1 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health (a) what preventive and oversight measures are in place to ensure telehealth providers meet patient care standards consistently; and (b) whether additional regulatory frameworks will be developed to monitor the quality and duration of teleconsultations to safeguard patient outcomes.
2 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Health in light of the Ministry's announcement on 24 October 2024 to revoke a medical clinic's licence (a) how may the Ministry assure the public that teleconsultation services provided by medical clinics meet the appropriate standards; and (b) whether the Ministry has been receiving feedback on potentially errant medical clinics.
\tThe Minister for Health (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Sir, may I answer Question Nos 1 and 2, and also oral questions filed by Mr Melvin Yong1 and Mr Yip Hon Weng2, and a written question filed by Dr Wan Rizal3 for a subsequent Sitting, on the regulation of telemedicine services, please?
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: Telemedicine providers are required to be licensed under the Healthcare Services Act, or HCSA, and comply with requirements and standards. In the case of healthcare, medical practitioners themselves also need to adhere to the ethical and professional standards set out in the Singapore Medical Council's (SMC's) Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines (ECEG). Under the guidelines, they must obtain sufficient information from their patients, conduct appropriate clinical assessment and ensure that any provision of medical care, prescription of medicines and issuance of medical certificates (MCs) are justified on proper medical grounds.
In other words, the regulation of telemedicine is not different from regulation of all other economic activities. We set standards, we require licensing, we conduct periodic audits for each clinic, investigate complaints and take offenders to task. Such regulatory frameworks cannot eradicate offenders – that is not possible. But instead, it ensures that when practices have gone astray, especially with the advent of new technology and business models, they can be corrected promptly.
This is exactly what happened with the MaNaDr case. The doctors were issuing medical certificates in a way that fell foul of HCSA and the Ministry of Health (MOH) had made known our intention for MaNaDr's outpatient medical service licence to be revoked. Several doctors also appeared to have breached the SMC guidelines and are therefore referred to SMC for further disciplinary actions.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.
\tDr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Sir, I thank the Minister for sharing on this issue on the MaNaDr. I do believe quality assurance mechanisms are important. In that regard, how does the Ministry currently assess the quality of telehealth consultations? Are there metrics or periodic audits in place to monitor performance? And are these criteria laid out specifically to all these telemedicine providers?
The other question I have, Sir, is really on patient feedback. I have had students who used telemedicine as the form of them getting a medical certificate (MC) in school; and sometimes, I do hear they have complaints and feedback. Could the Minister share if there are specific feedback mechanisms or complaint channels in place for telehealth services and how patients' concerns are addressed within this framework?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: The Member asked if there are standards, if there are audits and if we receive complaints and feedback. The answer is yes, yes, yes.
I would say, in terms of standards and audits, all the clinics know – we have some doctors in the House – you know the standards, you know we audit you. And if, despite knowing all these, you still fall foul of the regulations and the SMC's Ethical Guidelines, then, you are in trouble, because we will catch you. And even if we do not catch you, people will complain – which is the case here, people complained about MaNaDr, that the turnaround was too fast and MCs are issued; employers are suffering, particularly, because their employees are not coming to work, applying for MCs, sometimes, while they are overseas through telemedicine. So, we took prompt action.
Be mindful that while the offence went on for awhile, it was not a long while. It was a matter of months. We investigated, took action and corrected the situation.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
\tMs Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): I thank the Minister for the response. I have two supplementary questions. The first is, for the purposes of the audit, whether the Ministry has been conducting any mystery shopping consultations? Otherwise, is this something that it will consider doing amongst other measures for auditing purposes?
Secondly, understanding from Minister that the medical practitioners are subject to SMC's Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines, but in view that we are recognising that there are more telemedicine consultations that are happening now, post-COVID-19, are we also looking to review the existing ethical code and guidelines to specifically address some of these concerns that may arise from telemedicine?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: I am not entirely familiar with the operational aspects of enforcement, but I think we take the attitude that if mystery shopping is required, we will do so, bearing in mind the public are our eyes and ears. When they see something is wrong, they will usually whistle-blow and let us know. And when you see a pattern of complaints, we will take action quite promptly, which is what happened in this case.
Whether there needs to be a review, I do not think so. While telemedicine is due to new technology, post-COVID-19, and it is a new business model, the principles and standards and requirements lay out – whether under HCSA or SMC's Guidelines – I think they are still applicable. For that matter, HCSA was just recently enacted, taking into account technology and taking into account a post-COVID-19, ageing population healthcare system, where technology is being used.
I should add one more point. In the polyclinics, we were hesitant to allow telemedicine for acute treatment precisely because we want to be quite careful about the issuing of MCs. So, if you want an MC from the polyclinics, you would still have to turn up in person.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his response. Many of my Yio Chu Kang residents are seniors and many of them have mobility issues. Hence, telehealth services would be useful for them. In fact, we are working with National Healthcare Group (NHG) Polyclinic to get some of my seniors to use telehealth services rather than make a physical trip to the polyclinic. I hope this incident will not hinder the push for telehealth services, which will benefit many residents on the ground.
My question is, given this incident, can the Ministry share how we can continue to promote telehealth services amongst the seniors and continue to build trust and confidence in this mode of service delivery?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: I thank the Member for raising this. It is actually the key point here.
I thank the Member for working with NHG to use telemedicine for the benefit of his, especially, senior residents. I think when we have new technology, we have an opportunity to make service better, to serve patients and residents better. But just like all new technology, all new business models, someone will try to abuse it. And then, questions will be raised: is the Ministry stepping up audit, enforcement, regulation, doing a clamp-down? There is always a temptation to do so. When you do so, you stop being able to seize the opportunities that new technology can present you.
That is why I want to be quite honest with Members. I think the current requirements and standards are valid and our enforcement has been effective. So, something gone wrong, we corrected it straight away. MaNaDr has been notified that their outpatient licence will be revoked. Now is still the period for them to appeal.
So, I think it is by good enforcement, following up on our standards, enforcing them, taking necessary actions, then we can fully utilise and leverage opportunities that new business models and technology can offer us. And what Mr Yip Hon Weng mentioned, I think, can come true.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Health what safeguards are in place to (i) ensure good clinical practices by telemedicine providers and (ii) prevent patients from abusing the use of telemedicine services to obtain multiple medical certificates.","2 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Health (a) what is the frequency of audits for telemedicine providers; (b) what factors determine the intervals at which audits are conducted; (c) what specific benchmarks will trigger a review of telemedicine practices; and (d) whether the Ministry will be implementing stricter guidelines or penalties for telemedicine services to mitigate over-issuance of MCs.","3 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Health what steps are being taken to balance ease of access to telemedicine consultations with the need for stringent regulatory oversight to ensure patient safety and uphold high standards of clinical care."],"footNoteQuestions":["1","2"],"questionNo":"1-2"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cause of Recent LRT Train Breakdown, Progress of Upgrading Works and Expected Timeline for Resumption of Double Loop Service","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether he can provide an update on the progress of the upgrading works of the Bukit Panjang Light Rail Transit (LRT); and (b) when can the dual-loop service be fully resumed.
4 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the current progress of the Bukit Panjang LRT upgrade project, particularly with regard to the resumption of the daily double loop service; and (b) what is the status of the replacement of the first-generation train cabins on the Bukit Panjang LRT line.
5 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether an update can be provided on the cause of the recent LRT train breakdown between Bukit Panjang and Choa Chu Kang LRT stations; and (b) what regular checks are train operators mandated to conduct on LRT trains including on its tyres to prevent breakdowns.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 3 to 5 of today's Order Paper?
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Thank you, Sir. On 22 October 2024 at about 5.08 pm, a Bukit Panjang Light Rail Transit, or BPLRT, train moving in the direction of Choa Chu Kang station stalled before Teck Whye station. To preserve service along the affected stretch, SMRT activated a shuttle train service using the other bound of track between Bukit Panjang and Choa Chu Kang LRT stations at 5.19 pm. SMRT also activated free regular bus services to provide commuters with another alternative travel option between the affected stations.
