill is quite a broad one that covers various and diverse areas. I would like to focus my speech primarily on power-assisted bicycles or PABs.
In the past year, PABs have increased in number – especially as many use it as a form of transportation on public roads. This was, no doubt, driven by the increase in the demand for food delivery services, which, in turn, led to a rise in the ownership and usage of PABs as food delivery riders saw PABs as providing a quick, convenient and fairly affordable method for them to fulfil their orders.
With this increase in numbers of PAB riders over the years, I believe it is now useful for us to review the Road Traffic Act and introduce amendments to better safeguard the well-being of PAB riders and also other commuters and users of the road.
At present, as Minister of State Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim mentioned, PAB riders are required to pass a theory test before they can ride on cycling paths. The amendments to the Road Traffic Act introduce the need for these riders to pass a similar test before they can ride on the road. This is a much welcome move as casual observations would tell us that many PAB riders have been riding on the roads even before the introduction of such a mandatory qualifying test.
We have seen, over the years, many fatal and near-fatal accidents involving PABs. Implementing a qualifying test that aims to inculcate road awareness, defensive riding and road use safety would certainly help to alleviate the situation if PAB riders are now going to be more aware about riding and road use etiquette.
Yet, training PAB riders, Mr Speaker, is only one part of the solution. With more PAB riders on the road, other vehicular road users must also be more aware and mindful of their presence and learn to co-share the road with them. Would there be plans to update the existing training curriculum of motorists to inculcate greater awareness in our present road users – our motorists – about the presence of this new group of road users, such as PAB riders, and even regular cyclists, who are also increasingly making their presence felt on the roads as well?
On to my next point, Mr Speaker, Sir, and this had been surfaced by many other Members in the Chamber. I believe that the official handbook for the PAB mandatory theory test that is available on the LTA website comes only in English. Given that not all PAB riders are comfortable in English and are Internet-savvy, would there be plans to translate the current English handbook into other languages – such as Mandarin, Malay, Tamil, perhaps – and also make the handbook accessible to PAB riders offline as well? If there are plans to translate the handbook into other languages, when would these handbooks be made available, either online and possibly offline as well, in the form of a physical handbook?
Also, will the proposed tests be as challenging as the motorists' Highway Code test, which, although I have not taken for quite a few years now, I understand does require some time and effort to study and prepare for? There are cases of people who actually fail to pass the Highway Code test.
While these tests are currently going to be done online, would there be the option of written or even oral tests for those who might not be so comfortable with the digital testing option?
Mr Speaker, Sir, I have observed PABs travelling on the roads that seemed to be going at speeds similar to that of small motorcycles or scooters. Given that riders of these vehicles – motorcycles and scooters – need to pass practical tests before they are allowed on the road, does the Government foresee users of road-travelling PABs needing some sort of simplified or modified practical test or some basic practical training in terms of how they should manage their PAB on the road?
Riding on the road and riding on cycling paths are two very different experiences. If one of the aims of this Bill is to ensure the safety of the PAB riders, then perhaps PAB riders should be educated on how to ride on the road before actually being allowed on the road. Perhaps this education could take the form of some sort of practical experience, as onerous as that may sound.
A final point, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I would like to raise was previously highlighted when I spoke about the Active Mobility (Amendment) Bill last year and, that is, while the implementation of a qualifying test will certainly enhance the riders' awareness of road safety, the challenge is in ensuring that all PAB riders will go through this test. How will the authorities intend to ensure that all riders are certified before they ride on the roads and how would this enforcement be done?
Mr Speaker, Sir, my clarifications notwithstanding, I am in favour of any initiative that enhances the safety of all road users and conclude my speech in firm support of the Bill.
Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, after the advent of the Internet at the turn of the millennium, AVs may be the next big game changer. The implementation of self-driving technology will have a huge impact on our transport system. AVs will provide a much-needed solution to the shortage of manpower resources required in public transportation, goods delivery and industries.
With recharged power, the AV fleet is able to operate 24/7 with no rest days required and no human resource headaches. In the long run, as AVs proliferate, we can expect to see lower costs of operations, higher productivity, enhanced convenience in last-mile connectivity and better control of road safety.
The benefits of AVs are clear and the vision of future roadways operated by a mixed-use traffic is compelling. However, the journey is still fraught with many uncertainties. Unfortunately, the roadmap to achieve a stable AV system remains unknown.
Back in the early 2000s, even though Singapore does not have a vehicle manufacturing industry, we chose the uphill path to be an innovation leader instead of being a technology adopter.
Recently, Hyundai announced that they will build an innovation centre in Singapore to manufacture electric vehicles.
Singapore has been ranked first in the KPMG 2020 Autonomous Vehicles Readiness Index. We must take advantage of our well-developed transport system and implement AVs as soon as possible. We do have a conducive innovation eco-system, including a sandbox to trial AV operations and push technological boundaries.
In transportation, safety is key and vehicle reliability is critical. Roadways are a complex intersection of motorists, cyclists, commuters and pedestrians. Even though there is only one set of traffic rules, the human response can be varied and not everyone will always follow the rules. That is why it is so challenging to integrate machine-coded logic in AVs into the dynamic roadway system.
Safety is paramount. Any mishap or a possible accident can easily derail many years of efforts to build safety, reliability and trust in AVs. Till date, a safety driver behind the wheel is still necessary. This is because equipment and systems can sometimes fail too. We must adapt AVs to our road users and continue to train more bus drivers to be AV bus safety operators.
I would like to talk about the AV testing environment. The designated trial zone we have will allow a gradual phasing in of AVs and for the engineers to understand how AVs can be improved. However, the AV race will become more competitive as more AV companies enter the market and make breakthroughs in AV technology. Therefore, we should extend the sandbox by another five years for the AV technology to be more mature and fully tested.
This extension will allow time for our AV engineers and land transport regulators to better understand and ensure smooth and safe operations before providing any approvals. In fact, I would suggest for LTA to consider extending the sandbox to other parts of Singapore where the roadway conditions may differ slightly from different parts of Singapore. The sandbox extension will also give space and time for road users to gain confidence and for AVs to make that ultimate big leap towards the day when safety drivers are no longer required.
Over the next five years, engineers and regulators will validate how the AV technology can be applied safely towards our robust mixed-use traffic operations. MOT, the law enforcement and insurance fraternities must also work out the corresponding changes needed in the road traffic rules, insurance coverage and compensation framework.
A traffic accident involving an AV and a car driven by a human is not as straightforward as two human drivers involved in an accident. For instance, if there should be a malfunction of the AV leading to an accident involving deaths, would the owner or the manufacturer of the AV be liable? This aspect is as complex when compared to technology and safety development. The legal liability and insurance framework cannot be considered without the full understanding of the design and AV technology. I would hope MOT and the relevant Ministries are able to provide us with some information about AV legal protection and insurance coverage.
Finally, I would also like to touch on the livelihoods of people who have been working as drivers. Every gamechanger will have its boons and its banes. Just like the adoption of digital technology, the disruptive nature of AVs will have some drivers losing their jobs once the technology is implemented on our roads. Some residents in Sembawang West have shared with me their concerns regarding their livelihoods once AVs are implemented on our roads. At this point, I can only assure them that AVs will not happen overnight. We will still have another five to 10 years to avert this disruptive socio-economic impact and we must make good use of this window to prepare ourselves well for this socio-economic disruption.
As we extend the duration of the sandbox, let us all think out of the box to carefully plan ahead to be ready for a new equilibrium on our roads. Human drivers and driving machines will co-exist and this sandbox must not become a Pandora's Box.
Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the concerns highlighted, I support the amendments in the Road Traffic Bill.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. I would like to speak on the need to safeguard the safety of our delivery riders, or sometimes called platform workers, and the impact of the new theory test on these workers. I will also speak on how we can and need to go beyond the current set of amendments to improve the safety and working conditions of these delivery riders using PABs as a working tool.
My fellow Labour Members of Parliament and I have spoken in Parliament on various occasions for the protection of platform workers. These workers make up a sizeable proportion of Singapore's growing gig economy. It is necessary to build a better eco-system of support for them.
Clearly, more competent delivery riders translate into enhanced safety for all road users, including drivers and pedestrians. The online theory test also underscores the duty of PAB riders to be more responsible to other road users. Our aim is not to unduly penalise delivery riders, but to ensure that they are well-equipped with the requisite knowledge to enhance their safety on the road.
Could the Ministry clarify when the requirement for the competency certificate will take place? While the theory test can be taken from 30 June onwards, I am concerned about the potential difficulties that delivery riders may face in meeting this requirement. We must not forget that a day a delivery rider does not have a competency certificate translates into a day without income. To not unduly penalise these workers, could the Ministry consider a transition period before the theory test requirement to ride on the road is effective? This will provide them with some time to comply with this new requirement.
The Bill is clearly in the right direction in pivoting towards greater responsibility on the part of riders. However, it is not so clear with regard to the operative and substantive role played by platform companies in the safety and behaviour of their riders. Delivery riders are themselves also vulnerable road users. They have a limited time to complete their job. It is not uncommon for them to take risks to avoid being penalised. This problem is worsened when riders are unaware of the road traffic rules. These workers also do not enjoy the statutory benefits under the Work Injury Compensation Act, or WICA, in the event of an accident. These companies might purchase third-party liability insurance now. Others might offer personal insurance coverage. However, the compensation amount and protection under WICA is still superior.
I believe that platform companies must take on greater responsibility in safeguarding the safety of both their riders and other road users. Taking responsibility over the competency of the riders is the first step. Currently, section 47 imposes liability for allowing untested riders on the roads. Can I clarify and confirm that section 47K also applies to platform companies, such as the food delivery companies, which engage and allow untested riders on the roads? I would presume that these companies have liabilities because of their direct role in causing these untested riders to be on the road.
Furthermore, if section 47K is intended to impose liability on platform companies, can the Ministry clarify whether the liability under section 47K attaches to the natural person who grants approval of the untested rider, or the company which the natural person is working for? While I do note that section 2 of the Interpretation Act defines \"person\" to include a \"company\", it would be helpful for the Ministry to clarify on whom will the liability attach on.
The incentive schemes and penalties embedded within the structures of the payouts directly contribute to road safety. A platform company must know a route that a rider must take to deliver its assignment. It must then know the terrain and associated dangers. It must also know the number of hours that a rider has been on the job. This is clearly no different, for example, from a public transport operator knowing and being responsible for the hours worked by a bus captain. A review of the payout structures and time afforded for deliveries must be undertaken to align them with the new rules prescribed by the Ministry. In fact, I suggest that the Ministry review the payout structures and deployment mechanism from a workplace and road safety perspective.
Additionally, I would like to call on platform companies to internalise the costs of the theory tests for their delivery riders. This would form part of the company's training efforts and its larger responsibility to other road users. This should be the case whether a delivery rider can afford to pay for the test or otherwise. The underlying rationale behind this is for platform companies to be cognisant of their responsibility to these workers who are indispensable to their operations.
I propose for the Ministry, platform companies and the National Delivery Champions Association (NDCA) to work together to ensure the smooth administration of the theory test. We must bear in mind that some delivery riders might not be equipped to navigate these tests with ease. I propose for the Ministry to ensure that the online tests are simple and comprehensible, while retaining the requisite substantive takeaways of the road traffic rules. Like many of the other Members before me who have spoken on the need for vernacular languages, indeed, many of these riders, including the delivery riders, are senior and they may need some support.
Additionally, I would like to suggest to the Ministry to establish an online database of every person who has been conferred a theory test certificate. With the certificate being granted in digital form, it would be easier to unlawfully manipulate certificates. To ease transport companies' compliance to the new certificate requirements and perhaps reduce prosecution under section 47K, a database would go a long way towards ensuring that only competent PAB riders are allowed on the roads.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill is an important marker in charting the legal roles and responsibilities for PAB users and riders, especially those using or benefiting from PABs commercially. Stakeholders who play a significant role in contributing and benefiting from safe deliveries and road usage must similarly also share in the corresponding legal liabilities. Platform companies play an important role in our economy. Holding them liable and magnifying their role in road safety reflect their growing importance. Notwithstanding the above, I reiterate my support for the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the proposed amendments to the Road Traffic Act which I believe will enhance the safety levels in our land transport system. I will speak on three key topics – cyclists, security searches and infrastructure for AVs.
The pandemic led to a boom in cycling, power-assisted bicycles (PABs) and e-scooter usage has increased. I am supportive of the combined theory test regime for the use of PABs on roads and shared paths. The theory test will raise awareness on the rules and also, hopefully, serve as a reminder to experienced riders. Can the Minister share what are the costs involved to get certified to ride on the roads? As some PAB users are riding for a livelihood, I think most of the Members have shared that the added expense could be a burden for them. Will the certifications be issued as physical cards or electronic digital certificates?
In designing the scheme, we must be wary of possible inequalities that may occur. The Official Handbook for Mandatory Theory Test released at the end of April for PABs and PMD scooters is quite comprehensive and useful. I tried to read all the pages in the handbook. It is quite comprehensive. I hope it can be disseminated more extensively to our youths in schools as some aspects of the road traffic rules and practices are useful as well as for non-motorised bicycle users. In addition, as some Members have mentioned, a vernacular version of this handbook will be useful. May I suggest to maybe add in an audio version of it as well, such that some of these tests can be taken in audio form so that some of the PAB users can take some of the tests; other than online, they can be taken in audio as well.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I laud LTA and MHA's combined effort to cover new offences to deter irresponsible behaviour on the roads and to educate our road users via the new online combined theory tests, but it has to go hand in hand with enforcement efforts and I hope new techniques to capture offenders and manpower needs will meet these demands going forward. Can I ask if the relevant agencies' enforcement resources will be enhanced to meet the demands of these new amendments?
I now move on to security searches and checks, as mentioned in the Bill, which will be conducted on commuters as part of counter-terrorism efforts at our public transport nodes. I urge the authorities to ensure that the involved personnel are trained to conduct these searches as discreetly and as politely as possible. We want to avoid issues of perceived, for example, racial profiling by the public, that can lead to further entrenchment of stereotypes. And as we are in the midst of a pandemic and body searches often require involved parties being at close proximity to each other, how can authorities guarantee the safety of the public and of the officers conducting the searches?
Looking ahead, I am pleased to note that the research and development trials for AVs are still going strong. As we open up new towns and estates and technology improves, it is inevitable that the usage of AVs will have future applications. It is essential that safety issues are ironed out properly ahead of any mass deployment in the future. I am supportive that the AV regulatory sandboxes which are due to expire in 2022 will be extended by another five years to facilitate trials and deployments. While it is necessary to test the performance of self-driving software under real-world conditions, this should only happen after comprehensive safety testing and evaluation before we allow citizens to access the benefits of the technology.
Sir, may I ask the Minister what are the plans for larger-scale deployment of AVs in Singapore and what are the specific safety issues that will need to be addressed? Where will these trials and deployments take place and where can the public get access to regular updates?
I hope this extension and eventual deployment will allow a set of standard tests and make companies benchmark their algorithms on standard datasets before their vehicles are allowed on open roads. It may still be in early stages, but will there be a graduated approach to certification in which a self-driving system could first be evaluated in simulations, then in controlled real-world environments, pass specific benchmark tests before they can be allowed on open roads? The recent crash of a Tesla car in the United States in which two people died has reignited debate about the capabilities and safety of today's self-driving technologies. The tragic incident has raised questions over self-driving technology: how safe is it and how much attention does it require from drivers?
Finally, in relation to long-term infrastructure needs, will existing road infrastructure have to be upgraded to accommodate AVs in the future? Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, the most hardworking food delivery riders in Singapore can make up to four to five trips in an hour which easily rises upwards of 30 to 40 trips in a day. Some riders choose to make these trips on foot, some cycle, some get on their motorbikes. However, getting around on power-assisted bicycles (PABs) are perceived by many riders as the most cost-effective and efficient way to make their deliveries.
Understandably, travelling on the roads, especially on PABs, poses its own set of dangers. Even as they ride to put food on our tables, we must make sure that they get home safely to put food on their tables as well.
It is commendable that the Government is taking measures to ensure the safety of PAB riders even if the first step towards securing their lives and livelihoods takes the form of mandatory theory tests. Theory tests like this, beyond educating our riders about safe practices while travelling on roads, also delineate clearly what the responsibilities of riders are so that they may not be taken advantage of in disputes that occur on the roads, knowing what practices are well within their rights.
During the crisis, time and again, our delivery riders have proven themselves to be an essential service, bringing food to our families and keeping the food and beverage sector alive. Simply put, they oil the gears of our society, especially at mealtimes.
Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must ensure that these tests, essential as they are for awareness, education and safety, are inclusive and we cannot afford in any measure to allow these tests to become unfair barriers to the livelihood of our delivery riders in Singapore.
Mr Speaker, Sir, we firmly welcome the notion of a one-time test that can be administered online. However, considering that the test will be online, delivery riders are also looking forward to the possibility that the fees for taking the test can be defrayed. In the same vein, relating to the online nature of the tests, accessibility options must be provided for those who may find such online platforms challenging to navigate, or simply inaccessible.
My residents often relate to me the conversations they have with other delivery riders about the best routes to take in the area, as well as the best makan spots along the way. This is the beauty of the delivery rider platform and community – that people from all walks of life can and do become delivery riders and are yet united by their shared livelihoods. To accommodate for this diversity, I think the theory test should account for literacy and language barriers. If possible, we would love to see a simply-worded test made available in multiple languages, with options, such as oral examinations, available even for those without basic literacy foundations.
Finally, our delivery riders are concerned about the turnaround time should they fail to pass the tests. While we understand that the tests may not be perpetually available for sitting to uphold the rigors of the standards, a day's delay for those who fail their test and who are unable to get on the road poses significant cost to the livelihoods of our delivery riders. The availability of these tests is also paramount to allow entry to becoming a delivery rider, as many delivery riders do this as a part-time gig, such as students on their holidays. Having potentially to wait a week or two after applying to take the tests might set these prospective riders back unnecessarily.
All these being said, Mr Speaker, refining the administration of these theory tests is only half the story. The education of our delivery riders can only elevate their prospects of safety so much. In this field of work, delivery platforms should place priority to the health, safety and lives of their partners. It is thus commendable that while we are enforcing the mandate of theory tests for riders on food delivery platforms, it is also essential that we try to secure the lives of our delivery riders. We must also be conscious that this goes hand in hand with securing their livelihoods.
Mr Speaker, Sir, our delivery riders can virtually lose their jobs if they do not move quickly enough. Delivery riders who do not make their deliveries in a timely fashion according to the expectations of customers can accrue enough bad reviews to be penalised, if not banned.
How can we, on one hand, prescribe safe practices and speed limits in a test handbook and on the other hand have delivery riders fearing for their job security if they do not move fast enough? Oftentimes, the delays in delivery times are not even the fault of riders but arise upstream, with the restaurants, though riders are well aware they are the ones who bear the brunt of these late deliveries, leading some to feel they have to make up for lost time and lost ground.
Surely, Mr Speaker, the rules of the game must be changed to complement the education of our delivery riders. Therefore, we call for a review of the rewards and punitive actions run by food delivery platforms. This is so that we can safeguard the lives and livelihoods of our delivery riders.
Finally, we must ensure that the formulation of theory tests do not produce a lock-in effect on our roads. Singapore now boasts 460 kilometres of cycling paths, with plans to triple and expand the density of our cycling network to 1,300 kilometres by 2030. There are clear ambitions to grow Singapore into a connected cycling-friendly city.
Should the PAB theory test define the rules of the road for riders, we must also maintain a flexibility in the test handbook to accommodate for the ever-evolving face of road infrastructure in Singapore in a bid to promote active mobility. Do not be surprised if we see cycling lanes on our roads one day, bicycle boulevards or even smart traffic lights that respond to the volume and type of vehicles on the road. With the push towards becoming a cycling-friendly city, the rules of the road and, naturally, the theory tests for PABs must be kept on their feet to change as our city also changes. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] First of all, let me thank the authorities again for introducing appropriate measures to ensure that PABs are used safely. This Bill not only provides for the safety of riders, but also pedestrians and other road users. When it comes to safety matters, we must be careful and not lose the big picture.
The convenience brought about by the one-off online test will help many people. However, we must consider carefully if we can lower the test fee and provide translated or audio versions of the online test for users with different needs.
These considerations are essential, because this will ensure that riders of different language abilities can take the test equally and that riders with different education qualifications can all take part.
(In English): Mr Speaker, these concerns not withstanding, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Order. Since food has been delivered to the Members' Room, I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 5.00 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.35 pm until 5.00 pm.
Sitting resumed at 5.00 pm
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Minister for Sustainability and the Environment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Minister Grace Fu, I believe you have a clarification on the earlier Parliamentary Question (PQ).
The Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to make a correction.
Earlier, in my reply to the PQ filed by Ms Hany Soh, I said that the Singapore Food Agency and MOH have conducted joint investigations into 27 incidents of Gastroenteritis outbreaks. Of these incidents, 18 were associated with education institutions, with 14 in preschools alone. [Please refer to \"Update on Recent Cases of Gastroenteritis in Education Institutions\", Official Report, 11 May 2021, Vol 95, Issue No 30, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
The correct number should be 13, instead of 14. Thank you for allowing me to make this correction.
Mr Speaker: Noted, thank you. Senior Minister of State Amy Khor.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan): Mr Speaker, this Bill introduces amendments that will make our land transport system more future-ready and resilient. I thank the Members for their queries, suggestions and support for the Bill and will address them in turn.
First, the Bill makes changes to the Road Traffic Act (RTA) to update our regulatory framework to facilitate trials of AVs. Specifically, clause 3 of the Bill extends the sandbox that permits the AV trials from 2022 to 2027. I am glad that many Members spoke up in support of this extension.
Singapore has been facilitating AV trials on public roads since 2015. Today, a growing eco-system of leading AV firms from China, Europe and the USA, such as Motional, Continental and Desay, have been conducting research and development (R&D) trials here. Local AV enterprises, such as ST Engineering Autonomous Solutions, have deployed on-demand commercial AV services. However, fully autonomous transport remains a long-term aspiration, requiring more R&D.
Therefore, extending the sandbox by five years until August 2027 will allow these companies to continue to develop and trial AV technology for local deployment. The sandbox will also support the large-scale pilot deployment of autonomous buses and shuttles that Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Melvin Yong asked about. As previously announced, this will take place in Punggol, Tengah and the Jurong Innovation District, under the Call-for-Collaboration launched by LTA. This large-scale deployment will help us better understand the requirements for mass deployment, such as whether infrastructure upgrades are needed. LTA will provide further updates in the lead up to deployment in the mid-2020s.
The AV sandbox is meant to cover the trial and use of vehicles equipped with autonomous systems that enable the operation of vehicles without active physical control or monitoring by a human on public roads.
Mr Melvin Yong asked about the use of the Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS). ADAS technology requires active monitoring by human drivers and, therefore, does not fall within the realm of AV technology. Before approving any motor vehicle for registration and use on public roads, including those fitted with ADAS, LTA checks to ensure the vehicle model’s compliance with stringent safety standards, such as those set out by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and the Vehicle Construction and Use Rules under the RTA. As ADAS technology grows more advanced, we agree with Mr Melvin Yong’s observation that it may carry new risks. We are monitoring global developments closely and will consider further regulation if necessary.
Besides the sandbox, another move LTA made to support AV trials was to expand the AV testbed in 2019 to include 1,000 kilometres of public roads in western Singapore, covering a wide range of traffic scenarios and road conditions. This has served the needs of AV developers interested to deploy AVs in Singapore. However, there are developers who may be considering other environments for their trials beyond western Singapore, as suggested by Ms Poh Li San, and LTA is open to such considerations when assessing their trial applications on a case-by-case basis.
In trialling AVs, public safety is our top priority. This is why LTA has put in place stringent safety assessments. Mr Saktiandi Supaat will be pleased to know that there are milestone tests in place today, administered in a specially-designed facility – the Centre of Excellence for Testing and Research of AVs at NTU, or CETRAN. All AVs must undergo and pass these tests prior to on-road trials. All AVs must also have a qualified safety driver onboard who can take immediate control of the vehicle during trials, should the need arise. These safety drivers are subject to the same responsibility as drivers of manned vehicles in ensuring the safe driving of the vehicle. The requirement for safety drivers will remain in place until AVs are able to operate safely without a human driver.
We agree with Ms Poh Li San’s observation that the liability and insurance framework for AVs is just as important as the underlying technology. This is why all AV developers, as owners of the AVs, are legally required to purchase third-party liability insurance for all AV trials. In the event of an accident, the insurance will cover any losses or damages that the owner and any authorised safety driver may suffer, as a result of any injury, death and property damage caused to any third party. This is not much different from the motor insurance coverage for manned vehicles. All AVs must also carry data recorders to collect data to support investigations in case of incidents.
But as we move towards fully autonomous transport in the longer term, MOT and LTA will need to adapt and review the liability framework for motor vehicles. Among other things, we are working with legal experts and insurers to better understand how to ascertain and assign liability in the case of accidents involving autonomous driving systems, as suggested by Ms Poh Li San.
While there are potential benefits, Ms Poh Li San has also rightly pointed out that AV technology can be disruptive. We will pace the transition carefully so that livelihoods will not be severely disrupted.
In 2019, to demonstrate our commitment to upskill our public bus captains, LTA signed a Memorandum of Understanding with industry stakeholders, including the public transport operators and the National Transport Workers’ Union. This will ensure that public bus captains are equipped with the necessary skills for new job roles, to continue contributing to the public transport system even when autonomous buses are introduced into the public transport fleet.
For taxi and private hire car drivers, LTA will be updating the vocational licence training curriculum after engaging the industry. The new curriculum will keep drivers up to date on new technologies, such as AVs and digitalisation, in the future economy. LTA will be seeking feedback from the industry, as well as the National Taxi Association and the National Private Hire Vehicles’ Association, before finalising the new curriculum.
Second, the Bill will update and future-proof our vehicular tax system, which is a key part of our vehicular controls and management. All vehicles used or kept in Singapore are subject to taxes upon registration. But there are exceptions. For instance, ambulances and fire engines are exempted as they provide essential public services. However, when these vehicles are no longer on a tax-exempt scheme, it is only fair to all other vehicle owners and drivers that taxes are re-imposed on these vehicles. MOH has announced enhanced regulatory standards for private ambulances and medical transporters. When these new standards take effect from 1 September this year, some vehicles might no longer be able to function as ambulances and, hence, will no longer qualify for tax exemption.
We are amending the RTA today, as shown in clauses 6 to 8 of the Bill, to facilitate and clarify LTA’s existing practices and to streamline the existing legislative provisions related to tax re-imposition. At the same time, we will amend the RTA, via clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill, to facilitate the recovery of undercharged or under-declared taxes as fines, similar to the existing provision for the Government to recover road tax arrears.
Third, the Bill will make changes that help ensure our public transport system remains safe and secure. Clauses 24 and 31 of the Bill empower the Police and authorised officers to carry out security searches on persons on the public transport system. The terrorist threat to Singapore remains serious. Considering that the public transport system plays a critical role in Singapore, we need to remain vigilant and safeguard it against such threats.
Members asked for the authorised officers to be appropriately trained to ensure security searches are conducted professionally, as well as in a discreet and polite manner without entrenching stereotypes. These security searches are conducted similar to those carried out at major events, such as at the National Day Parade. I would like to assure Members that authorised officers carrying out security searches would have to undergo proper training and must complete the necessary Security Workforce Skills Qualifications or WSQ courses approved by the Singapore Police Force before their deployment. In their training, the authorised officers are taught how to spot anyone displaying suspicious behaviour without bias against any race or religion. Only upon completion of the training and certification can they be considered as \"Senior Approved Persons\" as defined in the Bill.
Members asked about the types of measures that would be applied during frisk searches to prevent passengers from being taken advantage of. I would like to assure Members that all authorised officers have to be in uniform when conducting frisk searches. In addition, security searches will be conducted within the video surveillance coverage to provide assurance to the public that any alleged abuses will be investigated accordingly. To safeguard the modesty of a female person and to ensure frisk searches are conducted professionally, only authorised female officers can conduct frisk searches on a female person. We also have the powers to enforce against imposters, as provided for under section 11B of the LTA Act.
Mr Saktiandi also asked how we will ensure the safety of the public and authorised officers, especially during the current COVID-19 pandemic. Adequate safe management measures have been put in place. Authorised officers are required to strictly adhere to these measures as well as the MOH’s health advisory. The authorised officers are also reminded to practise good personal hygiene. All security equipment is regularly sanitised after each use. In addition, hand sanitisers will be provided for commuters to use.
I will now address the broader land transport issues raised by Members.
I would like to assure Mr Murali Pillai that under the Vehicle Construction and Use Rules, we already require vehicles to be roadworthy, such as having well-functioning brakes and headlamps.
With regard to illegal modifications, it is already an offence for any person to illegally modify a vehicle. They can be fined up to $5,000 and/or jailed up to three months. Penalties are doubled for repeat offenders.
Like Mr Derrick Goh suggested, vehicular inspections are a key touchpoint during which illegal modifications can be detected. We introduced the Enhanced Inspection Regime where vehicle owners caught with illegally modified exhaust systems for a second or subsequent time will be subjected to more frequent mandatory vehicle inspections.
I shared with this House in March about the challenges of enforcing against errant motor workshops. That said, we have stepped up enforcements island-wide. Just last week, a motor vehicle workshop was charged in Court for illegally modifying two cars’ exhaust systems. This is a very serious offence, as modifying a vehicle's exhaust system may lead to public safety concerns when the vehicle is used for racing, or result in public nuisance due to excessive noise.
Vehicle safety is a key concern and we will do more to deter illegal modifications. To this effect, we will strengthen penalties for illegal exhaust modifications for greater deterrence. For first-time offenders, LTA currently issues a composition sum of $500. Going forward, LTA will double the composition sum to $1,000 for new offences committed from 1 July this year. We will also not hesitate to take offenders of more egregious cases to Court, even if they are first-time offenders. Furthermore, for repeat offenders, LTA will apply to the Court to detain the offending vehicle for up to three months.
I am glad that many Members have voiced their support for the theory test for e-scooters and power-assisted bicycle (PAB) riders. This is not a licensing regime which will be more onerous for riders. Instead, it is a one-time theory test which will ensure that riders are familiar with active mobility rules, regulations and code of conduct. The amendments to the RTA today will enable us to implement a single theory test for PAB riders on roads and cycling paths.
To answer Ms He Ting Ru's query, the minimum riding age for PAB and e-scooters is 16 and riders will be required to take and pass the test before being able to ride. E-scooter riders below the age of 16 can only ride under adult supervision and the supervising adult will need to have passed the test.
LTA just launched the English handbook for e-scooter and PAB riders and we will make available the Mandarin, Malay and Tamil translations shortly. The handbook is available free-of-charge and we will study suggestions raised by Members on more widely disseminating the information, including through schools.
To address Mr Gan Thiam Poh's question, the handbook includes information on what to do in an accident, on top of rules and code of conduct and a section on equipment check. On Mr Darryl David's question on including a practical component, the theory test is a useful start to address the lack of knowledge of rules and to tackle deliberate errant riding behaviour. We will continue to monitor the landscape and update the testing requirements, if necessary, while balancing against how onerous the regime will be on PAB riders.
Many Members asked about the theory test. LTA will release more details in June, but I will address some key points, such as the cost of the test and if it will be accessible to those who face difficulty taking an online test, including our seniors. We will keep test fees affordable to minimise the financial impact on riders, especially those who ride for their livelihoods. For the first three months, the test will be chargeable at $5 for two attempts. And just in case Members do not really understand what it means, let me just clarify. Five dollars for two attempts means if you try the first time, it will be $5. If you pass, we are happy for you. If you cannot pass, you can take the test again for free the second time; that is, $5 for two attempts.
This is a discounted rate to encourage greater test take-up. Subsequently, the test will be chargeable at $10 for each attempt. The test will be conducted online in the four official languages. Special provisions can be made on a case-by-case basis for those who are not digitally-savvy or illiterate. Upon passing, digital certificates will be issued to the rider. We will have the means to verify unlawful manipulation of the certificate. We will provide an adequate transition period for riders to prepare, take and complete the test before enforcement kicks in.
I would like to assure Ms Yeo Wan Ling that the process to register for and take the test, including retakes, will be kept simple with minimal turnaround time. We will work through the NTUC, food delivery companies and active mobility interest groups to raise awareness and ensure that all riders are certified before they ride.
I am glad to hear from Mr Abdul Samad that the NTUC is working on a training programme to prepare delivery riders for the test.
Mr Desmond Choo asked if the new section 47K also imposes liability on platform companies. Yes, it will be an offence for a company to allow an uncertified rider to ride on the road with the knowledge that the rider is uncertified or being negligent as to whether the rider is uncertified.
To Mr Gan Thiam Poh's and Mr Derrick Goh's queries on errant riders caught flouting traffic regulations, they are already required to undergo the Safe Riding Programme, which includes both theory and practical components today.
On enforcement, Mr Saktiandi Supaat's and Mr Gan Thiam Poh's suggestion of using technology is a good one. LTA's MyTransport.SG mobile application has a \"snap and send\" function that enables members of the public to report errant riders. LTA is also trialling using CCTV technology and video analytics to identify errant riders. This will complement on-going enforcement efforts.
Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Darryl David, Dr Shahira Abdullah, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Sharael Taha have also asked about the safe use of bicycles on our roads and paths. This has been an on-going effort and one which LTA has devoted much attention and resources to. Over the years, we have put in place a regulatory framework to provide clarity on rules, launched outreach and public education programmes and enhanced our enforcement efforts against errant riders. We are continuing with these efforts.
Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat spoke about this at length, including how we are expanding the active mobility infrastructure, which Mr Yip Hon Weng and Ms Raeesah Khan have suggested. We have recently asked Active Mobility Advisory Panel or AMAP to conduct a review to improve road safety for both cyclists and motorists. Among other issues, AMAP will study how to enhance public education and awareness of rules for all road users – both cyclists and motorists alike. AMAP will engage different stakeholders and submit their recommendations in due course. At the same time, we will press on with enforcement against errant riders and motorists.
That said, I would like to point out to Mr Dennis Tan that road safety has to be a collective effort from all road users to play their part by driving and riding safely, to be considerate to one another and to do their part to build up a safe riding culture.
Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Murali Pillai, Ms Hazel Poa, Ms He Ting Ru and Dr Shahira Abdullah have asked about enhancing the safety of using lorries to ferry workers and provided many suggestions. This issue is not within the ambit of the Bill and has already been addressed extensively yesterday. I will not deal with this in detail again. Nonetheless, I will reiterate some key points. Let me first clarify that the exemption under section 126 of the RTA applies to all workers, regardless of nationality.
As I mentioned yesterday, we are deeply saddened by the recent accidents involving lorries ferrying workers and understand the concerns raised by Members. We share their concerns. However, we also cannot just ignore the fact that the injury and fatality rate involving persons onboard lorries has come down over the last decade, as various measures, such as side railings and canopies, enhanced test requirements for drivers, sustained engagement and enforcement, have been implemented.
Internationally, practices involving the use of lorries to ferry workers are varied and we have studied this widely. While some Members have identified countries that disallow the practice, there are also countries, such as Canada, Thailand and the USA, that allow workers to be ferried in the rear deck of lorries, albeit with safety precautions and some restrictions. This is an important point to note and it shows that this practice is not uncommon.
There are also very significant, practical and operational issues, as I have noted, on top of just cost considerations that need to be considered in any enhancements of existing measures. These are not vague statements, but concrete feedback given by many companies and SMEs, and reflect the realities on the ground. Regulatory changes now will cause even more acute pain to the industry, given that the industry is being severely affected by COVID-19.
Such moves will have wider ramifications, including on livelihoods for both local and migrant workers. If the Member who raised this, Ms He Ting Ru, speaks to SMEs on the ground, I am sure she would know this even without having to do a study. So, while it is clearly not just about cost, to argue as though cost does not matter at all, is not practical and does not gel with reality. What we have been striving to do is to preserve the safety of workers and, at the same time, ensure that they can continue to have their jobs. And for the migrant workers, this is the very reason why they are here.
We will continue to review the existing safety rules, engage stakeholders along the way, taking all feedback and suggestions, as I have said, and find a sensible and balanced way forward, taking into account all concerns for the benefit of all. In the meantime, we will continue engaging employers and drivers of lorries to remind them about our rules and encourage safe driving behaviours. We will also step up enforcement against any non-compliance with regulatory requirements.
Between January and April this year, LTA had issued 227 notices of offence. And we urge all employers to do their part in ensuring the safety and welfare of their drivers and workers.
In sum, MOT will continue with our efforts to make Singapore's land transport system more future-ready, resilient and safe. This Bill is part of that work and I thank Members for their support.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Speaker. I have got three clarifications for MOT. The first question is I wonder if the Senior Minister of State could explain to us regarding frisk searches whether commuters can expect these searches to be targeted, that is, based on suspicion, or would they also be conducted on a random basis, as a general deterrent to would-be offenders? So, that is the first question – whether it is targeted or does it also include random searches for no suspicion at all.
The second question is, she mentioned that the persons who would be empowered to do frisk searches and other searches would receive the relevant training in consultation with MHA and she highlighted that they would have to undergo WSQ courses. Would she be able to tell us which modules they would be required to undergo?
And, lastly, I heard what she said about the safeguards for searching of passengers, including searching of women to be done by only women personnel, as well as the searches to be done in a video recorded area. So, while these safeguards are recorded in the Hansard, would that also be enshrined in some subsidiary legislation or made public in an easy-to-understand form so that commuters as well as the officers empowered to search would know where the boundaries lie?
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for her clarifications.
Firstly, with regard to whether it is targeted or random, I think I said in my speech earlier that they are trained to spot suspicious behaviour and then, they can decide that they will do frisk searches. But it is only authorised officers who have gone through the approved training, and this will be the Police officers, the auxiliary officers, the security officers, enforcement officers. So, they are actually in uniform. If the Police is not in uniform, then they will have to identify themselves.
And it also depends on the alert level, the threat level. Because there are different threat levels and, depending on the threat levels, they will be doing their checks at the public transport areas.
Secondly, regarding the approved course, it is approved by SPF, WSQ and it is an entire module that is related to this. I do not have the name with me, it is in a file back there, because I thought we are going to have the Minister of State's speech before we have clarifications, but I can give it to you. It is actually an approved course and there is an entire module specific to this.
The other thing I need to also highlight is that what we are doing in terms of security checks, as well as frisk searches, is not different, as I have said, from those that we have already been conducting for major public events, for instance, NDP. And they go through the same training.
Regarding informing the public, awareness by public, well, I am sure this is recorded, this will be publicised. We will also look at how we can ensure and reach out to the public further, in order to make sure that the public also know and have assurance that this is done. But having said that, it is really not just about the public knowing it because our authorised officers have a duty, responsibility and obligation to ensure that they do this in accordance with protocols and SOPs.
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai, you have got a quick clarification?
Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, two short points of clarification. One, the hon Senior Minister of State mentioned that I had, in my speech, spoken about migrant workers being transported in lorries. I would just like to clarify that I did not do so in my speech.
Second one, again, a short point of clarification, Senior Minister of State Amy Khor mentioned about the point that I raised in my speech which refers to the fact that there is no offence linking an owner of a vehicle who was lackadaisical in maintaining his vehicle. The point I actually made was a bit different. I recognise that there are provisions in that regard, but my point was a bit more involved. I was talking about a case where an owner is lackadaisical in maintaining his vehicles which led to a fatal accident or injuries. That is the point I was making but I do not need any response from the learned Senior Minister of State.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim.
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Mr Speaker, I thank the Members for their support of the Bill. Senior Minister of State Amy Khor has addressed the questions relating to areas under MOT’s purview. This includes questions on PABs. I will now address those under MHA’s purview.
Members have raised questions in three areas. First, on MHA’s proposals to raise penalties for offences relating to illegal speed trials, helmets, individuals who obstruct, prevent or defeat the course of justice, and road rage. Second, on MHA’s proposals to enhance TP’s operational efficiency. And third, on enforcement and other matters.
First, let me address Members’ questions on the raising of penalties.
On the vehicle forfeiture regime for illegal speed trials, Mr Murali Pillai asked about the reason for making the vehicle forfeiture regime for illegal speed trials non-mandatory. I would like to share with the Member that the intent of moving towards a non-mandatory regime is to balance deterrence and fairness. While we want to deter persons from taking part in illegal speed trials through vehicle forfeiture, we also have to be fair to owners who did not consent to the offending driver using their vehicle and were not involved in the illegal speed trial.
A non-mandatory forfeiture regime does not mean that offenders get off easy. The Public Prosecutor still retains the power to apply for the forfeiture of a vehicle used in an illegal speed trial. The burden of proof is on the owner to prove, to the satisfaction of the Court, that the vehicle was used without his consent. In such situations, we can let the Court decide, by looking at all the facts of the case.
This also ensures parity with forfeiture for other offences in the RTA and in other Acts. This House would recall that in 2019, we amended the RTA to provide for non-mandatory forfeiture of vehicles involved in the offence of dangerous and careless driving. As another example, under the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA), if a person is convicted of any offence and if the Public Prosecutor makes an application to forfeit a vehicle, the Court shall order the vehicle to be forfeited unless the owner establishes that the vehicle was unlawfully in the possession of another person without the owner’s consent.
Mr Murali Pillai also asked about the situation where the owner was wilfully blind. In other words, the owner suspected that his car could be used in an illegal speed trial, but did not ask. As I have mentioned earlier, the burden is on the owner to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that the vehicle had been used without his consent. In a case where the owner suspected that the offender used his vehicle and could have asked, but did not, it is up to the Court to decide, based on the facts of the case, whether there had been implied consent to the use of the vehicle. If the Court finds that there was implied consent, the vehicle will be forfeited.
Ms Joan Pereira asked how we would be able to discern genuine cases of owners claiming that they did not provide consent to the offending drivers to use their vehicles in illegal speed trials. As part of the investigative process, TP interviews all involved parties separately and procures other relevant evidence, such as video footage. This evidence will be submitted to the Court, for the Court to decide based on the facts of the case and the arguments from both sides. For non-genuine cases, TP will not hesitate to take action against the persons or anyone who falsely claimed that the offending driver had used the vehicle without the owner’s consent. They may be charged for the offence of providing false or misleading information and face a jail term, a fine, or both, if found guilty.
Ms Sylvia Lim asked if TP will step up enforcement to increase detection of illegal speed trials. As I have mentioned in my opening speech, TP has stepped up enforcement and expanded its enforcement camera network to improve detection. There are now close to 300 traffic enforcement cameras deployed to detect and deter speeding and red light running. TP will continue to monitor the road safety situation and assess if there is a need to install more enforcement cameras. TP will also continue to conduct regular enforcement operations at known hotspots and will mount additional enforcement operations where necessary.
Members also asked about helmet-related offences. Regarding the minimum age for child pillion riders, Mr Murali Pillai is correct that the minimum age for pillion riders on motorcycles is 10, while the minimum age for pillion riders on PABs is higher, at 16.
Motorcyclists, unlike PAB riders, go through more stringent training and testing before they are allowed to ride their vehicle. As part of the process to obtain a driving licence, motorcyclists will need to take two theory tests, go through a series of riding lessons, before taking their practical test. The training includes a module on how to ride safely with a pillion rider. On the other hand, PAB riders only need to go through a theory test and do not need to undergo any practical test. The motorcyclist has, therefore, undergone more training and is better able to handle a motorcycle with a pillion rider compared to the PAB rider.
We are conscious of the costs of getting helmets certified, a point raised by Mr Sharael Taha. The Singapore Motor Cycle Trade Association has also raised this concern. The current standards used to certify motorcycle helmets was formulated in 2014, in consultation with the industry and technical experts, including the Singapore Motor Cycle Trade Association. These are in line with the internationally recognised United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulation Number 22, though we have additional requirements. For example, Singapore’s previous review concluded that it is important to include additional tests, such as the penetration test, which tests how easily the helmet’s shell is penetrated when it hits a sharp object, such as a fence or a motorcycle footrest.
That said, we hear the concerns about the costs of certification. We have to balance against the safety of road users. We will work with the relevant stakeholders to find the right balance.
Enforcement and penalties are not enough to ensure road safety. TP will also conduct more public education on the importance of wearing proper helmets. As Ms Joan Pereira pointed out, there are risks in wearing a helmet that does not meet regulatory requirements or is not of the right size.
Next, on individuals who obstruct, prevent or defeat the course of justice, Ms Sylvia Lim asked why we are increasing the penalties for the offence of furnishing false particulars to TP, especially since we had only done so recently. To clarify, our proposed amendments to section 81 are not just increasing the penalties for the existing offence of furnishing false information. We have broadened the offence to cover individuals who, alone or with others, deliberately mislead TP and prevent the identification of the correct offender driver. Thus, we have increased the fine by two times to reflect the greater seriousness.
Mr Sharael Taha asked what the penalties are for a cyclist exhibiting road rage to a motorist and whether we can ensure that there are equal consequences for cyclists and motorists.
The RTA provides that if a motorist commits an offence, such as voluntarily causing hurt while being a driver of a motor vehicle, he is liable for an additional offence of \"road rage\" and the Court may make an order to disqualify the offender from driving, or holding or obtaining a driving licence. This disqualification is on top of the penalties that the motorist may face for the underlying offence. The policy intent of this provision is to prevent motorists who have committed road rage from driving a motor vehicle again, as the behaviour might be repeated and cause harm to other motorists. The penalty of disqualification is, therefore, only applicable to motorists.
In the scenario painted by the Member, where the cyclist verbally abuses and punches a motorist, the Court may not disqualify the cyclist from driving. This is reasonable. The cyclist's behaviour may not represent his driving behaviour since he was not driving a motor vehicle at the time of the offence. It may not be possible for the Judge to assess whether it is undesirable for the cyclist to be allowed to drive a motor vehicle.
Nonetheless, the cyclist will still be liable for the relevant underlying penalty. For example, a cyclist who commits an offence of voluntarily causing hurt in a road rage type of incident will, similar to a motorist, be liable for a penalty of up to imprisonment of two years and a fine of $5,000.
We propose to amend the RTA to require companies to designate a responsible officer to see to the timely reporting of information needed for TP's investigation of the traffic incident. Mr Murali Pillai asked about the logic of making the chairperson, managing director or company secretary of a company responsible for maintaining a proper record of the vehicle's usage. He suggested that we can instead require that the Board appoints an employee to be the responsible person. The responsibilities of the chairperson, managing director or company secretary would then be discharged once the appointment is made.
To clarify, this provision does not require the chairperson, managing director or company secretary to actually carry out the record keeping personally. Instead, they are to ensure the keeping of such records.
Ensuring that records are properly kept so that investigations into a traffic incident can be conducted promptly is very important. We want the company to take this seriously and actively take steps towards this end, by designating its chairman, managing director or company secretary, or any position analogous to these offices, to be responsible for ensuring that records are properly kept.
Mr Speaker, let me now turn to the questions on enforcement. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked if we would be enhancing enforcement efforts to complement the new offences to deter irresponsible driving behaviour. Over the years, TP has enhanced its enforcement strategy by leveraging technology to improve detection of offences. TP has also become more transparent with motorists by alerting them before they reach enforcement camera zones, to encourage them to drive more safely. TP will also enforce against motorists who commit the new offences as part of their existing enforcement strategy.
Mr Murali Pillai shared his views that we should hold vehicle owners and operators of vehicles criminally liable for fatal and injury-causing accidents which are due to mechanical failure in the vehicle. I agree that it is important that vehicles are well maintained, to ensure the safety of not just the occupants but other road users. This is why for accidents involving mechanical failure, such as when the vehicle's brakes are faulty, TP can already take to task the person who holds the responsibility to maintain the vehicle. That said, we hear the Member's suggestion and we will work with MOT to review how we can strengthen this.
Mr Derrick Goh asked MHA to consider allowing individuals with financial difficulties to pay road traffic fines in instalments. As mentioned in MHA's Committee of Supply debate in 2021, MHA has been studying this. There are several considerations that MHA will have to think through. I will raise two key considerations.
First, whether instalment plans would dilute the deterrent effect of the fines. While we empathise with those facing financial difficulties, we also have a duty to ensure the safety of all other road users.
Second, resources that could otherwise have been used to directly enhance road safety, will have to be diverted to monitor instalment plans and manage appeals. These details would have to be worked through.
Nevertheless, currently, for genuine cases of financial difficulty, if the individual appeals to TP or the LTA and the appeal is assessed to be meritorious, TP or LTA already extend their deadline to pay the traffic fine, by up to several months. This is probably even more helpful to the offender than an instalment plan.
Mr Speaker, road safety is the shared responsibility of all road users. Beyond the amendments to legislation, a wider change on building a good road safety culture is essential.
If I may quote Mr Murali Pillai, he said, \"It is clear that legislation must not be the only policy instrument to protect our most vulnerable on the roads. Instead, there must be greater awareness, education and behavioural change.\"
This is why our efforts have gone beyond enforcement, to encouraging a good road safety culture through engagement, education and infrastructural improvements. As Ms Joan Pereira highlighted, public engagement and education on our road traffic rules are important. In this regard, TP and LTA have been continuously working with various stakeholders to improve road safety. I would like to thank our stakeholders for their partnership, hard work and dedication. Sir, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a clarification for the Minister of State. I would like to know, apart from the enhanced regime for helmet-related offences, what other measures are MHA and TP planning to undertake to protect all our motorcyclists?
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, if I may, TP adopts a multi-pronged approach of education, engagement and enforcement. We work with our stakeholders, as I have shared earlier, to improve road safety for the motorcyclists. For education, for example, since December 2020, we have a new feature as part of the education process for learner motorcyclists, where we introduced simulation training. They have to go through a few modules, where they will be able to identify and go through the process of top 10 vulnerable accident-prone situations in the simulation. We also have a riding theory handbook available online for them to learn. So, we continuously engage motorcyclists because we know they are a vulnerable group.
We also have positive engagement with them. We award the rider. In the last few months when I was involved, I went around in a TP car to identify riders who practised safe habits, such as wearing the necessary gear well and so on. I think that actually spread among the motorcyclist community and it gave a very positive vibe and message to motorcyclists that it is good to be on the safe side, to practise good habits for road safety.
As I have mentioned earlier, we will continue to enforce where we work with community partners; we work with the feedback that we receive and look at the hotspots where there may be opportunities for us, not only to enforce, but also to educate, engage and bring out positive impact, not only to the motorcyclist community, but for all road users as well.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to seek a clarification from the Senior Minister of State Dr Amy Khor because I did not get a chance to raise the queries earlier.
First of all, I would like to thank her for highlighting that PAB users taking the test do not have to pay for the second round of test. But I would like to ask a question with regard to the audio version of the test. I found out that for some places in Australia, in New South Wales, the transport agency creates a hotline for those taking the road theory test and for those who have learning difficulties or special needs. So, is there a possibility that we can create an audio version of the test? And second, whether we can create a hotline for PAB users who have learning difficulties, for example, those who have trouble reading or understanding questions for them to make arrangements in that regard?
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for his questions.
Just let me say that it is free only for the repeat test taken in first three months. But having said that, as I said, we are mindful to make sure it is affordable to PAB riders.
With regard to the Member's suggestion for an audio version of the test, first, let me say that, on a case-by-case basis, there is a need for special consideration, they can actually do an oral test. But I think his idea of an audio version, meaning an online audio version, is a good idea. We can look into this and study to see if it is feasible.
With regard to the hotline, they can contact LTA and let them know if there are special requests.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Sir. I have a clarification for Minister of State Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim. Earlier he mentioned that nationwide, we have about 300 cameras to detect speeding offences. I do note that it is more than before. But from time to time, we also get requests from residents for us to convey to TP that they would like speed cameras installed at certain locations. The reply from TP, typically, is that they would consider the matter and any decision whether or not to install would depend on the accident rate as well as public feedback.
So, I would like him to confirm that TP does not need accidents to happen before they decide whether to install a camera at a certain location.
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the question. I am not sure whether the Member was in the House when I answered a similar question on this. TP does not wait for traffic accidents to happen. Essentially, we work with various stakeholders and when we have feedback that there is a certain hotspot, or even, not a hotspot, but feedback relating to speeding in certain areas, we will go down and take a look.
When we go down, it does not mean that we will install a camera in the area. But we will do our intelligence work and enforcement operations around the area, making sure that even before we install a camera, we know that there is a real problem there.
If there are other solutions, we will continue with other alternatives. I want to assure the Member that we do not wait for traffic accidents to happen. This is something that we all know very well. I have said this in this House. This is the operational procedure of what we do at TP.
Mr Speaker: Mr Derrick Goh.
Mr Derrick Goh: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a clarification question for the Minister of State. He earlier mentioned about statistics where over the last 10 years till 2019, traffic fatalities have dropped. However, in that lower number, about 80% of traffic fatalities relate to the elderly. So, the clarification question for the Minister of State is whether there are plans and initiatives that have been put in place to address this given that our population is ageing.
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, we share Mr Derrick Goh's concern about the accidents and the vulnerability of our seniors and elderly. In fact, we are going to enhance our penalties against irresponsible motorists in Silver Zones. We want to encourage more and greater caution in areas which are frequented by elderly pedestrians. We will be doing something shortly, later this year, where motorists who commit offences in the Silver Zones will incur two additional demerit points, on top of the usual demerit points. They will also be liable for an additional $100 in composition fine.
In addition to that, we also engage the senior community by working with Senior Activity Centres and Lion Befrienders. Just in February this year, TP launched the Eye Care Kit to work with the seniors on how they are able to walk and travel safely.
Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira, do you have another question to ask? No.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal 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":"Land Transport Authority of Singapore (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport (Mr Baey Yam Keng) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Transport, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
During this year's Committee of Supply debate, Minister Ong said that our national vision is to have substantially all vehicles run on cleaner energy by 2040. We have, therefore, embarked on a major transition towards electric vehicles (EVs).
The Ministry of Transport (MOT) is undertaking efforts in three areas to enable this transition: first, reviewing the EV tax structure; second, developing the charging network and infrastructure; and third, reviewing the regulatory regime for EV chargers and EV charging services.
This Bill has to do with the third prong of our efforts: update and strengthen the regulations for chargers that serve EVs, which include electric cars, motorcycles, goods vehicles and buses.
As part of this effort, we intend to amend existing legislation in two stages.
The first stage is the Land Transport Authority of Singapore (Amendment) Bill 2021 tabled before Members today. It assigns statutory functions relating to EVs and EV charging infrastructure to the Land Transport Authority (LTA).
The second stage involves other legislative measures related to EV chargers that are still being studied. Possible measures include registration of EV chargers and charger provision requirements for new building and carpark developments. MOT is consulting the industry, working through the policy specifics of these measures and will table a separate Bill when ready.
Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now take the House through the changes in today's Bill.
Currently, the regulatory landscape for EV chargers is truncated. LTA's regulatory mandate covers road vehicles, including EVs, but it does not cover EV chargers. The Energy Market Authority (EMA) oversees the regulation of EV chargers which are affixed to the electricity grid.
The current situation is not optimal because while LTA is in charge of developing the charging infrastructure, it does not have oversight of the regulations governing proper installation. Furthermore, no Government agency oversees the regulation of non-fixed charging solutions like battery swapping. We need to change this existing arrangement to better progress adoption of EVs and EV charging technology. LTA, as the vehicle licensing authority, will be the agency to regulate both EVs and EV chargers.
I am, therefore, introducing the Land Transport Authority of Singapore (Amendment) Bill today to empower LTA with new statutory functions relating to EVs and EV charging infrastructure. The key provisions are as follows.
First, the Bill assigns LTA the function of promoting and regulating the safe use of EVs in Singapore. This squarely charges LTA with the mission to develop and implement EV-related schemes and policies.
Second, the Bill also confers on LTA the function of undertaking or facilitating the development and maintenance of publicly accessible EV charging points and their supporting infrastructure.
Third, the Bill charges LTA with the function of setting technical standards for all EV chargers in Singapore in the interest of public safety. There is clarity now between EMA and LTA in this sphere of work.
Today, all EV chargers must comply with a set of technical standards and safety precautions called the Technical Reference 25, or TR 25. Previous reviews of TR 25 were administrated by EMA in consultation with other agencies. LTA has since taken over from EMA and is currently leading a review of TR 25 with the aim of using the TR 25 to facilitate industry development. This Bill formalises LTA's role to lead the TR 25 Review Committee.
Fourth, the Bill makes it LTA's function to cooperate and collaborate with EMA on matters relating to technical standards for fixed EV chargers and the safe use of EV chargers in Singapore.
Today, EMA enforces TR 25 for fixed EV chargers through regulatory requirements on licensed electrical workers, or LEWs, under the Electricity Act. Only LEWs are authorised to install fixed EV chargers and they must ensure that the chargers comply with TR 25 before they install them.
Hence, the Bill requires LTA and EMA to work closely together in the regulation of fixed EV chargers. While LTA sets EV charging standards going forward, EMA will continue to require LEWs to install fixed EV chargers that comply with the latest standards, which will henceforth be set by LTA. This Bill provision reflects the close collaboration needed between these two agencies. There is therefore a consequential amendment to the Electricity Act to provide EMA with a new statutory function to collaborate with LTA on these matters. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the formalisation of LTA's role to coordinate electric vehicle or EV-related efforts across Singapore. I am pleased to note that the amendments are focused on safety and operational capacity, which were among key technical concerns shared during the Budget debates. I wish to raise four concerns which I hope LTA will look into as they assume their new responsibilities.
First, safety concerns for both motorists and building occupiers and residents, given that most of the charging stations going forward would be located at housing estates and commercial buildings.
With plans to increase the number of charging points, there are some concerns among residents on safety issues – whether this may lead to situations such as electrical overload and overcharging, resulting in fire outbreaks or worse, an explosion.
There have been several cases of fires and explosions caused by PMDs that were charging overnight, whether domestically or overseas. So, some are asking if similar scenarios could happen with EVs left to charge overnight.
May I ask what is being done to safeguard against this? I note that purpose-built EV chargers would be safe but what happens if someone tampers with it or tries to use a non-compatible extension plug, for example?
This brings me to my next point on batteries. A number of high-profile global recalls were made last year over battery fire risk in EVs. EVs are fairly new technology. With the recent boom, engineers are in a global race to design the fastest and cheapest EV batteries. This can result in plenty of revisions along the way, even at the expense of safety.
As technology on the batteries develops, how will LTA allocate the tenders for charging points and types of EV vehicles over the next five to 10 years? How will LTA ensure that the winning tenders are committed to adapting continuously to the evolving technology, with safety and quality at top of mind, and how do we ensure that our charging points can be easily adapted as technology progresses?
With increased deployment of EV charging points in the housing estates, how will agencies like HDB, Town Councils and EMA work together for installation, maintenance and safety issues?
In Toa Payoh Lorong 8, for example, the EV charging points were built with wires cutting across the pedestrian paths. This has posed a safety hazard to residents. This could have been avoided if there had been closer cooperation and consultation prior to this decision. Clearer guidelines and policies must be spelt out for cross-agency collaboration. Otherwise, I fear that, in an emergency, time will be wasted in delegating the responsibilities.
My last point is on national power consumption. An energy department study done in the context of the US found that increased electrification across all sectors of the economy could boost national consumption by as much as 38% by 2050. This is, in large part, due to EVs.
What would the impact of widespread usage of EVs be in Singapore? Do we also expect a surge in electricity usage nationwide and will this affect the capacity capabilities of our power stations in the residential areas? For example, is there a need to upgrade electricity substations to cope with the potential increase in power usage? What about the current underground cables? Are they able to cope with the higher usage?
Mr Speaker, Sir, EVs are the way forward, as demonstrated in many developed economies, so this amendment comes at a timely moment. In the meantime, there should be more conversations and reassurances on the safety issues related to EVs. Moreover, residents' safety and convenience must not be compromised. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill seeks to amend the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Act to confer on LTA new functions concerning the regulation of safe use of EVs and the development and maintenance of accessible charging points in public and common areas, as well as working with EMA on the area of electric charges for vehicles and the facilitation of the development and maintenance of charging points in the public and common areas.
In my Budget debate speech this year, I had raised, among other related issues, the issue of the critical number of charging points required in all residential, commercial carparks and even other public carparks, as well as the design of the carparks vis-à-vis the locations of the charging points as well as my concern that most of the present HDB public and commercial carparks are not being adequately designed to prevent bottlenecks or congestion caused by more than a few cars waiting for the current few charging units available at each carpark, especially as, currently, the lots with the charging units are placed side by side and usually on the lower floors.
On 1 April 2021, it was reported in The Straits Times that a public tender for the installation of EV charging points at some 200 public carparks across Singapore has drawn 19 bidders. The tender called for bidders to build, operate and maintain more than 600 charging points for 12 years, starting as early as 31 August this year.
I would like to ask the Minister: one, whether the successful bidders are supposed to install the charging points in existing lots in the existing public carparks; two, whether the Government has decided on the minimum number of charging points per public carpark, that is to say, what is the ratio of charging points vis-à-vis the number of carpark lots; three, whether these charging points will be in consecutive lots side-by-side; and, four, whether they include any change of design of the carpark in such a way that any queue waiting for any single lot will not cause any obstruction to other cars leaving the carpark or going to another parking lot.
Next, beyond the importance of having the right carpark infrastructure or making the necessary conversions or adjustments to ensure the carpark design or infrastructure does not by themselves cause any unnecessary obstruction and inconvenience to motorists and other members of the public during charging, I would also like to ask the Minister whether he will consider any of the following actions to encourage people to move their vehicles away from charging stations immediately after charging so that others are not unnecessarily deprived of their use.
One, require service providers to impose heavy payments after charging is done if the vehicle is not removed from the station within a short grace period. Or alternatively, to have carpark authorities impose an escalating fine for motorists continuing to keep the spot occupied after charging and, beyond a short grace period, for example, fines to increase at every 15-minute interval.
Next, I would also like to ask the Minister, for non-landed, private residences and commercial buildings, whether the Government will stipulate a fixed minimum number of charging points in each carpark or what is the ratio of charging points vis-à-vis the number of carpark lots and, if so, for carparks in these non-publicly owned properties as well as public carparks, will the Government stipulate the ratio in any Government regulation.
Mr Speaker, Sir, during the Committee of Supply debate for MSE this year, the hon Mr Lim Biow Chuan raised the issue of MCST needing to obtain approvals from residents via general meetings. Mr Ong Ye Kung replied that there are certain places, such as SP Mobility, Greenlots and Charge+, who are willing to foot the upfront installation fees for EV charges in return for collecting charging revenue for a period.
One of the condominium MCSTs in my constituency has already provided feedback that, given the conditions of the lease of chargers, with one of the companies mentioned by the Minister, they may still need to obtain between 75% and 90% general or special resolution approval from residents for the lease anyway. I hope that the Ministry will look further into this and to provide necessary assistance so that condominiums and their residents will be able to overcome all difficulties arising from the need to obtain adequate general meeting resolution approvals and, in the event of no approvals, to advise them what they should do.
In the meantime, I will also be grateful if the Minister can update us on the Government efforts made so far to ensure that all private condominiums and commercial properties will be able to get adequate support for the installation of charging units beyond the EV Common Charger Grant as well as the adequacy of the grant to all eligible or affected parties. May I also know whether the grant covers any infrastructural works required for the installation charges beyond price and the installation charges?
Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my questions and concerns, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Janet Ang.
Ms Janet Ang (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, one of the key sources of carbon dioxide emission is road transportation. Borneo Motors CEO, Jasmmine Wong, shared with me the results of a study they have done internally which shows that Internal Combustion Engine, or ICE, vehicles emit 50% and 25% more carbon dioxide than EVs and hybrid EVs respectively. Tackling the issue of having cleaner energy vehicles on our roads is of great urgency. Mr Speaker, let me start by stating my support for the LTA (Amendment) Bill.
The planning and deployment of EVs involve different Government agencies, and a coordinated approach to the design of policies and regulation as well as stakeholder engagement is critical. Industry players like Borneo Motors and members of the European Chambers' Smart Mobility Committee are all supportive of the Singapore Green Plan 2030 and look forward to collaborating with Government and stakeholders in the eco-system to achieve the goals set.
For today, allow me to highlight three broad themes which will need further dialogue and consultation amongst the stakeholders and the Government.
The first broad theme is around the EV charging infrastructure. The first issue around EV charging infrastructure is the choice of standards. The choice of charging standards will have an island-wide infrastructure impact. It is good to know that the Government has already identified a TR25 Committee put together such a team to look into this.
Of course, globally, there is a flurry of activities in the industry to come up with the technology that will become the industry standard. The jury is still out and there is also the related issue of fast charging or slow charging. The variance between fast and slow charging can range between 20 minutes and seven to eight hours, and the cost of fast charging is estimated to be 30 times the cost of a $10,000 to $12,000 slow charging station. How will Singapore decide on the standard to be used? How will Singapore manage the risks involved with this big bet depending on how battery technologies advance or if other technologies disrupt, for example, hydrogen?
A second issue around EV charging infrastructure is the accessibility of chargers which is a key factor affecting the rate of adoption of EVs. During the Committee of Supply, the Minister for Transport announced that, by 2030, it is planned that there will be 60,000 EV charging points available across the island. What is the planned roll-out of these charging points? Will EV charging be considered a national infrastructure or will the Government leave it to the private sector to decide based on their business models? What will be the design point for the charging network, balancing speed, cost, coverage, convenience and load on the grid? HDB carparks will be a major real estate for charging points. So, will HDB fund the roll-out of the charging infrastructure? How does LTA plan to encourage existing condominiums to put in charging stations since MCST will have to fund the capital costs?
Industry players support a more extensive slow-charging network complemented by a fast-charging network for top-up and emergency. The slow-charging network can be shared or is specific to each EV. The shared model will require consumer acceptance of some level of inconvenience. So, imagine having to drive your EV to a HDB carpark maybe three MRT stations away and then wait for your car to get charged up and then bring it home. So, those are the inconveniences that may appear.
The industry is exploring an option for the installation of the slow chargers to be provided as part of the purchase of the EV, similar to how chargers come with our smartphones today. Does this mean Singapore may need to consider the approach in Japan, where one can buy a car only when one owns a parking lot? If that is so, then the EV charging station is individually owned, which also has the benefit of the charging taking place off-peak and not strain the electricity grid. Is it, however, wasteful since each EV probably only needs to be charged a couple of times a week at most? The dilemma is how best to balance cost, convenience and social acceptance when deciding between all these options.
A third issue around EV charging infrastructure is how to handle range anxiety. With the average driving distance being 50 kilometres a day, one charge can probably hold up for three to four days. That said, access to fast-charging is still needed in the event of \"emergencies\". In speaking with several mall developers, many are already fitting up a few EV-ready fast-charging stations. There are, however, questions around how many lots to provide optimally and the sharing of these lots by EV drivers.
Perhaps an intelligent app can help to alert the driver that his or her EV is fully charged and higher parking charges will kick in thereafter if the car is not moved. This is but one form of behaviour-changing tactics that could be considered.
To help accelerate provision of fast-charging stations, will the Government consider EV lots to be included in URA's existing Community/Sports Facilities Scheme, or CSFS, which allows Gross Floor Area, or GFA, exemptions? Such carrots should help to make fast-charging stations more accessible at malls, office buildings and new developments. Existing petrol stations and public carparks are also, of course, potential fast-charging sites.
The second broad theme is around re-skilling the mechanics and technicians in the workshops. Singapore needs an EV-ready skilled workforce. It is exciting that MTI and EDB have attracted Hyundai Motors to set up their electric car manufacturing in Singapore. I am sure it will be a highly automated facility but still our Singapore workforce needs to be systematically upskilled to support electrification across all the OEM brands – from manufacturing, service, aftersales – and to ensure that our workers are future-proof. There are new opportunities for our workers in this industry as the EV works on digitalisation and there will be new digital jobs in the auto industry. We hope that the Skills and Jobs Framework in the new clean energy for the auto industry can be in place early to help current workers upskill and next-gen workers be future-ready. The industry is ready to collaborate with our IHLs, SSG and WSG.
The third broad theme is around hybrid being the low hanging fruit to decarbonising on our roads. While EVs offer the largest reduction in carbon dioxide footprint, drivers could take a while to warm up making their first EV purchase. I must declare I do drive a hybrid car. Hybrid presents the lowest hanging fruit to decarbonising our transportation. Hybrid's carbon dioxide emission reduction of 25%, compared to an ICE, is considerable.
Adoption of hybrids is independent of charging infrastructure and the psychological barriers for purchase are significantly lower. To encourage hybrid adoption alongside EV adoption, the industry has a suggestion for LTA to review the COE Category classification for hybrid vehicles. I am told that there are best-in-class hybrid EV powertrains which use a 1.8-litre engine to achieve remarkable carbon dioxide emissions. De-carbonising should not come with a premium COE or a premium road tax.
One other point I would like to bring up is how used cars will be treated. As we pursue the transition to cleaner energy vehicles, with the various policies for new vehicle registration, what regulatory changes will the Government be making with regard to used cars? Will the same penalty policies for C1 and C2 banding guidelines for new cars be applied for used cars, if their emission test results at point of COE renewal fail to meet the mark?
In conclusion, the industry supports the Singapore Green Plan 2030's move to cleaner energy transportation. Singapore is not an early adopter and so there are many best practices and lessons in other cities we can learn from and adapt quickly for our situation. The industry suggests for the Government to use the many levers at its disposal, namely, car taxes, COE quotas and road taxes, grants, rebates and so on as both sticks and carrots to help accelerate cleaner energy vehicle adoption, both hybrid and EV.
The time to act is now. The industry looks forward to participating in MOT and LTA's industry consultation to discuss the above issues, amongst others, and move the agenda into high gear. Notwithstanding the issues and questions raised, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, a few months ago, this House voted to recognise the global climate emergency. The LTA (Amendment) Bill before us today is brief but significant in marking a milestone in our embrace of EVs as a country.
Electric mobility brings a host of benefits, including lower carbon emissions, lower air pollution and lower noise pollution. This Bill is thus a step in the right direction. My speech today will raise questions and suggestions relating to our approach towards EVs.
The climate emergency rolls on and the Government should move on the EV front with ambition, speed and transparency in setting out regulations and executive actions. Our local conditions are some of the best in the world for an EV roll-out: distances are short, funding is available and we have the capacity in both the Civil Service and private sector to do this.
Thanks to market forces, with investment from governments and people across the world, battery prices have been driven down to as low as $130 per kilowatt hour today, with the average at about $180. Battery prices and EVs will only get cheaper with scale and improvements in technology. The question is how our move to embrace EVs can be made as well-planned, ambitious, fair and sustainable as we can get it.
Before I proceed, I declare my interest as the CEO of a research consultancy that undertakes work in green technology and other sectors.
Sir, first of all, I suggest that our incentives be tweaked to better nudge specific demographic segments that use their vehicles more to switch to EVs.
Sir, commercial drivers, be they taxis, private hire cars or commercial vehicles, are mostly part of the gig work community and these are people we must get on board because they play an outsized role in decarbonising transport. Private hire and taxi vehicles have much higher utilisation rates than the casual weekend driver, for example.
To some extent, families with young children are another high usage segment that could use stronger incentives to switch.
[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]
The city of Shenzhen in China, for instance, was early to the game in providing direct and indirect subsidies to encourage taxi drivers to go electric. This encourages network effects, where the industry becomes more willing to install charging and maintenance facilities because the city now has a minimum market of 22,000 EVs via taxis.
Such additional incentives are not without precedent because we already are giving some support to some groups in Singapore for vehicles on the basis that they need to use their vehicles for work, such as in the case of the Disabled Persons Scheme, for example, where exemptions are provided from paying COE and Additional Registration Fee (ARF), provided the vehicle meets certain conditions.
Enhancing incentives for high-use drivers to switch to EVs would get us disproportionate traction in achieving our environmental outcomes while buying more time for the development of new public transport infrastructure to attract transitioning drivers of low-utilisation vehicles to switch to EVs.
Next, Mdm Deputy Speaker, we should welcome the reduction in the ARF floor and the revision in the road tax framework, which would come into effect next year for EVs. This is a good first step and will reduce the green premiums EV users have to pay. As per the latest EV incentives announced in Budget 2021, from January 2022 to December 2023, the minimum ARF of $5,000 will be lowered to zero dollars for all EVs – and EVs do not pay fuel excise duties.
Given this, EV owners will be made to pay an additional $700 road tax from 2023 with a phase-in period from 2021. This lump sum tax negates some of the savings derived from the reduced ARF but there will probably still be net savings from these measures for EV owners.
However, the presence and uncertainty of fuel excise duty rebates makes this cost-benefit calculation for switching to EVs more complicated and less predictable going forward. The Workers' Party has argued for a phasing in of the fuel duty hike – and I shall not repeat the arguments here – to ensure that our incentives are having the desired effect.
Would the Government consider setting yearly targets for and publicly keep track of EV charging infrastructure – for instance, chargers per car and chargers per region and the corresponding number of EVs on the road?
Next, Mdm Deputy Speaker, we need more clarity on what the Government's electrification plans are for the Government-owned fleet.
In her reply to my Parliamentary Question in March, Minister Grace Foo said that, \"All new purchases for Government-owned fleets will be cleaner and greener where feasible with effect from 2023.\" I would urge the Government to set clear targets for the electrification of Government-owned vehicles to be in line with the target set for the building of charging infrastructure.
I would also call on the Government to develop a strategy to nudge motorcycle users towards electric motorcycles as these are also high-use vehicles in many cases as these are heavily used in delivery work.
Next, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk about the e-waste that EVs will generate. EVs produce considerable e-waste with the higher battery and semiconductor content and the EPR or Extended Producer Responsibility scheme for e-waste will be in place from 1 July 2021. But EV batteries are considered \"non-consumer goods\" and all producers of batteries are only required to use a licensed waste disposer or e-waste recycling provider. There does not appear to be any clear mandate to recycle but only rules and responsible handling of end-of-life to prevent illegal dumping and so on.
Such EV batteries are goods that can be leased out and returned to the original producer either through car dealerships or private hire fleet or taxi fleet owners. It might be cost-effective for these organisations to reuse and recover materials from batteries rather than dispose of them. We should encourage circularity in our battery production and use.
My parliamentary colleague, Ms He Ting Ru, will draw attention to the importance of early forward planning and creating an eco-system for e-waste recycling for EV batteries. This can be married to the support of our locally rooted recycling and material recovery companies in Singapore since Singapore already has businesses that can do this. In fact, promoting e-waste recovery from batteries could be a competence we could nurture in Singapore so that Singapore-based companies can invest in the region to export this know-how.
Hence, I would like to ask if there are targets to increase EV battery recycling and material recovery and is the Government looking to legislate the end-of-life management of EV batteries to mandate reuse and material recovery rather than disposal?
Next, while we push for our EV transition, it is important to note that better low carbon forms of transport, such as public transport and bike riding, are still far better alternatives in terms of emissions and waste, and it behooves us to not lose sight of this fact in any discussion about promoting EVs. Now is the right time to ask if our current public transport goals are ambitious enough.
One of the key goals in the Land Transport Master Plan 2040 announced in 2019 was to increase the peak hour public transport mode share to 75%. We are on track to meet this target as we appear to have crossed 67% very recently. I would like to ask the Government to review this.
Next, the Government has a commendable commitment to doubling cycling paths to 800 kilometres by 2023, with a target of 1,320 kilometres target for 2030. We should try to frontload our cycling targets in this way, in light of the recent reports of bicycling accidents. The cycling boom during COVID-19 has created an opportunity to foster a cycling culture for health, recreation and climate benefits. We should strike while the iron is hot.
Such an expansion of cycling paths should, of course, take into account nature conservation and there should be safeguards to deter cyclists from going off path into nature areas like the Dairy Farm area, for example.
My parliamentary colleague Mr Dennis Tan has been a passionate advocate for responsible cycling in this House over the years and is an avid cyclist himself. I urge Members to review the suggestions he has made and continues to make. My colleague Ms He Ting Ru will also speak on this theme in her speech on the Bill.
Lastly, Mdm Deputy Speaker, we must be humble and transparent in consultation. LTA recently said that it was in the midst of an industry consultation regarding private sector participation in public charger deployment. But can it do more public consultations regarding other aspects of the EV roll-out?
For instance, it can do more to engage those whose COEs are near expiry. It should also engage members of the public who are about to buy their next car or about to rent a car for private hire driving.
Can the Government also commit to publishing more of its consultations unless there are specific business sensitivity reasons not to do so? I note that in the reply to one of my recent Parliamentary Questions, only 39% of 126 consultations published on REACH over the past five years had their findings or summary of responses published in full.
In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, at Singapore's first climate rally in 2019, despite the haze and the Formula One race that was going on nearby, nearly 2,000 people turned up – many of whom were young adults, young parents and students – so as to make a statement that this green transition represents our future and that this green transition is people-powered and people-centric.
EVs are an important part of what needs to be done, which makes this debate and this Bill important.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mdm Deputy Speaker, Members are looking hopeful but I am afraid that I am about to dash those hopes. It is going to be a long evening. So, I will be moving to exempt the business for today. It will be a long evening.
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day’s Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Land Transport Authority of Singapore (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Ng Ling Ling.
Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to start in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to start by sharing a bit of history. About 140 years ago, the first passenger EV invented by the French inventor, Gustave Trouve, was tested on the streets of Paris. Interest and adoption of EVs grew at that time. At the peak of their popularity between 1900 and 1912, almost 40% of vehicles in the United States were EVs.
However, they began to lose their popularity because of their limited range, lack of electrical power in rural areas, a relatively slower speed and the discovery of large petroleum reserves that made gasoline-powered vehicles cheaper to operate over long distances.
Today, 140 years later, even with improvements in battery and vehicle technology, some of the same concerns still weigh on consumers, such as availability of charging points. Unlike the 1900s, there are new and pressing environmental concerns that now drive the Singapore Government to encourage EV adoption. Modern urban transportation needs and the desire for sustainable transportation solutions have made EVs an important strategic solution to deal with these challenges.
I am heartened that through this amendment Bill, LTA and EMA are set to collaborate on establishing the necessary policies and frameworks for the EV infrastructure development.
(In English): Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Government has announced the Singapore Green Plan 2030. In the area of transport, the Ministry has set ambitious targets to cease registration of diesel cars and roll out EV-ready towns, with a target of 60,000 charging points nationwide by 2030. These are targets that will spur us towards a cleaner, more sustainable future and help to ensure that our infrastructure is able to meet the anticipated growth of EVs.
I am thus heartened that through this amendment Bill, LTA and EMA are set to collaborate on establishing the necessary policies and frameworks for the EV charging infrastructure development. I would, however, like to raise two considerations.
Firstly, with the expected increase in the number of EVs and charging points, there may also likely be an increase in battery and charging point related incidents. A study of battery fires in EVs showed that the energy and heat released in an EV fire is much higher than petrol or gasoline-run vehicles, indicating a bigger fire hazard and requiring more stringent risk-mitigating efforts. This point has also been brought up by a fellow Member of the House earlier. We need to ensure that, in tandem with the rollout of charging infrastructure in public carparks, there would be the need for education, safety precautions and measures, should an accident or electrical mishap occur.
I would like to suggest that a review of the safety requirements be undertaken together with LTA, HDB and URA and other relevant agencies to ensure public awareness and establish safety protocols when using EV charging points.
The second is in the design consideration when implementing the charging points. A Deloitte report on EV public charging infrastructure highlighted that more than 70% of charging took place at residential locations. It is heartening to know that the Government has planned for 60% of the 60,000 charging points to be in public carparks. On average, 15% of the existing carpark lots will be converted to overnight charging points. I understand that these are slow charging points so as not to overload the existing power grid infrastructure.
Earlier, the Minister for Transport has also mentioned that the average electric car has a range of 300 kilometres to 500 kilometres per charge and that the average user may only need to charge his car once every five days, hence, this would spread out the demand for charging points.
However, as mentioned by Ms Janet Ang, some studies have shown that some users not only have “range anxiety” but also an emerging phenomenon known as “charging anxiety”. Charging anxiety arises from drivers' concerns about the charging process, its ease of use and, most importantly, the time it takes to complete the charging. The duration of the charging process depends on the different charging modes and capacities. Drivers experience charging anxiety when they reach a charging station without any problem, but then face a long wait to be able to charge because there are not enough charging stations. Some drivers may also want to charge their vehicles to full capacity as often as possible. When a lot of people are trying to do this, it can create problems: too many cars, not enough chargers.
It would be difficult to try to explain away the driver’s concern in wanting to charge his vehicle often and this will result in possibly long queues and disputes on the use of charging points. To this, I would like to suggest that LTA study the user journey, charging behaviour and how charging will take place at carparks to optimise the infrastructure design that allows charging points to be accessible to as many parking lots and vehicles as possible and allow for quick flexible installation of additional charging points, if demand increases in a certain area.
LTA can also consider the feasibility for one or two separate fast charging points powered by, maybe, alternative energy like solar energy and batteries that do not depend on the power grid. This will allow users who want to charge their cars using fast chargers without impacting the existing power infrastructure. Such technology is currently available and can be considered to complement the current plans.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, the mobility demands of a modern urban city, together with the need for sustainable transportation solutions, make EVs a very compelling answer to these challenges. We need to bring together technology, infrastructure, economic and human behaviour considerations into our planning and policies when implementing the EV charging points infrastructure.
I am very glad that we are starting with this amendment Bill. Notwithstanding my considerations raised, I support the amendment Bill.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, the main thrust of the Land Transport Authority (Amendment) Bill before us is to bring about greener and more sustainable transport options in Singapore, focusing on enhancing our land transport infrastructure to support EVs in particular. Such a move is overdue and is necessary, given the climate emergency we are facing. All the measures in this Bill are an appropriate first step. There remain key gaps that we must address in order to secure a more sustainable and environmentally-secure future for Singapore.
My remarks and clarifications today relate to two key areas: first, building an equitable and sustainable EV infrastructure; and, second, stepping up efforts to promote additional green transport alternatives.
The core of the Bill focuses on enabling LTA to promote the use of electric vehicles in Singapore through facilitating the development of and standards for an EV charging infrastructure. The stellar rise of mobility as a service has given its role more urgency, underlining the importance of having LTA play a role in building up a sustainable mobility eco-system that can minimise the environmental impact of our transport system. For this to be achieved, new low emissions mobility options must be widely available to all.
I note that there is no provision in the Bill that directs LTA to ensure that charging points for EVs in public areas, including HDB estates and public vehicle parking facilities, remain widely accessible.
The Bill also does not prescribe the role of LTA to ensure that charging points are made available in a manner that is affordable to the public, including ensuring sufficient competition in the market to encourage fair pricing for consumers. These may be seen as operational matters. The principle of equitable access to chargers should be enshrined in law. The convenience and benefits of owning an EV must not only be reserved for residents who live in landed properties as they can easily purchase, install and access their own charging points in their own properties.
I note that the RFI being conducted by LTA right now does consider deploying 60,000 charging points by 2030, including 40,000 points in public and HDB carparks. Yet there are less details about how and where these points would be located.
I would like to ask, can the Government provide a commitment that building equitable access will be the cornerstone of LTA's approach to our EV transition? What specific payment and funding models are being considered to ensure that the final user will be extended affordable prices? Would the Government engage residents in deciding the location of charging points and pricing and publicise the results of this engagement? What regulations can be put in place to prevent ugly behaviours, such as charger and space hogging, which deprive other users of the chance to charge their vehicles?
Getting out EV support infrastructure right from the very beginning is especially important as the continued growth in mobility-as-a-service means that many drivers and users of mobility devices depend on their vehicles for their livelihoods. They conduct deliveries and transport passengers and should be able to continue doing so without having to worry about finding an available charging station to spend 30 minutes or more charging up their vehicle in the middle of their workday.
Moving on from equity to sustainability, we should also ensure that there is sufficient consideration for how we would manage inevitable growth in electronic waste from expired EVs and whether the 10-year duration for COEs remains relevant, given the potentially low emissions beyond the 10-year life of the electric car.
EV batteries comprise rare metals that can be hazardous to humans and the environment and are a finite resource that we will soon be in short supply of. Our EV strategy must consider extending the typical 10-year useful life of the car and have a plan for the electronic waste after that, including adequate facilities to repurpose, recycle and, when there are no other choices, for the safe disposal of such waste.
We need to think ahead about this issue systematically and not scramble when we realise we are being forced to act because of pressing environmental or safety concerns. LTA and MOT should coordinate closely with MSE to develop a clear plan. The public and key stakeholders should also be consulted and must be asked to provide feedback as we prepare our infrastructure to accommodate EVs. This crucial element should be baked into the system from the start, not patched on in an ad-hoc fashion years down the line.
I also wish to note that EVs are just one component of developing a sustainable transportation eco-system. The Green Plan 2030 highlighted the importance of continuing efforts to promote an active, healthy lifestyle in Singapore. This includes promoting cycling and even more eco-friendly means of getting around. There is the added benefit of building exercise into our daily commute.