BPLRT loop services between Bukit Panjang and Petir stations via Service A, and between Bukit Panjang and Senja stations via Service B, were not affected and continued throughout the evening.
In accordance with standard operating procedure, SMRT deployed an empty recovery train to couple with the stalled train. To ensure commuter safety, all passengers on the incident train disembarked onto the station platform at Teck Whye station by 5.40 pm. Thereafter, the recovery train proceeded to move the empty incident train back towards the BPLRT depot, where further checks could be done. During this movement, a power trip occurred and the coupled trains stalled due to a loss of traction power.
Investigations are ongoing. Based on the Land Transport Authority's (LTA's) initial findings, the incident was caused by a gear failure in one of the wheel assemblies of the incident train. As a consequence, the pair of wheels on the damaged wheel assembly were unable to rotate normally.
LRT trains run on rubber tyres. As the affected wheels on the incident train were unable to rotate, the friction between the rubber tyres and the guideway caused the tyres to deflate. This then resulted in a bar below the carriage of the incident train to come into contact with the power rail, which caused damage to the power rail and led to the power trip.
For the safety of commuters and repair workers, SMRT assessed that recovery works on the stalled train and damaged power rail should only take place after the affected stretch of the BPLRT is shut down. To complete recovery works before service commencement the following day, SMRT decided to end the shuttle train service along the affected stretch earlier at around 10.00 pm, compared to the usual closing time of 11.30 pm. Free bus services between the affected stations continued until 1.00 am.
SMRT carried out repair works throughout the night. Thorough checks were then conducted to ensure safety before BPLRT services resumed at 5.00 am the following morning.
Mr Edward Chia and Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked about the progress of BPLRT renewal works and the resumption of double loop service. The BPLRT renewal works are progressing well. First, LTA is bringing in new trains and upgrading existing ones. Second, we are upgrading all the BPLRT core systems such as power and signalling.
We have four new third-generation vehicles that have entered passenger service, with another two currently undergoing testing. The remaining 13 new vehicles will arrive progressively over the coming year. The second-generation vehicles are also being enhanced – six of these have completed their upgrades and are in passenger service, while the remaining seven will be progressively upgraded over the next 12 months. We target for the new and upgraded vehicles to enter service by end-2025.
The power supply system for the BPLRT has been fully upgraded with increased capacity, including enhancements such as dedicated power supply monitoring and control systems. LTA is currently upgrading the Operations Control Centre and replacing the power rails to improve operations and system reliability.
To support these upgrading works, LTA recently announced the need for early closure of the BPLRT from 14 November 2024 to 31 October 2025, where train services would end one hour earlier every Thursday to Sunday, excluding public holidays. When in operation, the new signalling system will allow better control of train speeds, so that commuters can enjoy smoother and more reliable rides.
We have fully resumed dual-loop services on BPLRT for all hours on weekends and public holidays since 28 September 2024. LTA aims to resume dual-loop services for all hours on weekdays in the coming months.
We are on track to complete the BPLRT renewal programme in 2026. We recognise that the improvement works have been a long journey, but we have to go through this process to fix the legacy problems and deliver better service for our commuters. We thank commuters and residents for their understanding and patience during this period when we are carrying out the renewal programme. When completed in 2026, the upgraded BPLRT will provide commuters with a more reliable, more comfortable and smoother travel experience.
Mr Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to give some updates on the safety and reliability of our Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) network since my Ministerial Statement on 15 October 2024.
First, SMRT has formed a tripartite Rail Safety and Reliability Review Workgroup to review its systems and processes, including its maintenance practices and lifecycle management of assets. SMRT has invited representatives from LTA and the National Transport Workers' Union (NTWU) to join this Workgroup and will also engage overseas metro operators in Guangzhou and Taipei for mutual learning. LTA welcomes this initiative and will work together with SMRT and NTWU in this tripartite workgroup to identify areas for improvement and maintain safety and reliability standards for the benefit of commuters.
I would like to inform the House that the overall mean kilometres between failure, or MKBF, for our MRT network up to end October 2024 has improved from about 1.8 million train-kilometres in end September, to almost two million train-kilometres as at end October this year. Importantly, all the MRT lines have continued to achieve our target MKBF of at least one million train-kilometres.
Sir, my colleagues and I will continue to pay close attention to keeping MKBF above the one million train-kilometre target as we know that safety and reliability are important for commuters. This is a priority for the One Transport Family. I thank our tripartite partners for the support, especially our workers and union leaders for their hard work and dedication, to provide a safe, reliable and resilient rail system for Singapore. This is our common mission and our shared goal, and we will work closely together and do our best to achieve it.
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, I was hoping that the Minister would give us a firm date on when the dual-loop services can be fully resumed. So, maybe my first question for the Minister is whether he can give us a clearer timeline, instead of just saying the coming months.
Secondly, with the resumption of the dual-loop services in the coming months and also with the adding on of the new train cars into the system, I would like to ask the Minister whether that would improve the overall stability of the system or it can pose more risks.
And if, indeed, there could be more risks, how can LTA and SMRT be better prepared for this very critical phase and also to reduce any inconveniences to our commuters should there be any disruption?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Liang for raising these important questions. If I could give him a more specific date, I would be happy to do so. But I think it is important for us to monitor the progress closely. And along the way, we will certainly provide updates to Mr Liang and to the other grassroots advisors who are looking after the Bukit Panjang area.
The commitment I want to give to Mr Liang and to the House is that we will do our best to expedite the upgrading works. But we want to do so in a manner which is safe for the workers and also for commuters. So, we will do our best.
Mr Liang also asked about the services and the reliability during this period. Indeed, this upgrading journey has been a long one and it involves bringing in new trains, upgrading existing trains, as well as upgrading all the BPLRT core systems, such as power and signalling.
And because it is done on multiple fronts, we need to make sure that this is done safely and, to make it even more challenging, because you have to run the BPLRT services during the operating or revenue hours, we could only do some of the maintenance and some of these works during the engineering hours. So, that is why we seek the understanding of our residents and commuters, that we will need to have early closure during this period to give more time for the upgrading works to be completed.
I want to also assure Mr Liang that commuter safety is a top priority. That is why we want to plan the renewal works very carefully and to cater for thorough and comprehensive testing. And we will certainly try to do so with minimal impact on the existing BPLRT operations so that the renewed BPLRT system will become even better and the rides will be more reliable, smoother, more comfortable for commuters.
During the early closure, we will also put up information, such as posters, at the affected stations to inform commuters of the service adjustments. And there will be public address announcements in the stations and trains to remind passengers to make alternative travel arrangements, if needed.
To Mr Liang's other question, we will certainly do our best to ensure that the testing and the integration works can proceed smoothly and as planned. And if, touch wood, we were to experience any disruptions during this period, we will certainly do our best to respond quickly and effectively.
The rail operators have in place robust response plans in the event of a service disruption. These include the incident recovery procedures as well as the provision of alternative transportation options, such as free buses, that will serve the journey between the affected stations.
And we will certainly take on board the learning points from past incidents and also when we do exercises and reviews that can help LTA and our operators to be able to make continual improvements to our incident response plans. And this will include the timeliness and clarity of our public announcements in the event of a disruption and also how we can better manage the crowd that will be affected during the disruptions.
Sir, I want to end by saying that while I am unable to give Mr Liang a more definite date at this point in time, the assurance I want to give him is that we will do our best to not delay this further, but we will also want to do it in a thorough manner, for safety and for reliability. And we are grateful to commuters and to residents for their kind understanding and patience during this period because our end outcome is something that I hope will lead to a more reliable, safer and more comfortable ride for our commuters.
Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
\tMs Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, before I begin, I would like to declare that I am the Deputy Executive Secretary of the NTWU.