Given on-going trials to repurpose car lanes for pedestrian use and increase bicycle paths, MOT and LTA should use this opportunity to increase adoption of a cycling culture in Singapore. Preliminary studies have found that bicycle sales have soared in the wake of COVID-19 travel restrictions and lockdowns. I look forward to the results of LTA's on-going household travel survey to see if there is a marked increase in commuting by bicycle and other more eco-friendly measures. If it is, indeed, true that the on-going pandemic has resulted in the uptake of alternative forms of mobility, it would be a shame to let such gains be reversed as we think about moving back to a new normal.
Indeed, greener forms of commuting and transport must form an integral part of that new normal from day one. To encourage higher ridership rates and more commuting by bicycle, we should introduce legislation to reorient our infrastructure to promote cycling and other low emission options of travel as an alternative means of commuting. An obvious place to start will be further amendments to legislation to reorient our infrastructure to promote cycling and other low emission options as an alternative means of commuting and not just as a means of recreation.
Having dedicated bike lanes on roads and pop-up bicycle lanes that are separate from both pedestrians and motor vehicles are good ways to encourage alternative means of transport, not just for leisure but also for commuting. This is especially important when you consider that cycling was estimated to emit 10 times less emissions than electric cars by a recent study. In fact, the study also found that the average person who shifted from car to bike for just one week, one day a week, cut their carbon footprint by 3.2 kilos of carbon dioxide, equivalent to the emissions from driving a car for 10 kilometres, eating a serving of red meat or chocolate or sending 800 emails.
With this in mind, I would like to call for the Government to allow Sengkang to lead the charge in becoming one of the first towns to fully embrace a cycling culture, with a dense network of cycling paths and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure. I believe that the compact nature of our estate and the large number of residents who cycle in Sengkang, whether for leisure, commuting or as delivery riders, make it a good place to trial our move towards more active travel and mobility options. The younger population's high reliance on delivery services and proximity to bike networks, such as the Punggol Waterway Park and Sengkang Riverside Park, makes the estate an ideal candidate for a concerted push towards being a truly bike- and pedestrian-friendly town. Sengkang can and should be a model for how Singapore can move towards sustainable mobility.
We can even go further by considering repurposing car lanes into bike lanes. This is a tried-and-tested approach from cities, such as Taipei, Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Canberra. A more considerate road design that embraces bicycles and even PMDs can also address matters of road safety, which is the subject of some of the changes to the RTA Bill that was also debated earlier today. If we make it easier for all road users to use pathways and roads safely together, it would naturally engender safer road behaviour.
To address concerns raised about active mobility options in Singapore's climate, we should also ensure coordination with BCA and other authorities. While I note that BCA's Green Mark gives a point for buildings that provide sheltered bicycle lots, adequate facilities like showers and changing rooms, can we go a step further to eventually make such on-site end-of-trip features mandatory for new and renovated office spaces?
Additionally, we could provide additional tax breaks for buildings which provide such facilities by having a green tax relief scheme. These measures would definitely further encourage active mobility commuting.
In conclusion, while we understand the Bill's intent, we need to ensure our EV infrastructure is developed in an equitable and sustainable way and that it is not the only focus of a sustainable transport plan. We must think ahead and also innovatively to ensure we focus our minds towards fulfilling our commitment to a green Singapore – promoting health and improving transportation. I support the Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, this is a short Bill with just three clauses. Brief as it may be, it is an important Bill. It enshrines within LTA’s remit the important duties of promoting, regulating, standardising and otherwise facilitating the use of EVs.
I have two points of clarification on how LTA will carry out its duties.
My first point of clarification is about motorcycles. Electric motorcycles are better than petrol motorcycles in just about every important way. They emit far less air pollutants and greenhouse gases than gas-powered motorcycles. This means less environmental damage and less health problems for riders and pedestrians. They are also far quieter, something anyone who has lived remotely near a road will appreciate.
These benefits are not lost on our neighbours in Asia. Tokyo and Taiwan have both announced that they would ban sales of petrol motorcycles by 2035. In Indonesia, the private sector is taking the lead. Gojek will convert its massive fleet of green \"ojeks\" or motorcycle taxis into EVs by 2030. Grab is also launching smaller scale pilots.
By contrast, neither the private nor public sector in Singapore has shone a clear light on the future of motorcycles here. NEA announced just last month that it will tighten vehicle noise and emission standards for motorcycles. I applaud this move. In the same spirit, we can take bolder steps towards adoption of electric motorcycles.
In March 2020, we did take a small step of allowing high-powered electric motorcycles on our roads. By the end of the year, a grand total of one electric motorcycle was registered, compared to 140,000 petrol motorcycles.
There are obstacles outside our control. Prices remain high as production has not yet reached a critical mass. But the industry is moving quickly. Honda, the world’s largest motorcycle manufacturer, announced just last month plans for four new models of electric motorcycles, three of which will be released by 2024.
Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share the Ministry’s plans to address the cost of electric motorcycles? For instance, will the Ministry consider supporting partnerships between international manufacturers, local dealerships and logistics firms to trial the use of electric motorcycles at low costs? SMRT has already taken some steps in this direction.
Will the Ministry also consider the EV Early Adoption Incentive to also include electric motorcycles?
We must also work on infrastructure. Will the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share if the 60,000 EV charging points to be built across the island are compatible and convenient for not only electric cars but also electric motorcycles?
Just as important, we must work on a vision. On electric cars, taxis and buses, we have spoken loudly; motorcycles need that same clarity. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share where the Ministry sees motorcycles in 2030 or 2035? Will we aim to keep the same gas-guzzling, smog-spouting models on the road, or will we look to sunset them? A clear Government vision can steer and accelerate private initiatives.
My second point is about charging points in condominiums. This Bill proposes that LTA and EMA’s remit include facilitating the development of accessible charging points. Can the Ministry share what plans it has to collaborate with EMA and BCA to expand the construction of charging points in condominiums?
Sixteen percent of our households live in condominiums, based on 2020 data. That is 220,000 households. A fair proportion of these people likely drive cars, can afford EVs and are more likely to be early adopters. But they simply will not buy an EV if they cannot get a charging point built where they live.
My colleague Member of Parliament Gan Thiam Poh made a similar point during our Climate Change Motion earlier this year. Since then, CNA has written an article containing interviews and research, detailing just how difficult and slow the installation of charging points in condominiums has been.
Options are available. A softer approach is to help condominium AGMs come to an agreement by providing best practices. This is a suggestion from our former colleague, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira. A firmer approach is to mandate the installation of charging points in condominiums, as Member Gan Thiam Poh recommended. An intermediate approach could be a \"Right to Charge\" law. Ontario, Canada’s largest province, introduced a regulation requiring condominium associations to install EV charging points as long as a resident makes a reasonable request.
Alternatively, the Government can provide rebates and professional services for installing charging locations within condominiums. This is done in the Canadian province of British Columbia.
There are many things the Government can do. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify what steps are being taken to make progress on this issue? Madam, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. Since I started my engineering career as an automotive engineer 15 years ago, I have seen many changes in the industry. Given that vehicles contribute to 50% of carbon emissions, this industry has been continuously looking for ways to make cars more fuel-efficient while also reducing greenhouse emissions. It was getting harder and more expensive to do so as we were pushing the limits of science for internal combustion engines, or ICE.
The industry was in a flux as it searched for the right technology platform for the future of transportation. We tried to squeeze as much energy from each drop of fuel. We ventured into biodiesel fuels from soya beans and canola which had the effect of increasing the price of this food source instead.
The industry also explored hybrid propulsion systems and hydrogen fuel cells. In the past five to eight years, the industry has landed on electric propulsion as the way forward and it is a very credible replacement for internal combustion engines.
The technology for EV is already available. There are some who are of the opinion that we in Singapore are not moving fast enough to transit fully into an entirely EV population. However, to transit successfully into an entirely EV population requires more than just technological advancement. It also requires the right policies and regulations to ensure the safe use of the EVs. It also necessitates that our infrastructure is adequately prepared to support the EV population. Hence, while I am supportive of this Bill, I would like to pose a few clarifications for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary.
Firstly, in LTA’s role of promoting and regulating the safe use of vehicles, given new technologies and nascent safety standards on EVs, how do we determine what is safe for our roads and how do we deal with after-market modifications that may jeopardise other road users?
In addition, we must also consider that other than the traditional automotive manufacturers, more new players are coming into the market; some are not traditional automotive manufacturers. How do we ensure safety standards are met with each new propulsion system or manufacturer?
To be able to promote and regulate the safe use of EVs, we need to be able to understand these new technologies. This requires a different skillset from what we have today. Engineers in regulatory roles will need to understand EVs to ensure their safe use. There is a need to recruit or upskill/reskill talents in the automotive industry. Engineers in our LTA need to understand battery technology, safe practices for discharging of batteries and electrical infrastructure to be able to regulate the safe use of these EVs.
New technologies are also challenging the norms. Hence, to regulate the safe use of the EVs, our officers must have the right skillset to understand and decide the appropriateness of these new technologies in order to ensure its safe use on our roads.
Examples of new technologies include self-driving vehicles. We need to understand the system, failure rate, redundancy system to understand how it all works so that we can decide on the regulations. Which system, whose system is safe for use on our roads? In addition, crashes involving self-driven vehicles or driver-assisted aids, who is to be blamed? The driver or the manufacturer? How do we regulate the insurance of such vehicles?
For development in the braking systems – brake by wire, regenerative braking and driver-assisted braking introduces complexity to the normal hydraulic mechanical brake systems commonly used now. What is a safe system? How do we define what is safe?
EVs are also extremely quick. As they are propelled by electric motors, torque comes instantly at low rpms – and this is known as instant torque. This gives immense acceleration for an EV. An entry level Model 3 Tesla does zero to 100 kilometres per hour in five seconds. That is as fast as some high-end performance cars. Even an entry level city car like the Hyundai Ionic does zero to 100 in 7.7 seconds, which is about twice as quick in acceleration as compared to a Toyota Corolla five years ago. The Tesla Semi Truck, a semi truck that is capable of carrying heavy goods, unladen, can accelerate from zero to 100 in five seconds and the world's fastest production bike accelerates from zero to 100 in two seconds.
In Singapore, as it is, accidents involving heavy vehicles continue to be high and the number of motorcyclist fatalities continue to be more than 50 a year. Hence, how are we going to be able to keep our roads safe when we will have more of these high-performance vehicles silently plying through our roads?
In addition, how do we manage modifications that are now available for the EVs. Currently, it is a lot easier to enforce illegal modifications on internal combustion engine cars. Changing a straight-through exhaust, bigger turbochargers, uprated fuel injectors can be seen by the naked eye. Not only can the illegal modification be seen, they often can be heard, with frequent complaints to Members of Parliament.
Modifications to the electrical propulsion system though are done through new electronic control units, new software, which are not immediately visually detectable nor can it be heard by our law enforcement officers. For example, a modified Tesla Model 3 can shave off two seconds of its zero to 100 kilometres per hour pace through modifications and all of this is available on the Internet.
Will these modifications increase the risk of battery fires? What will happen if these battery fires cause a larger fire in a cluster of vehicles at the carpark? How do we prevent illegal modifications that make it unsafe for fellow road users?
Imagine our roads becoming more populated with these powerful vehicles that make little or no sound.
Hence, though I am fully supportive of this Bill positioning LTA as the governing body to regulate the safe use of EVs, I would like to caution that this does not represent an incremental change where we can rely solely on the knowledge of the past and our experiences. EVs are a disruptive technology that will fundamentally change the automotive industry and we too must be prepared to relook at how we fundamentally manage the safe use of such vehicles.
As it is within the responsibility of LTA to regulate the safe use of these vehicles, it is imperative that the officers in the Ministry are equipped with the right knowledge to address this new technology and be able to approach the policies for the adoption of EVs from a holistic perspective.
There are now a few technical and diploma courses, such as that offered by Singapore Motor Workshop Association Training Academy and Ngee Ann Polytechnic, but more must be done to increase the expertise in these fields in preparation for an entirely EV population. One option is to use this as an opportunity to upskill and retrain more individuals from other industries, such as in the aerospace and oil and gas industries, to be proficient in the EV industries.
Beyond safety regulations and enforcement, I am fully supportive of the amendments to the Bill for LTA to cooperate and collaborate with EMA relating to the electrical installation for the charging of EVs.
Based on our population of 980,000 vehicles, our target of 60,000 charging stations by 2030 will mean that there is one charging station for every 16.3 vehicles. By then, what is LTA’s projection of EVs on our roads?
To understand the adequacy of charging stations better, we also need to understand the capability of the charging stations. How many of the charging stations will be fast charge or slow charge? Based on the volume and mix of charging stations, is one station for every 16.3 vehicles sufficient? How are we studying concentration spots?
Based on preliminary assessment on volume and type of charges, do we have enough power in the power grid from clean sources? Do we need more power stations or substations? How will this cost be distributed? What are the maintenance requirements of these chargers? Will maintenance be borne by LTA under an umbrella road tax payment or maintenance will be borne by users, in addition to the electricity cost? Or do we pay a small amount for the charger maintenance or do we pay maintenance through the Town Council on a monthly basis?
As there are already 1,800 charging stations and BlueSG is one of the main players for rental of EVs, what lessons can we learn from BlueSG with its current fleet of vehicles and 1,800 chargers?
How is LTA working closely with MND on the Electrical Load Upgrading (ELU) projects in housing estates? When ELU was started in 2014, it was to accommodate the increased electricity consumption in our homes due to the increased use of TVs, PCs, tablets and air-conditioners. Houses built before the 1990s need to have their 30-amp switch upgraded to a 40-amp switch, and has ELU now factored in the increased electrical load brought about by the charging stations in our estates? Can we ensure that this is done concurrently with the ELU programme in our older estates? Mdm Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] EVs are called a disruptive technology. Therefore, we need to acquire new skillsets to understand how we can use EVs safely. Our goal of achieving an entirely EV population by 2040 requires a significant change in the way we manage vehicles, while ensuring that our infrastructure is adequate to accommodate these vehicles.
Besides working with EMA, LTA also needs to work hand in hand with HDB to ensure that the growth of infrastructure matches the growth rate of EVs. There should be sufficient charging stations to fully support the number of EVs in the near future.
A clarification is also required on how the usage of such infrastructure will be charged. Is it through a road tax system that encompasses everything or pay-per-use?
(In English): In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, though EVs pose significant opportunities, we must be aware of the significant changes that they will bring and we must be able to adapt quickly to ensure the safe use of EVs. Notwithstanding the above, I support the Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mdm Deputy Speaker, whenever new technologies are introduced in Singapore, they are met with both excitement at the unprecedented impact that they will bring about as well as the fear of the unknown and the unfamiliar.
Taking steps towards a low-carbon future will necessarily involve the uptake of low emission vehicles in Singapore and we are encouraged to see that the Government has safety as their primary concern when it comes to the development of the EV eco-system in Singapore, assuaging the concerns of many Singaporeans.
When it comes to confronting the ever-advancing technological revolution in Singapore, this is not our taxi drivers' first rodeo. Before the 1980s, taxis did not even run on digital metres we are now familiar with but had analogue metres hooked up to speedometers that calculated our fares. In 2006, our taxi drivers had to begin learning how to use the new NETS terminals installed in their vehicles.
Fast forward to today, fares are calculated with algorithms on ride hailing applications, payment transactions are completed virtually without any effort needed by passengers.
Our taxi drivers have also cooperated with evolving vehicle policies and we have taxi drivers going on diesel, petrol, compressed natural gas (CNG), petrol-electric hybrids and even blue diesel vehicles.
Our taxi drivers have seen us through generations of technological advancements, proven capable of relentless adaptation and evolution, and we intend to continue to bring them along for this journey. However, the route that we take in developing our EV eco-system in Singapore will determine whether our taxi drivers can face up to the challenge or will be phased out by the measures taken.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, during the Budget debate, I had talked about the plight of our taxi drivers and private hire drivers: they are hit with a double whammy of low street hails, having to drive aimlessly around, wasting fuel and time, and having to deal with petrol tax hikes.
Every policy-maker has two weapons in their arsenal: the carrot and the stick. It is the acumen of and credit to the policy-maker for knowing when to present the carrot and when to brandish the stick.
With the development of an EV eco-system in Singapore and with grand ambitions potentially for EVs to completely replace internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles in Singapore by 2040, I understand the enthusiasm with which we might want to see drivers make the complete switch to electric. However, it must be asked, surely, with 20 years to the finishing line, we certainly do not want our drivers worn out before they get there.
It is important that I raise such concerns, with a push for going electric often coming hand in hand with discouragements towards the use of ICE vehicles. Surely, in decades to come, we will see exorbitant petrol prices as the norm or even zero emission zones out of bounds for ICE vehicles. But ushering these policies in an over-zealous fashion now will only pile on the troubles for our drivers.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, I cannot stress enough that even as we make headway in the development of Singapore's EV eco-system, it is of paramount importance that taxi and private hire drivers do not fall through the cracks and, in fact, they must be especially supported. Whatever cost we seek to transfer to vehicle owners and drivers in Singapore, they cannot be equally borne by our taxi and private hire drivers.
Bear with my analogy. Just as some people cook for a living, some also cook as a hobby. Should the prices of ingredients shoot up, those who do it as a hobby can and might just stop cooking. But what is there to do for those who do it as a living?
If to complement the development of Singapore's EV eco-system, we put in higher barriers for non-taxi and private hire drivers, maybe they will actually think twice about purchasing an ICE vehicle or only drive when it is necessary. These considerations are, in fact, invalid for point-to-point (P2P) drivers.
There must be a better way. If we can promise our taxi and private hire drivers that the onset of EV does not threaten their rice bowl, they will surely support and embrace the new technology. After all, our drivers have been very supportive of all our national campaigns and agenda, from getting swabbed to going for vaccinations and being very responsible front-liners supporting Singapore as we emerge from COVID-19.
I would like to bring up the additional considerations surrounding charging stations. With 40,000 reported active drivers in 2020 and with drivers driving around 300 kilometres a day, our drivers seek assurance that charging capabilities will stand the test of the P2P driving industry with the complete shift to electric.
Any lapses in charging infrastructure – be it unexpected charging station breakdowns or the unavailability of charging stations – can compromise an entire shift or even an entire day's work. In addition, for many drivers, their vehicles are optimised for use 24 hours a day with partnerships between day and night drivers or main and relief drivers. As it is, there is a lack of clarity with the availability of fast-charging points and the economic balance of having vehicles rested in a typical eight-hour charging cycle.
How would this impact the existing partnerships between drivers? How would this impact rental fees and the P2P business model? These considerations must be tightly watched and implemented with the interest of our drivers' livelihoods as a priority.
It is imperative then for our Government to work closely with taxi companies and ride hailing platforms to work out the implications of policies and infrastructure that accompany the electric push in Singapore. These concerns notwithstanding, I support the Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.
Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, the transition away from internal combustion engine vehicles to EVs is a key initiative under the Singapore Green Plan 2030. If we are honest with ourselves, Singapore is a little slow on the mark with EVs – with adoption rates around 0.2% versus more than 10% in cities like London and Berlin and only some 2,000-plus EV chargers in the market.
The EV eco-system is a complex one with multiple stakeholders and EV is also what we call a two-sided platform. There is a need to grow both EVs and charging infrastructure in sync to truly drive adoption.
As shown in other cities like Beijing, Berlin and London, the public sector plays a key role to get to the inflexion point where the industry has a minimum viable scale to take off, whether it is in mandating subsidies or actually setting up state-owned entities to coordinate the efforts of built charging infrastructure.
There are many strategies but what is clear is that the public sector plays the key role.
The amendments proposed in the Bill gives LTA the clear mandate to drive the promotion and regulation of EVs and the development of EV charging infrastructure as well as standards. I support the Bill as I believe it will enable Singapore to accelerate the adoption of EVs and catalyse a vibrant EV eco-system while not losing sight of the bigger ambition of moving to a car-lite society.
Notwithstanding, I would like to ask for a few clarifications.
First, the proposed subsection 4 in section 6 of the Act defines an EV as a vehicle that is propelled wholly or partly by electricity, whether or not it could be self-driving. As the EV space is still evolving, I would like to ask if this includes plug-in hybrids as well as hydrogen-fuelled vehicles.
Second, the amendment to subsection 1 of section 6 gives LTA the decision rights to set standards for charging devices and equipment in order to protect public safety. But beyond protecting safety, should there also be a clear vision to take a customer-centred approach to make it seamless for the consumers, including ensuring inter-operability, which will require tight mandates and regulations for grid operators and charging point operators as well as back-end systems that allow facilitation of transactions and adjustments between charge point operators (CPOs) and grid operators?
Third, subsidies have been used in other markets to promote EVs – both demand and supply side subsidies. Beyond charging infrastructure, investments will also be needed to finance good upgrades as well as land use changes. Can the Ministry elaborate on how subsidies will play a role in the development of the industry here?
Four, beyond LTA and EMA, many other Government agencies will be involved – such as HDB, URA, to name a few – as well as the private sector. One area to pay attention to is the use of data to unlock value not only for the EV market and industry development but also for other national development objectives. A robust data framework and a mix of incentives and regulations should also be a key area of focus upfront.
Lastly, in recent years, others in the region, like Indonesia and Thailand, have clinched investments from EV automakers and battery makers – so have we with the Hyundai plant. Beyond facilitating the establishment of EV and EV charging infrastructure in Singapore, I would like to ask if there are plans to think about EV as a sector to grow and to develop technology and manufacturing capabilities that can be exported. Notwithstanding the above clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Madam, I support this amendment Bill, which is necessary to prepare for the greater adoption of EVs on our roads within the next few years.
I would like to firstly emphasise that although EVs will help reduce emissions that contribute to climate change and pollution, we have to be mindful that there is a price to pay for any demand for energy, including the impact upon our local and global environment. Hence, as much as possible, we should use public transport and continue to invest in a good public transportation system.
I believe this will not be the only amendment Bill in view of the rapid changes and advancement of technology in the EV sector which is taking place even as we speak. While we are now looking at the installation of charging stations, there are breakthroughs in battery swapping technology, which can be done within 10 minutes or fewer, as well as fast-charging technology. Nonetheless, I agree that we cannot afford to wait to see what would be the best charging technology to adopt as we need to proceed with the installation of charging points island-wide.
We need to encourage private investments in the EV charging technology and the use of the latest innovations. How would the Ministry encourage more local and foreign investments in this industry? How can we ensure more private investments which can help promote the use of EVs with fast-charging technology and the building of multiple charging points from a single source in all our public and private carparks?
As the prices of EVs come down, they will provide an equally attractive, if not cheaper and cost-effective mode of transport. The eradication of carbon emissions and thus less need for maintenance are additional advantages. How would the Ministry ensure standard adoption and enforcement of safety measures?
I have some concerns about the additional demands on our power grid and, in a way, a loss of diversification in terms of energy sourcing for vehicles. Allow me to explain.
In the unfortunate event of a blackout, presently, most vehicles can continue to move around on our roads since they are powered by petrol and diesel. When most cars are powered by electricity, the impact of a blackout will be much heavier. Would the Ministry share with us how we can prevent and mitigate the impact of such an event?
Finally, we have to study how we will recycle EV batteries properly. They should not be another waste to contaminate our fragile planet. What are the Ministry's plans for these batteries at the end of their life cycles?
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng.
Mr Baey Yam Keng: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank Members for their support of the Bill. They have also raised issues on EV charger regulation and other EV-related topics, which are important as EVs become increasingly common.
To clarify, for the purposes of this Bill, the definition of EV includes battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid vehicles but excludes other types of hybrid vehicles that cannot be recharged by plugging in to an external source of electrical power.
First, on electrical safety. Safety must be of priority in all aspects of EV use and charging. That is why we abide by stringent safety standards.
For example, LTA mandates that the electric powertrain of EVs must meet requirements in the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulations. I would like to assure Mr Sharael Taha that we have strict laws to enforce against illegal modifications which are detected either through on-the-road enforcement or periodic vehicle inspections.
For software that governs EV performance, such as motor power output and batteries, we will need to work with EV manufacturers to explore ways to guard against illegal modifications.
EV charging systems are governed by Technical Reference 25, or TR25, which is based on global standards set by organisations like the International Electrotechnical Commission. TR25 is tailored to our warm and humid weather conditions and guards against safety hazards like overheating or electrocution.
Every review of TR25 is a consultative process involving industry stakeholders, academics and Government agencies. This ensures that TR25 supports innovation in EV charging technology, while ensuring public safety. Licensed electrical workers are required to ensure, and only install, EV chargers that are TR25 compliant. It is an offence under the Electricity Act to tamper with electrical installations, which include fixed EV chargers. Mr Saktiandi Supaat can be assured that these requirements will remain in place, regardless of the agency in charge of regulating EV chargers.
Second, on incentives for electric motorcycles. Mr Louis Ng asked about the Ministry's plans to promote adoption of electric motorcycles. As he pointed out, there are some barriers to electric motorcycle adoption today that are beyond our control. Globally, there are not many electric motorcycle models, compared to electric cars. Many motorcycle dealers and distributors have also not adjusted to the electric motorcycle market yet. Therefore, we have not included motorcycles in our 2030 cleaner energy target on new registrations at the moment.
As the global market for electric motorcycle matures, we should see more offerings for consumers. We will continue to monitor such trends and consider suitable measures to encourage adoption if necessary. At the same time, we will look into providing for the charging needs of vehicles like electric motorcycles and goods vehicles, as part of our charger deployment plans. We will also not rule out battery swapping for motorcycles.
Third, on available grid capacity to support EVs. EMA and LTA are working with local researchers to study the long-term electrical infrastructure needs for EV charging in Singapore. Preliminary findings show that we may require some upgrades at various levels, including the consumer intake substations, the distribution grid network, as well as power generation. The Minister for Transport earlier mentioned that if our light vehicles switch to EVs and most EV owners charge around the same time of the day, we may need to add one or two new 600-megawatt electricity generating units in our power generation system. This amounts to around 8% to 16% of the current overall peak electricity demand in Singapore.
The required upgrades will be implemented over the next two decades as we survey our grid and gather insights on charging behaviour. Agencies plan upgrades by catering for a capacity buffer to insure against unanticipated consumption growth. This will ensure that the electricity grid remains stable, as substations are unlikely to exceed capacity due to EV charging.
Fourth, on charger deployment. We have announced our plan to roll out 40,000 charging points at our public carparks by 2030. This is a major undertaking which will necessarily involve some electrical infrastructure upgrades, and LTA has launched a Request-for-Information to consult the industry on how best to structure private sector involvement in the funding of these upgrades. Input from this exercise will also inform the design and use of carpark lots for charging, including issues that Mr Dennis Tan had mentioned.
As Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms Janet Ang pointed out, agencies will need to work closely together on the national charger deployment plan. We already see this close cooperation among agencies in the pilot charging point tender issued in November 2020, covering multiple carparks owned by different agencies.
Another example, as mentioned by Mr Sharael Taha, is how LTA is working with HDB to incorporate EV charging demand into the upgrading of substations in older estates, under HDB's Electrical Load Upgrading Programme. Going forward, the National EV Centre under LTA will coordinate and drive close collaboration among agencies, including URA, EMA and HDB, to deploy chargers. We will also explore supporting regulations on data use, which Ms Mariam Jaafar has suggested.
I am glad that Mr Louis Ng and Ms Janet Ang raised the role of private development owners in the deployment of EV charging points. That includes Mr Dennis Tan as well. Indeed, we target 20,000 charging points to be deployed at private premises by 2030. To kick this off, we will launch the EV Common Charger Grant in July, to defray charger installation costs in non-landed private residences, such as condominiums. We will need to engage stakeholders, such as MCSTs, managing agents and charging operators, to see if we can do more. But more importantly, the economics must work. Users must find it more worthwhile to drive an EV compared to an internal combustion engine vehicle, so that vendors will enter the market.
Fifth, on charger availability. Beyond charger deployment, the issue of charging anxiety raised by Ms Ng Ling Ling can be addressed by maximising access to chargers as far as possible through a mix of smart charging solutions and advance booking features. To respond to Mr Gan Thiam Poh, our charger deployment tenders will also incorporate innovations in charging technology where feasible. More importantly, as Ms Janet Ang rightly pointed out, developing good social norms is also essential to discourage behaviour like lot hogging by cars that do not need charging. As Mr Dennis Tan mentioned, there are pricing schemes to discourage such behaviour, such as time-based pricing for an EV that is already fully charged.
We agree with Ms Yeo Wan Ling that point-to-point transport (P2P) drivers have specific charging needs which need to be met as they transit to EVs. We are working closely with P2P transport operators to facilitate their efforts to develop charging infrastructure for their fleets. P2P drivers can also tap on the growing network of fast chargers island-wide.
Sixth, on the disposal and recycling of used EV batteries, an issue which Mr Leon Perera raised. From July this year, the National Environment Agency, or NEA, will implement an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme to ensure the proper treatment and recycling of regulated electrical and electronic waste. This includes EV batteries. Under the scheme, producers of EV batteries are responsible for the proper treatment of the batteries when they reach end-of-life. NEA has also appointed an operator to collect consumer EV batteries on behalf of the producers. All collected EV batteries are to be sent for proper treatment with licensed e-waste recyclers.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, I am heartened that Members are enthusiastic about the benefits of EVs and greener modes of transport in general like public transport and cycling. Some of these ideas are beyond the scope of this Bill. Today's Bill to assign LTA statutory functions on EV and EV infrastructure is a strong commitment to the transition to cleaner energy vehicles, but it is only the first step. Building on this, we will introduce further legislation in due course, such as the registration of EV chargers and charger provision requirement for new buildings. Nevertheless, we will study and, where possible, incorporate the many useful ideas and also address the concerns raised by Members today.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, it is important to build a healthy and vibrant EV eco-system in Singapore. The Government will do this in partnership with industry and public stakeholders. In particular, echoing what Ms Janet Ang said, there is much economic value offered by the EV industry. We are working with relevant economic agencies to anchor high value R&D activities and develop related industries, such as charging systems and automotive manufacturing, to establish an EV eco-system. As highlighted by Mr Sharael Taha, our workforce, especially our technicians and mechanics, will need to be equipped with the necessary skills to transit into future job opportunities. We are working closely with a wide variety of stakeholders on this: unions, trade associations, companies, Institutes of Higher Learning and skills development agencies.
Through our combined efforts, I look forward to making a safe transition to EVs and a greener, more sustainable living environment. Mdm Deputy 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. – [Mr Baey Yam Keng]. (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":"COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment No 3) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Madam, I will first set the context for this urgent Bill before going through its key features. I thank Members for your patience this evening.
Our construction industry continues to face significant headwinds due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
While most construction work has resumed since August last year, the inflow of migrant workers who form the main bulk of the workforce has remained constrained due to the global impact of the pandemic.
We have recently tightened our border control measures with a number of countries, including Bangladesh and India, which are our main sources of construction Work Permit holders. While this was necessary to safeguard public health, it has made the shortage of manpower in the sector even more severe.
Compared to pre-COVID-19 levels, the number of construction Work Permit holders has dropped by about 15%, and the number is projected to fall in the months ahead given the on-going COVID-19 situation.
In tandem, construction manpower costs have been rising. Based on MOM's data on construction Work Permit holder salaries, median wages in March this year were 15% to 30% higher compared to pre-COVID-19 levels due to competition for the limited supply of workers within the sector. This has affected both new as well as on-going projects.
We have also implemented various Safe Management Measures to keep workers safe and reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission. These are important public health precautions, but they also inevitably impact productivity. This, together with the on-going manpower shortage, has, unfortunately, led to project delays.
For example, we had previously shared that more than eight in 10 of on-going HDB BTO projects have been delayed by about six to nine months beyond the Estimated Completion Dates originally indicated to flat owners during project launches. Barring any unforeseen circumstances, we are expecting a further delay of three months, arising from the recent border measures. We are faced with a difficult balancing act – the more we need to tighten border measures for everyone’s safety, the greater the impact will be on construction timelines, on projects and on home buyers.
We had, therefore, intervened significantly since last year to assist the many stakeholders across the value chain that have been affected by rising costs and delays. Let me outline some of these.
For construction firms, we introduced a $1.36 billion Construction Support Package last year to help our contractors bear part of the additional costs they had to incur due to construction delays and Safe Management Measures. We had also assisted firms with Foreign Worker Levy rebates and waivers, as well as wage subsidies via the Jobs Support Scheme or JSS, to relieve some of their burden from manpower costs and help keep local jobs. Under Part 8 of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act (COTMA), we established a mechanism for firms to seek relief from additional rental costs that are incurred due to construction delays caused by COVID-19. And under Parts 8A and 8B of COTMA, we legislated a universal extension of time of four months and mandated the sharing of non-manpower prolongation costs between project parties.
For developers, we had earlier provided a 12-month extension of the Project Completion Period and Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty remission timelines for completion, to account for delays due to COVID-19. Part 8C of COTMA will also allow developers whose projects face construction delays to seek relief on the date of delivery of possession.
For home buyers, Part 2 of COTMA prohibits developers from withholding or forfeiting any part of the booking fee paid by home buyers under the Option to Purchase during the relief period, or terminating agreements for sale and purchase of the property because the home buyer was not able to make payment. We also capped the late payment interest and charges under agreements for sale and purchase of property, to protect home buyers. In addition, under Part 8C of COTMA, where the developer has extended the delivery date, home buyers may also seek reimbursement from the developer, up to a specified cap, if they incur certain out-of-pocket expenses due to a delay in delivery of the unit by the developer. For HDB flat buyers, HDB has been progressively updating home buyers who have been affected, on the revised completion dates. For those who are unable to make alternative housing arrangements, HDB has assisted them with Interim Rental Housing flats.
Now, the manpower situation will be further exacerbated by the recent tightening of our border measures with Bangladesh, India and other countries. As both Ministers Lawrence Wong and Gan Kim Yong have explained earlier today, we have to tighten our border controls to better protect Singapore from heightened COVID-19 risks. And we should expect these stringent measures to be in place for some time, given the worsening situation overseas.
In response, we have recently announced more support measures to help the construction industry.
First, we have granted an additional 49-day Extension of Time (EOT) for eligible public sector construction projects, on top of the 122 days or four months of EOT already provided under COTMA last year on a universal basis. This gives contractors more time to complete their projects.
Second, contractors working on eligible public sector projects with an awarded contract sum of up to $100 million will receive 0.1% of their awarded contract sum for every month of delay as payment for non-manpower related qualifying costs under COTMA. There is no need to provide further detailed substantiation for their claims.
Third, we have increased the existing Foreign Worker Levy rebates for Work Permit holders from $90 per worker per month to $250 per worker per month, for the period May to December 2021. Measures such as these will help firms to cope. But the crux of the current problem is limited inflow of workers.
Hence, fourth, we will temporarily allow new PRC construction Work Permit holders to enter Singapore to work first and take their skills certification tests locally, instead of in China. This will allow firms to continue bringing in workers for their projects even though some Chinese Overseas Training Centres had halted operations due to the pandemic.
In addition, we have been proactively working with industry associations and firms to explore other ways to resume the inflow of construction Work Permit holders from other source countries safely. We will continue to work with them on additional measures to help alleviate the tight labour situation.
In January this year, we had also set up a task force, led by BCA and comprising Government agencies, consultants, as well as trade and professional associations representing developers, contractors, quantity surveyors and architects. The task force is studying how to enhance our standard construction procurement contracts in both the public and the private sectors to mitigate the impact of the current pandemic as well as future crises. For example, we have received feedback that contractors have been buffering for risks in their current tender bids for uncertainty, which has resulted in an increase in tender prices for new contracts. This is understandable as they are worried about unanticipated cost increases due to unexpected developments, twists and turns, during the course of the pandemic.
Our new construction contracts ought to enable more equitable risk and cost sharing during pandemic events and crises of this nature. Everyone along the value chain will need to step up and share the burden of uncertainty and help one another get through these challenging times together.
At the same time, there is still a need to provide support for existing construction projects, where parties may not have adequately priced in the unexpected increase in foreign manpower costs. That is why we are introducing the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment No 3) Bill this evening.
The Bill seeks to facilitate sharing of the increase in foreign manpower costs between project parties. This is to ensure that no one single stakeholder group in the construction industry bears a disproportionate share of the burden imposed by COVID-19.
Let me now take Members through the key features of this Bill.
Clause 3 of the Bill introduces a new Part 10A to COTMA. This provides a relief framework that will allow parties, such as contractors, to apply to adjust the contract sum for their projects, to take into account increases in foreign manpower cost due to COVID-19.
The new section 79B defines the scope of the contracts covered by this framework.
First, it will apply to contracts for construction works. These are contracts of longer duration that generally involve structural works and are most likely to be affected by the foreign manpower crunch.
Second, it will apply to construction contracts entered into before 1 October 2020. Parties may not have fully priced in foreign manpower cost increases before this date, as there had been substantial Foreign Worker Levy waivers and rebates provided by the Government up to that point.
And third, it excludes contracts that have been completed or terminated.
The new section 79C sets out the scope of the relief. This specifies the period subject to relief, which will be from 1 October 2020 to 30 September 2021, or any extended date as may be prescribed, to tie in with the current end points of relief periods under Part 2 and Part 8B of the Act. It also makes clear that the purpose of the adjustment is to take into consideration the increasing foreign manpower costs of Work Permit holders incurred due to COVID-19 during the relief period.
Additionally, it states that a party must have made a reasonable attempt to negotiate a contract sum adjustment with the other party, before he can apply for an Assessor to determine the adjustment.
This is an important point. Construction projects involve many parties, often in long interlocking contractual value chains, and if one goes down, the entire project may be put at risk. Moreover, many of the developers and contractors in the construction sector have long-term relationships. At the end of the day, all stakeholders are part of the same built environment eco-system and, on a project, all parties seek to deliver on that project. And for this eco-system to thrive and grow, stakeholders need to step up to help one another during these challenging times. We encourage all parties affected by the pandemic to negotiate with each other in good faith, before triggering the adjudicatory process set out in this Bill.
We have, anecdotally, seen such \"give and take\" in the sector already. For example, some developers we know have given their contractors an extension of time beyond what had been mandated in the existing COTMA for the completion of on-going projects. Some have also provided advanced payments and increased the frequency of progress payments to aid contractors’ cashflow and to keep projects going.
The new Division 2 of the Bill sets out the processes of the relief framework.
Section 79F details how a party can apply for an adjustment to the contract sum. For example, parties who wish to seek relief must apply to the Registrar to appoint an Assessor who can then determine the adjustment.
The new section 79G explains how an Assessor will determine an adjustment. For example, the Assessor must seek to achieve an outcome that is just and equitable in the circumstances of the case.
The Assessor must also consider matters and principles that will be prescribed in the subsidiary legislation. For example, in arriving at a just and equitable decision, the Assessor should take into account all the facts, including the loss suffered or benefit obtained by any contractual party, such as levy rebates. Mdm Deputy Speaker, allow me to say a few words in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] To prevent COVID-19 from spreading and to safeguard public health, the Government has to strengthen border controls. Because of that, the construction industry is facing a very severe foreign manpower shortage. The Government has already put in place various measures to address the manpower shortage and to support construction firms. These include the recent increase in Foreign Worker Levy rebate and further extension of time for eligible public sector construction projects.
At the same time, we are aware that there is a need to provide support for existing construction contracts where parties may not have adequately priced in this unexpected increase in foreign manpower cost for their construction works.
The proposed amendments to the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act aim to allow parties, such as contractors, to apply to adjust the contract sum for their projects in view of the foreign manpower cost increases.
An assessor will examine each case and determine whether the contract sum needs to be increased. However, contractors must first try to negotiate with their clients before applying for this relief. I call upon all parties to negotiate in good faith before triggering this process.
(In English): Madam, I have spoken about many of the measures that the Government has implemented to support our construction industry through this pandemic.
But the reality is that these are just stop-gap measures to try to staunch some of the bleeding. They are not sustainable in the long run. That is why we want to work with the construction industry to press on with on-going efforts to transform the sector and accelerate the pace of change, even as we put in place measures to support the industry during these difficult times.
This latest disruption in inflow of migrant workers has shown how vulnerable the construction industry is, because of our over-reliance on low-cost migrant workers. We must build greater resilience in our sector, create more good, productive local jobs and move decisively away from manpower-intensive construction methods. We have already started this transformation some time back, with the launch of the Construction Industry Transformation Map in 2017.
At MND's Committee of Supply debate in March this year, we had announced a suite of initiatives to partner the industry in accelerating the pace of transformation.
For example, we will adopt a value chain approach to drive transformation through the new Growth and Transformation Scheme. The scheme recognises that the construction industry works through value chains. It will, therefore, support alliances of firms all along the value chain, from developers and consultants to builders and contractors. Each alliance will develop a business plan to achieve ambitious outcomes in productivity and digitalisation. This would be through the use of productive methods of construction, including Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA), and technology, such as Integrated Digital Delivery, or IDD, as well as efforts to enhance sustainability, workforce development, including the creation of local jobs, business growth and strategic collaboration.
This alliance approach seeks to uplift the entire value chain because, given the heavy interdependencies between different segments of the value chain in construction, it is difficult for any one firm to effect significant transformation entirely on its own. We plan to roll out the Growth and Transformation Scheme with a few alliances first, starting in the second half of this year.
We have also extended the Construction Productivity and Capability Fund, or CPCF, by one year until March 2022, and will maintain the enhanced co-funding support of 80% under the Productivity Innovation Project, or PIP scheme. This will support our industry in its recovery from COVID-19 and help our firms minimise disruptions to their operations by leveraging DfMA and IDD technologies and other innovative, productive processes.
In addition, we will review our foreign manpower levers for the construction sector. As previously announced, we intend to remove the Man-Year-Entitlement (MYE) framework in the near future and replace it with a system that incentivises more productive off-site work. We are also studying the reduction of the construction Dependency Ratio Ceiling, or DRC, to support more manpower-lean construction. We will continue to consult our industry partners before making any major moves.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, let me conclude. This Bill will facilitate more equitable sharing of the increase in foreign manpower costs brought about by COVID-19 amongst parties to existing contracts. Taken together with our other measures, it will help alleviate the significant stresses that the construction industry is currently facing due to the manpower crunch.