I thank the Minister for the reply. In the investigations done, was there a root cause analysis done to ensure that there were no systemic issues with the breakdown? And given that there will be new dual-carriage trains coming into the Punggol LRT loop next year, what updates to the maintenance and checks standard operating procedures will be added? And what measures have been taken to ensure that our engineers and station operators are sufficiently trained to ensure that they are safe during repair works?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I want to, first, clarify that investigations are still ongoing. So, I cannot quite give a definite answer on what is the root cause. I have explained what we have gathered so far in my main reply. But if we look at the past track record of the BPLRT, the last time we had a similar incident that affected the gears of the wheel assembly was in 2010. So, that was quite some time ago and it has not recurred since.
So, this more recent episode, we will have to look into exactly what was the root cause. But I think it does not suggest that there is something systemic in this particular instance. We will take a look more closely during the investigations.
To Ms Yeo's second question regarding the two-car trains to be added to the Sengkang-Punggol LRT, LTA has procured 25 new two-car trains for the Sengkang-Punggol LRT, with the first new two-car trains arriving in December this year. These trains will undergo rigorous testing and commissioning before they are put into passenger service starting from the second half of 2025.
When all the new trains are delivered, it will double the number of two-car trains in the Sengkang-Punggol LRT fleet, which will allow the Sengkang-Punggol LRT to be operated entirely with two-car trains by mid-2028, increasing passenger capacity to better serve our residents.
Mr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.
\tMr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, as I have received feedback from Zhenghua residents regarding morning peak hour wait times and also crowd issues, I would like to ask the Minister, with all the upgrades, especially with the signalling system upgrade, how will these actually impact or improve waiting times and overall system capacity as well, especially at downstream stations, such as Senja LRT station?
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Chia for raising this question on behalf of his residents. Indeed, I think we are aiming to see how we can do better with the system upgrades and also the train upgrades. With a better signalling system, we can certainly run the trains with a higher frequency and that will then help to cater more capacity for our commuters.
But we have to go through a period of the upgrading works before we are able to arrive at that outcome. So, I want to thank Mr Chia as well for working with us to explain the situation to his residents and also to continue to share the feedback from the residents with LTA.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I am going to just put a question with regard to the last part of the Minister's reply to the Parliamentary Question which covered the MKBF data as an overall update on some of the breakdowns that have happened over the last few weeks. Just to confirm with the Minister that the one million-threshold for MKBF was set a number of years ago, about five years ago now.
The Minister shared some data of the reliability of certain lines and that reliability figure has obviously gone higher than one million MKBF. Can I confirm whether the Ministry of Transport is considering raising the threshold and, if it does, what would be the reasons why it would do so and whether it is sustainable going forward.
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Singh for asking this question about the MKBF. Indeed, the target of one million was set some years ago, I think by the then-Minister Khaw Boon Wan, as a focus for the One Transport Family to work towards a shared goal. It is also a meaningful indicator because it allows us to then benchmark against the other operators, especially those who are top of class around the world.
So, the one million was chosen because that represents – and I think it is still relevant today – what the best, most reliable operators, like Taipei, Guangzhou and others, have managed to achieve in their system. If we look at it today, I think it is still a relevant and valid target, something that is useful for us to focus on and that is something which we will continue to work towards.
But whether we should raise it further, I think that is something that we have to assess carefully because there is a trade-off between raising MKBF further and what is the cost incurred, which would then ultimately have to be borne by either taxpayers or commuters. So, we will study this carefully.
At the moment, I think that one million is still a relevant and valid target, and that is something that the One Transport Family will work towards, will continue to maintain, to ensure that our system can keep above this one million target.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strategic Considerations for Assessing Alignment of ASEAN and Asia Pacific Countries with Security and Economic Blocs Dominated by Major Powers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) how does Singapore assess the increasing alignment of ASEAN and Asia Pacific countries with security and economic blocs dominated by major powers; (b) what strategic considerations guide Singapore's approach to alignment with these blocs; (c) how sustainable is Singapore's stance of \"not choosing sides\" in the current geopolitical landscape; and (d) whether Singapore anticipates the need for closer ties with specific blocs over others to safeguard our interests, while still avoiding overdependence on any one major power.
\tThe Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Speaker, the creation and expansion of the various multilateral groupings, including those driven by the major powers, are not actually a new phenomenon in our region. Groupings, such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and Five Power Defence Arrangements – each of these has a different and overlapping configuration of members. And in fact, these have been around for many years, decades. More recently, we have also seen the emergence of the Quad, AUKUS and the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) and of course, even more recently, the expansion of BRICS.
These recent developments, in fact, are part of a response to a transition from a unipolar world to a multipolar world. Consequently, countries are hedging through these different configurations, amidst a more divided and uncertain global environment.
We will keep an open mind on these new constructs and we will continue to watch developments closely, insofar as the impact on Singapore.
Ultimately, our decision on whether or not to join a specific grouping must be carefully considered and must be clearly defined by our national interests. We must be guided by the fundamental objectives of Singapore's foreign policy – and it is worth reiterating what these are.
First, to protect our independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. Second, to secure access to essential supplies – food, water, energy – and to keep air and sea lines of communication open for this purpose. Third, to expand economic opportunities for Singaporeans and Singapore companies in order to maintain our relevance to the world and to make a living.
In a more volatile world that is increasingly inimical to the security and survival of small states, like Singapore, we must try to shape global norms by making common cause with as many friends and partners as possible, in order to support multilateralism, the rule of law and, of course, the United Nations (UN) Charter. Singapore does not take sides; but we will uphold principles, even if this means, from time to time, having to say \"no\" to other states, some of which can be our close partners or even superpowers. This long-standing, consistent and principled approach to foreign policy has served us well and has afforded us the strategic manoeuvring space.
In line with these principles, we have joined, and in fact, played a facilitative role in groupings, such as APEC, IPEF and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement on Trans-Pacific Partnership. These diverse groupings have allowed us to expand our economic space and to create more opportunities for Singaporeans.
Singapore is not presently a member of groupings like the Quad or AUKUS or BRICS, but actually, we share excellent ties with the individual members in all these groupings. Many of their members also attend the various ASEAN and international fora where we engage one another and work closely on a wide range of issues. What is important for Singapore is that these new emerging arrangements, especially where they intersect with our region, do not undermine ASEAN centrality, and that these arrangements support an open and inclusive regional architecture and promote a rules-based order based on international law.
In particular, we want ASEAN to continue to play a central convening role and for our region to have the centre of gravity which brings all the key players together to find common ground and to harness ASEAN's full economic potential. The East Asia Summit, for example, allowed ASEAN to play this role for the last two decades and is, in fact, the only platform driven by ASEAN, which brings all the key players in our region together; even when these key players do not necessarily get along.
Singapore has thus been a strong advocate for strengthening collaboration within the East Asia Summit under the framework of the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific. And Singapore will continue to be a credible, reliable and predictable partner to all and we will always act in our long-term national interests.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his reply. Sir, how sustainable is the Government's stance of not taking sides in an increasingly polarised world, where more and more countries in our region are doing exactly that? How does the Government ensure that Singapore does not become isolated in a world of rival alignments strongly opposed to each other?
Sir, there is a tendency for some countries to dismiss certain international norms and laws, often because they were set by strategic competitors or do not serve their interests. These laws are also unenforceable because we do not have a global policeman. Is the Minister concerned that international law maybe diminishing in reliability as a tool to protect our economic and security interests?
And finally, Sir, the Prime Minister recently said that we have to work harder to strengthen our network of friends and partners, to work with like-minded countries to shape international norms and rules, and to find common ground on issues of shared concerns. Can the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) make it clearer in its outreach to Singaporeans, including new citizens, which these like-minded countries are, in order to build a stronger understanding of Singapore's strategic interests, especially when external actors may be sowing doubt among our population?
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Giam has asked how sustainable is this posture that we have always adopted of not taking sides but upholding principles.
I would submit that in fact, this is the most sensible position for Singapore, a multiracial, multi-religious, multilingual city-state and an island in the heart of Southeast Asia, in which all the superpowers, and indeed, middle powers, have a stake. And because of our geography, because of our economic role, we do best when we can engage everyone; not by aiming to take sides or be a vassal state or be a proxy state, which in fact, I think it will be a recipe for disaster and invite the recreation of Southeast Asia as an arena for proxy wars.
So, I will make the point that our current posture is the correct one, is the essential one, given our national circumstances, our geography, our economic and strategic role.
And let me also say with the benefit of some experience that because all the superpowers and regional and middle powers know that Singapore does not aim to take sides, Singapore is always looking for relevance and being constructive, Singapore always calculates things rationally with a long-term horizon and is always an advocate for international law, they also know that therefore, sometimes we will disagree. And when we disagree, it is not because I am taking the side of your opponent or your rival, but we disagree because that contravenes a principle that Singapore holds dear.
And I would say, from my experience, that adopting this posture, in fact, has led to less pressure on us because people know simply hectoring us, pressurising us is not likely to bear fruit, and in fact, it is more likely to make us dig in and hold the line.
I would also say that in order for us to take this position of not taking sides and upholding principles, we need domestic cohesion and consensus, including in this House. Because if foreign powers believe that they can erode our resolve by dividing us, they will. There is no doubt about that. And all the more so, because in fact, all the major civilisations and religions are represented here. So, I am making the point that there needs to be domestic consensus and our domestic politics must stop at the water's edge, that we have been able to do so for 59 years, and the point I am making is that we must continue to do so.
The Member is quite right that as far as global norms are concerned, security is concerned, there is no global policeman. If we were ever to get into a security or military conflict, no one is going to rescue us. We will be on our own. And do not ever believe for a moment in foreign affairs that friendship is a shield, that friendship makes you immune to threats. That is why we continue to have National Service. That is why we continue to spend a significant proportion of our budget on defence. And that is why in a paradoxical way we have no enemies, but we have lots of friends. Because people know that our relationship is not one of dependency, is not one of sycophancy, is not one of acting on other people's behalf. We pay for what we need, we defend our interests and we are united in doing so.
Given that we are getting into a more volatile, complicated and threatening world, this ability to stand on our two feet, united as one people, and with sufficient reserves and the wherewithal, both fiscal and strategic, is all the more crucial.
Finally, the Member asked what are the like-minded countries? And I would say, we make common cause in concentric circles. The most important immediate construct is ASEAN. We are all in Southeast Asia. We all have a common economic agenda. Even at a time when the world is turning negative on trade, in ASEAN, we still believe in lowering barriers, promoting economic integration, facilitating more investments in our infrastructure and preparing us for a digital age when we also need to be sustainable and green. So, ASEAN remains that innermost concentric circle.
Beyond that, it is the dialogue partners of ASEAN. For instance, if you look at the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which again, creates a zone of greater economic integration with China, Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand and us. Separately, we are also building our ties and our economic ties with another rising middle power called India.
And you would also notice that the Prime Minister and indeed, all Members of Cabinet have had very extensive travel itinerary. This week, the Prime Minister will be first, in Peru for APEC, then he will go across to Brazil for the G20. And in all these fora, we try to find like-minded partners depending on the issue concerned.
\t
Finally, at the UN, we are the convenors of this forum called the \"Forum of Small States\", which in fact, is the majority of the membership of the UN. And for other small states, they find Singapore to be a dependable, reliable resource. I do not mean a resource just financially, but a resource of thought, leadership, sharing, capability development, human capacity development, teaching a man to catch fish rather than just giving him a fish.
So, I have given a long, extended answer, but I hope Members understand that the posture and the avenues that we have pursued for decades are still fundamentally sound and in fact, all the more relevant, given the current global environment. I thank the Member for his question.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adequacy and Effectiveness of Oil Sighting and Alert Mechanisms, and Maritime Incident Response and Mitigation Strategies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Transport with the recent increase in oil spill or leak incidents (a) whether a fundamental review is required for oil sighting and alert mechanisms given the local oil and gas industry and Singapore's status as a global bunkering hub; and (b) how should the cost and workload incurred by multi-agencies involved to manage each incident be dealt with.
8 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Transport in view of the three recent oil spills into Singapore waters (a) what is the impact on our seawater quality and marine ecosystem; and (b) what are the mitigation measures that will be imposed by MPA to prevent and treat further occurrences of an oil spill.
\tThe Minister of State for Transport (Mr Murali Pillai) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 7 to 9 for oral answer and Question 35 for written answer in today's Order Paper together? These questions pertain to the recent oil spill and leak incidents that occurred on 14 June, 20 October and 28 October this year.
Sorry, Question Nos 7 to 8. My apologies, Mr Speaker. Not Question Nos 7 to 9.
Mr Speaker: Yes, Question Nos 7 and 8.
\tMr Murali Pillai: My response today will also cover related questions that have been filed by Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Hany Soh, Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim for subsequent Sittings, and if the hon Members are satisfied with the response, they may wish to withdraw their questions after this session.
Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the underlying causes of the incidents. Allow me to, first, emphasise that the nature and scale of each incident were different and the cause of each incident was unrelated to the others. The 14 June incident, as the Minister for Transport explained in great detail in his Ministerial Statement on 2 July 2024, was due to an allision between a dredger and a bunker tanker at Pasir Panjang Terminal. This led to a sudden discharge of an estimated 400 tonnes of oil into the sea.
The 20 October incident was the result of a leak in Shell's land-based pipeline at Pulau Bukom. This led to an estimated 30 to 40 tonnes of slop, which is a mixture of oil and water, leaking into the sea.
The 28 October incident occurred due to an overflow of bunker fuel in the receiving vessel during a bunkering operation off Changi. This led to an estimated five tonnes of oil overflowing into the sea, which is a much smaller amount compared to the 14 June incident.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms Hany Soh asked how our response times to the October incidents compare with our response to the incident in June, and whether the response to the 28 October incident was more efficient than the response to past incidents. Given the very different natures, scales and locations of the three incidents, the time and resources required to monitor, clean up and mitigate the spread of oil from these three incidents were different. It is, therefore, not as useful to compare the response times for these incidents.
Suffice it to say that in each of the three incidents, our Government agencies responded in a coordinated, swift and effective manner. Once they became aware of the incident, the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) coordinated with other agencies, such as the National Environment Agency (NEA), National Parks Board (NParks), Public Utilities Board (PUB), Sentosa Development Corporation (SDC), Singapore Food Agency (SFA) and JTC to activate resources and capabilities to respond.
For the oil leak and overflow incidents on 20 and 28 October respectively, agencies activated an emergency operations team which implemented precautionary measures to monitor and prevent the further spread of oil. These measures included the activation of craft to spray dispersants, the deployment of current buster systems, the installation of oil absorbent booms to protect our beaches and biodiversity sensitive areas, and the use of drones and satellite capabilities to assist with oil sightings.
For the oil leak on 20 October, Shell activated resources to clean up the leaked slop in the channel between Pulau Bukom and Pulau Bukom Kechil. Clean-up operations were completed on 29 October.
Thanks to the close collaboration and efforts amongst agencies and industry players, we were able to ensure smooth clean-up operations and prevent the further spread of oil in our waters. There have also been no other oil sightings at sea and ashore arising from these incidents. Agencies have since stood down seaward oil response assets and the booms that were earlier deployed.
To Mr Dennis Tan's question about the timeline for the discovery of the oil leak on 20 October, the leak in Shell's pipeline reportedly occurred at about 5.30 am that day. At around 1.00 pm, Shell alerted MPA, which, in turn, alerted NEA shortly after. NEA and MPA are conducting investigations into the incident, including the time taken before Shell notified the agencies. According to the rules, Shell is supposed to inform MPA and NEA as soon as possible when they detected the leak. If there are lapses by Shell, the agencies will take the necessary enforcement actions against the company.