But even as we deal with these near-term challenges, we must keep our eyes on the future. We will continue to work with the industry to quicken the pace of transformation. These structural changes will be painful, but they are necessary to ensure that the industry as a whole can emerge more resilient and more productive from this crisis. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. The construction sector, like many others, has been hard hit by COVID-19. This Bill seeks to provide relief for businesses undertaking construction works under construction contracts that have been affected by a rise in foreign manpower salary costs. This is a real concern for the sector.
According to some construction bosses, even as the Government has rolled out a number of assistance schemes and levy waiver since the onset of COVID-19, the situation, especially for smaller sub-contractors, has been difficult, disruptive and, for some, even desperate. And some are at the risk of going out-of-business.
Earlier on during Question Time today, I spoke of the difficulty of securing entry passes for their foreign workers for many contractors prior to the latest spike in the COVID-19 cases, resulting in significant operational unpredictability. I asked the Second Minister for Manpower about reimbursement of IPA fees and opening up more non-traditional source countries from where foreign workers can be recruited from as a way to moderate the impact of COVID-19 on businesses in this sector.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, while the Workers' Party is supportive of the assistance this Bill will provide for the construction sector, as of now, its impact on the public is at best unclear and, at worst, could potentially be very significant for some contracting parties.
I note that this Bill will cover contracts to build residential units, including existing contracts to build HDB BTO flats. Can the Minister confirm how any adjustment in the price of HDB contracts with builders would impact home buyers? Would they be at risk of upward price adjustments?
In addition, many public sector projects would also see a hike in construction costs arising from this Bill. In the same vein, I would like to ask the Minister what this would amount to and its impact on the Government's Budget. Separately, has the Ministry considered the impact of the Bill on Town Councils and whether it would be providing assistance to them?
Madam, in my discussions with some Qualified Persons, or QPs, and consultants over the weekend, it was made known to me that a small number of contractors are citing problems with meeting project deadlines because of COVID-19 while, at the same time, tendering aggressively and securing contracts for new projects. Earlier this year, the Minister, at a seminar organised by BCA and REDAS, confirmed that construction contracts for the built environment sector are expected to grow to between $23 billion and $28 billion in 2021 as the sector recovers from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. This was up from the $21.3 billion worth of projects awarded in 2020, even as that figure fell by $10 billion owing to the pandemic.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, it would be important to note that the sector comprises construction companies of varying sizes, from big players to small-time subcontractors who could all potentially rely on this Bill for relief. To that end, it would undermine the purpose of this legislation if some companies, particularly larger ones, cite COVID-19 as a reason for higher foreign manpower costs resulting in increased cost for contracting parties or even the public, while at the same time deploying foreign manpower to start on new projects even as their contracts that predate the 1 October 2020 are allowed to proceed slowly, when they may instead be completed forthwith.
Madam, while it could be unrealistic to expect construction companies to throttle back on bidding for new projects in order to rely on the relief legislated by this Bill, I hope the Minister can acknowledge this point so that Assessors under clause 79(e) can carefully consider applications for relief made by companies holistically across all the projects undertaken and not just for the specific contract for which relief is sought.
In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, undoubtedly, the construction industry has borne a significant brunt of the COVID-19 restrictions for the past year and I support measures to help them cope. However, rewriting a contract price to one that was not initially agreed to by the parties is a drastic intervention that must be exercised with utmost care.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, the measures proposed show the Government's responsiveness in addressing the challenges facing Singapore during the pandemic. The construction industry has a significant impact on our economy. I will make three points.
First, Mdm Deputy Speaker, we need to continue to help the industry with labour costs. I would like to ask if the current Job Support Scheme (JSS), which is an important lifeline for employers, can be enhanced to help them to tide over this period.
It is good to know that the rebate for each Work Permit holder in the Construction, Marine and Process sectors will go up from $90 to $250 per month. Will the Ministry consider cutting the foreign worker levy? Labour costs have doubled. For example, I am told that the cost of employing a general worker is now $150 per day and a tiler is now $250 per day. With the current labour crunch, one can foresee staff poaching between companies, which would invariably add on to the cost.
Can the Government consider more measures to help contractors to meet their higher overheads? Will there be a further review to assist the industry?
Second is to give contractors more breathing space on their project completion schedule. Currently, workers are subject to many screening measures and movement restrictions. All these measures affect work planning and execution, quite apart from the impact on the workers' morale, many of whom are already stressed. Ultimately, contractors are facing a candle that is burning on both ends. While they are scrambling for workers, they are also facing the rising cost of raw materials, which are going up by 30% to 40%, as the projects drag on.
Third, we hope that the Ministry can get the buy-in of developers and Government agencies, to understand the difficulties faced by the construction companies. Contractors are just as anxious to get their jobs completed, as are the developers and the various Government agencies overseeing public projects.
The closure of travel from the traditional labour markets is like denying water supply to runners taking part in an endurance race in the desert. Government agencies are using the BCA template and agencies are pressing the contractors to meet their deadlines. This is almost oblivious of the dilemma facing the construction industry.
There has to be a coordinated approach to this whole problem, besides just giving financial support to contractors. These agencies managing public projects must also review their contract terms.
In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, the measures in the Bill will help solve some of these issues facing the construction industry. But we can do more. I stand in support of the Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, this third suite of proposed amendments to the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act of 2020 is aimed at providing additional flexibility for contracts pertaining to construction works affected by cost escalations resulting from delays and restrictions imposed because of COVID-19 management measures, and allows them to be renegotiated.
I wish to offer just three brief points of intervention. The first two are of a more practical nature about the scope of coverage for this set of amendments and whether there are better ways to design our labour exchange. The third point is of a more fundamental nature about the productivity, or lack thereof, in our construction industry.
First, while I understand that the construction sector has been the most severely affected by the COVID-19 restrictions and that construction projects tend to be the sort where cost projections can be most rapidly invalidated by changing conditions, one is, nevertheless, left to wonder why other sectors with large numbers of non-traditional source (NTS) workers were not included in the scope for contract renegotiation. After all, in operating our Town Councils, we are also aware of the heavy reliance of our contractors on NTS workers in our conservancy operations. Agri-tech and certain process industries also rely relatively heavily on foreign worker inflows.
While I recognise that these are comparatively smaller sectors, it is unclear why these have not been considered for additional support, even if they may be similarly afflicted. It strikes me as more sensible to allow for the coverage of these amendments to apply to all firms that are able to demonstrate harm rather than by economic sector per se.
Second, and relatedly, I am wondering about the current efforts of this Government to ease the reallocation of workers already in Singapore between firms. During the round-up speech on the previous set of amendments to the Bill, Minister of State Tan Kiat How referred to the establishment of a SCAL Construction Manpower Exchange or SCMX, meant to ease the transition of workers from one employer to the next. I fully support this idea; not least because it promotes greater efficiency, but also because it serves to further alleviate the risk of the need to constantly introduce new workers, some of whom may inadvertently harbour the virus even after serving the necessary quarantine protocols, as we have seen demonstrated in recent times.
I wonder if the Ministry would be willing to share an update first on the status of the SCMX thus far.
Ultimately, my concerns are about the success of the SCMX in practice. Employers who subsequently lose contracts may see a competitive reason to send their workers back, rather than avail them to the exchange. Indeed, in the second half of 2020, we lost some 41,500 workers due to expiring permits.
Thus, while they may well save on repatriation costs if they were to relinquish their workers, firms may feel that not releasing their NTS workers could damage their competitors' viability. And the threat of doing so may further favour their own position as incumbents since only they have a guaranteed pool of workers.
While workers may easily request a transfer at the moment as long as they have the employer's agreement between the 40th and 21st day prior to the expiry of their permit, some employers could simply choose to renew the permit first, then subsequently cancel the permit less than three weeks prior to the original end date.
Anecdotally, we have received feedback that such practices are far from uncommon. I am left to wonder if the Ministry has considered how to better refine the system.
My Aljunied GRC colleague, Mr Gerald Giam, had previously suggested to this House that workers should be permitted to request a transfer as early as the 56th day, the same time that the employer is required to renew.
Another suggestion that I am presenting today is to mandate the employers who wish to otherwise send their NTS workers home, to instead release them directly to the exchange. The Ministry can then play the role of match-maker, absorbing workers into a roster. The firm giving up workers will place their repatriation costs into an escrow account to be managed by the Ministry. These funds, net of costs for those workers who wish to be returned home, will be released to the firm if another company subsequently hires the workers. Hiring companies, in lieu of paying for the search, travel and quarantine costs of new workers, can instead be tasked with financing the short-term room and board for in-situ workers.
My third point, Mdm Deputy Speaker, concerns the construction sector in general. It is well-known that for the productivity challenges that we have faced in our economy, the construction sector has been even worse off. While some have objected to this characterisation, most observers, including reports issued by academia, policy-makers and even the industry itself, have recognised how the sector lags in terms of productivity.
The justifications have been varied: from purported low skills of workers, especially related to a large transient foreign worker pool, to inadequate project planning, to inadequate mechanisation.
One common theme runs through these many explanations. And it is simply this: with steady access to a large pool of foreign construction workers, most paid at very low wages, it is unsurprising that firms rationally choose to substitute capital with labour, and skilled workers with unskilled ones. This will go on as long as it is cheaper to bring in two or three low-cost workers to do the job of one higher skilled but undeniably more costly worker.
While one may simply argue that this reflects marginal cost calculations on the part of construction firms, this practice is, ultimately, to the detriment of more than just productivity per se. The challenges – and dare we say additional cost – of managing COVID-19 in the presence of a large low-cost foreign worker workforce reveal that there are additional costs external to each firm that are not fully accounted for when we rely on this labour-intensive model.
Moreover, by keeping wages low in this sector, there is limited incentive to rapidly scale up productivity, whether in terms of attaining modern construction skills or adopting appropriate safety-related best practices or acquiring new equipment and machinery. The result could be reduced quality of our constructed buildings – a factor not well captured by the dollars and cents reflected in project costing.
May I suggest then, Madam, that one unexpected implication of increased cost from construction is that it could, ironically, be the catalyst toward finally weaning off our sector from its low-cost, low-skilled foreigner worker model – a move so desperately needed for raising construction productivity. If so, we would do well to carefully monitor the capital-labour deployment in the industry over the next few years and, if proven efficacious for raising productivity, consider implementing measures to support high wages in this sector.
Beyond these points of caution, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I have no objections to the Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Deputy Speaker, this Bill is to provide financial relief to help our local construction companies or contractors to defray the increased migrant worker cost as a result of the further tightening of our border controls.
We empathise with the difficulties faced by our contractors who have been severely ravaged by the COVID-19 pandemic but there are also other considerations to be made before we can support this Bill.
First and foremost, who is going to pay for the financial relief?
Under the Bill, an independent assessor is appointed to assess the foreign manpower cost increase as a result of the tight migrant worker situation and the assessed cost is to be paid by the property developer, mainly. However, with the surging property market now, the property developer can easily pass on the increased cost to the property buyers, many of whom are Singaporeans. If this happens, we will be imposing another indirect tax on our people who are already suffering under the COVID-19 pandemic.
The way to prevent this is to, first, dampen the bullish sentiment in the property market. Reining in property prices is what we need to do now in order not to exacerbate the social inequality in our country.
In addition, for our people, especially the younger couples planning to start a family who are facing a housing shortage and a long Build-To-Order (BTO) queue at the moment, it would also be good policy to rein in the aggressive property purchases by foreigners.
Hence, a more appropriate solution is to increase the Additional Buyer Stamp Duty (ABSD) to reduce foreigners' demand, dampen the property market and raise revenue to pay for the financial relief for the contractors. In this way, foreigners and property developers who may have to lower prices to retain buying interest will be the ultimate payers.
The Government may also not want the contractors to sit on their laurels after the new measures kick in. The current problem is partly caused by contractors having relied on foreign labour for far too long. So, the relief assistance we give to the contractors must come with commitment from them to accelerate process redesign and automation. The Government can integrate the relief measures into the built environment sector strategy.
This is also a great opportunity to attract some of our Singaporeans to rejoin the construction sector because contractors can now pay higher wages as the wages of migrant workers have shot up significantly. But the Government has so far not taken any initiative to encourage this, as far as I know.
If the Government dares to take the bold move to make a bigger increase in the ABSD, there may even be enough additional fiscal revenue to provide for rental units for our Singaporean couples who are waiting for their BTO flats. In this way, we can also tackle another problem and, that is, maintaining our family formation rate and total fertility rate, preventing a COVID-19 gap in our future population structure, which may become another problem in the future.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, this Bill is a single objective policy. It is defeatist in a sense because we are succumbing to the effect of a migrant worker shortage, inflicting damage to our contractors and then worsening the housing shortage, which directly impact our lives.
However, this need not be the case if we are prepared to bear with short-term inconveniences to shake ourselves off the addictive reliance on foreign labour with the right policies over time.
If we increase the ABSD, restricting the number of migrant workers will not worsen livelihoods that much. Instead, our contractors will have more time to adjust to a new supply chain and may increase employment of our local workers. Our young Singaporean couples get their rental flats and all these, paid by the foreign buyers of our local properties. Mdm Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] \tMdm Deputy Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to provide financial assistance to help local construction companies and contractors pay for the increase in wage costs incurred as a result of the further tightening of foreign workers coming into Singapore. We sympathise with the difficulties faced by our contractors, who have been severely affected by the pandemic, but there are other issues to be considered before we support this Bill.
\t
\tFirst, and most importantly, who will pay for this financial relief? According to the Bill, an independent assessor will be appointed to assess the increase in the cost of foreign workers due to the tightening of the foreign labour market, and the assessed cost will be borne by the developers. However, with the current surge in property prices, it will be easy for developers to pass on the increased cost to buyers, many of whom are Singaporeans. If this happens, it will be equivalent to an additional indirect tax.
\t
\tThe way to prevent this from happening is, first of all, to curb optimism in the property market. Curbing property prices is also what we need to do now to avoid exacerbating social inequality. In addition, Singaporeans, especially young couples planning to start a family, are facing a housing shortage. Hence, it is a good policy to control excessive buying from foreigners. Therefore, the appropriate solution is to increase the ABSD to reduce the demand from foreigners, curb the property market and use the collected ABSD to pay for the financial assistance to contractors. In this way, foreigners and property developers will be the ones who, ultimately, foot the bill.
\tNext, the Government may not want contractors to be just enjoying the cake. The current problem is that contractors have long relied on foreign workers, so we have to urge them to speed up the re-design and automation of their work processes. The Government can incorporate relief measures into its strategy to transform the construction sector. This is also an excellent opportunity to attract some Singaporeans to rejoin the construction industry, as contractors now can pay higher wages to Singaporean workers, considering the substantial increase in foreign workers' wages. However, the Government has not taken any actions to encourage such development.
\tIf the Government boldly increases ABSD, there will be enough additional revenue to provide housing for Singaporean couples waiting for HDB flats, so that we can maintain the pace of family formation and Total Fertility Rate, prevent future population gaps and not leave the next generation with another problem.
\tMdm Deputy Speaker, this Bill is a defeatist policy with a single objective, because it casts us in the shadow of foreign labour shortage, which, in turn, causes loss to contractors and then aggravates housing shortage, directly affecting our lives.
\t
However, if we apply the right policies, this may not necessarily be the case. With our proposed increase in ABSD, limiting the number of foreign workers will not worsen our lives. On the contrary, contractors will have more time to adapt to the new supply chain and increase the employment opportunities of local workers. At the same time, young Singaporean couples can be allocated housing, which is paid for by foreigners and property buyers.
(In English): This view is one more opportunity for us to reaffirm our confidence that Singapore can survive and do better with a different economic model. This model will focus on developing and training our well-educated local human resource and strategically bringing down the number of foreign workers over time. We urge the Government to consider our proposal seriously and amend this Bill.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, this pandemic has been one whiplash after another for our construction sector. The latest whiplash comes from the surge of cases in India. It has forced us to bar entry for all work pass holders from there. This means the industry’s manpower crunch will continue and even worsen.
This Bill allows contractors to adjust the monetary sums of contracts that have not yet been completed. This will help contractors cope with the increased manpower costs.
However, as raised in my previous speech on the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment No 2) Bill, it remains unclear whether yet again allowing modifications of agreed-upon contracts is a lasting solution. Ultimately, we are talking about labour supply problems that may be long run, given that the pandemic shows no signs of abating in many developing countries.
On that, I have three points of clarifications.
My first point is about temporarily allowing workers to get their skills certified here in Singapore. Typically, migrant workers looking to join our construction sector must first enrol in Overseas Testing Centres (OTCs) within their home countries. At these OTCs, they must complete either the Skills Evaluation Certificate (SEC) or Skills Evaluation Certificate (Knowledge) (SEC(K)), which certify that the worker qualifies as Basic-Skilled construction workers.
On 5 May, BCA introduced an exemption. For six months, workers from China can obtain their skills certification in Singapore rather than in their home country. This reduces the bottleneck in China, where some OTCs remain closed, and helps alleviate our labour supply crunch.
Can the Minister clarify what is the usual passing rate of the SEC and SEC(K) tests in each country’s OTCs? For areas where the passing rate is usually quite high, can the Government consider introducing similar temporary exemptions from other source countries? For instance, there remain OTCs that are closed in Myanmar and Thailand. This can help to temporarily alleviate the supply crunch without compromising on the skill requirements we have set.
My second point is about expanding the list of source countries which we debated earlier. We have always restricted the list of countries from which each industry can hire Work Pass holders. For the construction sector, the list is Malaysia, China, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan and South Korea.
Can the Government explain the basis for restricting this list of source countries? Can the Government also consider expanding the list of source countries? There are likely other countries where migrant workers with basic skills can be found. Indeed, times like this highlight the risks of over-relying on a limited number of source countries.
Let me clarify that expanding the list of source countries can align with our goal of moving the industry towards increased productivity. With a more diverse supply pool, it might become easier to find higher skilled workers. We then could move towards raising our skills requirements for what counts as Basic Skilled or Higher Skilled, as well as tapering off the number of lower skilled migrant workers in the sector.
My third point is about the impact on Government expenses. Will this Bill result in the Government ending up spending more on construction projects than previously expected, as contract sums get adjusted upwards?
While I understand that the final impact will have to be quantified by Assessors, who will have to look at applications on a case-by-case basis, has the Government at least estimated the range of increased costs that it will have to bear as a result of potential contract adjustments?
It is likely that, at any given time, the Government is the largest spender on construction contracts in Singapore. We must help the construction sector but we must also find the balance and guard against the possibility that all of our yet-to-complete projects see ballooning costs as a result of this legislative amendment. Madam, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.
Prof Hoon Hian Teck (Nominated Member): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a broader point that goes beyond the focus on the construction industry that is covered by this Bill.
In confronting the new challenges facing our country with the new clusters of community cases in recent weeks, it is important that we and members of the public avoid false dichotomies. In particular, we must avoid the false dichotomy that in formulating policy, we have to choose between one of only two options: either close borders to save lives or open borders to save the economy. The presumption is that we should prioritise human well-being at some cost to the economy, so that keeping the borders open is tantamount to choosing to place the economy above human lives.
In reality, closing the borders also imposes costs on human well-being, a point I think that has been made by several people, but let us think about that.
Stricter border controls that make it more difficult to obtain the help of foreign domestic workers to take care of our elderly citizens, for example, reduce our senior citizens' well-being. Restricting the entry of foreign workers from certain countries with high incidence of COVID-19 infections would delay the completion of many construction projects, including BTO flats. This would have an impact on plans for starting a family for many people. Companies that have a high reliance on foreign workers might go out of business which would cause citizen workers their jobs as well. The loss of jobs means not only a loss of income but also imposes costs on the well-being of the retrenched workers and their family members.
Increasing the quarantine period from 14 days to 21 days for international travellers except for those from a few countries with lower infection rates, provides some degree of safety for our citizens. However, even then, the economy will not benefit fully from international economic integration as it did during the pre-COVID-19 days.
Instead of thinking about binary choices, like whether to keep borders closed or open, our policy has to adapt to unforeseen circumstances that the evolving pandemic presents to us by improving trade-offs. The COVID-19 pandemic has presented Singapore with two important trade-offs.
The first trade-off is between the saving of jobs and protection from the virus. The circuit breaker introduced last year shut down non-essential businesses in order to limit the spread of the virus. The adoption of measures like safe distancing and the mandatory wearing of masks helped to reduce the crucial parameter known as the reproduction rate – the parameter that gives the number of people an infectious person will infect over the whole course of their disease in a fully susceptible population. Those measures help to improve the trade-off so that, for a given level of protection of health, more business activity could resume.
The second trade-off is between international economic integration and national control of the pandemic. When the number of community cases is successfully brought down, opening up our borders risks importing cases of infected persons.
While testing and imposing quarantine orders on foreigners help to reduce the risk of community spread caused by imported cases, implementing travel bubbles requires both countries to have effective national control of the pandemic.
Restricting entry of foreign workers from countries with a high incidence of COVID-19 infections and turning to alternative sources with lower infection rates seek to undo the adverse shift in trade-off to some degree. Source countries might also impose travel restrictions on their own citizens travelling to Singapore, which require Singapore-based firms to look elsewhere for workers. So, turning to alternative sources of foreign workers has business consequences as wage costs might increase, which this Bill seeks to address.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, we need to recognise that as an outward-oriented economy, even while there is effort suggested by Members of the House to raise the productivity of the construction sector and make it less labour-intensive, that is something that will take time. So, there are inevitable costs that will have to be borne with the spike of new cases in several parts of the world even as we seek to achieve what we regard as an optimal trade-off.
The enactment of this Bill reflects our effort to adapt to unforeseen circumstances that this evolving pandemic will continue to present to us. In view of this, I support the Bill.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Kebun Baru): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I am in full support of the measures announced today, given the dire situation facing the built sector.
Our built sector is facing intense pressure on three fronts.
One, the number of construction workers in the built sector continues to shrink. Even before the recent halt to new incoming migrant workers from the Indian subcontinent, many construction companies saw their workforce reduced by 15% to 30% due to higher than usual attrition.
Among projects, there are uneven manpower availability among different layers of contractors. Post-COVID-19 projects, given higher margin, are able to marshal more manpower resources. Pre-COVID-19 projects are languishing as everybody is worried about the viability of these projects. And because of the labour shortage, we are seeing some workers asking for daily wages of more than $250.
The majority in the construction industry, I must say, understand the need for the recent curbs on new inflow of migrant workers. Nevertheless, the reality is that the manpower shortage will only get worse in the coming months.
Two, the industry is experiencing a surge in construction materials pricing. For example, the price of iron ore has shot up more than 27% since the end of last year.
Three, construction companies are facing financing difficulties. As of now, the strongest companies – those with a good number of post-COVID-19 projects, high margins and sizeable reserves – are able to get adequate financing. However, most companies are struggling to get financing from banks. Based on industry feedback, a number of them, I was told, are resorting to tapping on financing companies and are paying financing costs of around 10%.
In view of these three sets of challenges, MND’s recent announcements are very much welcomed by the industry.
First, the sharing of the extra manpower costs from project delays as well as the manpower levy rebate of $250 are extremely helpful to the financial sustainability of the industry.
Second, increasing the length of time for projects will help because, for some projects, they can wait out the current spike in material cost, as well as the sizeable manpower shortage.
Three, easing of restrictions on Chinese workers is helpful. However, I do want to caution that beyond the large Chinese construction companies, many local construction companies may not have the links to recruit sufficient Chinese manpower given the current shortage of construction workers in China. And the salaries of Chinese workers in the construction sector are two to three times more expensive than those from the Indian subcontinent.
And it is not easy to persuade Chinese workers to do the full range of jobs, even if we can persuade them to come to Singapore.
Beyond the measures announced today, I hope that MND can continue to pre-empt this unfolding industry crisis. We have to plan for the worst. For example, it may not be possible for us to bring in migrant workers from the Indian subcontinent for many months, or even beyond a year's time. And even if we want to diversify the source of migrant workers from the rest of developing Asia, it is also very difficult to predict whether those countries will see a surge in infection that we see in India. We must also plan the possibility of another circuit breaker, should community spread become more prevalent in Singapore.
Over the past few weeks, I have been working with the built sector to come up with some proposals that can form our contingency plan, should the situation deteriorate significantly. Let me elaborate.
One, we can introduce more short-term measures to better utilise our existing workers in the sector. For example, we can temporarily increase the allowable age for migrant workers to stay in Singapore from 50 to 55 years old, and to potentially up to 60 years old with regular medical reviews. There are many different kinds of jobs, some are not as strenuous as others. Let us trust that our companies can strike the right balance, as we increase the age in the short run.
Another possibility is to get the construction companies and safety community to explore urgent and temporary measures to increase the allowable man-hours. Based on industry feedback, the work intensity in many sites have reduced due to increased delays in material arrival and decreased subcontractor productivity. For selected work sites, can workers be given the option of working during their off-days, if it is clear that they have more rest during the normal days, due to decreased work intensity? Of course, these proposals must be carefully considered and implemented, but we are in a crisis and we need to explore all options.
Two, we must urgently explore new sources of manpower. Many of us agree that the situation in India is extremely dire and it could take a while to sort out. But we must diversify and explore other countries, knowing fully well that we cannot predict which sources will eventually come through for us.
As such, could the Government consider new sources of migrant construction workers, such as Cambodia, Laos, even the Riau Islands in Indonesia?
Beyond the new sources, we must also ensure that migrant workers are free of COVID-19 when they come to Singapore. Therefore, is it possible for the Government to work with the built sector to set up and operate processing and quarantine centres in these countries? This will ensure that testing is done by trusted vendors, perhaps even using our own test kits. The facilities and cleanliness operations are managed by our stringent standards. Workers can use dedicated transport, operated by us, to come to Singapore. And upon arrival, we can test again and vaccinate the workers immediately, while they undergo further quarantine. It will take us a while to get this going and some of these sources, even after we invest time and effort, may not work out. Therefore, I hope that our Government can actively pursue various options as quickly as possible.
Three, should the labour shortage continue, we can consider postponing new infrastructure projects, at least the big ones, or at least the construction phase of these new projects. Of course, the planning part of the project can go through, but we must reduce construction demand when we have a vastly reduced manpower supply, or the excess demand will lead to unnecessary cost surge.
Four, if the industry condition worsens, the industry hopes that the Government can provide added support with larger levy rebates.
Five, we can prepare for a different implementation of circuit breakers for the built sector. The conditions are different this time. COVID-19 in the dormitories is still largely contained, there is a successful segregation between the construction sector from the rest of Singapore, and we are able to do more frequent and extensive testing in the construction sector.
As such, the industry hopes that the Government can allow as much work to continue, even during a circuit breaker, by ensuring that the construction sites remain as air-tight as possible. A new contingency plan for circuit breaker could include measures, such as:
(a) Main contractors, builders to have teams permanently onsite with workers who are also lodging in the dormitories onsite;
(b) Main contractor workers to have no in-person contact with sub-contractor workers;
(c) Subcontractor workers may enter a site for a maximum of three days a week only;
(d) Subcontractor workers should not be allowed to lodge onsite;
(e) All non-essential roles to be fully working from home; and
(f) Permitting TLQ (Temporary Living Quarters) again for larger projects.
A lot of hard work will be required to come up with a revised circuit breaker plan that is tailor-fitted to the present circumstances. I hope that we can start preparing for it.
Six, monitoring the credit flow to the built sector very carefully. The Government has done more than its fair share for the built sector. Nevertheless, Government support will not be sufficient unless the banks and financial institutions do their part to provide sufficient credit.
Seven, consider a further extension to developers on ABSD. Currently, developers have up to five years from the start of the project to the handover to the buyers. Beyond that, they have to pay ABSD. The Government has already provided a six-month extension, but MOF can consider further extensions, if necessary. Relieving pressure on the developers will allow them to do more to share the financial pain of the building contractors.
Lastly, I would like to suggest that MND and BCA bring on additional staff, or to outsource some of the coordination work. In my interactions with MND and BCA staff, I note that many of them are trying their best to help the industry. But there is just so much more coordination work ahead. As such, I hope we can beef up the staffing level at the MND family level, just as we have done so decisively at MOM.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, let me now conclude. COVID-19 has brought upon an existential threat to the built sector. Decisive and effective Government action has put off the worst outcome for the industry and the additional measures announced are very much needed. Should the situation confronting the built sector continue to worsen, I hope the Government can actively consider some of the proposals that are mentioned today. With that, I stand in full support of the Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Minister for National Development.
Mr Desmond Lee: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank all the Members for their comments, their ideas, both to tackle the immediate situation that is confronting our construction sector and the impact on home buyers, but also the suggestions that Members have made in regard to the mid- and long-term future of construction here in Singapore. Let me address the issues raised.
Mr Louis Ng was concerned about public sector expenditure and about fiscal prudence. The pandemic has, indeed, driven up manpower costs for contractors. So, we need to share some of this burden. But in doing so, I agree with him that agencies will need to maintain fiscal discipline. When adjudicating claims, the Assessors will take into consideration the amount of support that has already been provided, such as foreign worker levy rebates and other forms of support, in determining what a just and equitable outcome of manpower cost-sharing should be.
Mr Yip Hon Weng spoke about the need to engage developers and contractors to better understand their difficulties and not just press them to complete their projects as if it was business as usual. And he had given some examples he heard anecdotally about the agencies using a template to press contractors. I seek the Member's support to provide specific details so that we can look into these concerns that have been raised. Based on what we know so far, the only template our agencies had been circulating to contractors is one with regard to prolongation cost submissions. In fact, the agencies are pressing the contractors to submit their claims for prolongation costs, because these agencies want to lean forward to help these firms cope with the non-manpower related cost increases in these projects. So, perhaps, for us to check the facts.
But I do agree with the Member that we need to adopt an even stronger collaborative posture during this crisis. As I have said during the opening speech, at this time in the sector, where there are many interlocking relationships of many stakeholders, if one goes down, the entire project is in peril, and we all have to lean forward and help one another. This applies to both Government agencies as well as private developers.
In fact, when the crisis started last year and construction work had to be shut down for some months, we formed a working group comprising Government agencies and trade associations like SCAL and REDAS. At the start, we met every day digitally, then on a weekly basis; and now, we still meet once a month to better understand the situation on the ground, the dynamic situation, as it evolves, to flag issues up and to work together to resolve them practically.
We have also asked Government agencies to lean forward to help contractors through this difficult period. Several agencies have gone above and beyond our previously announced measures to help contractors, such as granting even more extensions for contractors to complete their projects.
Notwithstanding this, we are looking at ways to simplify the process for public sector projects, similar to what we have done for the non-manpower prolongation cost claims, as well as the additional extensions of time, where direct disbursements and extensions were given respectively, without the need for extensive or prolonged negotiation.
Mr Henry Kwek suggested extending the Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty (ABSD) remission timeline for developers, to relieve pressure on them, too. We had earlier provided a 12-month extension of the PCP and ABSD remission timeline for commencement and completion and a six-month extension to the remission timeline for sale, to account for delays due to COVID-19.
We will continue to monitor the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on various stakeholders, including developers, and take further steps as necessary.
Mr Louis Ng referred to BCA’s recently announced scheme to temporarily allow new China construction Work Permit holders to enter Singapore to work first, and then, take their skills certification test locally, instead of in China. He asked if the Government could consider introducing similar temporary exemptions for other countries.
To provide some context, BCA had earlier consulted the industry on possible measures to help alleviate the manpower crunch in the construction sector. SCAL, the contractors association, had suggested exercising flexibility on the skills entry requirements, in particular for PRC Work Permit holders, as they are highly skilled in key trades, such as carpentry and structural works, as compared to workers from other countries. Taking this feedback onboard, BCA worked with MOM to roll out this temporary flexibility to help facilitate the entry of PRC Work Permit holders.
BCA will discuss with the industry to assess if this approach can be extended to workers from other approved source countries and examine carefully this proposal.
Mr Louis Ng and Mr Henry Kwek asked whether the Government can consider new sources from which to recruit construction Work Permit holders.
We are prepared to consider various options to alleviate the current manpower crunch facing the whole sector. But we must consider the COVID-19 situation in these countries, as well as the construction industry’s demand for workers from such sources. Adding more sources may not necessarily be the solution, as the pandemic seems to be worsening globally.
Regarding Mr Henry Kwek’s suggestion to set up forward operating bases, BCA is actively in discussion with trade associations and industry partners who are exploring upstream ways to ensure the health and safety of the foreign workers that they recruit, while meeting Singapore’s more stringent public health stance.
In addition, Mr Kwek suggested increasing the allowable age for foreign workers from 50 to 55, and to 60 with regular medical reviews. He also asked whether workers can be allowed to work longer if they can have more rest due to the decreased work intensity during weekdays.
To clarify, MOM already allows existing Work Permit holders to renew their work permits with their current employers up to the age of 60. For workers above the age of 50 who wish to change employers but are unable to do so due to the age limit, MOM will assess appeals on a case-by-case basis.
As for working longer hours, it is important for workers to get sufficient rest for their well-being and their safety. And that is why the Employment Act stipulates that the normal hours of work should not exceed 44 hours per week. In addition, employers must not make their employees work for more than 12 hours a day, including overtime, with a limit of 72 hours of overtime in a month. Extending working hours beyond this could lead to fatigue and compromise workers’ safety. Moreover, we all know they have been through an extremely difficult time last year and, still, they are subject to stringent safe management measures.
Mr Kwek also suggested postponing the construction phase of new projects, given the reduced supply of manpower. This is, indeed, something we are looking into for public sector projects. But we need to calibrate this carefully. We need to deliver homes and infrastructure, such as public transport. And we also want to ensure that there is a pipeline of work for our construction sector, so that we retain capacity during this crisis.
Mr Kwek also rightly pointed out that we need to prepare for potential further restrictions on construction works, given the fluidity of the current COVID-19 situation. I would like to reassure the Member that BCA is working with the relevant agencies on contingencies and drawer plans. I also thank the Member for acknowledging the hard work put in by our officers in helping the industry through this crisis. It has been a difficult time for them and also for the sector as a whole. We will certainly continue to support and encourage our officers as they persevere with these efforts.
I will take this opportunity to address the query by the Leader of the Opposition about the impact of the COTMA amendment Bill on BTO prices.
It is important to set into context. The Bill relates to construction contracts before October 2020; so existing contracts. And those BTOs that have already been sold are already sold. The prices will not change. Likewise, for new BTO contracts, we do not price HDB BTOs to recover construction costs or land costs. Certainly, it will cost more as a whole but this is not a factor in determining the price that we set for BTO prices.
In any event, in order to manage the overall tender prices for both public and private sectors, I had mentioned earlier in my speech that the agencies are working with the private sector to work on both public and private construction procurement projects going forward. Because what we have seen during this crisis is that contractors are buffering up for uncertainty because they do not know what twists and turns there are in the road ahead, as many of them had found to their detriment in the last year. And, therefore, tender prices, as a whole, for both the public and private sectors, we see an increase.
With such a contract in place, if we can reach an agreement, it will enable contractors to be assured that uncertainty will be cost-shared between the client and the contractor. And we hope that will then provide more assurance to contractors as they bid for new contracts, whether it is a BTO project, whether it is a public sector infrastructure project or whether it is a private sector project.
So, all in, to put in clauses in our standard contracts to enable there to be some fair cost-sharing for uncertainty. I speak broadly. The details will follow as the agencies and our partners reach precise language.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Government to consider more measures to help contractors, such as enhancing the Jobs Support Scheme for the sector, further reducing the foreign worker levy and providing additional time for project completion.
As I have mentioned earlier, we have already intervened significantly and put together a suite of support measures to help the construction industry to cope with the challenges brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. We will monitor the impact and review if additional support is required as the situation evolves. BCA will also continue to engage industry stakeholders on their concerns, including on availability of credit that Mr Henry Kwek mentioned.
But all of these are short-term stop-gap measures – foreign worker levy rebates, cost-sharing, grants. These are all measures to help stop the bleed, as I said. Fundamentally, as I have said repeatedly, both here in this House and also in other settings, we need to work closely with the industry to continue our multi-year effort to transform the sector to become more productive, to grow good local jobs, to reduce overall reliance on low-skilled foreign manpower, for longer term resilience and sustainability.
And in that regard, I would, in a way, like to thank both Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Leong Mun Wai for supporting the efforts that we have been undertaking since 2017 to push for a holistic transformation of the construction sector, from end-to-end. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim emphasised that by raising the cost of foreign workers, that, in his view, will push employers and contractors to spend more on capital investments to be more productive. Well, we agree with him to an extent but, actually, go a lot further than that.
If you look at the Industry Transformation Map (ITM) for the construction sector, both 1.0 and 2.0, since 2017, where we brought developers, contractors, consultants, academics and unionists all together to work on, it is not just the price or the availability of foreign manpower, but ensuring that we digitalise the whole sector, that we put in significant investments in technology, that we fund, grant, support and train our sector, in order to design for manufacturing and assembly, that is, bring into Singapore, into our construction sector, a whole new way of construction that is far more productive, that involves advance precast that can be done off-site.
And I would ask both Members, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim as well as Mr Leong Mun Wai, to look at and read our ITM and tell us whether they fully support it.
In fact, during the Committee of Supply (COS) this year, both Minister of State Tan Kiat How and myself took pains to explain again our efforts to transform the sector and create good local jobs for our graduates, for our diploma holders and our ITE certificate holders, in order to push the sector forward.
Mr Leong's point that the Government makes no effort to push productivity in the construction sector, that we do not create local jobs or create opportunities for Singaporeans, befuddles me. I was just exchanging notes with Minister of State Tan Kiat How because, during COS, that was really the gist of what we were saying. And if the Member would read and re-read Minister of State Tan Kiat How's speech, he gave example after example of Singaporeans who were describing their journey into the construction sector, seeing how the sector has evolved, how technology has created a niche for them, enabled them to build more productively. Old timers who have seen how construction has moved from 2D to 3D using automation; and young entrants, being very excited that the construction sector is becoming far more high-tech, digitalised, connected, interconnected, multi-disciplinary. All this work is happening at great speed but we are pushing hard.
And about productivity, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim felt that productivity in the sector had not improved despite efforts. As a result of the efforts over the many years, both regulatory efforts, for example, when we pushed up the buildability score, builders have to meet with certain buildability score before they are allowed to build GLS sites with preconditions of productivity and methods of construction before you can develop the land. All these efforts, including the grants in the Construction Productivity and Capability Fund (CPCF), the new Growth and Transformation Scheme, our PIP scheme – all these are a suite of measures. Regulatory, land-sale related, skills upgrading, grants, grants for individuals, grants for firms and, now, grants for the whole alliance of the value chain.
All these are efforts to transform our sector. But because the construction sector is a long value chain, it does take time, it does take resolve and no one firm can do it on its own.
As for Mr Leong Mun Wai's sense that there are no efforts to bring Singaporeans into this sector, apart from asking him to read Minister of State Tan Kiat How's speech outlining those efforts, precisely those efforts, just a few months ago, I would also share that we have a BCA Industry Scholarship year after year. We award to Singaporeans in ITE, Polytechnic and University, scholarships for young, bright, energetic, Singaporeans who want to venture into this sector, into architecture, into building, into M&E, into the digital space for construction. We pay the bulk of the scholarship, more than 80% of their studies. The industry pays up to 20%. And they are bonded to the Singapore firm in order for Singaporeans to be injected into these firms and to grow with these firms.
And so, all these are efforts that are publicised, these are efforts that are known that we talk about in this House. I would invite Mr Leong Mun Wai to come and have a chat with us so we can tell him a bit more about these efforts and we hope he will support them wholeheartedly in growing a strong local core in our construction sector.
But that is multi-year work. It involves changing mindsets, it involves changing the way firms work, the way firms work with other firms, it involves the Government.
But I think that, at the crux of it today, this Bill, essentially, is about this crisis that we are facing. So, yes, in the mid to long term, we will put in a lot of effort, as we have done over the last few years, to transform our construction sector end-to-end. But in the meantime, what is this House asked to decide at the end of this night? And that is our sector, construction firms, Singapore firms, construction firms which are faced with a severe manpower crunch, asked to deliver projects, that notwithstanding all the support the Government has given on various fronts that I have articulated, they are short of workers. What we are saying is that because the costs have increased beyond their expectation at the point in time when they bidded for these contracts, should we or should we not pass legislation to facilitate the sharing of these additional costs? A framework which nudges dialogue and discussion but, beyond which, we put in an adjudicatory framework to ensure that costs are fairly shared.
These are abnormal times calling for superhuman efforts to keep Singapore going. This is so, even in the construction sector, but especially in this sector, which is so interwoven, which touches Singaporeans' lives on almost every front: building of your homes, building of your roads, building of your public transport, building of the facilities, including the medical facilities that are so critical in the fight against COVID-19.
And so, I ask Mr Leong Mun Wai, because I seem to get the sense from him that he does not support this Bill, does not support bearing some of the burden that Singapore contractors are suffering under, does not support bringing in foreign workers in order to help the sector cope during this period. Because I recall him saying, \"Do not bring in foreign workers. Let the contractors take this time during this crisis to learn how to live with less foreign workers.\" I hope I was mistaken but perhaps the Member could confirm: does he support this Bill? Does he support the need to help the whole sector during this time? Does he support the need to alleviate the suffering and pain that the construction sector is under, which will then have knock-on effects on home buyers, property buyers and companies and businesses who are waiting for their properties? So, that is critical.
And he makes a number of other points and I am tussling over whether to spend more of this evening, during the Second Reading to address them. But he talks about cooling the property market by increasing the ABSD and then taking that money to pay for the cost increases and then using the money also to fund more HDB rental flats.
I wanted to address them but I think it may be better if the Member raises a Motion, puts up his ideas, sets out his sums as to how much more ABSD he wants to raise. Is it for Singaporeans? Is it for PRs? Is it for foreigners? And how much does he think it will yield? And how much will it go in addressing all the strategies that he has set out in his speech earlier?
Finally, in response to the Leader of the Opposition, I just wanted to clarify whether he supports bringing in foreign workers at this time, bringing in more workers, in order to keep the flow of manpower to the construction sector going? Because he spoke to many contractors who were concerned about the current situation. And does he then support bringing in more foreign workers or does he want to freeze the growth of foreign workers into Singapore?
Madam, I would like to say that I agree with Prof Hoon Hian Teck. He made a good speech. He said that our approach has to be adaptive and strike a balance between two imperatives: saving lives and protecting livelihoods. That is a truism.
But, indeed, these are complex, dynamic and fast-changing trade-offs that we have had to consider in managing this pandemic. Minister Lawrence Wong explained how the Multi-Ministerial Task Force has sought to steer us through all of this uncertainty in his Ministerial Statement earlier today.