Miss Cheryl Chan and Ms Joan Pereira asked about our alert and monitoring systems for such incidents. Once there is a discharge of oil into our waters or land, the responsible parties are required under our legislation to immediately notify MPA and NEA respectively. In our waters, MPA has a surveillance system in place to identify and monitor oil sightings, including regular patrols by MPA patrol craft and close collaboration with other Government agencies, industry partners and ships at sea. Aerial drone flights and satellite imagery may also be deployed when there are reports of oil spills.
Concurrently, MPA also informs agencies to be on standby to deploy resources to prevent further pollution or facilitate clean-up operations for seaward spills. Under the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea (Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation) Regulations, oil handling facilities or offshore installations in Singapore are required to have containment booms, oil skimmers and dispersants. If necessary, MPA may ask that these resources be deployed to oil spill incidents to supplement resources from MPA and our contractors.
So, there is a system in place comprising a network of stakeholders and capabilities to detect, monitor and respond to oil spills or leaks into our waters. It is also important that our maritime partners and companies with assets close to shore alert the relevant agencies as quickly as possible once there is an incident so that resources can be mounted to mitigate the impact of the incident.
Mr Dennis Tan and Ms Poh Li San asked about the environmental impact of these three incidents on our marine ecosystem, coastal areas and seawater quality. Thus far, NParks has not observed any immediate impact on our marine and coastal ecosystems and wildlife, and SFA has not observed any immediate impact on fisheries. No oil from the October incidents has landed on any of our recreational beaches. PUB is also monitoring the seawater intakes at its desalination plants and readings remain normal.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked for updates on our investigations into the recent incidents. Mr Yip, Miss Cheryl Chan and Mr Saktiandi Supaat also asked about the responsibility for costs and losses incurred.
Following every incident, agencies carry out investigations as to whether any applicable laws have been breached and legal action may be needed to be taken where appropriate. Where agencies and private parties have incurred costs in the incident response or losses from the incident, they may also have civil recourse to recover these. Processes would differ depending on the nature and circumstances of each incident. But allow me to provide some examples from the incident that occurred on 14 June.
Agencies are consolidating their claims for compensation under the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund. MPA has also completed its investigations and assessed that key crew members of Vox Maxima, the dredger that allided with the bunker tanker Marine Honour, failed to discharge their duties properly on the day of the incident. Four crew members have just been charged in the State Courts for contraventions under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Court proceedings are ongoing.
As investigations by agencies into the incidents on 20 and 28 October are ongoing, we are unable to share more details at this juncture.
Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Dennis Tan asked about the learning points from past oil spill incidents. We conduct regular oil and chemical spill exercises to test our contingency plans with industry partners and agencies and improve our plans to take into account learning points from these exercises and past incidents. This has helped us to strengthen communication and coordination among agencies and with the public. New technologies, such as drones and satellite imagery, have also been incorporated as part of MPA's response to oil spills in our waters.
Separately, the Transport Safety Investigation Bureau (TSIB) is also conducting safety investigations into the incident on 14 June to identify safety lessons with the aim of preventing future transport accidents and incidents. The TSIB investigations are not meant to apportion blame or liability. Upon completion of its investigations, TSIB will publish its investigation report.
Ms Poh Li San, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked about measures to prevent the occurrence of oil spills or overflow from bunkering operations into our waters. As a major hub port, it is not possible to completely eliminate the risk of oil spills or leaks and we must expect that there will be such incidents from time to time.
A key pillar of our strategy is to ensure our readiness to respond through our regular exercises and a robust contingency plan, which I mentioned earlier. We have also taken steps to enhance the safety of vessels, bunkering operations and industrial facilities to minimise the risk of accidents and oil spills or leaks in Singapore. For example, we have: (a) safety guidelines and random spot checks to ensure that bunkering players follow proper procedure and reduce the risk of oil spills during bunkering operations; (b) ensured mandatory safety training and shipboard drills for vessel crew on incident response as well as inspections for vessels in our port to comply with international conventions; and (c) inspections at industrial facilities to ensure compliance with water pollution control requirements.
We take every oil spill incident seriously and expect companies and individuals involved to play their part and adhere to requirements that are imposed to keep our shores and waters safe from oil spills and leaks. We will hold parties accountable for any lapses or wrongdoings which may surface during the investigations.
Mr Speaker: Miss Cheryl Chan.
\tMiss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (East Coast): Speaker, I have one supplementary question for the Minister of State. I want to ask the Minister of State, given the fact that we do this environmental impact study, will there be a study that will be conducted for every single oil spill and, if so, how long would the monitoring period be?
\tMr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, to the question that Miss Cheryl Chan posed, the answer is yes. After every oil spill, every incident, there will be a study to see what are the lessons that can be drawn and then we look to see how we can improve our plans that are in place as well and also engage the respective stakeholders. And through the cooperation of all the stakeholders, we aim to ensure that we minimise the risk of oil spills. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Minister of State for Transport\", Official Report, 11 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 145, Correction By Written Statement section.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for his answers. I have two supplementary questions. First, what regular checks are required to be carried out by owners of oil pipelines to ensure the integrity of oil pipelines and how does MPA ensure that these inspections and checks are carried out so that repairs and maintenance can be carried out in advance of oil breakages and leakages?
My second supplementary question is, following MPA's experience of the various oil spills this year, are there any plans to continue to improve the response time of MPA's oil response contractor to all future incidents of oil spills in our port waters?
\tMr Murali Pillai: I thank Mr Dennis Tan for his two supplementary questions. In relation to the first question, I believe the hon Member may be referring to the Shell incident. So, the hon Member would know those pipelines that the Member was referring to are on land; and MPA's responsibility, of course, are in relation to maritime waters. So, in relation to the specific checks, that would be something that NEA would specifically be looking into or, rather, it is part of NEA's area and perhaps this is something that can be taken up with NEA.
But what I could say is that, as far as MPA is concerned, in relation to protecting oil spills into maritime waters, whenever there are such incidents that occur, it would work with these industry players to ensure that the risks are minimised. If it is something that is land-based, they will work with the relevant Government agencies to have a system put in place that protects from land to sea as well.
In relation to the second supplementary question, which Mr Dennis Tan has referred to, it is something about continuing — May I just clarify, he referred to oil response, would that be correct?
\tMr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, just to clarify my question: are there any plans to continue to improve the response time of MPA's oil spill response contractor to future incidents of oil spills in our port waters?
\tMr Murali Pillai: I thank Mr Dennis Tan for his clarification. We have worked with industry players to develop a robust contingency plan, which we rehearse and refine regularly, including during our inter-agency exercises for oil spills every two years. Our standard operating procedure was tested in these incidents and was effective.
It is important for us to recognise that every oil spill incident is different as there are a variety of external factors, such as tidal and current conditions, the location of the incident and the time of the incident. Some tailoring of our response to each incident will be needed.
In relation to proposals to prepare more equipment in Singapore, locating equipment nearer to the port or requiring bunker vessels to carry out oil spill response equipment, these proposals are carefully being assessed to determine the impact on navigational safety, efficiency and competitiveness of our port.
Singapore, as the hon Member Mr Tan knows, is an island with anchorages along the entire southern coastline. As specialised equipment is required for oil spill response, it may not be practicable to have multiple sets of equipment located close to any potential incident site along the entire coastline. Oil spills may originate from many types of vessels too. So, again, it may not be practical or feasible to require all vessels to carry their own booms as it may be costly. In addition, these vessels would likely be equipped with lightweight booms, which might not be suitable to deal with all types of oil spill incidents.
Currently, the MPA Guardian is equipped with 260 metres of lightweight booms to aid in dealing quickly with small-scale and localised oil spills, such as oil spills during bunkering operations.
\tMr Speaker: We are only at Question No 8 after 65 minutes, so I am going to ask Ms Hazel Poa to move the next question.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inspection for Structural Integrity of Oil Pipelines, Measures to Prevent Oil Spills and Penalties for Recent Incidents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Government will be checking the structural integrity of all oil pipelines in Singapore's waters; (b) what other measures can be taken to prevent the occurrence of future oil spills in Singapore's waters; and (c) whether any penalties will be imposed on the company responsible for the oil leak on 20 October 2024.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Mr Speaker, in relation to the earlier reply by the Minister of State Murali Pillai on the Parliamentary Questions on the recent oil spill incidents, let me say that for the October 24 oil spill incident, 30 to 40 tonnes of slop, which is a mixture of oil and water, leaked from a pipeline belonging to Shell at Pulau Bukom. Clean-up works have been completed and there have been no oil sightings, both at sea and ashore.
Investigations by the National Environment Agency (NEA) and the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) into the incident are ongoing. It is an offence under the Environmental Protection and Management Act for any person to discharge any polluting matter into a watercourse.
It is also an offence under the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act, to discharge any oil or oily mixture into Singapore waters from any place on land or from any apparatus used for transferring oil from or to any ship. Industrial facilities typically conduct regular maintenance and inspections of equipment, including oil pipelines, to reduce the risk of leaks or failure. NEA also conducts regular inspections of facilities with oil pipelines, such as refineries and petrochemical plants, to ensure compliance with environmental pollution standards' control requirements. As part of the investigation, NEA is reviewing the measures that Shell has put in place at their facility and whether additional measures are needed to minimise the risk of oil leaks further.
As an interim measure, NEA has directed Shell to carry out a comprehensive pipeline integrity check across their Bukom plant. As investigations are still ongoing, it is premature to discuss whether and what enforcement measures will be taken. But NEA takes a serious view on the importance of businesses and individuals fulfilling their obligations to protect our environment and we will not hesitate to take enforcement action in accordance with the law against any party found responsible for negligence or wrongdoing.
After it has conducted its investigations, NEA will share relevant learning points with other industrial facilities to review and strengthen their measures and standard operating procedures and to perform checks on their systems, where needed. On the other measures to minimise the risk of oil spills, the Member may refer to the earlier response by the Minister of State for Transport, Mr Murali Pillai, to Parliamentary Questions on the recent oil spill incidents.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
\tMs Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): I thank Senior Minister of State Amy Khor for her reply. She mentioned that there are regular inspections of the equipment. Can I clarify, what frequency that would be? Secondly, it was announced that researchers will be conducting a 15-month plan to monitor the impact of the 14 June oil spill on biodiversity in the intertidal areas. Will this plan now be extended to cover the recent oil spills in October?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: First, let me say, as I have noted earlier in my response, the industrial facilities will typically conduct regular maintenance and inspections of their equipment, including the pipelines, to ensure there are no leaks or failures. In fact, the onus is actually on them to conduct this regular maintenance and checks on their equipment. But NEA also conducts regular checks on these facilities with the oil pipelines, including petrochemical plants and refineries, to ensure that they comply with environmental pollution control requirements to make sure that the measures that they put in place for pollution control is effective. Generally, we will check at the run-off of the discharge points, because if there is oil leak in any facility, the run-off will be contaminated.
How regularly do we check? We do it regularly, through the course of the year. It may depend on the assessment by the agency as to how often they will need to do checks on these facilities.
With regard to the study on the impact of the oil spills, the National Parks Board (NParks) monitors the impact of any oil spill incidents on the marine and coastal ecosystem, as well as on the wildlife. Thus far, for the October incident for instance, NParks has assessed that there has been no immediate impact on the marine and coastal ecosystem as well as the wildlife. I understand that they will continue to monitor this.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Eligibility Criteria for Subsidies for TCM Consultations and Ensuring Quality Assurance Standards for These Treatments within Healthier SG","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health (a) what eligibility criteria will determine access to subsidised Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) consultations under Healthier SG; (b) whether medical certificates issued by TCM practitioners will be accepted; (c) what quality assurance measures will ensure TCM treatments within Healthier SG meet the required standards; and (d) what steps will be taken to boost Healthier SG enrolment among older residents, including through partnerships with TCM practitioners.
\tThe Minister for Health (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mr Speaker, Sir, my response will also cover the matters raised in the questions by Dr Wan Rizal1 and Mr Yip Hon Weng, which are scheduled for a subsequent Sitting. I will invite Members to seek clarifications at the end of my answer, if need be. If the questions have been addressed, it may not be necessary for them to proceed with the questions for future Sittings.
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: In my speech at the Public Free Clinic Society's 50th Anniversary Charity Dinner, I announced the Ministry of Health's (MOH's) plan to carefully integrate selected Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) interventions into our mainstream Western-centric healthcare system, as we have done for acupuncture for lower back and neck pain. Our effort will focus on two areas: first, for preventive care under Healthier SG; and second, for acute settings in hospitals.
Let me start with preventive care. About 20% of Singapore residents aged 40 and above visit TCM practitioners every year. TCM clinics are hence, useful touch points to engage residents to join Healthier SG and practise good preventive care.
I mentioned in the speech that under Healthier SG, health screening, vaccinations, chronic disease management, being Western medicine interventions, will have to be performed by general practitioners (GPs). Where TCM practitioners can play a useful role is lifestyle changes, given the holistic approach to health in TCM. MOH will consult Western doctors and TCM practitioners on how they can collaborate to care for our residents.
The training and support for TCM practitioners under Healthier SG will depend on the eventual model of collaboration. A fruitful collaboration should lead to an increased uptake of preventive care, such as screenings and vaccinations, as well as adoption of healthier lifestyles among Singaporeans.
MOH and the TCM Practitioners Board will be launching a voluntary accreditation system to accredit TCM service providers that can participate in Healthier SG collaboratively with Healthier SG clinics. The accreditation will ensure good governance, adherence to established protocols and the maintenance of professional competencies for high quality and safe TCM practice.
At present, under the Employment Act, employers are legally required to recognise medical certificates issued by registered medical or dental practitioners after proper clinical assessment for the purposes of granting paid sick leave. Although TCM practitioners are not registered medical and dental practitioners under the Act, employers have the discretion to also recognise medical certificates issued by them.
Next, is acute hospital settings. Today, only acupuncture for lower back and neck pain are integrated into our public health institutions. There has been much scientific research on TCM and we should review them and explore the possibility of further integration, provided that the interventions are proven to be safe, efficacious and cost effective. If and when we decide to do so in a public hospital setting, proper referral and review protocols will be established, no different from the integration of medical subspecialties that are ongoing.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his reply. Sir, in addition to the elderly citizens who are consulting TCM practitioners, anecdotally, I know that not just senior citizens, but also younger Singaporeans, many non-Chinese residents and even competitive athletes are consulting TCM practitioners. So, when will the accreditation framework be in place to identify qualified TCM practitioners within Healthier SG?
Will employers be required to accept medical certificates (MCs) from these accredited practitioners? Because this could assure Singaporeans who prefer using TCM, that their medical choices will be recognised and respected.
Can patients be given more flexibility to combine TCM and Western treatments, especially for chronic conditions, and receive government subsidies or use MediSave for both treatments? This could allow the preventive and lifestyle-focused approach of TCM to complement Western interventions.
Lastly, could MOH facilitate opportunities for TCM practitioners and Western-trained doctors to receive some cross-disciplinary exposure and training in each other's medical principles, as is done in places, like China and Taiwan? This could foster mutual respect, encourage collaboration and strengthen confidence in each other's standards.
\t
\t
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: I did not realise there are four questions. So, I am now trying to take stock what are they.
The first question is about accreditation, when will it be done? As you know, TCM is a self-regulatory system, so it comes under the TCM Practitioners' Board chaired by Dr Teo Ho Pin. So, they are working very hard. I am afraid I have to give you an answer not different from how Minister Chee gave the answer on Bukit Panjang LRT which is, I think, as soon as possible, hopefully, next year, sometime next year.