Unlike some other countries, Singapore needs to preserve jobs and capabilities by staying connected to the world. We will continue to carefully monitor the economic situation as well as the global health situation and make adjustments as necessary.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, the amendments before the House today are an important part of our overall support package for our construction sector in view of the manpower crunch brought about by the pandemic. I thank Members and all our industry stakeholders for their strong support for these measures.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise to respond to the Minister's question about whether I support bringing in more foreign workers for the constructor sector.
Earlier on in my speech and earlier on in the day, during Parliamentary Question Time, I spoke of opening up more non-traditional source countries to recruit foreign workers and I even raised the example of Vietnam because the infection rate there is very low compared to many other ASEAN countries; although, in the last few days, I understand, the numbers are going up. Still, the rise in terms of absolute numbers remains comparatively small. So, that should give an indication about where I stand on the situation affecting some of these companies.
My communication has been with the small contractors – those with three, four or five foreign workers. And when you lose one or two foreign workers, you cannot execute a project. So, for these particular individuals, it is a dire situation. And, so, it would be grossly unfair then to suddenly pull the rug from under their feet and say, no, we have to stop foreign workers from coming in right now.
But overall, I heard what the Minister said about the ITMs, in particular, the construction ITMs, the longer project, I would say, to wean the sector to be more manpower-lean. And I believe, at some point, the Government will have to present its report card on what its progress has been. I think that will be helpful also for members of the public to make an assessment as to whether the measures, the amount of money put into the ITMs, specifically the construction ITM, to improve productivity has borne fruit. I hope I have answered the Minister's questions.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister for enlightening me on all the progress in getting Singaporeans back into the construction industry. I must apologise that I should read the ITMs more from now on. But I hope the Minister understands that, as an NCMP, I do not have a lot of resources. Every day, there are about 50 to 100 pages of materials from Parliament coming into the portal.
But I have a few questions. I am very happy because I hear that Singaporeans are going into the construction industry. But what the Minister has said just now is about those like managers with scholarships and all that. How about the general construction workers? For example, how many Singaporeans have come in again to be just a general worker, like substituting those permit workers? Because I believe that when we raise the wages, some of these Singaporeans will come in.
I always find it very uncomfortable and I always find it very pitiful to see very strong Singaporeans queuing up at the F&B outlets to collect the food for delivery. I always wonder: such a strong, able-bodied Singaporean, why is he not doing other work?
So, this is one question. How many Singaporeans have actually come back as a general construction worker? Of course, I would expect Singaporeans to be able to be trained for doing work like bricklaying and all that —
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong, could you just ask the clarifications, please?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay, okay. Yes, thank you. The other thing is that when we give all this assistance to the construction companies, do we actually tie the companies down for future improvements in their processes and automation, and also employing our local workers? This is the second question.
The third question is, if the answers to both the first and the two questions are along the line that is positive, then I would agree that I will support of the Bill and the Government can act according to its discretion to bring in the foreign workers.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Leader.
The Second Minister for National Development and Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I just wanted to clarify something that the hon Member said, just for my own understanding. Is the hon Member saying that all our Singaporean delivery persons should become construction workers? I was just trying to understand; is that what the Member is saying?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Minister, yes. I think some Singaporeans – because there are like about 100,000 gig workers in Singapore – and then, there are also Singaporeans who are unemployed. Given this COVID-19 environment now, if you raise the wages high enough, there is a threshold that I think Singaporeans will come in, even as a general construction worker. That is my perception. Thank you. Please enlighten me.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Minister.
Mr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member for clarifying that his proposal is to replace general foreign workers – the R1 and R2 workers who do the building onsite – with Singaporeans. And he is focusing principally on those who are doing food delivery.
Our approach is different. Our approach is different. Our approach is in recognition that the processes need to be significantly re-orientated. The processes need to be changed and enhanced in order to create a good job for Singaporeans – a job which commands the level of productivity and skills that warrant the kinds of pay that I think the Member is talking about.
He does not have a figure but he is talking about increasing the pay until a threshold where Singaporeans come in. Whereas for him, he thinks if you increase the pay, Singaporeans, including delivery drivers and riders, will do the jobs that current workers from India, Bangladesh and other source countries are doing, as they are.
But what we are saying is that, yes, we need to pay the Singaporean more, but the job has to be different and it is not just as the Member suggests – architects, engineers or consultants but even builders. Even builders. But that requires mechanisation and automation. I visited once an Integrated Construction and Prefabrication Hub (ICPH), which is a precast hub yard. They are actually building rooms, building panels for construction and Singaporeans are doing those jobs. But it is very different from the kind of job that the Member envisions Singaporeans will be doing.
So, it is a different strategy. At the end of the day, even as we automate, even as we increase productivity – as both Mr Leong Mun Wai and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim say we should – there will still be a need for some foreign workers. We hope they will be more skilled. We will keep them in our sector, keep them here, to supplement the core of Singaporeans that we want to build for the sector. And I seek the Members' support for this.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Mdm Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence, I would like to begin with a point of clarification. I had erroneously stated that the Member Gerald Giam had indicated earlier that he had suggested permitting worker transfers from the 56th day onwards. Gerald had shared with me that he plans to advance this proposal but has not, in fact, done so in this House. So, I wish to clarify this for the record.
In terms of a quick clarification question for the Minister, I thank him for his clear articulation of efforts via the ITM to transform the sector by allowing costs to rise. As he rightly pointed out, I am fully in support of this general principle. But I should also note that we spent many hours earlier debating over what seems to anyone not in the industry to be a severe reluctance to even entertain a small escalation in the transportation cost of construction workers.
So, my question then is whether the Minister believes that the construction ITM has truly made headway in changing mindsets and behaviours and, if not, what is the timeline for which we can expect an actual change such that we will see increases in wages?
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Minister Desmond Lee.
Mr Desmond Lee: Madam, I had said both at COS as well as just moments ago that we are looking at making significant changes to the foreign manpower strategy for the construction sector. We have steadied the sector for it. They recognise that this is going to be painful. But we will make some significant moves starting from next year, including doing away with the MYE framework, moving to one in which it biases towards more productive offsite work. And there are opportunities then for Singaporeans to come into the sector. And not just raise the wages of the foreign workers. But even those foreign workers working offsite will have to be more skilled to operate the machinery and, therefore, the wages will have to be higher – because they are more productive and more skilled.
But the same time, we will also tighten on the dependency ratio ceiling. We are studying how to make those moves to push the sector to be more lean. We are pushing on multiple fronts, not just on worker numbers and quotas; not just in making it expensive to construct. But it has to be more productive and command better salaries.
The Member spoke earlier about a proposal that his colleague Mr Gerald Giam did not yet make to this House. So, I thank him for his clarification. It is a proposal, I presume, we will be expecting shortly. And I presume MOM will be looking forward to that.
But I remember the Member saying in his speech that it is important to retain the existing foreign workers in Singapore. I am fully in agreement with him. My colleague from MOM will also agree. Given the worker shortage, I think both Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and we in the Government feel that it is important for employers to work with their existing foreign workers, look at their remuneration, look at their work conditions and, of course, find ways to encourage them to continue to stay in the sector.
But I have some questions about this. The Member talked about, well, SCMX is one, which is actually SCAL's effort to help to provide a marketplace for workers within Singapore so that they move employers, rather than be sent back. But his proposal – or what he says is Mr Gerald Giam's upcoming proposal – is to, in effect, make it easier for workers to move from one employer to another.
If you speak with contractors, including the small subcontractors that the Leader of the Opposition has spoken to, what they are most concerned about and unhappy about over the last few months, is precisely worker poaching. You have a worker working with you, suddenly he is gone and it is because of moves and flexibilities which now the Member would like to enhance that will probably exacerbate this worker poaching.
MOM and SCAL's approach is different, recognising that the rule that the Member talks about was for a different time and a different era. I think Dr Tan See Leng can come in later if the Member would like to ask MOM more about this.
But now, with worker scarcity, with projects at stake, it is precisely the opposite that needs to be done, within appropriate limits, ensuring that this poaching gets put to a stop.
[(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":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Providing Child Car Seats in Taxis and Private Hire Cars","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
PROVIDING CHILD CAR SEATS IN TAXIS AND PRIVATE HIRE CARS
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, every car ride is a journey. On such journeys, when you have young kids like my wife and I, there are certain things we will never forget to bring.
For Ella there is her LOL doll. For Katie there is her LOL doll. And for Poppy, you guess it – there is her LOL doll.
There was a time when my daughters each received different toys and they would bicker over who gets what. Then, one day, my eldest daughter Ella told me, \"Daddy, why do not you just give us the same toys so we do not need to quarrel anymore?\" Wise advice from that little one that I gladly followed.
But there is something more important than anything else to bring, even these dolls and, that is, our child car seats, enough for all three of our girls.
Madam, a child car seat can help save lives. A few years back, a young mother sat in the passenger seat of a car, cradling her child in her arms. And why not? It was a day of perfect road conditions. The sky was clear, the roads were dry and the traffic was light.
But in just seconds, the car crashed. The child fractured her skull, bled from her nose and mouth and faced severe brain damage. And after three days on life support, the child passed away.
I spoke to A&E and Neonatal ICU doctors, and they shared with me many more such stories, whose details are too gory for this House. They all tell me: a child car seat could have made a difference. Indeed, that is why we require young passengers of all cars to be secured in a child car seat.
All cars, except one kind: taxis. If your child rides a taxi today, there is no legal requirement for them to sit in a child car seat.
Today, I will offer four recommendations that will make taxi and PHC rides safer for the children of Singapore.
LTA is already working hard on this issue of child car seats. They have consulted with stakeholders and members of the public. I thank LTA for their hard work. But as they have shared, opinions are \"very divided\" and a compromise remains elusive.
To build a compromise, I spent months speaking with LTA, parents, taxi drivers, PHC drivers, doctors and other members of the public and Taxi Baby, an organisation involved in child car seats.
I am also a parent who brings child car seats onto taxis and PHCs. My wife does not have a driving licence and relies on public transport, so we, too, understand the difficulties and the trade-offs involved.
Is it easy and convenient? No. Were my kids screaming when put in child car seats initially? Yes. But if we start them in the child car seats as newborns, they will get used to it quite quickly and the screaming stops. Most importantly, will it significantly lower the risks of injury and death during accidents? Without a doubt, yes.
I thank all the taxi and PHCs drivers who have patiently helped my wife and I as we put three little ones in child car seats. They understand why we want to and they are supportive.
Madam, I believe the proposals I will share today represent a way forward that will satisfy and benefit everyone. I am speaking up about this so that no one lives in regret – not the child who faces serious injury or death, not the parents who wish they could have done more, and not the taxi and PHC drivers who will have to live with the guilt.
Let me start with my first and main proposal.
The Government should provide two child car seats to every taxi and PHC currently on the road. Since it is given free, passengers should be able to use them for free, too.
Children of different ages require different child car seats. So, the first seat should be for children aged nine months to four years old. The second seat should be for those aged four and above. [Child car seats were shown to hon Members.]
Child car seats are extremely effective at protecting children. This is an indisputable fact. The World Health Organization states that a child car seat reduces the risk of injury by up to 90%. Doctors at our own KKH found that a child not in a child car seat was 8.4 times more likely to be seriously injured in a road accident.
I respect our taxi drivers, but they are not immune to something going wrong. MOT data shows that, on average, taxis are involved in about three injury-causing accidents daily. Children can and do ride taxis and they need to be protected.
My proposal has three major benefits. The first benefit is increased convenience. Last year, LTA ran a pilot with SMRT where all of SMRT taxis were equipped with one child car seat. Usage rate was low.
So, I am suggesting we do things differently.
The SMRT pilot provided one seat only for children aged four and above. By contrast, my proposal with two seats covers children of nearly every age. As each family has an average of two children in Singapore, this will help a good proportion of families.
The SMRT pilot was also limited to just one company. My proposal allows parents to continue taking the taxi or PHC service of their choice.
Let me give an example of how my proposal would help. I spoke to Eva, a young mother. One night, having travelled out on an MRT, she decided to return home in a taxi. She normally brings child car seats, but this ride was unplanned. Instead, since it was also just a short journey, she held her daughter in her arms and sat her son next to her. This one time that she did not use child car seats was the one time that she got into an accident. A lorry crashed into their taxi. Her daughter was flung out of her arms and fell on the floor. She shared with me that she always thought she could hold on to her daughter if an accident like that happened. By a stroke of luck, the kids did not suffer serious injuries. But there was a lot of trauma. For weeks, the children faced nightmares.
Parents may think that an accident would not happen that one time that they do not put their child in a child car seat. Parents may think that they can hold to their child in an accident. As Eva's story shows, accidents can happen to anybody and when it strikes, no parent can be 100% sure that they can hold on and protect their children.
For parents like Eva, my proposal means they will need to carry fewer or even no child car seats when going out. When it comes to child car seats, convenience means safety.
The second benefit of my proposal is lower costs. As Senior Parliamentary Secretary Mr Baey points out, low costs for parents should be a priority in this pandemic economy. He pointed to existing ride options that already provide child car seats. But these recommendations are not price-competitive. A GrabFamily car costs more, sometimes much more, than a typical Grab ride and is harder to find.
By contrast, my proposal allows parents to use child car seats at no costs and they can shop for the cheapest taxi or PHC provider they can find. Nothing keeps costs low like good old market competition after all.
The third benefit of my proposal is fewer driver-passenger conflicts. Ask any PHC driver and they will tell you stories about driving a long way to the pick-up point, only to find that the passenger has brought their children. These drivers have to turn the passengers away. The parents get confused; they get upset. They ask, \"How come I can bring my child in a taxi but not your car?\"
My proposal makes this a non-issue. Every taxi and PHC will have child car seats. There is no reason for any driver to turn away any parent anymore or risk breaking the law. All taxis and PHC drivers will have an increased customer base and can potentially earn more because of this. PHC drivers will also be happy to spend less time travelling to passengers they cannot pick up. Parents will be happy to avoid wasting their own time and money. Everyone is happy. And because everyone is happy, I am sure MOT will be happy too.
At this stage, I have talked a lot about the benefits. Let me also take this opportunity to address some of the concerns that have been raised. In particular, MOT has said that taxis are street-hailed and cannot afford the trade-offs of boot space and installation time.
This used to be true; but today, only about 20% of all rides are street-hail and I am sure all of us in this House will agree that a parent with kids will book a taxi rather than use street-hail.
Let me also address concerns about space. Taxis and PHCs have to carry whatever barang barang commuters bring. How can they squeeze two child car seats into storage? Here, I want to emphasise one thing. Technology has evolved. Today's child car seats are not just the large clunky ones you have known for decades. You can see for yourself how small they are: this child car seat is for children aged nine months to four years old and this seat is for those aged four years old and above. [Child car seats were shown to hon Members.]
Taxi and PHC drivers were shocked when I showed them these car seats. One fits in a glove compartment and the other barely takes up any space in the boot. As I have shown in the video on my social media platforms, they fit with more than enough room left in the boot for two suitcases. The space concerns become minimal, even for hybrid cars.
The next concern I have heard is about time. Would not car seats take a long time to assemble? Again, taxi and PHC drivers were shocked when I show them how I take just one minute and 16 seconds to set up the two car seats, including buckling my daughters up in them. You can see the video on my social media platforms. This is faster than helping a passenger in a wheelchair to board a taxi and not much longer than helping passengers with many bags arrange them in the boot.
The third and final concern is about costs. Rather than impose costs on parents and taxi and PHC drivers, my proposal asks that the Government steps in to provide these child car seats. So, how much will it cost to deck an island of taxis and PHCs with these child car seats?
I checked and have a quote ready. It is $15,050,620. Here is the exact quotation I have got for MOT. I have addressed it to Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey but he tells me I should address it to MOF as well.
Madam, with a public tender, I am sure the final cost would be far lower. This amount is not a lot, compared to similar projects. After a boy was flung out of his school bus in a road accident in 2008, we set aside more than twice the amount – $35 million – to retrofit seat belts in small buses. More recently, we are also spending around $15 million in grants and incentives to reduce the dangers from PMDs.
I will also add that this cost-benefit analysis needs to go beyond the cost of these seats themselves.
As Tammie, a physiotherapist, shared with me on Facebook, we must \"spend a few days in a traumatic head injury or spinal chord injury rehabilitation ward to understand true cost. How do you cost the loss of vocation, loss of bladder control, loss of memory, loss of executive functioning, loss of time, loss of potential and the resultant burden on families?”
This brings me to my second proposal. My second proposal is to launch an awareness campaign. This campaign would focus on two things: one, the universal availability of child car seats in taxis and PHCs; and two, the critical importance of using these seats.
Many parents do not know that child car seats are important. Indeed, in about 50% of road accidents involving children, child car seats were not used.
It is not hard to guess what went through those parents' minds. I recall when we drove up to Cameron Highlands years ago. Ella, then a little baby, cried almost the entire way in her child car seat. She hated the idea of sitting anywhere other than on Mommy and Daddy's lap.
Sometimes, the most instinctive thing for a parent to do is to hold their child tight. I can hardly blame anyone for this instinct. I feel it myself. But we must do what is right for our children, not just what feels right. We must build a culture where child car seats are always used. Not just sometimes, not just occasionally, but always.
My proposal of providing child car seats to taxis and PHCs would be a key part of this awareness campaign.
The Government could tie up with taxi operators, ride-hailing companies, the National Taxi Association and the National Private Hire Vehicles Association. There could be joint marketing campaigns – from banners on our streets to notifications on apps to in-vehicle stickers for raising awareness on child car seats. As an added bonus, helping parents learn about child car seats in taxis and PHCs will also encourage them to use them in their own cars, if they eventually buy one.
Madam, my third recommendation is to work with hospitals to increase access to and use of infant car seats and change mindsets right at the start. Hospitals should include in the prenatal classes lessons on how to use infant car seats, just like how they teach parents how to safely carry, feed, bathe and change infants.
Travelling safely is no less important. I am glad that KK Women's and Children's Hospital (KKH) already includes a child car seat in its packing checklist for parents admitting for delivery. After all, most infants are brought home from hospitals in cars. What precedent does it set if the very first car ride does not involve an infant car seat?
To help parents, hospitals could provide infant car seats at a low price. I understand there were previous discussions with hospitals about supplying a subsidised infant car seat costing as low as $99. In fact, there are options out in the market now costing as low as $79. These are easy to carry and can fit easily onto a stroller. Hospitals can sell these to parents who do not have infant car seats ready at the point of discharge.
I hope the Government can facilitate a pilot like this. Again, with a public tender and buying in bulk, I am sure the price will be even cheaper. The price of these seats can also be added to the hospital bill. To help lower income families manage costs, this can then be covered by MediFund where needed. We can also consider allowing parents to use their Child Development Account to pay for this infant car seat.
Finally, I call on the Government to study the impact of my proposals, collect additional data on car accidents involving children and study the experiences of other countries, all with an eye to reviewing whether our laws should be updated to make child car seats compulsory in taxis. In addition, jurisdictions, such as Germany, California and New South Wales, already require the use of child car seats in taxis. We should study their experiences and apply their learnings.
Madam, I know my proposals will involve operational concerns. Let that not stop us from taking action. My fellow Member of Parliament and Advisor to the National Taxi Association and the National Private Hire Vehicles Association, Ms Yeo Wan Ling, shared their feedback with me. The drivers and associations are supportive of this move to ensure the safety of our young families in Singapore. Having these options will expand the ridership base for both our taxi and private hire drivers.
However, she also noted that there are some operational and safety constraints, such as maintaining the cleanliness of child car seats, disinfecting these seats to ensure high standards of hygiene and the time taken to set up these seats.
These are valid concerns and I welcome feedback from all stakeholders to refine the proposals. As we all share the same concerns for the safety of our children, I have no doubt that we can work together to find a feasible arrangement which addresses the operational and safety concerns.
I look forward to further dialogues with the associations, LTA and other stakeholders to strengthen the proposals and make our journeys safer for our children while taking into account the various trade-offs.
Madam, in conclusion, I would like to remind all of us that times have changed. We decided to exempt taxis from child car seats a few decades ago. Child car seat technology has improved drastically since then. What was safe is now even safer. What was impractical is now practical. Our laws and policies must keep up.
In 2006, the idea of installing seat belts in school buses was raised in this House. The Government then replied, let us think carefully about this; after all, there has been no serious injuries for the past six years. But just two years later, a boy was flung out of a school bus and died. This roused the Government to immediate action. Within the year, we mandated the installation of seat belts in school buses and funded it.
Let us not wait for another young one to be hurt before we take action. Taxis are involved in, again, about three injury-causing accidents on average each day. It is a matter of when, not if.
Do not just take it from me as well. Doctors are pushing hard for this, too. Assoc Prof Chong Shu-Ling from the Department of Emergency Medicine at KKH said, \"Just as we would spare nothing to give our children the best, we must endeavour to put them in appropriate car restraints to protect them in the event of a road collision. We must choose to avoid death and permanent brain damage that can occur if an unrestrained child gets seriously hurt.\"
Another doctor from KKH, Dr Nirmal Visruthan said, \"Motor vehicular incidents can be especially traumatic in infants. Using an appropriate car restraint reduces this risk several folds. They can be flung from the car seat if unrestrained and develop head injuries which can cause brain damage. As a parent and paediatrician, it is hard for me to see the children deteriorate or die from these severe injuries. The parents too may suffer from massive guilt of disregarding the importance of strapping them in.\"
Madam, I join the doctors and many others in calling for this important change that will help save lives. Let me end with a quote, as always: \"A health and safety problem can be described by statistics but cannot be understood by statistics. It can only be understood by knowing and feeling the pain, anguish, depression and shattered hopes of the victims and of wives, husbands, parents, children, grandparents and friends.\"
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport (Mr Baey Yam Keng): Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Member started with a story about his daughters and the three dolls. I also have three kids, but we never bought three sets of toys for our kids because we believe that they should learn to share.
The Member has raised several Parliamentary Questions before on the topic of making child seats mandatory in taxis. I would like to commend the Member for his efforts in engaging the different stakeholders and raising awareness for the importance of child seats. In fact, it was the Member who first gave the idea for SMRT's booster seat trial. We also enjoyed the video he made with his two adorable daughters and shared on social media.
We all agree that safety is important. Therefore, we have introduced many measures to protect the safety of motorists, their passengers and other road users. These include good traffic rules, stringent standards in awarding driving and vocational licences, effective traffic management systems and enforcement.
As an additional measure to protect our children, we require all passengers under 1.35 metres in height to be properly secured using approved child restraints or booster seats when travelling in motor vehicles. Taxis are the only exception to this rule.
Our practice is similar to countries, such as Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and some jurisdictions in the US, including New York and Washington DC. The Member is right that places like Germany, California and New South Wales strictly require child restraints and booster seats to be used in taxis. However, in these places, the onus is generally on the parents to bring along the required types and number of child restraints and booster seats. Taxis there are, generally, not required to provide the child restraints and booster seats.
Let me explain the rationale behind this longstanding exception. Over the years, there have been concerns about bulky child seats taking up significant boot space in taxis and the time taken to install and remove them for each trip. As children of different age groups require different types of restraints and seats, there were also concerns about how to ensure that taxis had the right configuration of child seats to cater to different families.
The alternative was for parents to be responsible for providing the child seats, as is the practice in some countries. But there were practical challenges about parents having to lug heavy, bulky car seats around, especially those with bigger families.
As the Member has rightly pointed out, more portable child restraints and seats have become available on the market in recent years.
In 2019, LTA conducted consultations with the public, drivers, operators and other stakeholders on a suite of regulatory changes for the taxi and private hire car, or PHC, sector. At that time, we had also sought public and industry feedback on the option of mandating the use of child restraints and booster seats in taxis. However, views were split almost right down the middle. Even within each group of stakeholders consulted, there were different views.
Amongst parents, less than half the respondents to the public consultation supported requiring all children to be properly secured in child restraints or booster seats in taxis. Some parents felt that they are fundamentally responsible for their child's safety and should be able to decide whether to bring and use child restraints and booster seats. Even if taxis and PHCs are equipped with child restraints and booster seats, some parents also voiced concerns regarding their hygiene and may prefer not to use them. I expect the concerns to be greater now during the current pandemic.
Larger families will also have to divide themselves into multiple vehicles as the carrying capacity of taxis will be reduced with child restraints and booster seats. For example, a family with two adults and three children can commute in one taxi now. If we impose a child seat requirement, the carrying capacity will be reduced to four and this family will need to take two taxis. I believe this applies to the Member's family as well.
Taxi drivers also raised concerns about mandating child seats. Because of the \"flag and go\" nature of street-hail trips, it is not possible for commuters to indicate their requirements for child restraints and booster seats in advance. Drivers expressed concerns about their own safety and causing traffic tailbacks and unhappiness from other road users as they set up the child restraints and booster seats by the side of the road.
The Member mentioned that setting up child restraints and booster seats takes less time than helping a passenger in a wheelchair to board a taxi. There is a difference. Passengers in foldable wheelchairs typically board on the side of the street. They are helped on board, the wheelchair is folded and stowed in the boot.
Child restraints and booster seats are quite different. If there are more than one child restraint and/or booster seats, one of them would have to be set up on the side of the road. The parent would also have to squeeze in between the two children. I note that the Member has not shown us his trick in his video of how he managed to squeeze in between his two kids on their booster seats.
Operators also provided feedback that taxis are expected to meet the needs of diverse groups of passengers. It is not feasible to expect taxis to be equipped with the full range and number of child restraints and booster seats to cater to the different age groups and number of child passengers that they may pick up.
While models proposed by the Member are portable, they are for children who are about nine months or older. Child seats for young infants still tend to be bulkier and more expensive.
So, we will work with the operators to review how the Member's suggestion will affect the remaining boot space for other passengers, such as those with foldable wheelchairs or luggage.
In the meantime, we have observed a significant increase in the number of bookings for family-friendly ride-hail services where parents can indicate their requirement in advance for child restraints and booster seats. Our point-to-point transport operators are sensitive to the market and greater demand for child restraints and booster seats from parents will spur operators to increase the provision.
In fact, SMRT has already conducted a booster seat trial, which the Member is familiar with. For the trial, about 1,750 SMRT taxis were equipped with a booster seat each. Although SMRT's booster seats were provided at no extra cost to the passengers, the take-up rate was still low.
We acknowledge the Member's proposals to provide one child seat and one booster seat in each taxi – his first proposal; and to work with hospitals to increase access and use of infant car seats – his third proposal. These are new ideas which we will share with the relevant agencies and stakeholders.
However, looking at the SMRT trial, the issue is not just about the provision of child restraints and booster seats but also how to raise awareness and ensure that parents use the child restraints and booster seats when they are provided. This is the Member's second recommendation, which we fully support.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, safety is a shared responsibility. On the issue of child seats, parents, drivers and operators all need to be on board. So, raising awareness and reaching a common understanding is key.
Today, we have a workable equilibrium where parents who require child restraints and booster seats can book a ride-hail trip while those that need a street-hail taxi urgently can do so without breaching the law. We will look into viable business and operational models that can provide options for those who need child restraints and booster seats while balancing diverse needs by different families. We will be happy to work with the Member to engage the relevant agencies and stakeholders.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 10.00 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":"Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion","questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Key Decision Factors when Merging Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"19 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the factors that the Ministry will take into consideration when deciding which schools are to be merged; (b) whether the Ministry factors in the protracted increase in school admission rates in a few years’ time due to an increase in the number of new BTO flats within the proximity of Primary schools; and (c) what happens to the school sites, in particular Fuchun Secondary School, that will be left disused after the mergers.
Mr Lawrence Wong: MOE regularly reviews the demand and supply trends at the national and local levels to ensure that there are sufficient school places for all school-going children and that our schools are well distributed geographically. Our school planning takes into account the current and projected population trends and planned housing development programmes, including HDB’s Build-To-Order (BTO) projects. We closely monitor the demand for school places in areas with increased number of school-going children due to new BTO flats and review our plans as necessary.
Declining birth rates, coupled with changing demographics in our housing estates, have led to steadily falling enrolment in some schools. To ensure that students continue to enjoy a vibrant education experience, we have to take the difficult decision to merge some of our schools.
For the school sites that will be vacated, MOE, in consultation with the relevant agencies, will assess the need to retain former school buildings for other uses, such as interim holding sites for schools undergoing upgrading. If there are no plans for the vacated buildings, MOE will return them to the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), which will then work with other Government agencies to put them up either for adaptive reuse or for longer term redevelopment. To Ms Hany Soh’s question on the future of Fuchun Secondary School site which would be vacated in 2024, we have not yet firmed up our plans on its possible use.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of School Mergers on Students' Academic Performance and Development","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"20 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has conducted any studies on the impact of school mergers announced in 2017 on the academic performance and development of students; (b) what are the learnings from the school mergers announced in 2017 to be taken into account in this new round of school mergers; and (c) whether the Ministry is considering research into the impact of smaller form class sizes as an alternative to school closures as a response to declining enrolment.
Mr Lawrence Wong: We have been merging schools for a number of years and have learnt useful lessons to better manage school mergers. These include enhanced support for the affected students and staff, as well as to strengthen stakeholder engagement. We have observed that school mergers have resulted in a better range of school programmes and co-curricular activities, and this contributes to the vibrant and holistic educational experience for students.
Implementing smaller class sizes is not an alternative to school mergers. While our overall enrolment rate is declining, there are differences across towns. In some new estates with many young families, the enrolment continues to go up. It is not practical for students in these estates to have to travel long distances to a school in another town, especially at the Primary level. So, the mergers allow us to re-deploy teachers to the schools with rising enrolment and greater needs.
Moreover, the merged schools, with their resultant larger student enrolments, will be able to provide a better range of school programmes and to offer a wider suite of CCAs to meet the range of talents and interests of students.
The issue of smaller class sizes is really a separate issue. As explained before, MOE will continue to maintain a healthy pupil-teacher ratio in our education system and we will continue to study how best to deploy our teachers to maximise learning outcomes for all students.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Move Towards Complete Paperless Processes and Transactions with Businesses and Public Sector Agencies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) in view of the recently passed Electronic Transactions (Amendment) Bill, whether there will be a gradual move towards complete paperless processes and transactions with businesses and public sector agencies; (b) if so, whether there are plans to incorporate this initiative under the Singapore Green Plan; and (c) whether there are plans to help individuals and businesses who have been left behind in this step towards the digital transformation of businesses.
Mr S Iswaran: The Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) facilitates the digitalisation of businesses and Government processes by according legal certainty to electronic transactions. The amendments passed in February support digitalisation by extending the applicability of the ETA to more types of transactions, including electronic transferable records (ETRs), providing greater certainty for domestic and cross-border electronic transactions.
Beyond legislation, we have rolled out a suite of measures to support businesses at each stage of their digitalisation journey. In the past year alone, we have supported about 40,000 SMEs in adopting digital solutions under the SMEs Go Digital programme. Over 38,000 businesses are now registered on InvoiceNow, compared to only 1,000 a year ago. More than 2,000 enterprises have also gained access to overseas markets through e-commerce platforms under IMDA’s Grow Digital initiative. IMDA’s TradeTrust, a digital utility that connects Governments and businesses to a neutral and public blockchain, also provides businesses the benefit of seamless and secure transfer of ETRs.
For the public sector, as part of the Digital Government Blueprint, we aim for 90%-95% of transactions with the Government to be completed digitally from end to end and we have met this target. This means that most Government transactions are now paperless, cashless and do not require physical presence. However, we recognise that some services will still require a non-digital option, to ensure accessibility.
The Government is mindful that our digitalisation journey has to be inclusive and bring everyone on board in good time. Digital Ambassadors from IMDA’s SG Digital Office have reached out to equip citizens with basic digital skills and tools, including over 90,000 seniors and 10,000 hawkers to date.
Increased adoption of electronic processes and transactions will lead to a reduction in the use of paper documents, as well as the need for physical travel. This supports our push for sustainable development in line with the objectives of the Singapore Green Plan.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Urging Employers to Adopt Tripartite Standard on Work-Life Harmony Guidelines","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Manpower with the Tripartite Standard on Work-Life Harmony launched with guidelines on flexible work arrangements, employee support schemes, enhanced leave policies and suitable arrangements for employees with care-giving responsibilities, what are the ways in which the Ministry is considering to promote to employers to adopt the guidelines.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Tripartite Standard on Work-Life Harmony was launched by the Tripartite Partners in April 2021 to promote the adoption of flexible work arrangements and various employee support schemes. These measures support employees in achieving better work-life harmony and can also help improve a company’s recruitment and retention of talent over time.
The Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices will conduct clinics and briefings to companies, working with the various Trade Associations and Chambers. The National Trades Union Congress and Singapore National Employers Federation will also be encouraging companies to adopt the new Standard through their own networks in the coming months.
Employers who adopt the Standard in 2021 will be able to access the Human Capital Diagnostic Tool (HCDT) at no cost. The HCDT allows organisations to gain valuable insights on the strengths and maturity of their human capital practices, employee workplace experience and well-being, and supports their journey to be a more progressive employer.
The Tripartite Partners have also set up the Alliance for Action on Work-Life Harmony in March this year to rally ground-up action to take ownership of work-life harmony. The Alliance for Action will develop resources, as well as organise sector-specific Communities of Practice to discuss work-life harmony practices that are practical for each sector.
As part of the Alliance, we also have a team of over 100 Work-Life Ambassadors who will promote adoption of the new Tripartite Standard on Work-Life Harmony to both employers and employees. Companies that adopt the Tripartite Standard (TS) can use the TS logo in their publicity and recruitment materials to identify themselves as progressive employers and employers of choice. Ultimately, companies that are progressive in employment practices will find themselves being able to attract and retain more talent in the steady state.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improper Conduct or Sexual Conduct Offences Involving Private Tutors or Private Education Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the percentage of students currently engaging the services of private tutors or attending extra lessons in private education centres; and (b) how many improper sexual conduct related offences have occurred in the past few years involving private tutors or private education centres.
Mr Lawrence Wong: As tuition is optional and supplementary in nature, MOE does not track the overall number of students who attend tuition or enrichment classes, or the number of sexual assault cases involving private tutors and private education centres. If such cases are reported, they will be handled by the Police. Based on Police records, over the past three years from 2018 to 2020, there were about eight reports of sexual assault of students by private tutors or teachers from private tuition centres or enrichment centres per year. This represents about 0.3% of the total number of Police reports of sexual assault.
As private tuition is a commercial business, we encourage parents to exercise discretion and due diligence in engaging the services of tuition and enrichment centres, as well as individual tutors.
As the Minister for Home Affairs informed Parliament last month, the Government is reviewing whether to make it mandatory for persons employed in sectors working with children to be screened for serious offences, including sexual offences.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Restoration of Names to Registers of Electors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister (a) whether a citizen is informed directly by the Elections Department when their name is struck off the Registers of Electors; (b) what steps are taken by the Elections Department to ensure citizens struck off the Registers of Electors can be restored in time for a subsequent election; and (c) whether the Government will consider removing the fee imposed on citizens to restore their names to the Registers of Electors, especially for the first restoration request.
26 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the rationale for ceasing to process requests for restoration of names to the Registers of Electors once the writ of election is issued; and (b) whether the Elections Department will consider extending that timeline to allow more citizens struck off the Registers of Electors to have enough time to submit their restoration request.
27 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister (a) what steps are taken by the Elections Department to encourage registration of overseas voters, especially in the months surrounding each review of the Registers of Electors; and (b) how many Singaporeans living overseas were registered as overseas voters at the General Elections held in 2011, 2015 and 2020, both as a percentage of the total number of overseas Singaporeans and absolute numbers.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): Voting is compulsory in Singapore. Voters who do not turn up to vote in an election will have their names expunged from the Registers of Electors. However, the Elections Department, or ELD in short, undertakes several measures to remind people to restore their names to the Registers of Electors if they had failed to vote.
As required under the law, ELD will display the lists of non-voters for public inspection after every election. These lists can be inspected at ELD, community centres and clubs and Singapore overseas missions. Singaporeans can also check their voter status electronically via the ELD website.
ELD also issues a press release on the inspection of the non-voter lists and encourage non-voters to restore their names to the Registers after every election. For example, after the September 2015 General Election, ELD issued the press release on the inspection of the non-voter lists on 15 October 2015 and reminded non-voters to apply early to restore their names to the Registers so that they can vote at future elections. General Election (GE) 2020 took place subsequently in July 2020. Thus, non-voters at the 2015 General Election or earlier elections had more than four years to restore their names to the Registers so that they are eligible to vote at GE2020. The non-voter lists for GE2020 was issued in October last year and I strongly encourage non-voters at GE2020 to restore their names early so that they can vote at the next election.
The law also requires that the Registers of Electors be brought up to date not later than three years after each general election. After GE2015, and prior to GE2020, the Registers were updated and certified three times, most recently in April 2020. During these exercises, ELD also issues press releases to inform Singaporeans that the lists of Singaporeans eligible to vote at the next election can be inspected at various touchpoints, such as the ELD website, community centres or clubs, at ELD premises, or at Singapore overseas missions which serve as overseas registration centres. Singaporeans who are non-voters are encouraged to take the necessary steps to restore their names to the Registers.
While the law does not require ELD to inform citizens directly when their names are expunged from the Registers, ELD does send notification letters to individual non-voters to remind them to restore their names to the Registers. For example, after the 2015 General Election, ELD conducted two such notification exercises in 2016 and 2019. To make it easy and convenient for non-voters to restore their names, non-voters merely have to scan a QR code in the letter to access ELD’s online services. Alternatively, non-voters can bring along the letter and apply in person at any community centre/club, at the Elections Department or at selected Singapore overseas missions.
Ms He Ting Ru asked whether the Government will consider removing the fee imposed on citizens to restore their names to the Registers. As voting is compulsory in Singapore, any non-voter without a valid reason for not voting will be required to pay a penalty fee of $50. However, for those with valid reasons for not voting, ELD will restore their names without any penalty. These include studying or working overseas, on overseas vacation, on medical leave, hospitalised, bedridden, mental incapacity and so on, such that they are unable to go to the polling stations to vote on Polling Day.
Ms He Ting Ru also asked for the rationale for ceasing to process requests for restoration of names to the Register of Electors once the Writ of Election is issued and if we can extend the timeline for restoration. The cessation is required so that ELD can finalise the Registers and proceed with downstream preparatory activities, such as the printing and mailing of the poll cards and preparing the polling station registers. Finalising the Registers and making available the finalised Registers to candidates and political parties also help to ensure the integrity of the electoral system, as it makes clear to all parties and candidates who the voters in their respective constituencies are. As I have explained, ELD reminds non-voters to restore their names to the Registers of Electors as early as a few months after the previous election. As such, non-voters have more than enough time to restore their names before the next election.
Ms He also asked what steps ELD takes to encourage overseas voters to register when the Registers are prepared. When the Registers are prepared or revised, ELD will also remind eligible overseas Singaporeans, via press releases, to register early as overseas voters if they wish to vote at one of the 10 overseas polling stations. For those who may not have come across the news carried by the Singapore media, ELD works with MFA and the Singapore Global Network (SGN) to reach out to overseas Singaporeans on their database. ELD also emails overseas Singaporeans even if they had registered before, to inform them to register as overseas voters with each preparation or revision to the Registers of Electors. For GE2020, our 10 overseas missions, serving as overseas polling stations and registration centres, also emailed the overseas Singaporeans in their respective databases to remind them to register as overseas voters before the registration closed on the third day after the Writ was issued. I encourage all Singaporeans living abroad to register with MFA so that they can receive such relevant information and stay connected to home.
For GE2020, 6,570 voters registered to vote overseas. This was 3.2% of the overseas Singaporean population as of June 2020. The figures were 3,676 voters in GE2011, which was 1.9% of the overseas Singaporean population as of June 2011 and 4,868 voters in GE2015, which was 2.3% of the overseas Singaporean population in June 2015. While more overseas Singaporeans are registering to vote overseas, ELD will continually review how we can improve access to voting for overseas Singaporeans while ensuring the integrity and secrecy of the vote.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Findings and Lessons Learnt from Erroneous $370 Million Payout from Jobs Support Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the cause of overpayments under the Jobs Support Scheme last year; (b) whether businesses will be affected by the rectification actions; and (c) what are the measures taken to prevent potential recurrence.
31 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) when and how have the overpayments for the Jobs Support Scheme been detected; (b) what lessons have been incorporated to prevent similar issues in the future; (c) whether the external auditors have discovered other errors; and (d) when is the Ministry expecting the overpayment amounts to be fully recovered.
32 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether there can be additional cashflow support, such as short-term loans offered to the companies that will have their excess Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) payouts reclaimed from them, as their manpower budgets may have already been set at the start of the year taking into account the future JSS payouts.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: MTI and MOF had shared in a joint press statement on 8 April 2021 that as a result of the incorrect tagging of businesses’ re-opening dates, incorrect Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) payouts were made, with about 5,400 businesses overpaid and 1,100 businesses underpaid. Together, this is about 4% of firms eligible for JSS. The median, 75th percentile and mean overpaid amount was $3,300, $11,600, and $69,000 respectively.
Members will recall that this time last year, Singapore was in a circuit breaker due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Workplaces across Singapore were closed except for those providing essential services. This was unprecedented. We had never shut down the economy before. The scale and speed at which we had to do so was unprecedented. Cashflow was critical to the survival of firms and the Government responded swiftly, where, amongst various measures, the JSS was introduced and enhanced several rounds to provide wage support for firms. In particular, the Fortitude Budget introduced on 26 May 2020 provided for JSS support to be pegged at the highest tier till the dates when businesses were permitted to reopen after the Circuit Breaker ends on 2 June 2020. The JSS also provides higher support for firms in sectors that are more severely impacted, using the classification of firms based on their Singapore Standard Industrial Classification codes, or SSIC codes for short, amongst other parameters.
It is unfortunate that the complexity, urgency and scale of the circuit breaker operations led to some data errors.
MTI undertook the complex operations of working with multiple Government agencies to process applications from businesses to resume operations after the circuit breaker. Businesses were permitted to re-open in phases for broad classes of activities as proxied by their SSIC codes but there were also cases where MTI had to review in depth as some business entities have different lines of businesses which are not reflected in their SSIC codes. Due to the work settings where there may be a high degree of interactions amongst individuals, businesses in the Construction, Marine and Process (CMP) and the Tourism sectors had to submit applications to resume operations and each application had to be individually reviewed.
MTI and the various Government agencies had to process the applications quickly so as not to delay support for firms. At the same time, there was a significant volume of more than 1.8 million applications from businesses to resume operations after the circuit breaker.