I do have to clarify even with the accreditation system, this is an accreditation system under a self-regulatory framework. So, it does not follow that if you are accredited, your MC will be recognised.
Be mindful. We are taking a very practical approach here. All round the world including in China, the regulatory system is a Western-centric one. It is a result of the Renaissance. But TCM, on the other hand, lots of people use it, I agree. I use it myself. But if we say let TCM be regulated under today's healthcare regulatory regime, I think it will wither and die because the Western regulatory system is just not compatible with TCM.
Therefore, we take a practical approach to say \"take you out of the system and you self-regulate\" and then you can thrive. But it comes with some catches. Once you are outside of the mainstream system, there is no subsidy, there is no MediSave, your MCs are not recognised. So, it is part of the arrangement. It comes as a package. You are allowed self-regulation, you can thrive, you can serve a quarter of Singaporeans but some of these privileges, including recognition of MCs, do not follow.
But what I mentioned earlier, if there is accreditation and people are confident of TCM practitioners' assessment, employers are free to exercise discretion to recognise them. These are the Member's first two questions.
The next two questions are what I had addressed in my speech recently and in my reply. I will just reiterate the key points. There is now a lot of research, scientific research on TCM. We will review them. And some of them, I think if we can study them and ensure that they are safe, efficacious, cost-efficient, we can start to integrate them into our mainstream regulatory system, mainstream healthcare system, including the management of chronic disease. It is possible.
As we do so, it is quite an involved process. For every disease, we need to bring TCM and Western doctors together, work out referral protocols. They cannot contradict. We must make sure it is well integrated and we can implement them; and when we implement them, if they are integrated just like acupuncture for lower back and neck pain, it is and it can be subsidised. It is subject to MediSave withdrawal.
So, we are taking this step by step and as we do so, I think they will also learn from each other, which is a good thing.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Health in light of plans to integrate Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) into the Healthier SG programme (a) what specific criteria will be used to determine eligible TCM treatments; (b) how will the Ministry ensure that subsidisation of these treatments maintains affordability for patients without adding financial strain to the programme; and (c) what standards or accreditation frameworks will be established to support high-quality and safe TCM practice within preventive healthcare."],"footNoteQuestions":["10"],"questionNo":"10"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Root Causes for Singtel's Recent Outage, Impact of Disruption to Essential Services and Measures to Ensure Telecom Operational Continuity and Resilience","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what are the root causes of the 8 October 2024 disruption on Singtel's telecommunications network; (b) whether existing business continuity and redundancy requirements for key telcos are adequate for instances where the telco supports hotlines and landline networks for essential services including SCDF, SPF, public healthcare institutions and major banks; and (c) what will be done to ensure key telcos provide adequate redundancy and back-ups amidst increasing cyber threats.
12 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what are the lessons learned from the disruption of Singtel's telecommunications network on 8 October 2024 to ensure that robust redundancies and back-up systems are in place to minimise the impact on critical essential services from such disruptions; (b) what caused the fault and whether penalties will be imposed on Singtel; and (c) whether there will be an independent inquiry to identify vulnerabilities and prevent future incidents.
13 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what were the causes of the 8 October 2024 disruption on Singtel's telecommunications network; (b) whether Singtel is required to have operational continuity plans in place to address disruptions and, if so, why did it not work; and (c) how will the Ministry ensure that all telecommunications service providers achieve operational continuity and resilience so that essential services are unaffected at all times.
14 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information with regard to the disruptions to essential services caused by SingTel's outage on 8 October 2024 (a) how has businesses and the public been impacted; and (b) whether the contingency plans have been effective in mitigating the impact.
15 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what is the estimated number of calls to 995 and 999 that have been impacted by the Singtel landline outage on 8 October 2024; and (b) what penalties, if any, have been imposed by IMDA on Singtel for this outage.
16 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what is the outcome of the investigation into the disruption of calls to emergency services hotlines that occurred on 8 October 2024; and (b) what actions will be taken to prevent such disruptions from happening again.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Digital Development and Information): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 11 to 16 on today's Order Paper, as well as written Question No 23 on today's Order Paper filed by Ms See Jinli Jean together, as they relate to the same incident.
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, on 8 October 2024, Singtel's fixed line voice service faced intermittent service disruption. This affected some residential and corporate users, including Government emergency phone lines such as the Singapore Civil Defence Force's (SCDF's) 995 and the Singapore Police Force's (SPF's) 999 lines, and customer service lines for some Government agencies, healthcare organisations and companies. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and Ministry of Health (MOH) will be responding to queries on the service impact on their respective sectors arising from the incident.
During the disruption, it is estimated that half of the calls could still be connected. All services were progressively restored over a four-hour time period from the start of the incident.
The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) takes a serious view of this incident and is investigating the cause of this disruption and whether Singtel's incident response was adequate. Preliminary findings suggest that there was a technical issue which affected the proper functioning of a network component in one of the two systems supporting Singtel's fixed line voice service. The two systems, located in separate telephone exchanges, are designed to immediately take over the full load of the other system when one system malfunctions. However, in this instance, the failover did not happen seamlessly, which caused the intermittent service disruption. There is no evidence to suggest that the incident was related to a sabotage or cyber-attack. IMDA is continuing its investigations.
The telecommunication network in Singapore is a key infrastructure that supports our nation's connectivity needs and requirements. IMDA holds key service providers, like Singtel, to high service standards and requires them to conduct regular audits on their network and infrastructure. This includes ensuring the security of network design, redundancy measures and business continuity plans. Service providers must also ensure that their networks are resilient against disruptions.
IMDA will not hesitate to take strong action under the Telecommunication Act, including imposing financial penalties, should any lapses be identified. IMDA is working with MHA, SCDF and SPF to conduct a comprehensive review on the availability of our emergency hotlines when disruptions occurred.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Tan.
Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I thank Senior Minister of State for his answer. Let me declare first, there was a fire at my Clementi resident's home on the morning of that day, 8 October 2024. Neighbours called 995, SCDF responded. One resident was trapped in the flat. SCDF saved his life. I visited the site later, met with residents who recognised the importance of immediate 995 availability. Had the same fire happened during the outage, if emergency services were delayed, the outcome might have been different.
Can I ask Senior Minister of State two follow-up questions?
Firstly, for landlines which supply critical essential life-and-death situation services, are the telecom companies (telcos) required by IMDA to take the very highest level of reliability, because minutes can make the difference between life and death?
Second, across the whole of Government, in our crisis and scenarios planning, is there room to be even bolder in testing our assumptions and our imagination? For example, has the scenario of a single telco failure been modelled and gamed in scenario planning and red team planning? If not, why not? And if that scenario had been considered before, why was it that a critical landline like 995 or 999 not better protected from a single telco failure becoming a broader interruption to service?
\t
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Dr Tan Wu Meng for his three questions.
The landlines are regulated at the system level. So, Singtel is a key service provider, as there are the other telcos. This is a very important infrastructure. They are regulated and are required to provide a very high level of service reliability.
Dr Tan was asking from the perspective then of the 995 line or 999 line – and there, they have a sectoral requirement for communications in general which is not just only about a single telco.
I will have to leave MOH and MHA to answer the specifics for 999 and 995 lines. But the reality is that the landlines are not the only channel of communications. I think it was SCDF and SPF who put out a public notice about other alternative means for the public to contact them. And I will leave MHA and SCDF to answer that question.
So, from IMDA's perspective, we look at the system as a whole and, indeed, Singtel is held to a very high level of reliability through our regulatory framework.
Dr Tan also asked about whole-of-Government crisis planning and we, indeed, do model, red team and think through a number of scenarios, including what happens if our telecommunications infrastructure is affected. There is a certain level of redundancy required within a given network at the level of various points that they have and the infrastructure they have. There is internal redundancy that is required and internal resilience that is required. But, then again, across our nation we have resilience by having more than one network. So, indeed, we do model and red team a number of different scenarios.