Enterprise IT systems were not available to manage the circuit breaker and re-opening process. To build a new system to process the applications from firms and the corresponding re-opening dates would have required at least six months which would not be acceptable as we have to process the data in a timely manner to render financial support to firms. As such, existing systems and manual processes had to be used to grant approvals for businesses to re-open.
IRAS’ regular checks on JSS disbursements detected potential anomalies in November 2020. At that time, the cause of the anomalies and the number of businesses affected were unclear as JSS computations involved data from multiple agencies including MTI, IRAS, CPF Board and MOF. It was only after thorough investigation that the cause of the anomalies was traced to the reopening dates.
Let me elaborate on the overpayment cases. These are cases which primarily involve firms supporting CMP projects but which are not CMP firms themselves. These firms were wrongly tagged with the re-opening date of the CMP projects because their company details had been included in the project resumption application, even though they were playing only a supporting role, if at all, in the projects. For example, construction projects often require the services of machinery and equipment rental firms to support various aspects of the construction project. A machinery rental firm, which is under the SSIC code of 77330, would have been permitted to operate on 2 June, together with other firms in its class. The error occurred when the 2 June re-opening date for the firm was erroneously overwritten with the later construction project approval date, say of 1 July. This led to such firms being wrongly ascribed a longer closure period and thus allocated higher JSS payouts for the affected period, in this example of between 2 June and 1 July.
Despite the urgency of time and pressure to support businesses and livelihoods, we could have done better. MTI and MOF have written to the affected businesses to inform them of the overpayments. We will do our best to ensure minimum inconvenience and disruptions. Most affected firms will not need to take any action as IRAS will automatically offset the excess amount against the businesses’ future JSS payouts.
We have recovered over $250 million (68%) through automatic offsets from the affected firms’ JSS payouts in end April. We have also reached out to the larger affected firms and secured their commitment to return an additional $83 million (22%). We expect to recover another $20 million or 5% from firms’ future JSS payouts and the remaining in cash thereafter. The offsets will be completed by December 2021 when the final JSS tranche is be paid out to eligible firms. Firms will be given sufficient time to return in cash any outstanding balance.
We estimate that there will be about 1,000 firms whose future JSS payouts will be insufficient to fully offset the excess payment. MTI, MOF and IRAS will reach out to these firms to recover the overpayment. The cash recovery sum for three-quarters of these firms is less than $10,000; the estimated median recovery sum is less than $3,500. Based on our records, no firms who received the erroneous payments have been wound up to date.
Businesses that face cashflow difficulties may approach us for assistance. We will make available the option for instalment payments. Enterprise Singapore also has a temporary bridging loan programme offered by participating financial institutions.
Since the incident, MTI has worked with MOF and IRAS to carefully examine and rectify the processes. Additional checks and steps have been instituted to prevent similar occurrences. The compilation of re-opening dates is no longer done manually and is now coded with rules that have been reviewed and tested. An external auditor has also been engaged to thoroughly check and verify the re-opening dates used in the computation of JSS payouts. The agencies will learn from this incident and spare no effort to strengthen processes going forward.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Making Sure Lawyers Appointed by Legal Aid Bureau Act With Due Despatch","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Law (a) what steps does the Legal Aid Bureau take to ensure that lawyers appointed by LAB act competently and with due despatch on legal aid matters assigned to them; (b) whether LAB conducts regular satisfaction surveys with legally-aided persons to elicit their views about service levels accorded to them by the lawyers appointed by LAB; and (c) if so, what is the service quality standard of lawyers appointed by LAB over the past three years as elicited from these surveys.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Legal Aid Bureau (LAB) has practice groups in the areas of family, civil and Syariah law, which are headed by experienced in-house lawyers from the Legal Service. LAB’s in-house lawyers are governed by the Public Service Code of Conduct and held to high professional standards. They undergo regular training and development, including attachments with senior practitioners in private practice, to learn about niche areas of law. The in-house team of lawyers have a mix of public sector and private practice experience.
These in-house lawyers are supplemented by a pool of volunteer lawyers from private practice who handle about one-third of LAB’s cases. All volunteers are screened and have to demonstrate that they understand LAB’s ethos and their roles and responsibilities before they can take on cases. Some of these lawyers have volunteered for more than 20 years and assisted hundreds of legal aid recipients.
All LAB cases are reviewed by the Director of Legal Aid on a quarterly basis to ensure quality and timely progress. For cases handled by its in-house lawyers, LAB also tracks the time taken to process an aid application, and time taken to draft, vet and file Court documents, to ensure timely progress. The statistics on case progress are shared with supervisors, as well as staff to empower them to monitor their own performance.
LAB also monitors the cases handled by volunteers. If a volunteer is found to have caused undue delay, LAB may reassign the case. If legal aid applicants raise any issues about the work of the volunteers, LAB will conduct internal investigations and reassign the case if need be. After completion of a case, LAB rates the volunteer on their timeliness and quality of the work done, taking into account applicants’ feedback on the case. Volunteers who are consistently rated below a certain threshold may not be assigned further cases from LAB.
The Bureau conducts yearly customer satisfaction surveys. The average overall customer satisfaction for the past three years (from 2018 to 2020) was 96%, that is, 96% of applicants indicated overall satisfaction with LAB’s services, including in the last year. In addition, in the 2020 survey, more than nine in 10 survey respondents indicated satisfaction with what the lawyers had done to progress their cases and that their lawyers were respectful and understanding and made sufficient efforts to help them understand what was happening with their cases.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cases of Vaping in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Education (a) how many cases of vaping in schools have been reported yearly since the ban on electronic vaporisers in 2018; (b) what more can be done in schools to educate our youths on the dangers of using electronic vaporisers; and (c) what actions have been taken on those who supply electronic vaporisers or e-cigarettes to the students in Secondary schools and Junior Colleges.
Mr Lawrence Wong: About six in every 1,000 students in Primary and Secondary schools, Junior Colleges and Centralised Institutes were caught for smoking or vaping offences annually. We do not have the breakdown of vaping cases.
Students are educated on the harmful effects of smoking and vaping through the school curriculum and they are reminded that vaping at any age and underaged smoking are illegal. In Primary and Secondary schools, students are taught that all tobacco products are harmful and can adversely affect their health and fitness. Students also learn Singapore’s laws and regulations regarding smoking and vaping, and the consequences on individuals, families and the society. We will monitor the trend, work with the Health Promotion Board (HPB) and continue to refresh the teaching materials.
Students are also equipped with skills to say no to those who offer them harmful substances, including electronic cigarettes. They learn to recognise impulsive and addictive behaviours that harm one's mental and physical well-being, as well as strategies for self-control and managing negative peer influences. Through the lessons, students are encouraged to make responsible decisions by considering how their actions can affect themselves and others. HPB also supports interactive educational programmes for all students, provides training for teachers, and pushes useful information to students through the HealthHub website and mobile application.
When students are caught using or possessing e-cigarettes and other types of vaporisers, school-based disciplinary action is taken. They are reported to the Health Sciences Authority (HSA). HSA may fine recalcitrant offenders and they are required to attend cessation programmes run by HPB. Students are guided by counsellors through their cessation journey to make long-term behavioural changes.
HSA investigates the source of supply from students reported by schools. Those who supply e-vaporisers to students are liable to be prosecuted in Court facing penalties, including fines, imprisonment or both. If they are underaged themselves, they may be made to attend a pre-Court diversionary rehabilitation programme like the Guidance Programme under the purview of MSF.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sale and Import of Vaping Devices via E-commerce Platforms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry is monitoring the trend of vaping in Singapore since the pandemic; (b) how is the Ministry working with popular e-commerce platforms to mitigate the sale and import of vaping devices; and (c) what measures are being taken to increase awareness about the dangers of vaping, especially among teens.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: MOH and the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) had observed an increase in the number of seized electronic vaporisers (e-vaporisers) in 2019 compared to the previous two years. This upward trend continued in 2020. Similarly, the number of cases involving the sales of e-vaporisers or individuals caught for possession of these products has seen an increase over the same period.
HSA works closely with the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA) to interdict e-vaporisers and related items smuggled through the checkpoints and parcels coming in via online orders. In addition, as part of enforcement efforts to prevent the illegal online sales of these products, HSA carries out active online surveillance and takes enforcement actions against those who buy or sell such products online. To complement our enforcement operations, HSA has also collaborated with online purchasing platforms, including Instagram, Carousell, Facebook and related e-commerce sites, to remove postings on the illegal sale of such products. In 2020, more than 2,000 postings were removed.
The Health Promotion Board (HPB) works closely with MOE and Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) to raise awareness among youths about the benefits of leading a tobacco-free lifestyle and encourage them to stay vape-free. This involves organising online learning activities on the harms of vaping, through gamification methods, for example, virtual escape rooms, to educate the youths. HPB also provides resources for self-directed learning and trains educators so that they are equipped to discuss the harms of vaping with their students. Information on the negative effects of vaping is also available on HealthHub.
My Ministry would like to remind the public that the importation, sale, distribution, purchase, use and possession of e-vaporisers and its accessories are prohibited under the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act. We will continue to work with our partner agencies to control access to, as well as educate the public on the negative health effects of these emerging products.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Companies in Prison's Yellow Ribbon Pool of Employer Partners","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many companies are there currently in Yellow Ribbon Singapore's pool of employer partners; (b) of the more than 2,000 ex-inmates placed into jobs by Yellow Ribbon Singapore, whether there is data being collected on their job retention rate; (c) if so, what is the average length of stay of employment; and (d) what is the rate of recidivism amongst these candidates placed in jobs by Yellow Ribbon Singapore.
Mr K Shanmugam: As of March 2021, there were 5,974 employers registered with Yellow Ribbon Singapore, or YRSG, to offer employment opportunities to ex-offenders.
YRSG tracks the job retention rate of ex-offenders who are provided with job retention support, or JRS. Ex-offenders under JRS are assigned a career coach for up to 12 months after release. The career coach works closely with the ex-offenders to provide relevant support, such as guiding them on how to manage job demands and setting behavioural goals.
The most recent available recidivism rate data is for the 2018 release cohort. YRSG provided JRS to about 1,500 ex-offenders in that cohort and tracked their employment status for one year. YRSG found that 66% had remained employed for six months or more. The two-year recidivism rate of ex-offenders in this 2018 cohort who were on JRS was 20.1%. This was lower than the recidivism rate of 22.7% for ex-offenders in the same cohort who did not receive JRS.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Flexibility on Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty for Divorcees Buying Another Property before Final Court Ruling","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether IRAS can consider allowing more flexibility for a divorcee to purchase a property without the Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty before the final Court ruling on the divorce with a condition that the existing property needs to be disposed of within the timeframe according to the Court ruling.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The policy intent of the Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty (ABSD) is to moderate demand and to ensure a stable and sustainable residential property market.
For Singaporeans, ABSD is applicable on the purchase of a second and subsequent residential property. This applies regardless of whether they dispose of their first property subsequently. This is because even if the first property is eventually disposed of, the purchase of the second property adds to the demand for residential properties at the time of purchase.
Only one exception is made, namely for Singaporean married couples. A Singaporean married couple may need to change home due to changing family needs, such as when they have more children or when their children are growing up, or when the couple needs to right-size in their senior years. It is in this context that we have an ABSD concession for Singaporean married couples buying a second property. Under this concession, a Singaporean married couple is required to pay ABSD upon buying their second property, then claim a refund of the ABSD paid on their second property, provided that they sell their first property within six months1 after the purchase of a completed property or the Temporary Occupation Permit date of an uncomplete property.
This ABSD concession is not available to other groups of property buyers, as our overall key objective remains to moderate the demand for residential properties, including that for second residential property of Singaporeans.
Buyers who do not wish to incur the higher ABSD on second residential properties may wish to consider selling their first property before purchasing their second property.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : On 6 May 2020, in view of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government announced an extension of the sale timeline by six months, subject to conditions."],"footNoteQuestions":["38"],"questionNo":"38"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government Spend on Preventive Care as a Proportion of Overall Spending on Healthcare Expenditure","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health (a) how much does the Government spend on preventive care as a proportion of overall spending on healthcare expenditure; (b) what are the key performance indicators of preventive care programmes and what is their progress so far; and (c) what is the impact of these programmes in addressing health issues that lead to unhealthy ageing and chronic illnesses.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: In 2020, about 5% of MOH’s non-COVID-19 related budget, or $590 million, was spent on preventive healthcare. For 2021, a similar 5% of MOH’s non-COVID-19 related budget, or $720 million, is earmarked for preventive healthcare efforts, including $330 million to fund the work of the Health Promotion Board. These preventive healthcare efforts include public education campaigns, healthy lifestyle activities in schools, workplaces and community settings, engaging industry to spur reformulation of staple food products, subsidies for health screening and recommended vaccinations, and regulations to protect our health.
The direct impact of preventive health interventions on overall population health can be challenging to quantify specifically as the overall health and well-being depends on many factors, including the individual’s lifestyle choices as well as other medical and social interventions. The impact of preventive health measures will also take time to manifest. However, the effect of these programmes can be monitored at three levels.
Firstly, we monitor disease prevalence rates and disease burden, measured in the form of Disability Adjusted Life Years, or DALYs. Singapore’s age-standardised DALYs rate in 2019 was 15,045 per 100,000 population, a decrease from 25,491 DALYs per 100,000 population in 1990, which means that our population now, on average, experiences less potential life years lost due to ill-health and premature death. Singapore also ranked first globally for our health-adjusted life expectancy in 2019, which means that, compared to other countries, we live a longer life in good health.
Secondly, in the short- to mid-term, the prevalence of modifiable lifestyle risk factors, such as physical inactivity, diet and smoking, are monitored. From 2010 to 2018, Singaporeans were, generally, eating healthier with more wholegrains, less saturated fat while maintaining their daily levels of energy intake. Singaporeans were also moving about more as the prevalence of sufficient Total Physical Activity (TPA), defined as at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity or equivalent activities per week, has increased among adult Singaporeans aged 18 to 74 from 73.1% in 2013 to 80.1% in 2019. Smoking prevalence has also decreased from 13.9 % to 10.6% and, with the raising of the legal smoking age to 21 on 1 January 2021, we hope to push smoking rates even lower. However, there remain challenges, such as the increasing prevalence of obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure and high blood cholesterol, and we will need to sustain our efforts to address these.
Thirdly, at the short-term programmatic level, we monitor the impact of different interventions based on desired outcomes, such as improved market share of healthier food choices, improved participation rates and access to health promotion activities, or improved health behaviours. For example, efforts, such as the Healthier Choice Symbol (HCS) programme and the Healthier Dining Programme (HDP), expanded healthier food choices for Singaporeans. The market share of HCS products has risen from 25% in 2010 to 29% in 2019, and the HDP attracted more than 2,600 food and beverage operators, hawker centres and coffeeshops, across 11,500 touchpoints as of December 2020. We will also be implementing mandatory labels and advertising regulations on sugar-sweetened beverages, to further encourage healthier choices. We have programmes that encourage physical activity, such as Sundays At the Park, Sunrise In the City and the National Steps ChallengeTM (NSC). NSC had 1.7 million participants across five seasons and the participation has grown from 129,000 in 2015 to 913,000 in 2020. Regular users have also grown more active over time, recording an improvement of 35 minutes per week of physical activity from 2018 to 2020. This correlates with the earlier observations of the increase in total physical activity over the years.
HPB’s increased efforts targeted at various settings, such as schools, workplaces, community, have improved the population’s accessibility to the various health promoting programmes. For example, our Healthy Workplace Ecosystems increased from 16 in 2015 to 68 in 2020 to bring programmes to over 406,000 workers in 2020. Customised programmes, such as health coaching, are offered to workers in sectors with a greater proportion of older workers, including transport and logistics, security sectors and more. These programmes have also shown good improvements in the health behaviours of their participants. For example, among those who participate in our Healthy Workplace Ecosystem programmes, seven in 10 participants surveyed reported an increase in active time, and one in three reported to be consuming healthier meals. We will continue to monitor the progress of these programmes.
The resources the Government has committed to its preventive health enterprise is evidence of its sustained commitment to move \"beyond healthcare to health\". MOH will continue to champion the importance of health promotion to keep Singaporeans of all ages in good health.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measure of Willingness to Pay Higher Prices for Services by Progressive Wage Model Sectors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry will study whether service buyers are prepared to pay higher prices for services from the Progressive Wage Model sectors arising from mandatory wage increases amidst an uncertain economic climate; and (b) what is the impact on SME service providers that may be unable to pass on the increased costs due to the mandatory wage increases to service buyers.
Mrs Josephine Teo: As the Member is aware, wage increases in the mandatory Progressive Wage Model (PWM) sectors are deliberated by the respective sector’s tripartite cluster committee. These comprise representatives from employer associations, unions, service buyers and the Government.
We expect that discussions in the tripartite cluster committees will reflect the views of firms and buyers on the economic conditions and whether the proposed increases are manageable. When it comes to lower wage workers, we should not be so quick to cite economic conditions as a reason to postpone wage increases. Instead, precisely because of the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, we must make every effort to keep up and ensure lower-wage workers emerge stronger from this crisis. The National Wages Council (NWC) also recognises this. Despite the downturn in 2020, it called for the continuation of agreed PWM wage increments. The NWC also called on employers implementing wage freeze to instead consider wage increases for lower wage workers and those implementing wage reductions to instead freeze wages of lower wage workers.
In the security, cleaning and landscape sectors, where PWM has been implemented for several years, we have seen contract values increase, reflecting the higher wage cost. This shows that firms in the PWM sectors are able to pass on the wage cost increases to service buyers. In addition, rogue firms that do not comply with PWM wage requirements risk losing their licence status.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Further Actions by ASEAN for Myanmar's Political Situation following ASEAN Leaders' Meeting on 24 April 2021","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) what is the Ministry's latest assessment of the political situation in Myanmar; and (b) how best can ASEAN and Singapore contribute towards the well-being of the people of Myanmar.
45 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs following the ASEAN Leaders’ Meeting on 24 April 2021 (a) what further actions will now be taken by ASEAN to ensure that the Myanmar military will work towards a peaceful and democratic resolution of the political crisis; and (b) what does Singapore hope for ASEAN to achieve and what is the expected timeframe.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: I will respond to questions by Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Dennis Tan on how ASEAN and Singapore can address the deteriorating situation in Myanmar, in light of the ASEAN Leaders’ Meeting (ALM) which took place on 24 April 2021.
The situation in Myanmar remains fraught with on-going fatalities, increased clashes between the Tatmadaw and the Ethnic Armed Organisations, and the severe COVID-19 pandemic. According to the UN, more than 700 people have been killed since 1 February. President Win Myint, State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi and other political detainees remain under detention. Protests against the military are continuing. This points to an increasingly intractable situation that threatens to further disrupt regional stability.
Our immediate priority remains the de-escalation of the situation in Myanmar, particularly the cessation of violence that has caused the tragic loss of civilian lives. The ALM in Jakarta on 24 April 2021 was a positive initial step. The resulting Five-Point Consensus calls for: first, the immediate cessation of violence in Myanmar, and for all parties to exercise utmost restraint; second, the commencement of constructive dialogue among all parties concerned, to seek a peaceful solution in the interests of the people; third, a special envoy of the ASEAN Chair, assisted by the Secretary-General of ASEAN, to facilitate mediation of the dialogue process; fourth, ASEAN to provide humanitarian assistance through the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management (AHA Centre); and fifth, the special envoy and delegation to visit Myanmar and meet with all parties concerned. The Chairman’s Statement on the ALM also called for the release of all political prisoners.
ASEAN’s immediate task is to implement the Five-Point Consensus. This will not be an easy process. The cooperation of the Tatmadaw will be needed. There are many details to be worked out, including nominating an envoy or a team of ASEAN envoys, their terms of reference, as well as working out how and when to disburse humanitarian assistance. ASEAN will also have to continue to speak collectively to urge the Myanmar military authorities to uphold the consensus – particularly to exercise maximum restraint and begin meaningful dialogue with all parties concerned. ASEAN must also continue to call for the release of all political detainees, notably President Win Myint and State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi.
While the ALM represented an initial step, the path back to normalcy in Myanmar will be a long and difficult one. As I have said before, the long-term and sustainable resolution of the current crisis, ultimately, lies with the Myanmar people. The key stakeholders in Myanmar must negotiate, find a compromise and formulate a durable political solution. Ultimately, it is their political will to do what is right for the people of Myanmar that would determine how quickly a solution can be found. ASEAN can only help to facilitate this dialogue and support the process.
At the same time, Singapore and ASEAN must continue to work with and complement the efforts by the UN and other international bodies, including the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy on Myanmar Ms Christine Schraner Burgener. Other countries like China, the US, India, Japan and other Dialogue Partners of ASEAN also have important roles to play, given their considerable influence over the various actors in this crisis.
Singapore will continue to do what we can to support ASEAN’s efforts in facilitating a return to normalcy, peace and stability in Myanmar, including through the implementation of the Five-Point Consensus. We hope that wisdom and good sense will prevail, and we stand ready to do our part.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Limit Home-based Learning Days for Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Education whether home-based learning for Secondary school and Junior College students can be reduced from two days per month to one day per school term as not all students have conducive home learning environments and there is merit to socialising and learning in a school setting.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Home-Based Learning (HBL) days are meant to complement, and not substitute, in-school learning. They provide students with more opportunities to learn independently and to be more self-directed in their learning. They will continue to have opportunities on these days to learn with and interact with their fellow students. Our students will thus benefit from both in-school and home-based modes of learning.
Having HBL days scheduled about twice a month for Secondary school and Pre-University students represents about 10% of curriculum time in an academic year. This is a good balance that allows students to experience HBL often enough to develop the skills and mindsets to become more independent and self-directed learners, without unduly compromising the in-person learning experience in schools.
For students whose home environment is not conducive for HBL, or who require additional support in their learning, they can return to school for HBL days. These students will still be learning independently and have the freedom to organise their learning schedule but in a school setting.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Balancing Benefits of Digital Device Usage in Schools with Possible Side Effects","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education what is the Ministry's plan in balancing the benefit of digital device usage in schools as part of a national digital literacy programme and its effects on students' health in light of a KKH-led study that finds new links between child screen time and emotional and behavioural difficulties.
Mr Lawrence Wong: As part of a well-balanced school experience, the meaningful use of Personal Learning Devices (PLDs) can bring about positive educational outcomes, including deepened subject mastery and increased student engagement.
The KKH-led study looked into the effect of excessive screen-time on children two to five years old. MOE is similarly concerned that device use should be age-appropriate. As part of National Digital Literacy Programme, Personal Learning Devices (PLDs) are only being rolled-out to Secondary level students this year. We are currently studying the use of PLDs at the Primary school level and how this might impact younger students.
For Secondary students being equipped with PLDs, MOE has provided schools with guidance to ensure that the use of PLDs as part of the school’s instructional programme is balanced in relation to other activities and modes of learning. In addition, parents will able to set screen-time limits to ensure that their children do not spend excessive amounts of time using the device. These measures complement the school’s efforts to empower students to utilise technology safely. MOE also provides students with a “Student Kit for Cyber Wellness and Learning with a PLD” to reinforce the Cyber Wellness knowledge and skills.
Parents play an important role in helping their child manage their screen time at home. MOE has developed Cyber Wellness resources in the MOE Parent Kit Website and two Parent Handbooks on Learning with PLDs to equip parents with strategies and resources for digital parenting.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Companies Affected by Restrictions on Travellers from India","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for National Development whether any additional support will be provided to companies in the construction, marine and process sectors to cope with new restrictions on travellers from India.
49 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the recent border restrictions on India will have a significant impact on the supply of workers to the construction industry; (b) what are the available alternative sources of labour supply for the construction sector; and (c) how can the Government assist construction companies impacted by the border restrictions and the increased number of quarantine cases at the workers’ dormitories.
Mr Desmond Lee: The recent tightening of our border measures with India and other countries will have a significant impact on the supply of Work Permit holders for the Construction, Marine Shipyard and Process (CMP) sectors.
This would lead to delays in our infrastructure projects. For example, about 85% of on-going BTO projects have already been delayed by about six to nine months beyond the Estimated Completion Dates originally indicated to flat buyers during project launches. Barring any unforeseen circumstances, we are expecting a further delay of three months, on top of the six to nine months previously communicated, arising from the recent border measures.
Projects in the Marine Shipyard sector could also face delays, which would erode Singapore’s global competitiveness and our ability to secure future projects in these sectors. This would potentially also result in the loss of local jobs. For the Process sector, projects facing delays could face cashflow issues, potentially also resulting in layoffs. In summary, while the recent border measures are necessary to safeguard our public health, there will be significant implications for various stakeholders and our economy.
While the current border measures remain in force, CMP firms can continue to source for WPHs from other countries, such as the People’s Republic of China (PRC). BCA has recently announced that it will temporarily allow new PRC construction WPHs to enter Singapore to work first and take their skills certification test locally instead of in the PRC. This will allow firms to continue bringing in workers even though some PRC Overseas Testing Centres had not resumed operations due to COVID-19. BCA and EDB are also working with industry partners to explore other measures to help alleviate the tight labour situation for the CMP sectors.
In addition, we will continue to help firms cope with the financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. We have already announced a few support measures for the construction sector. First, we have granted an additional 49-day Extension of Time (EOT) for eligible public sector construction projects on top of the 122 days of EOT provided under the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act (COTMA). This allows contractors more time to complete their projects. Second, contractors for eligible public sector projects with an awarded contract sum of up to $100 million will receive 0.1% of the awarded contract sum for every month of delay as payment for non-manpower related qualifying costs under COTMA, without the need to provide detailed substantiation for their claims.
Third, we have also topped up the existing foreign worker levy rebates for CMP WPHs from $90 to $250 per worker per month, for the period between May to December 2021.
Fourth, we have tabled urgent legislation to put in place a framework to allow parties to apply to adjust the contract sum for their projects, in view of foreign manpower cost increases.
BCA and EDB will continue to engage firms and assess if additional measures are needed to help the CMP sectors through this crisis. That said, we must press on with our efforts to transform the CMP sectors to make them more productive and manpower-lean and reduce our overall reliance on migrant workers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mental Health Support to Lower Income","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) in light of the increased need for mental well-being support and increased use of online healthcare and counselling services; (b) whether the current schemes and subsidies to provide mental health services to the lower income are sufficient; and (c) whether there are plans to review and provide a holistic support structure in terms of uplifting these individuals.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The COVID-19 pandemic has provided fresh impetus to pay heed to the importance of mental health and well-being. We are committed to ensuring that all Singaporeans can access mental health services, regardless of their income level. We have several schemes and initiatives in place, many of which provide additional support for lower income groups.
Today, mental health services are subsidised at public healthcare institutions. Under the Chronic Disease Management Programme, the Community Health Assist Scheme provides each patient with subsidies of up to $500 per year for the management of mental health conditions, and patients can also use their MediSave to defray the cost of treatment at polyclinics, public Specialist Outpatient Clinics and participating private general practitioner and specialist clinics. MediFund is also available at public healthcare institutions as a safety net to assist needy Singaporeans who are unable to afford their medical care, including for mental health.
There is a variety of social services providing mental health support. Counselling programmes offered by Social Service Agencies (SSAs) and funded by the National Council of Social Service are either free-of-charge or subsidised, with subsidies and corresponding out-of-pocket fees varying according to clients’ income levels. Low-income and vulnerable families can also approach any of our 48 Family Service Centres (FSCs). FSCs provide counselling and case management support for those with socio-emotional needs and bring in the relevant mental health services to provide specialist support where needed.
Individuals of all income levels may also access free mental health support through platforms, such as helplines and online services. These include the National CARE Hotline and 24-hour crisis hotlines by Samaritans of Singapore and the Institute of Mental Health. Mindline.sg also provides an online repository of free resources and tools to improve mental well-being.
To provide greater mental health support in the community, MOH, together with the Agency for Integrated Care, works with community partners, such as the SSAs, to provide mental health services under the Community Mental Health Masterplan. This includes expanding community mental health services, such as the community outreach teams and community intervention teams, to support persons with mental health needs in the community. In addition, a new inter-agency platform on mental health and well-being will be established by mid-2021 and co-led by MOH and MSF. The platform will oversee mental health and well-being efforts, focusing on cross-cutting issues that require multi- and inter-agency collaborations.
The Government is committed to uplifting lower income families and households, including supporting their mental health needs. My Ministry will continue to work closely with other Government agencies and community partners to ensure the availability of mental wellness services to all who require such support.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Wider Use of Online Mental Wellness Resources Given Constraints on Visits to Clinics","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Health given the constraints on movements and visits to clinics, whether there are plans to educate the public, especially those less familiar with the use of computers, about the use of online mental wellness resources.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: There is a wide range of mental health-related resources available online to provide the public with information on mental health and well-being, including Mindline.sg, which is an online repository of mental health resources and tools to improve mental well-being. The use of such resources is promoted through efforts, such as the \"Brave the New\" campaign, to help the general population cope with the increased stressors and adjustment challenges brought about by COVID-19.
The Government and public agencies have been reaching out to those who are less technology-savvy on the use of information technologies (IT) to access services, and we have increased our efforts since the Circuit Breaker last year. As part of the \"Brave The New\" campaign to support seniors to cope with emotional and mental stress arising from the new normal, volunteers from the Silver Generation Office (SGO) were deployed to guide and help seniors access online resources and self-care tools. SGO continues to encourage digital adoption among seniors by introducing them to the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA)’s Mobile Access for Seniors scheme, which provides subsidised mobile phones and data plans to seniors who are unable to afford them. Seniors are also encouraged to visit the SG Digital Community Hubs located island-wide to pick up basic digital skills through the Senior Go Digital programme. More than 90,000 seniors have been trained under the programme.
MOH will continue to promote the use and access of online mental wellness resources to achieve better mental health for the population.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Handling Cases of Excessive Hoarding at Home","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry has identified excessive hoarding at home as a social or mental health issue; and (b) whether there are assistance programmes to help change the behaviour of such dwellers, especially those living in HDB estates, and to improve their mental and environmental well-being.
Mr Desmond Lee: Hoarding is a behaviour characterised by excessive acquisition and persistent difficulty in discarding possessions. People hoard for a variety of reasons, which include social and mental health issues. Some may start off hoarding with the good intention of reusing and recycling, while others do it because of loneliness and the need to feel engaged by something they consider meaningful. Hoarders often lack insight into the consequences of their hoarding and may not seek help on their own.
As the underlying motivation for hoarding and context vary from case to case, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Instead, the Municipal Services Office has worked with relevant agencies to develop the Hoarding Management Framework, which guides officers across agencies in providing coordinated support to address the hoarding issue. Much time and effort are spent on each hoarding case to diagnose the root cause, intervene, monitor and try to ensure progress. If the hoarder is assessed to have mental health issues based on a set of established criteria, the hoarder will be referred to the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) and the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) for professional assessment and treatment.
At the first instance, to ensure residents’ safety and well-being, HDB will advise the hoarder to remove excess items and keep his or her flat tidy. For severe cases which pose a risk or dis-amenities to neighbours, HDB will also work with regulatory agencies, such as SCDF for fire hazards and NEA for public health, to declutter the flat and corridor for the safety of residents. Community volunteers may also be involved in the decluttering.
Hoarders often experience distress when asked to declutter and hoarding behaviour may also recur. HDB works closely with family members, MSF and community partners, such as social workers from Social Service Agencies and AIC, to provide counselling and support during and after decluttering.
If family members wish to raise the topic with a hoarder, IMH suggests that the family members should be gentle in their approach and try to understand the intent and meaning behind the hoarding behaviour. The hoarder will be more receptive to a soft approach built upon one’s relationship with him or her. However, if the hoarding behaviour worsens or causes public health and safety concerns, family members and residents may report such cases through the OneService App.
The process to fully resolve a hoarding issue can be long-drawn and is highly dependent on the hoarder’s willingness and ability to change his or her behaviour. Therefore, we will need strong support from the hoarder’s family and community. In many of the successful interventions, family members and neighbours have worked closely with agencies and grassroots leaders to encourage and assist the hoarders such that their behaviour does not recur.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Diploma Courses that Train Broad-based Skills","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education with regard to the drop in Polytechnic graduates employed within six months of graduation amid COVID-19 job market disruptions, whether the Ministry will consider to re-evaluate the current offerings of specialised diplomas and instead put greater emphasis on diplomas that offer broad skills that can be generalised across other disciplines.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Polytechnics review their course offerings regularly to ensure their courses are relevant to the needs of industry. This includes merging and streamlining courses over the recent years, to provide graduates with more breadth, versatility and career options. Over the past few years, the Polytechnics have also introduced Common Entry Programmes to allow students to pick up broad skills from a cluster of disciplines, before subsequently specialising.
There is still a role for some specialised diplomas, especially those that equip students with the necessary skills to join specific vocations or professions. Examples are the Nursing and Early Childhood Education courses, both of which enjoy strong industry demand.
Nevertheless, we recognise the need for all Polytechnic students to be equipped with a broader set of life skills regardless of the courses they are enrolled in. This is why the Polytechnics offer common modules in areas like communication and design thinking, and also provide opportunities for multidisciplinary learning. For example, all Year Three students in Ngee Ann Polytechnic work on projects in multidisciplinary teams with peers from at least two other academic schools. This helps students better appreciate the connections between different disciplines and their application to real-world contexts and problems. The Polytechnics have also introduced new electives for students to equip them in cross-sector skills, such as data analytics and data visualisation.
Our institutions will continue to refresh their curriculum and course offerings, to equip all graduates with the skills and attitudes needed to succeed in the future workplace. This is an area of emphasis in our on-going review of applied education and pathways.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increasing Supply of Singapore’s Public Rental Housing and Interim Rental Housing","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for National Development whether there are plans to increase the supply and model of Singapore’s public rental housing and interim rental housing so as to decrease the waiting time between application and securing the keys for eligible applicants.
Mr Desmond Lee: The average waiting time for a rental flat has increased from about two months prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, to about five months currently. Due to the severe labour crunch that the construction industry is facing, a longer time is required to spruce up rental flats that have been returned to HDB before they are let out to new applicants. This has led to longer waiting times for available rental flats.
In addition, HDB had activated over 2,000 rental flats as emergency housing in support of the fight against COVID-19. While these units have since been returned to the public rental pool, they also require sprucing works before they can be let out. To reduce the waiting time for rental flats, HDB is working on measures to speed up the sprucing works and facilitate key collections as quickly as possible.
For applicants with urgent housing needs, such as medical grounds or other extenuating circumstances, HDB will expedite their key collection. In 2020, about a third of our successful rental applicants were granted priority allocation.
Notwithstanding the temporary shortage of ready rental flats that can be allocated to new applicants, the overall stock of rental flats is sufficient to meet demand.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protective Measures To Ensure Vulnerable Seniors Secure Accommodation after Sale of Their HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for National Development for resale transactions of HDB flats made by vulnerable residents, such as single seniors, whether there are protective measures in place to ensure that such individuals have made plans to secure accommodation after the sale of their flats.
Mr Desmond Lee: To sell their flat, flat owners first need to register an Intent to Sell via the HDB Resale Portal. In the Intent to Sell, they are required to state their next housing arrangement, such as buying another HDB flat or private property, renting a property or room on the open market, or staying with family members or friends. This prompts those who have not planned for their next accommodation to do so before embarking on their flat selling journey.
After submitting their Intent to Sell, flat owners must wait out a seven-day \"cooling off\" period, before they may grant an Option to Purchase (OTP) for their flat to an eligible buyer. The seven-day “cooling off” period allows flat sellers to review their plans again before committing to sell their flat and helps to ensure that they have made a considered decision when granting an OTP.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allowing Single Unwed Parents to Qualify for Interim Housing while Waiting for Completion of New Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether single unwed parents can qualify for interim housing under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) while they await the completion of their new flat; and (b) if not, why not.
Mr Desmond Lee: The supply of flats under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) is limited and depends on the availability of vacant flats, such as those in vacated blocks that are not immediately needed for redevelopment. The intent of the PPHS is to support marriage and parenthood and, in line with this, married couples are given priority under the scheme.
Single unwed parents who need interim housing while awaiting the completion of their new flat can approach HDB. HDB will assess their circumstances holistically and do its best to assist them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints of Pressure Sale Tactics at Hair and Beauty Salons","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) in the past one year, how many reports have been received by the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore or CASE regarding hair and beauty salons engaging in pressure sales tactics; (b) how many of these salons are located in HDB heartlands; and (c) what action has been taken to protect consumers, especially the elderly and other vulnerable groups.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: In the past year, the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) and the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) received a total of 157 reports regarding hair and beauty salons engaging in pressure sales tactics. Of these, approximately half were related to salons located in HDB heartlands.
Exerting undue pressure or influence on consumers to enter into transactions involving goods or services is not allowed under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA). Consumers can report such practices to CASE to seek their advice and assistance in obtaining redress from suppliers.
Under the CPFTA, CASE may ask a supplier who has engaged in an unfair practice to enter into a Voluntary Compliance Agreement (VCA) and cease such practices. The supplier may also be required to compensate any consumer who has suffered loss or damage as a result of the unfair practice, and also publicise the VCA. CCCS, as the administering agency of the CPFTA, is armed with investigation and enforcement powers to file for a Court injunction to restrain a supplier that persists in such unfair practices.
CASE works with grassroots organisations to educate consumers on how to shop wisely for beauty-related products and services. They hold regular awareness talks for senior citizens to educate them on consumer rights and how not to fall for pressure sales tactics. Consumers can also visit CASE’s website where they will find a detailed consumer advisory and a public listing of the companies that have been known to use aggressive pressure sales tactics. In addition, CASE has worked with the industry to develop CaseTrust accreditation schemes for spa and wellness providers. These schemes are a mark of fair and ethical conduct for accredited salons.
The Government takes a serious view on the use of pressure sales tactics, especially when they are used to take advantage of vulnerable groups. The Government will continue to work with CASE and CCCS to ensure that the interests of consumers, especially our seniors, are safeguarded.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prosecution of Illegal Sale and Supply of Adulterated and Counterfeit Health Products through Online Platforms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health (a) in the past five years, how many cases of illegal sales and supply of adulterated and counterfeit health products through online platforms have been prosecuted; (b) whether there has been a growing trend of illegal online sales postings for lifestyle health products with exaggerated claims; and (c) what are the enforcement and education efforts conducted to protect consumers.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The sale and supply of health products are regulated by the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) under the Health Products Act. The number of cases investigated for illegal online sales of adulterated health products had remained consistent, averaging around 70 cases per year from 2018 to 2020. The vast majority of these cases were for lifestyle-related health products, such as for weight or hair loss or sexual enhancement. Such sales are closely monitored by HSA as part of its enforcement efforts. Anyone caught selling adulterated or counterfeit health products online can be fined up to $100,000 and/or jailed for up to three years.
These investigations have resulted in six persons being prosecuted for selling adulterated health products online. One person was sentenced to 18 weeks’ imprisonment while five others were issued with Court fines ranging between $1,000 and $15,000.
HSA takes a multi-pronged approach in tackling illegal online sales. HSA monitors local websites and e-commerce platforms to detect illegal online sales of adulterated and counterfeit health products. HSA works proactively with the website administrators to remove any non-compliant postings relating to these illicit sales. HSA also issues warnings to these online sellers and takes legal actions against them if appropriate. As online sales extend beyond local platforms, HSA also works closely with overseas regulatory agencies and international counterparts, such as INTERPOL, to share information on illegal health products.
Apart from enforcement efforts, HSA also engages consumers through various educational initiatives. HSA regularly issues press releases to keep consumers informed of online sales of illegal health products and advises them on the risks of purchasing health products from dubious or unknown sources. HSA also worked with the Health Promotion Board (HPB) through its educational programmes to reach out to tertiary students from the local Polytechnics and Universities to highlight the risks of purchasing health products online. Additionally, MOH has launched the HealthWatch website in September 2019 to raise consumer awareness of false and illegal health products and services and to empower consumers to make safer and smarter healthcare decisions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trends of Scam Calls Reported to Police","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the number of scam calls reported on a daily basis; (b) whether the scam calls are consolidated through various channels, including reports made to operators via phone apps; and (c) whether reports are on the increase from a year before.
Mr K Shanmugam: Scam syndicates make automatic calls to millions of victims all over the world every day.
In the first quarter of 2021, the Police received 169 reports of scam perpetrated via phone calls, which translate to an average of around two a day. This was a 40% decrease from 282 such cases in the first quarter of 2020. These figures refer only to successful scam cases, where the call recipients had fallen prey.
The overall number of scam calls received by the public is likely to be much larger, as most recipients would simply ignore the calls.
The Police also receive reports on scam calls through ScamShield, an iOS mobile application developed by the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC), MHA and GovTech. Apart from blocking messages and calls from known scam numbers, ScamShield also has a function for users to report suspected scam calls to the Police. Since the launch of the app in November 2020, users have reported over 56,000 suspected scam phone numbers. The ScamShield team is presently working on developing an Android version of the application.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulation of Vending Machines Dispensing Alcoholic Beverages","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the Ministry's position on vending machines that sell alcoholic beverages; and (b) how will the Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Act regulate such vending machines.
Mr K Shanmugam: Any person who wishes to supply liquor through vending machines can do so if he is licensed under the Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Act 2015. In doing so, he will have to adhere to the regulations under the Act, such as not supplying liquor beyond the hours permitted by his licence, and to persons younger than 18 years old. Selling liquor through a vending machine without a licence is an offence.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Funds Allocated to The Arts and Measures to Protect Arts Economy and Jobs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Ms Raeesah Khan asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) how much funds have been allocated for the arts annually in the past five years; (b) how are these funds distributed between visual, performing and literary arts; and (c) how are funds distributed among large arts organisations, medium-sized independent outfits, small collectives and individual artists.
62 Ms Raeesah Khan asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what is the contribution of the local arts sector to Singapore's GDP; (b) how many jobs does the arts sector currently provide; and (c) what are the efforts undertaken by the Government to protect the arts economy and jobs in the sector.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: We take a holistic approach to the development of our arts and culture landscape to respond to the diverse needs of different players in the eco-system. Funding for the arts and culture is distributed across a variety of purposes. These include grants to arts groups and practitioners for organisational development, art making and presentation, digitalisation and audience engagement; direct commissioning and programming of works; allocation of spaces and rental subsidies; maintaining and upgrading of arts infrastructure; profiling of Singapore’s arts and artists to international audiences and undertaking of research that is shared with the arts community.
Our schemes also help and incentivise our arts and culture practitioners to develop their skills and capabilities so as to sustain their livelihoods and maximise opportunities. This is done through schemes like NAC’s Capability Development Grant; the Arts Resource Hub to support self-employed practitioners; as well as MCCY and NAC’s work with MOE on the new arts University that will provide industry-relevant training across creative disciplines, to support employment opportunities in the arts economy.
The Arts and Culture Resilience Package (ACRP) has been a key effort to safeguard livelihoods, retain capabilities and talent and help position the sector for the post-COVID-19 recovery. The ACRP was recently enhanced with an additional $20 million, bringing the total dedicated COVID-19 support for our arts and cultural community to $75 million, beyond other national support measures during the pandemic.
We believe that support for the arts and culture must be a partnership with shared responsibility among the public, private and people sectors. We seek to encourage greater private support through initiatives like the Cultural Matching Fund under which the Government matches private donations dollar-for-dollar.
Government funding for the arts and culture has steadily and consistently increased over the years. Since 2013, a total of $3.16 billion has been provided to the sector. Annually, this amounts to around $450 million per year, compared to $300 million per year before 20131.
NAC receives about a third of this amount, which, in turn, is passed on to the arts community through grants and commissions2. The annual allocations to different arts and culture organisations and practitioners – whether medium-sized independent outfits, small collectives or individual artists – vary, based on grant applications received. Allocation by art form also varies, but generally corresponds to the relative proportions which they occupy in the arts eco-system, which, in 2019, had around 60% of organisations in the performing arts, 20% in the visual arts and 15% in the literary arts3.
Other Government funding goes to the National Heritage Board and our national cultural institutions, such as the Esplanade and National Gallery Singapore. Like NAC, these organisations channel their budgets to sustain and grow a vibrant culture sector, including by commissioning smaller arts groups and self-employed practitioners for their exhibitions and festivals. They make sustained efforts in profiling the best of our arts and culture to local and international audiences. Our cultural institutions are also instrumental in building new capabilities for the future, providing resources and spaces for innovation and experimentation through initiatives like the National Gallery Singapore’s Y-Lab, an incubator for Art x Tech product innovation.
In terms of economic outcomes, the nominal value-added4 from the arts and culture has been increasing over the years. It stood at $1.8 billion in 2018, an increase from $1.5 billion in 20135. This translates into a contribution of 0.4% to GDP in 20186, comparable to the Sports sector. Employment in the arts and culture has been largely stable over the past few years and stood at around 26,000 in 20197.
Our arts and culture make meaningful contributions to society beyond economic indicators, with awareness and appreciation for the arts growing over the years:
(a) In 2019, attendance at arts and culture events reached an all-time high of 15.6 million, while visitorship to museums reached an all-time high of close to 9.6 million8.
(b) In the same year, 89% of Singaporeans agreed that the arts gave them a better understanding of different cultures and backgrounds, while 82% agreed that the arts gave them a greater sense of belonging to Singapore. These were significantly higher than previous years9.
Beyond this, the arts and culture contribute to the lives of Singaporeans in other, often immeasurable, ways. The sector adds significantly to Singapore’s vibrancy and liveability, with over 34,000 arts activities in 201910. MCCY and NAC hope to see these positive outcomes continue as we recover from the impact of COVID-19, and will continue to support and develop our arts and culture organisations and practitioners, so that there is something for everyone to enjoy, whether theatre, dance, music or the visual and literary arts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Source: MCCY’s Singapore Cultural Statistics 2020.","2 : Source: MOF’s Singapore Budget (Revenue and Expenditure Estimates) FY20/21 and FY21/22.","3 : Source: MCCY’s Singapore Cultural Statistics 2020.","4 : This measures the net output of the sector, after subtracting intermediate inputs, and adjusting for taxes and subsidies.","5 : Source: MCCY’s Singapore Cultural Statistics 2020.","6 : Source: MCCY’s Singapore Cultural Statistics 2020 and Singapore Department of Statistics.","7 : Source: MCCY’s Singapore Cultural Statistics 2020.","8 : Source: MCCY’s Singapore Cultural Statistics 2020.","9 : Source: NAC’s Population Survey on the Arts 2019.","10 : Source: MCCY’s Singapore Cultural Statistics 2020."],"footNoteQuestions":["61","62"],"questionNo":"61-62"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Change in Criterion for Rapid and Immersive Skill Enhancement Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry is aware that the existing criteria for the Rapid and Immersive Skill Enhancement (RISE) programme, which requires that trainees be unemployed only at the time of enrolment (before March 2021) rather than for a prior fixed duration, may induce potential applicants who are currently employed to prematurely submit resignation letters in order to qualify.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Rapid and Immersive Skills Enhancement (RISE) programme is a six-month course under the SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways Programme – Company Training (SGUP-CT). SGUP-CT is designed to support mid-career jobseekers who would like to acquire industry-relevant skills and pivot to new employment opportunities. There is no requirement for individuals to be unemployed for a prior fixed duration as this scheme is designed to provide jobseekers with support as soon as possible.
Employed individuals face significant opportunity costs to leave their jobs in order to enrol in a full-time SGUP-CT course, as the training allowance provided is not comparable to wages for full-time employment. There is also a wide range of alternative CET opportunities supported by SkillsFuture Singapore that employed individuals can take up while still remaining in their current job.
For individuals who have weighed the trade-offs and still find that it is in their longer term interest to take up SGUP-CT programmes like RISE, we should avoid making it harder for them to qualify for such programmes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Availability of Heavy Vehicle Parking Spaces","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the current number of heavy vehicle parking spaces island-wide as compared to the number of heavy vehicles registered with LTA under the Vehicle Parking Certificate (VPC) scheme; and (b) what steps can be taken to impose responsibility on vehicle owners who do not use the designated parking space stipulated in the VPCs and instead require their drivers to find alternative parking options for the vehicles.
Mr Desmond Lee: As of January 2021, there are about 41,200 Heavy Vehicle Parking (HVP) lots island-wide and about 32,800 heavy vehicles registered under LTA’s Vehicle Parking Certificate (VPC) scheme. So, there are more than enough lots for all heavy vehicles.
The VPC scheme was implemented in 1994 to curb overnight parking of heavy vehicles along public streets, especially in residential estates. Under the scheme, all heavy vehicles have a registered overnight parking space, where they are required to park between midnight and 6.00 am. Heavy vehicle owners who require their drivers to park overnight outside of their registered parking space are committing an offence under the Road Traffic Act and could face a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment of up to three months.
We would like to reiterate that it is the responsibility of business owners to ensure that they have appropriate parking solutions for the heavy vehicles they own and that their drivers park responsibly. Business owners should also work out transport arrangements for their drivers to commute to and from work.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Prevent Young or Compulsive Buyers from Taking on Too Much Debt via Purchases on Digital Platforms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Prime Minister with regard to \"Buy now, Pay later\" digital platforms (a) what measures are implemented to prevent the young or compulsive buyers from taking on too much debt; (b) whether there are plans to verify the income of those using these platforms for purchases; and (c) whether a centralised system can be used to check the advance taken between credit cards and these platforms.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): “Buy now, Pay later” (BNPL) schemes are typically offered by digital platforms to enable consumers to pay for their purchases in instalments. As in most jurisdictions, BNPL schemes fall outside of MAS’ regulations on credit, which apply to banks and finance companies.
Using BNPL schemes, like traditional instalment plans, can make purchases appear more affordable. MAS shares Miss Cheryl Chan’s concern that BNPL could lead to excessive consumer borrowing, especially among youth and impulsive buyers.
MAS and other Government agencies are hence examining if some form of regulation is necessary for BNPL schemes. The measures that Miss Cheryl Chan referred to will be considered as part of this study.
We will examine the adequacy of existing risk management practices and safeguards against people chalking up excessive debts. Currently, most BNPL schemes are restricted to small-value purchases. Late fees apply instead of interest and the fees are typically capped instead of accruing continuously until the outstandings are paid. Further, existing limits on unsecured consumer credit will cap the spending on BNPL schemes when repayments are made using credit cards. If a regulatory framework is deemed necessary, it will be proportionate to the risks and ensure that any potential convenience afforded by these BNPL schemes are not unduly curtailed.
In the meantime, MAS has worked with the media to highlight the pitfalls of taking on excessive credit, including the considerations that consumers should bear in mind before entering into a BNPL scheme. Consumers should be mindful that late fees or charges will apply for missed re-payments.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"After-school Care or Opt-in After-school Programmes at Secondary Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider expanding after-school care or offer opt-in after-school programmes in all Secondary schools.
Mr Lawrence Wong: All Primary schools have student care centres for after-school care and will continue to expand places in schools where there is demand. For Secondary schools, after-school programmes and facilities are also important. All Secondary schools run a wide range of vibrant CCA and enrichment programmes for students to develop their interests, skills, character and leadership. They provide sports facilities, CCA rooms and comfortable spaces for students to use for unstructured play, group discussions and individual study.
Under the UPLIFT Community Pilot, we have identified vulnerable students in the pilot towns and referred them to community-based after-school programmes and resources, depending on their needs. This is done in partnership with public agencies, Self-Help Groups, Social Service Agencies, volunteer groups and other community organisations. We will study the findings and results of the pilot before considering how to scale this up across all schools.
Besides the UPLIFT pilot, we have also rolled out the GEAR-UP programme in Secondary schools, so as to provide vulnerable students with early intervention support. Under this programme, the Secondary schools are given more resources to set up or enhance after-school student activity spaces and introduce programmes to engage and motivate students who need them. Through customised activities that cater to students’ needs and interests, GEAR-UP strengthens protective factors like school connectedness, learning motivation and resilience. Many schools also work with community partners to offer befriending and mentoring opportunities, as well as interest-based activities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Blood and Organ Donations and on Transplants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) how has the COVID-19 pandemic affected blood and organ donations; and (b) how are hospitals reviewing their processes to ensure blood and organ donations and transplants are safe for patients and donors amidst the pandemic.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Blood and organ donations are essential services and had continued during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Data from the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) showed that there were about 117,000 blood units collected in 2020, an increase of about 500 units from 20191. Even though there was a fall in the total number of donors who donated blood in 2020, this was made up by more frequent donations from the regular blood donors. There were also more new donors who donated for the first time in 2020.
All blood donors must undergo medical screening to ensure the safety of blood supplied to patients. With the on-going COVID-19 pandemic, additional measures beyond medical screening have been introduced to further reduce the risk of donated blood carrying the SARS-COV2 virus responsible for COVID-19 infection. These measures include requiring all blood donors to undergo pre-screening for respiratory symptoms, travel history and contact history with COVID-19 cases. Blood donors are also reminded to inform the blood bank immediately if they feel unwell in the first two weeks after donation. To ensure the safety of donors, blood banks have also implemented safe management measures and increased the frequency of cleaning of blood banks.
There were 294 deceased and living donor organ transplantations – kidney, liver, heart, cornea, lung and pancreas – carried out last year2. This number was much lower compared to the total of 488 transplants for these organs in 2019. This lower number could be attributed to the deferment of some of these surgeries to enable the hospitals to scale up their operations to manage the demands of the COVID-19 pandemic. The donor selection criteria were also tightened to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission from donors, which may have led to a decrease in graft availability. However, urgent transplantation continued to be performed where medically appropriate.
With the on-going COVID-19 pandemic, potential organ donors are screened and excluded should they have any respiratory symptoms, travel history or contact history with COVID-19 cases. Pre-transplant testing to rule out COVID-19 infection is also conducted for donors and recipients. Hospital staff are required to adhere to strict safe distancing, infection prevention and control measures, as well as to use appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) when coordinating and conducting organ transplantation activities. MOH and the National Organ Transplant Unit (NOTU) will review the screening and testing criteria for donors and recipients regularly, with inputs from infectious diseases experts and evidence-based guidelines, to ensure safety for our transplant patients.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Number of blood collections from 2016-2020: 2016 (115,976), 2017 (116,128), 2018 (115,826), 2019 (116,789), 2020 (117,272). Data source: Health Sciences Authority (HSA).","2 : Data is for Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents."],"footNoteQuestions":["67"],"questionNo":"67"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rejections of Applications for Hiring of Foreign Domestic Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in the past two years, how many applications for the hiring of foreign domestic workers had been rejected; and (b) what are the key reasons for the rejections and percentage of each reason.
Mrs Josephine Teo: For the two years of 2019 and 2020, about 5% of applications for migrant domestic workers (MDWs) were rejected. The key reasons were the prospective employer’s lack of or instability of income, or inability to meet the criteria for hiring a second MDW. In 2020, in addition to these two reasons, rejections became more common due to enhanced border controls. Entry approvals were subject to strict daily limits to help control the risk of importing COVID-19. However, from around October 2020, MOM has given entry approvals for more new MDWs as the COVID-19 situation improved in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Number of Drug Users Whose Parents Are Themselves Drug Users","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs what are the factors in the Ministry’s decision not to collect data on the number of drug users whose parents are themselves drug users.
Mr K Shanmugam: MHA’s assessment is that the data it collects is adequate for formulating its schemes. Different types of data are collected and research studies are also conducted.
In 2014, the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) conducted a research study on the behaviours of young drug abusers. The study found that young drug abusers were five to seven times more likely to come from a family with a history of drug abuse, compared to non-drug abusers. The findings from the study have been used for further analysis.
In 2017, SPS conducted a study to understand how parental drug abuse impacts the next generation, whether they were more likely to commit crimes and abuse drugs. The study found that about one in five drug-abusing parents had at least one child who had also committed a crime or abused drugs. The findings of the study also affirmed many of SPS’ efforts to reduce the impact of drug abuse on an offender’s family.
We will continue to conduct research where useful to inform our policies and programmes to mitigate inter-generational drug abuse and offending. We will also periodically review the data to be collected.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Set Up Register for BTO Flat Applicants to Indicate Interest and Areas of Preference","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB can consider introducing a register for BTO flat applicants to register their interest and indicate their area of preference to enable HDB to plan their HDB launches to meet the applicants' demand.
Mr Desmond Lee: MND and HDB have considered the Member’s suggestion to introduce a register for BTO flat applicants. However, there is no assurance that doing so will improve the planning of BTO launches to meet demand since an indication of interest may not accurately reflect actual demand, as there is no commitment to buy. Furthermore, given our limited land supply, it may not always be possible to plan for more housing supply in areas which are in popular demand.
For each BTO exercise, MND and HDB review the launch sites to ensure a good mix across both non-mature and mature estates, to provide applicants with a range of flat options that they can consider. HDB will continue to monitor the market situation closely and calibrate the supply of public housing accordingly, to ensure that the flat supply remains relevant and responsive to the housing needs of the population.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safe Management Measures for Busking","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"71 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what is the progress on busking pilots to test out the safe management measures required for busking; and (b) whether the Ministry intends to scale up and expand the pilots to more sites.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I thank the Member for his support for the arts and busking. Last December, NAC partnered with *SCAPE and Clarke Quay Central to conduct busking pilots over three weekends. They were well-received by audiences and were a success with the buskers. The events also complied effectively with Safe Management Measures (SMMs).
Given the current heightened COVID-19 situation, we will have to, unfortunately, delay the resumption of busking pilots until the public health situation improves.
Instead, NAC will, from mid next month, organise quarterly live-streamed busking for buskers to engage audiences online. This will provide a platform for buskers to try out digital busking and also develop their skills and capabilities in this area. The livestreamed busking will allow us to accommodate larger groups of buskers. This will not only broaden the reach and diversity of performances, it will also enable buskers to delight more audiences while keeping everyone safe.
We hope that these plans will create greater awareness of busking and widen channels for audiences to support busking, whether it is performed live or via a digital platform.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Laser Strikes on Aircraft Arriving At or Departing From Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"72 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Transport (a) over the past three years, what has been the number of laser strikes on aircraft arriving at or departing from Singapore; and (b) how many of such incidents resulted in disruption to flight operations or required the pilot to seek medical attention.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Over the past three years, CAAS has received 82 reports of laser lights being shone at aircraft landing at or taking off from our airports. Most of these appear to originate from outside Singapore. They can potentially distract or even cause injury to pilots. Fortunately, none of these incidents has resulted in disruptions to flight operations or pilots having to seek medical attention.
CAAS takes a serious view of such activities. Any person convicted of such an offence may be fined up to S$20,000 for a first offence and fined up to S$40,000 and/or imprisoned for up to 15 months for a subsequent offence.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Submission of Reports on Smoking or Noise Disturbances by Neighbours through OneService App","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development whether the OneService app has plans to allow residents to submit reports on smoking or noise disturbances by neighbours and, if so, which agency will these reports be routed to.
Mr Desmond Lee: Residents today can already submit feedback on smoking and neighbourly noise through the “Others” category in the OneService app, without needing to know which agency to go to.
MSO’s backend system will route the feedback to NEA, HDB or the Town Councils, based on issue and location of the incident.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Last Drawn Salary Cap for Employment Assistance Package","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"74 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Employment Assistance Package under the Retirement and Re-employment Act can be pegged to an employee’s last drawn salary instead of the current cap of $5,500 to $13,000 regardless of last drawn salary.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The concept of re-employment was implemented to enable Singaporeans to work for as long as they are willing and able to and to raise our senior worker employment rates to maximise the potential of our limited manpower resources. If an employer has considered all available re-employment options within the organisation and is unable to identify a suitable job for the senior worker, the firm may offer him or her an Employment Assistance Payment (EAP). The EAP is to be offered only as a last resort and is meant to help the worker tide over a period of time while he or she seeks alternative employment. With these objectives in mind, the tripartite partners agreed on three key principles for the EAP.
First, the EAP should be set at a reasonable number of months of last drawn salary. If the EAP is too high, it may have the unintended consequence of encouraging workers to stop work earlier. If the EAP is too low, employers may too readily offer to pay the EAP.
Second, there should be a minimum EAP amount. This protects lower wage workers, by better ensuring that firms offer them re-employment and by providing greater support if they are not re-employed since they may have greater difficulty than other workers in seeking alternative employment.
Third, there should be a maximum EAP amount to moderate the financial burden on employers. This is so that it does not discourage employers from considering older job applicants, who may be eligible for EAP in a few years.
The EAP was last reviewed in 2019 by the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers. The current position preserves these key principles, which remain relevant.
Our re-employment framework, including the EAP, have supported raising the employment rate for senior workers. In 2018, our Average Effective Retirement Age, which provides a gauge of what age people actually stop working, was 68 and 66 years old for males and females respectively, as compared to the OECD average of 65 and 64 years old respectively1 – higher than some countries that do not have a statutory retirement age, such as Australia and the UK. To date, well over 90% of eligible workers have been offered re-employment and did not require the EAP.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Latest available OECD data is as of 2018."],"footNoteQuestions":["74"],"questionNo":"74"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Ensure Young Couples Get HDB Flats Given Projected Construction Delays and Increased Property Prices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"75 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for National Development in light of the projected BTO construction delays coupled with increased prices in the property market due to the pandemic (a) whether there is now an oversubscription of HDB flats under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme; (b) what additional measures will be taken if there is an oversubscription; and (c) whether there will be an introduction of further measures that may further help young couples who need a home to start a family in the current climate.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) provides an additional temporary housing option for households awaiting the completion of their new flats.
In 2020, HDB offered 160 PPHS flats and received 2,350 applications, compared to the 1,370 applications received in 2019. While the number of applications has increased, not all applicants may be in urgent need of temporary housing, or some may have other options, as about 40% of successful PPHS applicants did not turn up for flat selection.
The supply of PPHS flats is limited and depends on the availability of vacant flats, such as those in vacated blocks that are not immediately needed for redevelopment. HDB is working towards a more stable supply and more options for families who need temporary housing. Meanwhile, on a case-by-case basis, HDB may offer interim rental housing to those with no other housing options.
Besides buying new flats from HDB, first-timer buyers with urgent housing needs may consider buying a flat on the resale market and can receive up to $160,000 in housing grants. They can choose from a wide range of resale flats, which are generally ready for immediate occupation, according to their preferences and budgets.
The recent tightened border measures for short-term visitors and long-term pass holders (including Work Permit and S-Pass holders) with recent travel from India, have severely constricted the supply of workers needed for the construction industry and will inevitably result in a further delay for on-going BTO projects. Barring unforeseen circumstances, projects could be delayed by a further three months, on top of the six to nine months previously communicated. HDB will update affected flat buyers progressively. MND and HDB will continue to monitor the situation closely and see how best to render assistance to those affected by the delays.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Volume of Applications for HDB BTO Flats under Married Child Priority and Multi-Generation Priority Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"76 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the past three years, how many people applied for HDB BTO flats under the Married Child Priority Scheme (MCPS) and Multi-Generation Priority Scheme (MGPS); (b) how many are successful; (c) whether the Ministry will consider a priority scheme for parents whose children are studying in schools near the BTO project; and (d) what is the recourse for those who fail multiple ballots but have pressing reasons to apply in certain estates.
Mr Desmond Lee: Under the Married Child Priority Scheme, or MCPS, up to 30% of the flat supply is set aside for first-timer families, while up to 15% of the flat supply is set aside for second-timer families.
Under the Multi-Generation Priority Scheme, or MGPS, a married couple and their parents can make a joint application for two new flats in the same BTO project and enjoy priority allocation. The parents can book a 2-room Flexi or 3-room flat, and up to 15% of these flats are set aside for MGPS parent applicants. A corresponding number of 2-room flexi or larger flats is set aside for the married couple applicants.
For the completed BTO flat selection exercises in 2018, 2019 and in February and August 2020, HDB received about 8,900, 11,800, and 12,700 applications respectively under the MCPS. Of these applicants, 5,300, 5,400 and 4,800 were invited to book a flat. For the same period, HDB received about 400, 700 and 900 applications under the MGPS. Of these applicants, 400, 600 and 600 were invited to book a flat.
First-timer couples with a child aged 18 years old or younger can qualify for priority under the Parenthood Priority Scheme, while families with three or more children can qualify for priority under the Third Child Priority Scheme. Given these existing priority schemes to cater to families with children, HDB does not intend to introduce a priority scheme for parents whose children study in schools near a BTO project.
To improve their chances of securing a flat, applicants may wish to apply for a flat in a project with a lower application rate, or in a non-mature estate. First-timer families who have not been invited to book a flat after submitting two or more BTO applications in the non-mature estates will get an additional ballot chance for each subsequent BTO application in the non-mature estates. Flat buyers who wish to live in a particular neighbourhood or secure a flat sooner may wish to consider purchasing a resale flat. With the enhancements implemented in 2019, first-timer buyers can now qualify for generous housing grants of up to $160,000 for resale flat purchases.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applications for Reducing Minimum Occupation Period for HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"77 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for National Development (a) in each year of the past three years, how many applications for reducing the Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) has been received by HDB; (b) what are the usual grounds relied on by the applicants; (c) what is the average percentage of applications that are allowed by HDB in the past three years; and (d) what are the circumstances under which HDB may be persuaded to reduce the flat owner’s MOP.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB does not actively track the number of unique appeals from flat owners who wish to sell their flat before fulfilling their minimum occupation period (MOP) as the data may include duplicate and repeated requests.
In the last three years, HDB has given approval to about 4,500 households to sell their flat on the open market before meeting their MOP. The reasons for such exceptions include financial hardship, divorce or the demise of the flat owner. For comparison, over the same period, there were about 71,600 resale transactions.
The MOP remains important to ensure that flat owners purchase HDB flats with the intent of living in the flats themselves, instead of quickly reselling the flats for profit. This safeguards HDB flats for households with genuine housing needs. It also deters the speculative purchase of HDB flats and thus helps to keep HDB flats affordable. HDB assesses all appeals for a waiver of the MOP on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific circumstances of the flat owners and their families.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for Upfront Payment for Community Care Apartments in Bukit Batok","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"78 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the number of applicants for the community care apartments in Bukit Batok during the February 2021 HDB BTO exercise; (b) what is the rationale for requiring seniors to pay upfront for the cost of the community care apartments in full, instead of spreading the mortgage over the lease tenure; and (c) how many applicants who are successful in their balloting exercise have appealed to pay for their community care apartments via a loan.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB received 706 applications for the 169 Community Care Apartments in Bukit Batok offered in the February 2021 Build-To-Order Exercise.
Seniors must be at least 65 years old to buy a Community Care Apartment. To avoid seniors being burdened with debt in their retirement years, the flat price has to be paid for upfront in cash and/or CPF savings, and not financed via a loan.
As at end April 2021, HDB has not received any appeals from applicants who wish to pay for their Community Care Apartments via a loan.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Transparency of Third Party Administrator Fee Arrangements in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"79 Dr Tan Yia Swam asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has assessed if Third Party Administrator (TPA) companies should be directly regulated rather than indirectly through doctors' disclosure; (b) whether the transparency of TPA fee arrangements will be enhanced beyond the Singapore Medical Council Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines; and (c) whether the financial relationship between TPA companies and insurers will be regulated.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: MOH's primary concern is to ensure patient safety, welfare and continuity of care. As such, MOH focuses on regulating direct providers of healthcare services – which will impact patients directly. This includes the provision and advertisement of services that diagnose, assess or treat diseases or illnesses; provide nursing or rehabilitative care; or assess the health of individuals. This is a similar approach taken by regional and international healthcare service regulators.
As TPA services do not involve direct patient care, these companies are not regulated under the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act (PHMCA). However, there are guidelines issued under the PHMCA to ensure that patients are informed of every item charged for the clinic visit and when additional charges will be incurred.
In addition, the Singapore Medical Council’s Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines (SMC ECEG) also provides guidance that medical practitioners contracting with TPAs should ensure they remain objective in their clinical judgement and provide the required standard of care. If TPAs are engaged, the fees charged by the medical practitioner must reflect the fair work done by TPAs in handling and processing the patients. The fees must also be transparent to the patient. The SMC ECEG specifically prohibits medical practitioners from paying TPAs, insurance entities or patient referral services (a) fees that are based primarily on the service the doctors provide or the fees doctors collect; (b) fees that are so high as to constitute \"fee splitting\" or \"fee sharing\"; or (c) fees which render doctors unable to provide the required standard of care. The onus is on the medical practitioner to ensure that the fees payable to the TPAs are in compliance with the SMC ECEG. If a medical practitioner is uncertain about whether a fee payable to a TPA would be in compliance with the SMC ECEG, the medical practitioner should refrain from entering an arrangement to pay such a fee.
In future, under the Healthcare Services Act, licensees using TPA services will be required to reflect TPA fees as a distinct category in the itemised bill given to their patients. This will further improve transparency and help patients make informed decisions.
MOH will continue to study the landscape and practices of these TPA companies. We have a project team looking at impact-based regulations, including a review on the regulation of TPA. If there is evidence of patient risks, we will look further into how TPA should be regulated, including enhancing the above measures where appropriate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Streamlining Process of Making Simple Wills","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"80 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Law whether there are plans to streamline the process of making simple wills so that more residents, especially the low-income, can have their wills made and safely deposited with minimal expenses and administrative hurdles.
Mr K Shanmugam: We encourage members of the public to make a will, as this will give them greater peace of mind that their affairs will be better taken care of after they pass on.
They can either write their will themselves if they are at least 21 years old and of sound mind, or engage a third party to help them write one.
To help those who wish to write their own wills, we are looking at making information on wills and probate more readily available on digital platforms, and to set out the information in a way that is clear and intuitive to laypersons who have no knowledge of the law. In January 2020, we launched the Government’s \"My Legacy\" portal, which provides step-by-step guidance on how to make and deposit a will, and how to settle the estate of a deceased loved one. It also provides a secure Vault feature – which is accessible using SingPass – which helps citizens to consolidate a record of their assets, important documents and personal information, including where their will is located, Advance Care Plan and Lasting Power of Attorney.
We will continue to expand and improve the features offered by \"My Legacy\" and make this available and accessible to Singaporeans.
Individuals can also engage lawyers to help them to write their wills. Those who are lower income can reach out to the Legal Aid Bureau (LAB) for assistance. LAB has been helping Singaporeans with limited means with the drafting of their wills.
Community organisations also offer subsidised will-writing services for low-income residents with limited means.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Foreign Direct Investments in Singapore in Recent Years and Creation of Jobs from these Investments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"81 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how much foreign investment has Singapore attracted in 2020 and the first quarter of 2021; (b) how much of the foreign investment that Singapore has attracted in the past five years have been realised in the last three years; and (c) how many jobs have been created in the last three years due to the foreign direct investment.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: EDB attracted $17.2 billion in Fixed Asset Investments (FAI) in 2020 and $2.8 billion in FAI in the first quarter of 2021.
Of the $62.1 billion in FAI that EDB attracted in the last five years (2016-2020), $43.3 billion (70%) was in the last three years. All the companies from the last five years have started implementing their projects as planned and will create an estimated 112,100 new jobs when completed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ratio of Mental Health Professionals to Resident Population","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"82 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the current ratio of mental health professionals to resident population in Singapore; and (b) what is an optimal ratio.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Currently, there are 2541 psychiatrists registered with the Singapore Medical Council and 5042 psychologists on the Singapore Psychological Society register. This works out to be 4.5 psychiatrists and 8.9 psychologists per 100,000 population.
There is no international consensus on the optimal ratio of psychiatrists and psychologists to population. MOH will continue to work with stakeholders and agencies, such as MOE and MSF, to assess the need and monitor the number of mental health professionals to ensure appropriate access to and quality of mental health services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Source: SMC 2019 Annual Report.","2 : Source: Singapore Register of Psychologists, maintained by the Singapore Psychological Society."],"footNoteQuestions":["82"],"questionNo":"82"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Standardise Design, Administration and Scoring for SwimSafer Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"83 Mr Mark Chay asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the SwimSafer assessment is designed, administered and scored in a standard and consistent manner; and (b) how does the SwimSafer programme align with the national swimming development programme.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The SwimSafer programme teaches students swimming, water survival and life-saving skills to react appropriately to sudden and adverse aquatic situations. The programme comprises six progressive stages, with each stage comprising 12 hours of lesson time. SwimSafer assessments are conducted at the last session of each stage, where students are required to demonstrate their competence in negotiating situations.
SwimSafer instructors have to undergo the SwimSafer Assessor course to qualify as an assessor. SwimSafer assessors are guided by a standard list of criteria when evaluating students. To ensure the integrity of the assessment system, SwimSafer assessors do not evaluate their own students.
The SwimSafer programme’s primary objective is drowning prevention. That said, the fundamental water confidence and swimming skills acquired under the programme can serve as stepping stones for children interested in taking up competitive swimming and other aquatic sport activities. As such, SwimSafer complements the swimming development pathways under the Singapore Swimming Association (SSA) by helping to nurture interest in swimming, as well as participation in water sports.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improvements to Support Schemes to Prevent Inter-generational Transmission of Criminality","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"84 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Social and Family Development based on the study titled “Understanding the Intergenerational Transmission of Criminality in Singapore” (a) what are the mentoring programme details for at-risk youths; (b) whether programme attendance is by schools’ identification or students’ opt-in; (c) whether there is merit in a gender-based approach; and (d) what improvements can be made to support children whose parents are incarcerated so they may avoid the poverty and delinquency cycle.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Making sure every youth gets to maximise their potential in life: this is our commitment to our young ones. The findings of the study on the intergenerational transmission of criminality in Singapore highlight the importance of early and upstream support to help break cycles of offending and reduce negative outcomes that persist in families across generations.
The Government works closely with community partners to support families and children impacted by incarceration.
Under the Yellow Ribbon Community Project, or YRCP, grassroots volunteers reach out to the families of incarcerated persons through home visits and assist those who need support by linking them up with social service agencies or community programmes for professional help. In the past two years, the YRCP has assisted around 2,700 families. Five hundred and fifty of these were families with children below 18 years old.
Financial, accommodation and social assistance are also rendered to incarcerated persons and their families by the Prisons Family Resource Centres, or FRCs, which operate from the Prison Link Centre in Changi. Close to 4,000 families have received assistance in the last two years. Of these, 150 families received assistance for their children. Where necessary, families are referred to the Family Service Centres, or FSCs, for further casework support within the community. Besides the FSCs, referrals can also be made to youth agencies to provide support services for children and young persons who exhibit behavioural issues or those who could benefit from constructive engagements, such as interest-based activities and mentoring programmes.
The Singapore Prison Service (SPS) also provides family-centric programmes, such as the Social Skills Training Programme and the Family Reintegration Programme, to equip both the inmates and their families with useful skills to foster better relationships. In the past two years, SPS provided about 9,900 programme places to the inmates. SPS also works with other community partners, including The Salvation Army, Centre for Fathering, The Singapore Children’s Society, Industrial & Services Co-Operative Society Ltd, Singapore After-Care Association, Mendaki and SINDA, on programmes and services aimed at addressing the impact of parental incarceration. These include the provision of counselling, tuition assistance, parenting and family bonding programmes.
The Member also asked for details of the mentoring pilot programme which was recently announced at MSF’s Committee of Supply debate. It is part of our efforts to build a preventive support system for our youths and is targeted at students who leave ITE prematurely.
The pilot programme will adopt an interest-based approach, with the aim of empowering youths to achieve their aspirations, by helping to broaden their exposure to opportunities and guide them to explore their interests and career options. We will factor in various considerations in the matching of mentors and mentees, including the gender of the mentors and mentees. Mentors will also be trained to equip them with the skills to engage the youths, develop and manage the mentoring relationship, and support them in addressing the unique needs of their mentees, regardless of gender. We hope the mentors will serve as positive role models and trusted adults their mentees will feel comfortable reaching out to. We are currently working out further details and aim to launch the programme in the fourth quarter of this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Real-time Advisories on Conditions along Flood-prone Roads","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"85 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry will consider providing real-time flooding advisories on flood-prone roads so that drivers and public transportation can be diverted in case of floods happening.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: PUB has developed an SMS alert system using its island-wide network of over 300 water level sensors to provide the public with early warning of rising water levels in waterways and drains. CCTVs have also been installed at flood-prone areas and hotspots to remotely monitor real-time road conditions in these areas. The information, which has been made available since 2011, is accessible on PUB’s Managing Flash Floods website. Members of the public can subscribe to the SMS alert system and get timely updates on the flood situation from PUB’s social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter.
During heavy storms, PUB also works closely with LTA and Traffic Police to monitor road conditions and notify motorists of flooded roads to avoid through electronic road signages, online and social media platforms and radio broadcasts.
Since March 2021, all real-time information and updates on floods have been consolidated and made available on the \"MyENV\" mobile app. We encourage members of public to download the app to stay updated and safe, as Singapore is expected to experience more frequent and intense rainfalls due to climate change.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Updates on Thomson East Coast Line, Jurong Region Line and Cross Island Line","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"86 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the latest progress on (i) the Thomson East Coast Line (TEL) (ii) the Jurong Region Line (JRL) and (iii) the Cross Island Line (CRL); (b) how many TEL stations will be opened this year; and (c) how has the pandemic affected the construction of TEL, JRL and CRL.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to disruption to material supplies and manpower, hence, delaying the construction of our rail projects by up to a year.
That said, the construction works and testing of trains and systems for Thomson-East Coast Line Stage 2, or TEL2 for short, have been substantially completed. TEL2 comprises six stations: Springleaf, Lentor, Mayflower, Bright Hill, Upper Thomson and Caldecott. It will open in the third quarter of this year. The rest of TEL will progressively open in three stages, from 2022 to 2025.
For the Jurong Region Line, or JRL, construction works for most of the stations and viaducts are underway. Contracts for all the rail systems have been awarded and JRL is scheduled to be completed by 2029.
As for the Cross Island Line, or CRL, construction works have started for Stage 1 of the line. CRL Stage 1 and the CRL – Punggol Extension are scheduled to open in 2030 and 2032 respectively. Details for subsequent stages of the CRL will be announced later, after engineering studies have been completed.
We remain fully committed to our plans to expand the rail network from 230 kilometres today to 360 kilometres in the early 2030s. This will bring our rail network closer to home, work and school for more Singaporeans, increase options for commuters and enhance network resilience.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Profile of and Support for Zakat Beneficiaries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"87 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs whether bankrupts are being assisted within the eight categories of asnaf (zakat beneficiaries) and, if so, how are they assisted.
88 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) for each category of asnafs, what is (i) the number of recipients receiving the zakat (ii) the total amount of zakat allocated and (iii) the percentage of zakat allocated respectively; and (b) for the zakat collected in 2018, 2019 and 2020, what is the amount and percentage of the undisbursed zakat respectively.
89 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs with the online collection of zakat, how does MUIS determine the appointment of Amils (zakat administrators).
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: From 2018 to 2020, the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS), collected an average of $47.4 million in zakat from the Muslim community. Details of zakat collection and disbursements to the various asnaf, or zakat beneficiaries, over the past years are publicly available in the MUIS Annual Reports.
MUIS disburses zakat to the eight asnaf, in consultation with the Zakat & Fitrah Committee. The Committee, which comprises community leaders and religious scholars, considers disbursing zakat for various purposes, such as social development and assistance for the poor and needy, religious programmes in mosques and madrasahs, asatizah development, youth engagement and amil management.
MUIS and our mosques provide financial assistance to families and individuals under the \"fakir miskin\" asnaf, which refers to the poor and needy, or the \"gharimin\", which refers to those who are in debt and require assistance to meet basic needs. Applicants with per-capita-income of $400 or less would qualify for zakat financial assistance. Of the total zakat collected, more than 45% was provided to these asnaf, benefiting about 7,000 households each year.
MUIS does not have a specific scheme to help persons who are bankrupt but refers them to relevant organisations, including the Debt Advisory Centre by AMP, Credit Counselling Singapore and Legal Aid Bureau.
The appointment of amils is authorised by the Zakat & Fitrah Committee on a yearly basis and they generally refer to our mosques that administer the zakat. Prior to the appointment process, all zakat authorised centres must submit an application form to nominate at least two zakat officers to handle the collection of zakat and undergo training programme organised by MUIS. All zakat authorised centres are also audited to ensure that they abide by the rules and regulations set by MUIS. With the introduction of online zakat collection, the scope of amil has expanded to include providing religious advice on zakat and guiding the community on zakat calculation and online payment.
Overall, MUIS has been disbursing more than 95% of the zakat collected, with the balance set aside as cashflow reserves. This is to ensure that there is continuity of programmes and disbursements year on year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Education Efforts on Reducing Single-use Plastics","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"90 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Government will start public education efforts in all four official languages on why Singaporeans should reduce the usage of single use plastic bags so that everyone will have a better and aligned understanding of why all should do so.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Government customises public education efforts and messages based on the target audience. This involves varying the language, content and communication platforms so that we can get the message across.
Since 2019, NEA has been running the “Say YES to Waste Less” campaign. The nationwide campaign is aimed at increasing public awareness on why we should reduce excessive consumption of disposables, particularly disposable carrier bags and containers, and outlines the simple actions we can take. Our efforts cover all disposables, whether they are made of plastic, paper or degradable materials, since all disposables have an impact on the environment.
The campaign leverages mass media broadcast channels, such as television, digital and social media, as well as out-of-home and print advertisements, in order to reach different segments of the population. For example, we included vernacular content on free-to-air channels, print media for the general population, bite-sized interactive content on social media which target the youth, and digital panel ads at HDB lift lobbies for consumers closer to home. In addition, 95 industry partners operating more than 2,100 retail premises have partnered NEA to provide visual reminders to shoppers at points-of-sale. Campaign materials are produced in all four official languages and include posters, educational videos, as well as visual reminders at points-of-sale.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Number of Citizens Struck Off and Restored to Registers of Electors in Last 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister (a) in the last 10 years, how many citizens are struck off the Registers of Electors after each election, broken down by gender, age and ethnicity; (b) across the last 10 years, how many citizens are restored to the Registers of Electors each year, broken down by gender, age and ethnicity; and (c) what percentage of citizens are restored only after paying the fee.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): After an election, the Elections Department (ELD) will compile a list of voters who did not vote in the election, that is, non-voters. In accordance with section 43 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, their names will be expunged from the Registers of Electors (REs), and they can apply to ELD to restore their names, after which they will be able to vote at subsequent elections.
For the General Elections held in 2011, 2015 and 2020, the number of voters whose names were expunged from the REs were 147,396, 155,155 and 111,117, which was 6.67%, 6.30% and 4.20% of the total number of eligible voters at each of these General Elections respectively. Tables A1, A2 and A3 show the breakdown of the profile by age-bands, gender and ethnicity.
The number of non-voters who apply to restore their names to the REs generally spikes nearer the election period, at key exercises, such as the revision of the REs or when ELD sends notification letters to non-voters to remind them to restore their names. Hence, it would not be meaningful to present the data on a yearly basis. Of the 147,396 non-voters from GE2011, 83,100 (56%) restored their names before GE2015, and of the 155,155 non-voters from GE2015, 92,069 (59%) restored their names before GE2020.
Non-voters have to provide a reason for not voting at an election when applying to restore their names to the register. As long as the non-voter has a valid reason for not voting, ELD will restore the name to the register without penalty. In the last 10 years, no citizen had to pay the penalty fee to restore his/her name to the register.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Number of Citizens on Registers of Electors for General Elections held in 2011, 2015 and 2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister for each General Election held in 2011, 2015 and 2020 (a) what was the number of citizens (i) aged 21 and above, on the cut-off date for registration on the Registers of Electors and (ii) on the Registers of Electors, both numbers broken down by age band, gender and ethnicity; and (b) what was the number of citizens aged 21 and above not on the Registers of Electors, broken down by age band, gender, ethnicity and duration they have been struck off the Registers.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): Under section 5 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, persons who are eligible to vote will have their names entered or retained in the registers automatically when the registers are prepared or revised. The Registers of Electors (REs) are compiled from records of NRIC holders kept by the Commissioner of National Registration by applying the qualifying criteria as set out below:
(a)\tis a citizen of Singapore;
(b)\tis not less than 21 years of age;
(c)\tis not disqualified from being an elector under any prevailing law; and
(d)\t(i) has a Singapore residential address on his NRIC; or
(ii) if he is residing overseas and has changed his NRIC address to an overseas address, has a contact address in Singapore registered with the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (also known as a Local Contact Address).
For the General Elections (GEs) held in 2011, 2015 and 2020, the prescribed dates of the REs were 1 January 2011, 1 February 2015 and 1 March 2020 respectively. Table A below shows the total population of Singapore Citizens (SCs) aged 21 and above (a) as of the prescribed dates of the REs, (b) who met the qualifying criteria to be a voter and were included in the REs, and (c) the remaining SCs aged 21 and above who were not included in the REs. Further breakdown by age-bands, gender and ethnicity are in Tables B1 to B3.
The Elections Department does not track the duration an individual voter has been expunged from the REs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Take-up Rates of Parent-care Leave by Public Servants for 2019 and 2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Prime Minister for 2019 and 2020 respectively, what are the take-up rates of parent-care leave by public servants.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): In 2019 and 2020, the take-up rate for parent-care leave among eligible civil servants was about 50% in each year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Current Total Value of Government-owned Land That Can Be Sold for Development","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what is the current total value of Government-owned land that can be sold for development.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: State land is sold based on the Government’s development plans. These plans cover various planning horizons, from land sale programme covering specific land sites with specific uses for the coming year to long-term land planning spanning decades for which broad uses are defined but subject to detailed planning in future years. The more detailed plans are revised in light of evolving needs of our population and economy.
It is, therefore, not meaningful to calculate the total value of Government-owned land that can be sold for development. However, the Government maintains a listing of physical assets, such as land and buildings, which forms part of the information on the size of reserves that is provided to the President under the Reserves Protection Framework.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assistance Offered to Other Countries to Deal with COVID-19","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) what is the specific assistance that Singapore has offered to other countries to deal with COVID-19; and (b) how has Singapore assisted India as it confronts its latest wave of the pandemic.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: It has been more than a year since the first known cases of the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, despite important progress such as the rapid development of several vaccines, we are seeing the emergence of new variants of the COVID-19 virus, and renewed waves of cases and deaths being reported across the globe. As I have mentioned previously, this is a virus that does not discriminate across language, race, religion, or borders. Multilateralism and international cooperation are, therefore, vital elements in our response to the pandemic, since no one is safe until everyone is safe.
During the Committee of Supply Debate on 1 March 2021, I explained that no matter how well we control the pandemic within our borders, life cannot resume and get back to the status quo unless the rest of the world is also made safer. This is why Singapore was an early supporter of the COVAX Facility, which is the flagship global mechanism to facilitate access to COVID-19 vaccines for all countries. We founded, and we co-chair the informal Friends of the COVAX Facility (FOF), a 15-member group, to catalyse discussions on the operationalisation of the COVAX Facility. COVAX’s primary value is in ensuring that subsidised vaccines will be allocated to 92 low and lower-middle income countries. Singapore has contributed US$5 million to the COVAX Advance Market Commitment (AMC) towards this purpose. In less than three months, the COVAX Facility has delivered more than 49 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines to over 120 countries. The world would be collectively worse off without COVAX.
To support regional efforts to combat the virus, Singapore has contributed US$100,000 to the COVID-19 ASEAN Response Fund. The Fund will be used to procure medical equipment and other supplies for frontline response and preventative measures, as well as to finance long-term research and development of COVID-19 treatments and vaccines. Notably, with further contributions from ASEAN Dialogue Partners, US$10.5 million of this Fund will also be used for the purchase of COVID-19 vaccines for ASEAN Member States and the ASEAN Secretariat in Jakarta.
In addition, our role as a transit hub has enabled us to help repatriate other countries’ nationals, even as commercial flight connections are affected by global travel restrictions. As a result, many were able to go home and be reunited with their families and loved ones. In turn, Singaporeans have also benefited from similar assistance provided by our friends around the world.
We also offered what we can to our neighbours and partners around the world while taking care of our domestic needs. Singapore has provided critical medical supplies such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) machines, diagnostic test kits, personal protective equipment (PPE), oximeters, surgical masks, hand sanitisers, thermometers and oxygen-related supplies to our friends in the region including Brunei, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Myanmar, China and India, as well as those further away like Fiji, Palau, Ethiopia, Kenya and Rwanda. We are also planning to donate medical supplies to countries in Latin America, such as Brazil, Mexico, Peru and Ecuador. Looking ahead, Singapore will continue to assist countries in need within our means during this challenging time.
The Singapore Government’s international assistance during this pandemic has also served as a catalyst for wider efforts within our community. We have witnessed a wide range of contributions from private sector entities and philanthropic organisations in Singapore. The Singapore Government had provided seed funding to the Singapore Red Cross Society (SRC)’s fundraising effort for humanitarian assistance to affected communities in China. This fundraising drive raised more than S$6 million. The SRC has also coordinated the supply of medical aid worth S$900,000 to other countries. In addition, the Temasek Foundation has to date donated diagnostic test kits, oxygen concentrators, and BiPAP machines to over 30 countries around the world.
Singapore’s contributions to India have been addressed by the Written Answer to Question No 8 given on 10 May 2021.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strengthening Legal Framework to Penalise Eyewitnesses and Participants who Do Not Report or Contribute to Abuse against Vulnerable Persons","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Home Affairs in light of a number of high-profile abuse cases against vulnerable persons, often in the presence of family members who do not report or have even contributed to the abuse, whether the Minister will consider strengthening the legal framework to penalise eyewitnesses and participants whose inactions have allowed the crimes to continue.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Penal Code was amended in 2019 to enhance protections for vulnerable victims. Enhanced penalties can be imposed for most hurt and sexual offences that are committed against children below 14 years of age, domestic workers and vulnerable persons defined as individuals who are substantially unable to protect themselves due to mental or physical disabilities.
The amendments also introduced new offences under the Penal Code to target persons in the same household who failed to protect vulnerable victims from abuse and whose inaction allowed the abuse to continue. Section 335A of the Penal Code makes it an offence for persons responsible for the safety and well-being of domestic workers or vulnerable persons in their care, custody or control, to fail to protect them from abuse or neglect. Under section 5 of the Children and Young Persons Act, it was already an offence to knowingly permit a child or young person to be ill-treated by another person and the amendments in 2019 increased the penalties.
Where abuse leads to death, section 304C of the Penal Code makes it an offence for persons in the same household who have frequent contact with victims that are below the age of 14, domestic workers, or vulnerable persons, to fail to take reasonable steps to protect them from abuse or neglect.
These offences came into force on 1 January 2020 and apply to offences committed on or after that date.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Monitor Extremist Ideology on Social Media Platforms and Internet Forums","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs what is being done to monitor extremist ideology on social media platforms and Internet forums.
Mr K Shanmugam: The security agencies do monitor extremist ideology and content on the Internet, including social media.
We have blocked some sites. It is not possible to block all of them, given the vastness of the Internet and as new sites are always popping up. Determined individuals will also find ways to circumvent our blocking.
That is why we adopt a multi-pronged approach to counter radicalisation and do not just rely on Internet-facing measures. We have invested significant resources in upstream efforts to educate and sensitise our communities to the threat of extremist ideologies and online radicalisation. We have done this through the SGSecure movement, as well as outreach to schools by community organisations, such as the Religious Rehabilitation Group and the Inter-Agency Aftercare Group. We also work with foreign partners to share radicalisation-related intelligence.
The public has a part to play, by not disseminating extremist content. Industry involvement is also critical. Some technology companies have stepped up efforts to take down or stop the spread of extremist content on their platforms. We applaud their efforts, which will go a good way towards making the digital space safer for everyone.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Scam Cases Reported in 2020 and Usage of ScamShield App","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) of the total number of scam cases reported in 2020, how many cases were reported by victims who have been scammed more than once; (b) how many iOS users have downloaded ScamShield since its launch in November 2020; and (c) when is the application expected to be rolled out to Android users.
Mr K Shanmugam: In 2020, 15,756 cases of scams were reported to the Police. Of these, 501 involved victims who had been scam victims before.
As of 26 April 2021, there had been more than 110,000 downloads of ScamShield by iOS users.
The National Crime Prevention Council, GovTech and the Police are working on technical issues related to the Android version of the application. We are unable to provide a timeline for the roll-out of the Android version at this point in time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Consideration Factors in Conducting Security Clearances for Applicants for Civil and Public Service Positions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Home Affairs what are the factors currently taken into consideration in the conduct of security clearances for applicants for Civil Service and Public Service positions.
Mr K Shanmugam: Several factors are taken into consideration in the conduct of security clearances, including the nature of the work in the position and the confidentiality of the information that the position deals with. Security checks will vary for different positions, with different levels of access to confidential information or access to different types of persons. For operational reasons, I will not be able to go into the specifics. But I will give one general example: a Permanent Secretary will, in general, have different access to confidential information compared with an entry level junior officer. The requisite security checks will naturally be different.
I note that the Member had asked a similar question on the same topic in 2016 and I had provided my reply then. It will be helpful for the Member to check the questions he has asked previously. The Hansard has them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures in Place to Counter Perception that Vaping Does Not Have Serious Health Effects as Smoking","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Health what measures are put in place to counter the perception that vaping does not have the same serious health effects that smoking does.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The World Health Organization has declared that Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS), commonly called e-cigarettes or vaporisers, are undoubtedly harmful to health and that they are not safer alternatives to regular cigarettes. In addition, there is evidence that ENDS can be a gateway for non-smokers to start using traditional cigarettes.
To raise awareness of the negative health effects of vaping, the Health Promotion Board (HPB) developed a public education campaign in 2019 to create awareness and understanding on the health harms of ENDS. Targeted at youths aged 18 to 25 and parents with teenage children, the campaign highlighted the harmful contents within e-cigarettes. HPB also works closely with MOE and Institutes of Higher Learning to raise awareness among youths about the benefits of leading a tobacco-free lifestyle and encourage them to stay vape-free. This involves organising online learning activities on the harms of vaping, through gamification methods, for example, virtual escape rooms, to educate the youths. HPB also provides resources for self-directed learning and trains educators so that they are equipped to discuss the harms of vaping with their students.
For the general public, information on the negative effects of vaping is also available on HealthHub (www.HealthHub.sg/vaping). The Health Sciences Authority also engages the media to remind the public that the sale, use, possession for sale, importation or distribution of electronic vaporisers are strictly prohibited in Singapore and strongly advises the public from engaging in such activities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allowing Healthcare Providers to Flag Suspicious Injuries on Vulnerable Persons including Foreign Domestic Workers without Permission of Victims or Their Guardians","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether healthcare providers are allowed to flag suspicious injuries on vulnerable persons, including foreign domestic workers, to the relevant authorities without the permission of the victims or their guardians; (b) what is the procedure to report suspected abuse; and (c) how will these reports be handled.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Medical practitioners should maintain a high index of suspicion for potential abuse when they notice unexplained or non-accidental injuries on patients, including vulnerable persons, such as the young, the disabled, and Foreign Domestic Workers (FDWs). Medical practitioners are legally obligated under section 424 of the Criminal Procedure Code to notify the Police immediately when they are aware of the commission of, or the intention of, any other person to commit abuse, unless there is a reasonable excuse not to do so. There is no legal requirement to obtain patient’s consent before lodging a Police report.
To facilitate the Police’s investigations, medical practitioners are required to provide details in the Police notification form. including description of the injuries sustained, the circumstances of the sustained injuries and incident location, as reported by the patient and accompanying person.
Depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Police may commence investigations into relevant offences.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Myopia-related Eye Disorders Treated in Past 10 Years and Updates on National Myopia Prevention Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health (a) in the past 10 years, how many cases of myopia-related eye disorders has the Singapore National Eye Centre treated; (b) of these, what is the percentage of cases that could have been prevented if the patient had good myopia preventive care when they were young; and (c) whether the National Myopia Prevention Programme launched in 2001 has shown any progress in preventing children from developing myopia.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Myopia can result in complications due to the eye condition and/or myopia correction, for example, contact lens wear. The Singapore National Eye Centre High Myopia Clinic was set up in 2018 to provide specialised care for patients with high myopia and has seen an average of about 800 patients yearly.
Myopia starts and progresses through childhood and stabilises in the late teenage years. Therefore, early intervention of myopia is important. Studies have shown that preventive measures, such as increased outdoor time, can delay the onset of myopia and myopic progression in children and the development of high myopia in young adults1. It is estimated that increased outdoor time may reduce the prevalence of myopia by 13% in children and, consequently, a potential 12% reduction in high myopia prevalence amongst future cohorts of young adults. By reducing myopia progression rate to 50%, through the combined use of pharmacological, such as atropine eye drops, and optical therapies, the prevalence of high myopia could potentially be reduced further by up to 90%.
Recognising that myopia prevention is important, the National Myopia Prevention Programme (NMPP) was launched in 2001 as a multi-pronged strategy driven by the Health Promotion Board (HPB) in partnership with MOE and Singapore National Eye Centre (SNEC). The programme aims to delay the onset of myopia and reduce its progression in children through annual vision screening and education, including talks held in schools and webinars for parents on good eye care habits. Based on a study conducted in 12 Primary schools, the proportion of Primary school students with myopia and high myopia has fallen from 37.7% to 29.3%, and 2.3% to 1.4% respectively from 2004 to 2017.
In addition, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) requires pre-schools that provide full-day services to provide 60 minutes of physical activity daily, with at least 30 minutes outdoors or 45 minutes thrice weekly outdoors or its equivalent. HPB has also worked with ECDA to extend vision screening to preschools, as well as organised eye care talks to equip parents with skills to inculcate good eye care habits among their children. In 2018, SNEC also established the Myopia Centre at Bedok to improve follow-up for adults and children with progressive myopia, including tailored treatment and education. These efforts introduced will take time for its full effects to be seen.
We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of our myopia prevention efforts and promote evidence-based interventions to delay onset and reduce the progression of myopia for children in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Jonas JB, Ang M, Cho P, et al. IMI Prevention of Myopia and Its Progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2021;62:6. Saw SM, Matsumura S, Hoang QV. Prevention and Management of Myopia and Myopic Pathology. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2019;60:488-99. "," "],"footNoteQuestions":["12"],"questionNo":"12"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Number of Body Dismorphic Disorder and Eating Disorder Cases Treated in Past Five Year","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Ms Raeesah Khan asked the Minister for Health (a) in the past five years, how many cases of body dismorphic disorder and eating disorders have been treated in the public healthcare institutions; (b) what is the breakdown by condition, age and gender; (c) how many healthcare institutions offer consultation and treatment for body dismorphic disorder and eating disorders; and (d) whether the Ministry conducts any campaigns to promote early diagnosis of such disorders.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: MOH does not collect data on Body Dysmorphic Disorder (BDD). BDD is an infrequent diagnosis amongst the patients who present to hospitals.
The two most common eating disorders seen at our public hospitals are anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa. Available data provided by the psychiatric departments of public hospitals showed that, over the last five years from 2016 to 2020, an average of 300 patients per year received treatment for various eating disorders. The median patient age was 21, and nine in 10 are females.
Currently, the psychiatry departments across all public hospitals are able to treat patients with eating disorders.
Our public hospitals have been actively providing education materials and health education talks for healthcare workers and members of the public about these conditions. For example, SGH has published an e-book on their website titled “Treating Eating Disorders, a SGH experience”, KK Women's and Children's Hospital (KKH) has published commentaries to raise awareness on eating disorders and collaborated with community service providers to educate and support care-givers of patients with eating disorders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Provision of Home Caregiving Grant to Care Recipients Living Alone but Rely on Persons Residing Separately from Them","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Health whether the Home Caregiving Grant may be provided to care recipients living alone but who rely on persons residing separately from them for their care-giving needs.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: In October 2019, MOH introduced the Home Caregiving Grant (HCG). The HCG is a monthly $200 cash grant for eligible individuals with permanent moderate disability and the grant can be used flexibly for different care-giving expenses.
To qualify for the HCG, the care recipient must meet the following criteria:
(a) Singapore Citizen or a Singapore Permanent Resident with a parent, child or spouse who is a Singapore Citizen;
(b) Always require some assistance with at least three Activities of Daily Living (ADLs);
(c) For households with income, per capita household income of $2,800 or less, or for households with no income, living in a residence with Annual Value of $13,000 or less; and
(d) Living in the community, that is, not residing in a residential long-term care institution, for example, nursing home.
Care recipients living alone but who rely on persons residing separately from them for their care-giving needs will be eligible for the HCG if they fulfil all the criteria.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Block Overseas Calls Received in Singapore Carrying prefix \"+65\" in View of Increase in Spoofed Calls from Scammers Based Overseas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Communications and Information having regard to the significant increase in spoofed calls received in Singapore from scammers based overseas, whether IMDA will consider directing telecommunication service providers here to block overseas calls received in Singapore which carry the misleading prefix “+65”.
Mr S Iswaran: IMDA has worked with the telecom operators to block known numbers used to perpetuate scams, including those that start with “+656” and spoof the numbers of well-known Government agencies. IMDA had also considered blocking all international incoming calls that use local-looking numbers, that is, those that would appear to the end-user as “+65”. However, this was assessed to be unfeasible, as there are legitimate international incoming calls that will carry the “+65” prefix. Such examples include Singapore-based callers who travel overseas and call Singapore using mobile roaming services, as well as overseas call centres of local businesses who hold local numbers for their hotlines.
IMDA, together with MHA/SPF, has stepped up efforts to educate the public not to pick up calls with a “+” or “+65” prefix if they are not expecting any calls from overseas. IMDA will continue to work closely with the telecom operators and with MHA/SPF on measures to combat scams/spoofed calls and to better protect our citizens.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Monthly Electricity and Water Consumption Rates for Households Living in Landed Properties, Private Condominiums and HDB Flats Respectively","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment what are the average monthly electricity and water consumption rates for households living in (i) landed properties (ii) private condominiums and (iii) HDB flats respectively.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The average monthly consumption for electricity was 1,257.0 kilowatt hour (kWh), 568.8 kWh and 375.9 kWh in 2020 for households living in (i) landed properties, (ii) private condominiums, and (iii) HDB flats respectively.
For water, the average monthly consumption was 32.2 cubic metres, 15.0 cubic metres and 16.2 cubic metres in 2020 for households living in (i) landed properties, (ii) private condominiums, and (iii) HDB flats respectively.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of Households Consuming More Than 130 Litres of Water Per Day by Landed Properties, Private Condominiums and HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment what proportion of households living in (i) landed properties (ii) private condominiums and (iii) HDB flats currently consume more than 130 litres of water per day.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Singapore’s domestic water consumption is tracked based on litres per capita per day (LPCD) at the national level and we currently do not monitor LPCD based on household type.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Fernvale Residents Caught for High-rise Littering, Throwing Down Cigarette Butts and Throwing Food Down to Feed Birds in Past Two Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) in the past two years in Fernvale constituency, how many residents have been caught for (i) high-rise littering (ii) throwing down cigarette butts and (iii) throwing food down to feed birds; (b) what are the age groups of those who are caught for such offences; and (c) whether NEA can increase the deployment of cameras to resolve the issues.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: From 2019 to 2020 at Fernvale constituency, NEA took enforcement action against nine offenders for 22 counts of high-rise littering offences. Of these cases, cigarette butts accounted for 95% of the high-rise litter and tissue paper accounted for the rest. The majority of the offenders were aged between 40 and 55.
NEA will continue to deploy surveillance cameras with video analytics to catch offenders in the act of high-rise littering. However, increasing the deployment of cameras indefinitely is not sustainable, given resource constraints.
Keeping Singapore clean and safe is a collective responsibility. NEA adopts complementary strategies, such as strengthening community partnerships, to raise residents’ awareness of the negative impacts of high-rise littering. NEA also partners Town Councils to put up posters which highlight the environmental and social consequences of high-rise littering. Going forward, we must continue to cultivate social graciousness and good habits to keep Singapore clean and safe.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Table Water to be Made Free of Charge at Food and Beverage Establishments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment considering that Singapore has potable water, whether table water can be mandatorily made free-of-charge at food and beverage establishments.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Water is precious to Singapore and to promote conservation and reduce wastage of water, our policy has not been to subsidise it. While Singapore’s water is safe to drink straight from the tap, it is not free as food and beverage (F&B) establishments have to pay for the water. They also incur cost in providing table water, such as cost of washing the glasses and containers and in serving the water. There is no basis for the Singapore Food Agency to mandate that F&B establishments serve tap water free-of-charge under the Environmental Public Health Act.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"New Rules on Import of Japanese Food Products in Light of Japanese Government's Plans to Release Contaminated Water from Fukushima Nuclear Accident into Ocean","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether new rules on the import of Japanese food products will be put in place in light of the Japanese Government's plans to release contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear accident into the ocean.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) adopts a science-based risk assessment and management approach towards food safety and sets food safety standards that are consistent with international standards. Food imported into Singapore are subjected to our surveillance and sampling regime to ensure food safety. All food imports, including imports from Japan, must comply with SFA’s food safety requirements.
SFA will continue to conduct food safety assessments, monitor Japanese food imports and take guidance from international standards as well as international agencies, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to ensure that Japanese food imports comply with our food safety requirements. In the event that food products fail SFA’s inspections and tests, they will not be allowed for sale and will be returned to the country of origin.
We strongly encourage Japan to continue working closely with the IAEA and the international community. We hope Japan will adopt an open and transparent approach and share its detailed plans and data collected with the international community going forward.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Donating SingapoRediscovers Vouchers to Underprivileged and Migrant Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the number of Singaporeans who have donated their SingapoRediscovers Vouchers (SRVs); and (b) what are the current efforts to allow and encourage Singaporeans who do not wish to utilise their SRVs to donate them to underprivileged and migrant workers.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: As at 30 April 2021, approximately 21,000 Singaporeans have donated their SingapoRediscovers Vouchers (SRV).
The authorised booking partners have been working with various social organisations to organise Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives which utilise the SRV. To make it easier for Singaporeans to search for SRV donation listings, three of the authorised booking partners have a page which consolidates the SRV donation listings. Additionally, STB will enhance the SRV website to feature more information on the various SRV donation drives across all the five booking partners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of COVID-19 on Chinatown Businesses and Expected Support from Chinatown Digitalisation Initiative","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Government collects data on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Chinatown businesses in terms of revenue decline or number of merchants closing and, if so, what does the data show; (b) whether the Government will allow the use of SingapoRediscovers Vouchers for Chinatown-based businesses, including retail and F&B operators; and (c) whether the Chinatown Digitalisation Initiative is expected to mitigate the effects of COVID-19 on their business and, if so, how many businesses are targeted to be so assisted.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The significant decline in international visitors in 2020 due to COVID-19 has impacted Singapore’s tourism businesses and precincts, including Chinatown. STB has been working closely with the Chinatown Business Association (CBA), as well as precinct stakeholders and businesses, to support businesses through this difficult time.
To attract locals to visit Chinatown, STB has worked with CBA and other stakeholders on initiatives, such as Hawker Day Out, special weekend workshops, new innovative experiences, in addition to annual cultural festivities and events. STB’s SingapoRediscovers campaign, which has encouraged locals to rediscover hidden gems and new experiences in our neighbourhoods, has provided additional marketing and publicity support for these Chinatown initiatives.
The SingapoRediscovers Vouchers (SRV) scheme is primarily targeted at businesses that derive most of their income from tourists – hotels, tourist attractions and tours. Thus, all Chinatown-based hotels, tourist attractions and tours which have been approved to operate may apply to participate in the SRV scheme. F&B and retail businesses can work with eligible merchants to develop bundles that qualify for the SRVs.
Beyond these initiatives, it is also important to support businesses to transform the way they operate so that they remain relevant in this fast-evolving market. The Chinatown Digitalisation Initiatives help Chinatown businesses engage new customers by building their digital presence and leveraging digital solutions. This helps them drive physical and digital traffic both locally and from overseas. The scheme aims to encourage 250 businesses or 25% of businesses in Chinatown to adopt at least one of the digital initiatives by April 2022.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"School Curriculum to Educate Students on Body Image and Self-esteem Related Issues","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Ms Raeesah Khan asked the Minister for Education (a) whether any aspects of the current school curriculum seek to educate students about body image and self-esteem related issues, especially in relation to the use of social media platforms; (b) if yes, at which levels of education does this occur and what is the content covered; and (c) if not, whether the Ministry will consider introducing such content into the school curriculum.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) curriculum equips students with age-appropriate knowledge and skills to help them build healthy self-esteem and positive self-identity, and also in relation to the impact of social media.
At the Primary level, students acquire social and emotional competencies, such as emotional regulation, perspective taking and self-confidence. They learn to recognise and appreciate their strengths and personal qualities and understand the developmental changes that they will experience as they grow, such as physiological, social and emotional changes.
At the Secondary and Pre-University levels, students have opportunities to discuss how their perception of their body image can be affected by external influences, such as social media and social comparison. They learn to appreciate that their self-esteem and sense of worth do not need to depend on external affirmation, but can be anchored on their understanding of themselves and their intrinsic qualities. They also learn how to manage online interactions that may undermine their self-confidence.
Parents can also help support their children to be discerning users of the digital space. Schools are provided with Cyber Wellness resources to engage parents as our partners to educate their child and equip parents with strategies for digital parenting.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Change in Size of 2019 and 2020 Cohorts of Singaporean Students Going Overseas to Study and Number of Overseas Students Coming to Study in Singapore in 2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the change in the size of the 2019 and 2020 cohorts of Singaporean students who went overseas to study; and (b) what has been the change in the number of overseas students coming to Singapore to study in 2020.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The proportion of International Students that enrolled remained stable at less than 5% in Primary schools, Secondary schools and Junior Colleges, and less than 10% in the Polytechnics and Autonomous Universities (AUs) in 2019 and 2020.
MOE does not track the number of Singaporean students who choose to study overseas. That said, we recognise that the COVID-19 pandemic may have disrupted some local students’ plans to study overseas. We have, therefore, provided more degree places at the AUs in 2020 on an exceptional basis to cater to such students, while still ensuring admission standards are maintained. We will also consider doing so this year, as part of our broader efforts to support local students and help ensure that their education journeys are not unduly disrupted by the pandemic.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Social Worker to Caseload Ratio at Family Service Centres in Each of Past Five Years vis-a-vis Optimal Ratio","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) for each year in the past five years, what is the average social worker to caseload ratio at family service centres; and (b) what is the optimal social worker to caseload ratio based on the Ministry’s studies.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Family Service Centres (FSCs) serve low-income and vulnerable individuals and families who need help addressing their social needs.
The average social worker to caseload ratio over the past five years was 1:20 in FY201, 1:19 in FY19, 1:25 in FY18, 1:23 in FY17 and 1:22 in FY16.
There is no single optimal social worker to case load ratio, as the cases managed by FSCs vary in complexity and intensity of effort required. FSCs are funded based on their caseloads, with more funding provided for clients with more complex and higher risks or needs. This enables FSCs to have the resources and flexibility to hire more staff when needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Based on available staff data for April – September 2020 (the first half of FY2020)."],"footNoteQuestions":["25"],"questionNo":"25"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Households Receiving Mix of CPF Payouts and ComCare Long-Term Assistance Cash Grants Every Year between 2016 and 2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) between 2016 and 2020, how many households are receiving a mix of CPF payouts and ComCare Long-Term Assistance cash grants every year; and (b) how are the total payout rates for such long-term assistance determined.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: ComCare Long-Term Assistance (LTA) is provided to those who are permanently unable to work due to old age, illness or disability and have little or no means of income and family support. Applicants who are receiving some income, such as CPF-related payouts, may qualify if their monthly income is lower than the prevailing LTA rate for the respective household type, for example, $600 for a single-person household.
The number of households on LTA who received CPF-related payouts between 2016 and 2020 is summarised in Table 1.
LTA beneficiaries with some monthly income, which would include any CPF payouts, will have their LTA cash payouts adjusted, albeit the sum of their monthly income and the LTA payout will still be higher than the LTA payout that a beneficiary with no CPF payout or other forms of income would receive.
In addition to cash assistance, LTA beneficiaries also receive free medical assistance at public healthcare institutions and additional assistance for recurring and one-off essentials, such as hygiene consumables and household appliances, respectively. Social Service Offices can also connect LTA beneficiaries with other assistance schemes and community organisations that can provide additional support to help them address any other needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Number of Hand, Foot and Mouth Disease Cases and Pre-school Closures to Break Cycle of Transmission","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is (i) the current number of cases of Hand, Foot and Mouth Disease (HFMD) (ii) the number of pre-schools ascertained to have active clusters of prolonged transmission of HFMD and (iii) the number of pre-school closures on an annual basis over the last five years, including year-to-date; and (b) how does the Ministry make the determination for centre closures to break the cycle of transmission.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) and MOH work closely to monitor cases of infectious diseases in pre-schools, including HFMD. Pre-schools are required to inform ECDA and MOH promptly of any clusters of infectious diseases, including HFMD. In the last week of 23 to 29 April 2021, 78 cases of HFMD were reported. As of 29 April 2021, there were six clusters of more prolonged transmission of HFMD in pre-schools being closely monitored.
HFMD is a common childhood infection that is generally mild and most children can recover on their own without treatment. In general, MOH has assessed that the closure of pre-schools affected by HFMD has a limited effect on containing the spread of HFMD as the virus is present in the community and can be reintroduced once the pre-school reopens. Instead, early detection and isolation of cases, as well as maintenance of good personal and environmental hygiene in the pre-school, home and community, are key to minimising the risk of transmission and, hence, the risk of large HFMD outbreaks.
Preventive measures are in place in pre-schools to minimise the transmission of HFMD and other infectious diseases, and pre-schools are required to follow guidelines for the prevention and control of infectious diseases. These include daily health and temperature checks of children upon arrival at pre-schools, ensuring good personal hygiene practices by staff and children and maintaining good environmental hygiene, such as wiping down and disinfecting high-touch areas. Parents are strongly advised to inform the centre as soon as possible when their child is unwell, and to keep children who are unwell away from the pre-school until they have fully recovered, to mitigate the spread of HFMD.
ECDA and MOH monitor the incidence of HFMD cases in pre-schools closely and assess the need for additional follow-up measures to be taken for each outbreak. If warranted, pre-school closures may be mandated on a case-by-case basis and this is dependent on, but not limited to, the severity of the HFMD cases, the circulating strain of virus, and the disease transmission dynamics. In the last five years, that is, 2016 to 2020, ECDA, in consultation with MOH, has mandated the temporary closure of two pre-schools due to HFMD. Apart from temporary closures, ECDA can also take other regulatory actions, for example, financial penalties, against pre-schools that are found to have breached requirements relating to the prevention of infectious diseases, including HFMD.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Installation of Traffic Signal at Intersection of Anchorvale Lane and Sengkang West Avenue","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider installing a traffic signal at the intersection of Anchorvale Lane and Sengkang West Avenue in light of the increase in resident density in the area as well as a recent accident that has occurred at the intersection as a result of a discretionary right turn.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As traffic volume is currently low, the intersection is currently unsignalised. As traffic demand will increase, given the upcoming residential developments in the vicinity, LTA plans to install a traffic signal at this intersection by mid-2022.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Non-online Public Education Programme in Four Official Languages on Safe Use of Footpaths and Park Connectors and Safe Riding on Roads","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry has a non-online public education programme in four official languages on the safe use of footpaths and park connectors and safe riding on roads, for both cyclists and pedestrians; (b) if so, whether such a programme can focus on pushing the information, knowledge and messaging to people who may not actively seek any such information by themselves; and (c) if not, whether the Ministry will consider having such a programme.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: I thank the Member for his questions. This question for written answer has been addressed by oral reply to Question Nos 3 and 4 taken on 11 May 2021.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Foreign Domestic Worker Employment Policies to Offer Them More Protection","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether foreign domestic worker (FDW) employment policies are being reviewed to offer more protection to FDWs; (b) what is the schedule for the Ministry to interview the new FDWs; and (c) how does the Ministry ensure FDWs are able to honestly share their concerns and be understood during these interviews.
Mrs Josephine Teo: At the Committee of Supply in March, MOM said that we were reviewing measures to better safeguard the well-being of Migrant Domestic Workers (MDWs).
On MDW interviews, the Centre for Domestic Employees (CDE) will expand its coverage of MDW interviews such that by the end of this year, every new MDW will be interviewed within three to six months of starting work at their employers’ homes. These interviews seek to find out how new MDWs are adapting to their work environment. The interviews are conducted in-person unless prohibited by prevailing COVID-19 measures. We recognise that the interviews may not allow us to uncover all the issues that the MDW may be facing, if the MDW does not wish to divulge. Nevertheless, we will endeavour to create a safe environment through conducting the interview in a private room without the employer’s presence, to ensure that MDWs can honestly share their concerns. We aim to conduct all interviews in the native language to ensure that they can understand the questions and are understood.
In the event that interviews cannot be conducted in-person due to the prevailing COVID-19 situation, interviews will be conducted via video calls. Employers will be asked to provide their MDW with privacy to ensure that MDWs can honestly share their concerns. If the employer refuses to comply or if the interviewer assesses that the MDW is feeling uneasy during the interview, we will cease the interview, follow up with the employer to better address their concerns, and conduct a house visit if necessary.
In addition to conducting interviews, MOM is reviewing other measures to make greater use of existing touchpoints with MDWs, to have better protection for MDWs. For instance, we are working with MOH to enable doctors to better identify signs of abuse and report cases of suspected abuse to the Police or MOM. We are also looking at how Employment Agencies can play an active part in checking in on MDWs whom they place, particularly for those who are working in Singapore for the first time.
MOM will provide further details on protection measures for MDWs in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulation for Maid Agencies to Follow Up on Foreign Domestic Workers' Welfare Throughout Employment Period","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry regulates how maid agencies should follow up on the FDWs' welfare throughout their employment period; (b) whether agency fees can be prorated monthly rather than collected in one lump sum to motivate them to remain invested in the employee’s performance and well-being; and (c) whether there are training opportunities for agency employees to improve communication with FDWs and identify signs of distress.
Mrs Josephine Teo: At the Committee of Supply in March, MOM said that we were reviewing measures to better safeguard the well-being of MDWs. One of the areas was to leverage existing touchpoints with MDWs so that they could seek timely help if needed. Since April, MOM has introduced house visits and supported the Centre of Domestic Employees (CDE) to expand the one-to-one interviews to cover more MDWs. MOM is looking at how employment agencies (EAs) can also play an active part in checking in on MDWs whom they place. This is to complement the other touchpoints that MDWs have contact with.
The payment terms of EAs are determined in the contract between employers and EAs. As EAs incur recruitment and training costs upfront, they may have to raise overall fees if lump-sum payment is not allowed. Nevertheless, we agree that EAs should have an interest to make good matches and that the MDWs whom they place are settling in well. To encourage EAs to take greater ownership of their matching outcomes, MOM announced in 2019 that EAs will be required to offer employers the option of a service fee refund of at least 50% if the MDW’s contract ends prematurely within the first six months of employment. This measure will be implemented by the end of this year. We will monitor how this measure works.
To the point about training, all employment agency personnel (EAPs) are required to obtain the Certificate for Employment Intermediaries (CEI). The CEI equips EAPs with knowledge of employment laws and regulations, as well as good EA practices to adopt, such as checking-in with the employer and the MDW during the initial months of deployment to find out if the MDW has encountered any employment-related issues. In addition, the Association of Employment Agencies (Singapore) offers the Employment Agency Professional Development Course to improve the capabilities of EAPs. The course trains EAPs on how to resolve disputes between MDWs and employers, and identify MDWs who might be in distress. We encourage EAs to upskill their EAPs to help them better serve their clients.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Disputes Reported between Employers and Foreign Domestic Workers and Outcome of Cases in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in the past five years, how many disputes between employers and foreign domestic workers have been reported; (b) of these, how many went to trial; and (c) what are the key observations from these reports.
Mrs Josephine Teo: In the last five years, MOM received an average of 2,600 complaints each year involving Migrant Domestic Workers (MDWs). This represents about 1% of the population of MDWs.
Salary and rest time are two common issues raised. For example, there may be a misunderstanding between the MDW and employer over how rest day compensation should be calculated. An MDW may also approach MOM for assistance if she prefers to have more rest time during the day, but has difficulties communicating her request to the employer. The vast majority of such complaints are resolved through MOM’s advice or mediation.
In a small proportion of the complaints, MOM finds indications of employers breaching the law. These involve offences, such as failure to pay salary and illegal deployment. MOM will look into the seriousness of the breaches and determine whether we should issue a stern warning to the employer or proceed to prosecution. In the past five years, MOM prosecuted a total of 83 individuals, or an average of 16 individuals a year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Consent for Spouses on Dependant Passes to Work Part-time and Temporary Jobs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Manpower whether spouses on Dependant's Passes can continue to work under a letter of consent for part-time and temporary jobs instead of requiring them to obtain a work pass so that foreign dependants are able to contribute to their family and the economy.
Mrs Josephine Teo: From 1 May 2021, all Dependant's Pass (DP) holders who wish to work during their stay in Singapore, be it in part-time or temporary jobs, will need to apply for a relevant work pass, such as an Employment Pass (EP), S Pass or Work Permit. The relevant qualifying salary, dependency ratio ceiling and levies for the respective work passes will apply.
DP holders who are currently working on a Letter of Consent (LOC) can continue to do so until their LOC expires. Most DP holders who are currently working on an LOC, including those in temporary or part-time jobs, would meet prevailing work pass criteria and will be able to qualify for a work pass.
Foreign spouses and children of Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents holding a Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) or LTVP-Plus (LTVP+) issued by ICA are not affected. They may continue to seek employment through an LOC or pre-approved LOC.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Legislation to Require Companies Hiring Workers in Gig Economy to Recognise Them as Employees","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry will consider introducing legislation to require companies hiring workers in the gig economy to recognise them as employees so that they can enjoy all benefits and retirement protection like regular employees; (b) whether these workers can be brought under the Progressive Wage Model scheme; and (c) whether they can be covered for health and personal accident insurance by their contractors.
Mrs Josephine Teo: There is no internationally accepted definition of gig workers. In Singapore, the term generally refers to self-employed persons (SEPs) who source for a significant part of their work using online matching platforms. Currently, such workers constitute about 3% of our resident workforce. Most are engaged as private hire car drivers, taxi drivers and car and light goods vehicle drivers, who include delivery riders. The majority express a preference for self-employment.
I had shared in my Committee of Supply speech last month how we are supporting SEPs, including gig workers, who wish to switch to regular employment and how we have started to help them better meet healthcare and retirement needs. As I also mentioned, the Government will review how to bring about a fairer and more balanced relationship between gig workers and the intermediaries that deploy their services.
As the Member suggested, one way is to recognise them as employees. However, it is not straightforward, as we can see from the uneven experience overseas. We must assess the implications in the local context, including the impact on work opportunities available, the protections they might enjoy, as well as their obligation to make employee CPF contributions, if they are recognised as employees. Another way is to strengthen representation of SEPs, which NTUC has expressed keen interest in. The issues we will study include employee protections and benefits, as well as retirement adequacy.
On bringing gig workers under a Progressive Wage Model, we will work with tripartite partners to assess its feasibility. In any case, gig workers and SEPs who earn less are also eligible for a range of support schemes, including Workfare Income Supplement.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Current Number of Total Applications and Approved Applications for Employment Passes and Student Visas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Manpower what is the current number of (i) total applications and (ii) approved applications, by geographic regions for (i) employment passes and (ii) student visas to Singapore.
Mrs Josephine Teo: As can be obtained from MOM’s website, there are 177,100 Employment Passes (EP) in Singapore in December 2020, 9% lower than in December 2019.
To help employers, MOM provides a Self-Assessment Tool (SAT) on its website to gauge the likelihood of an EP application being approved. It is not surprising then that the majority of applications submitted meet the criteria for consideration and are approved. For this reason, the application approval rate is not a meaningful indicator.
MOM does not process Student Pass applications. The data on Student Pass applications reside with MHA.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Planting of More Tall Trees along TPE opposite Fernvale Constituency between Seletar Link and Piccadilly to Minimise Sand Dust and Loss of Sand Due to Winds","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development whether NParks will consider having more tall trees along TPE opposite Fernvale constituency between Seletar Link and Piccadilly where there is unloading of sand so as to minimise sand dust and loss of sand due to winds.
Mr Desmond Lee: NParks will progressively plant more trees along the Tampines Expressway (TPE) between Seletar Link and Piccadilly. This year, trees will be added to the forested buffer near Piccadilly Circus. Following the completion of on-going road widening works in 2022, NParks will add more trees along the TPE to provide a green barrier between the expressway and Fernvale constituency. Agencies will continue to monitor the situation and implement further measures, if necessary, to minimise the sand dust that may be blown into Fernvale constituency from the surrounding area.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proper Maintenance of Rental Flats by Tenants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development how does HDB ensure that its rental flats are maintained properly by tenants whether all flats are \"spruced up\" and reinstated to ensure that the flat is in a habitable condition prior to handing over to new tenants.
Mr Desmond Lee: For tenanted flats, HDB conducts periodic inspections on a yearly basis to proactively identify flats which require repairs or maintenance. Tenants may also provide feedback to HDB on areas requiring repairs or maintenance.
For rental flats that have been returned to HDB, HDB will carry out sprucing works, such as cleaning and painting the flat, installing new locks and repairing or replacing any defective fittings. The flats are inspected after the works have been completed, before they are let out again.
For flats which remain vacant for some time after sprucing, HDB checks them every six months to ensure that they remain in a suitable condition for letting out to new tenants.
There was a recent incident where a rental flat tenant posted on social media about the condition of the rental flat allocated to her. The incident was due to an error where an HDB staff mistakenly thought that all the sprucing works had been completed for the affected unit. Upon discovery of the mistake, HDB immediately allocated a replacement rental flat to the affected tenant and assisted her to move the next day. HDB has since tightened our processes to prevent another similar incident from happening.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":4487,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Abdul Samad","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210511/vernacular-11 May 2021 - Mr Abdul Samad - Road Traffic (A) Bill.pdf","fileName":"11 May 2021 - Mr Abdul Samad - Road Traffic (A) Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4488,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Joan Pereira","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210511/vernacular-Joan Pereira RTA 11May2021 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Joan Pereira RTA 11May2021 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4489,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Sharael Taha","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210511/vernacular-11 May 2021 - Mr Sharael Taha - Road Traffic (A) Bill.pdf","fileName":"11 May 2021 - Mr Sharael Taha - Road Traffic (A) Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4490,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Yeo Wan Ling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210511/vernacular-Yeo Wan Ling RTA 11May2021 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Yeo Wan Ling RTA 11May2021 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4491,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Ng Ling Ling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210511/vernacular-Ng Ling Ling LTA 11May2021 -Chinese (v2).pdf","fileName":"Ng Ling Ling LTA 11May2021 -Chinese (v2).pdf"},{"vernacularID":4492,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Sharael Taha","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210511/vernacular-11 May 2021 - Mr Sharael Taha - LTA (A) Bill.pdf","fileName":"11 May 2021 - Mr Sharael Taha - LTA (A) Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4493,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Desmond Lee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210511/vernacular-Desmond Lee COVID 11May2021-Chinese-mnd.pdf","fileName":"Desmond Lee COVID 11May2021-Chinese-mnd.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4494,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Leong Mun Wai","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210511/vernacular-Leong Mun Wai COVID 11May2021-Chinese (1).pdf","fileName":"Leong Mun Wai COVID 11May2021-Chinese (1).pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}