Sir, as I said, I will leave the MHA to answer about the specifics of the 995 and 999 lines.
\tMr Speaker: Minister of State Sun.
The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I will just add to what Senior Minister of State Janil has just shared.
When the SCDF and SPF learned of the technical difficulties faced by some callers, the public was informed to contact SCDF via SMS 70995 and SPF via SMS 70999. They could also report incidents via the SGSecure app.
The SCDF and SPF are conducting a comprehensive review with IMDA to evaluate additional resiliency measures including the feasibility of telco diversity for our emergency hotlines.
Just to also add, arising from that incident, there was no feedback from the public on SCDF and SPF's failure to respond to any urgent or life-threatening incident.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State and Minister of State for their replies.
Incidents like this can affect public trust in telecommunications as a reliable service. So, in assessing future response strategies, is the Ministry considering any initiatives to improve public awareness or preparedness in such outrages?
For example, I think earlier there was mention about these alternative lines. Are there plans to better educate the public on these alternative ways to assess emergency services if similar outrages affect these public channels in the future?
\t
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, the work of engaging the public and educating the public on responses to crises, whether of a personal nature or a social nature, continues. We know we have a number of initiatives including, for example, Emergency Preparedness Days, we do table-top exercises around, for example, incidents that can affect our social harmony, including those involving in race and religion. A key component of all of these is, indeed, the act of communicating: how is it that we make sure that we have access to reliable information, we are able to connect with appropriate services and disseminate the information out.
So, the very short answer to Mr Yip's question is yes, and as he is aware, we are doing many of these things already, but we will continue to learn from every single incident. So, as I have noted, we are conducting a review. As Minister of State Sun has noted, MHA and IMDA are working very closely on the review of this particular incident. If there are lessons that we can extract, we will then engage with some of our efforts around public education and do that better; and it is certainly something that we will do.
\tMr Speaker: Last supplementary question. Ms Poa.
\tMs Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): I have a supplementary question for Minister of State Sun. How many people use the alternative SMS numbers 70999 and 70995 to contact the emergency services? And are other plans to raise awareness of these alternatives?
\t
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for the question. I do not have the specific numbers that she requested for as the Parliamentary Question (PQ) was originally directed at the Ministry of Digital Development and Information. I will come back to her if the Member were to file a separate PQ on this.
But specifically, on her comment as to the publicity around the SMS numbers, the numbers are not new. The numbers have been around for some time. There have been marketing efforts. Every time when we go out and we tell members of the public in times of emergency you can call the hotlines, we also append the SMS numbers. But I think, arising from this incident, we will be even more enthusiastic about putting out the numbers when it comes to the SMS numbers.
\tMr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Introduction of Government Bills. Minister for Law.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Law (Mr Murali Pillai) on behalf of the Minister for Law, read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Electronic Gazette and Legislation Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend certain Acts to provide for an authoritative electronic Gazette and authoritative electronic versions of revised editions of legislation, to abolish the use of the Gazette as an instrument of appointment and for related purposes\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) for the Minister for Digital Development and Information, read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Customs (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Customs Act 1960\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Second Minister for Finance (Mr Chee Hong Tat), read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Communicable Diseases Agency Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to establish the Communicable Diseases Agency and to make consequential amendments to certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) on behalf of the Minister for Health, read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Road Traffic Act 1961 and the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act 1960, and to repeal the School Crossing Patrols Act 1955\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protection from Scams Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to protect persons from scams conducted remotely by empowering specified officers to issue restriction orders to banks in Singapore prohibiting certain bank transactions and the grant and use of credit facilities temporarily\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade and Industry, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
Sir, the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) (Amendment) Bill amends the Act to implement some tax incentive changes that were introduced in Budget 2024. There are three sets of legislative changes contained in the Bill.
The first set of amendments introduces an additional concessionary tax rate tier of 15% for the Development and Expansion Incentive (DEI). This DEI scheme, which was introduced in 1997, is intended to encourage companies to grow capabilities and conduct new or expanded activities in Singapore. It currently offers two concessionary tax rate tiers of 5% and 10%.
Clause 2 introduces a new concessionary tax rate tier of 15% under the DEI and provides for other features of the DEI to be applied to the new 15% tax rate tier. This arises from our periodic review to ensure that our tax incentives remain relevant to companies with different circumstances and needs. For instance, a company affected by the global minimum effective tax rate of 15% might find the new 15% tax rate tier sufficient for its needs.
The second set of amendments expands the scope of companies eligible for a DEI award tenure of up to 40 years to include non-headquarter service companies. Today, this feature is only available to headquarter companies. The inclusion of non-headquarter service companies will provide flexibility for our economic agencies to support deserving companies that make long-term plans to develop capabilities and improve their service offerings from Singapore. Some examples of companies that could benefit from this expansion are those that provide payment technologies and solutions or artificial intelligence (AI) solutions and aircraft maintenance, repair and overhaul services.
Then, clause 3 expands the scope of companies eligible for a DEI award tenure of up to 40 years and extends this sub-scheme up to 31 December 2028.
Sir, the third set of amendments provides the Government with greater flexibility to respond to the fast-changing economic landscape. Today, adjusting the qualifying project types under the Investment Allowance Scheme requires amending the main EEIA legislation. Clauses 4 to 6 provide for the qualifying project types to be introduced, updated or removed via subsidiary legislation. 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, at the last Sitting in October, Members on both sides of the House supported the need for us to enhance our investment toolkit as we implement the minimum effective corporate tax we have committed to under Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) 2.0.
The multilateral commitment to impose a 15% floor on effective tax rates for large multinational enterprises (MNEs), groups with annual group revenue of $750 million or more in at least two of the four preceding financial years, will restrict tax competition and reshape the manner in which countries will have to compete for foreign direct investment (FDI), and the jobs and stimulus that come with FDI. One of the two main changes in the amendment Bill relates to the DEI.
The DEI allows businesses engaging in high value-added goods or services to apply for a certificate entitling them to a concessionary tax rate for the income from one or more qualifying activities stated in the certificate. Currently, the concessionary tax rates on qualifying income may be 5% or 10%.
May I ask the Minister what are the criteria applied to determine whether a business will be granted a 5% or 10% concessionary tax rate in respect of its qualifying activity? What number and proportion of applications under the DEI have been granted a 5% concessionary tax rate and what number and proportion of applications have been granted a 10% concessionary tax rate?
The amendment Bill will also introduce a new tier where a 15% concessionary tax rate can be granted in the certificate. Is this change in light of the 15% floor on minimum effective tax rates under Pillar Two of BEPS 2.0? If so, am I correct to understand that the entities belonging to large MNE groups caught under Pillar Two will no longer be granted 5% or 10% concessionary tax rates under the DEI going forward? And what is the number and percentage of successful DEI applicants that such entities account for?
Considering that a 15% concessionary tax rate, even putting aside the prescribed 0.5% step-up during the tax relief period, is not too far from our statutory corporate income tax rate of 17%, is it necessary to create this new tier, as opposed to simply excluding all entities caught by Pillar Two from the DEI?
On the flip side, does that mean that applicants who are not entities caught under Pillar Two, such as small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and smaller MNEs, can still expect to be granted the 5% and 10% concessionary tax rates as a norm?
Mr Speaker, the amendment Bill will also extend the DEI for another five years until the end of December 2028. May I ask also the Minister, what metrics has the Government used to measure the efficacy of the DEI relative to the costs to the Government over the two years? And how much corporate tax have we effectively forgone from corporates through the DEI?
The other main change under this amendment Bill relates to the Investment Allowance Scheme, under which businesses can enjoy a tax exemption of up to 100% of fixed capital expenditure incurred. While the qualifying fixed capital expenditure has so far been defined by reference to clearly circumscribed types of projects under the principal Act, the amendment Bill now seeks to add a sweep-up category of any project and related capital expenditure as may be prescribed. May I ask the Minister also, what is the intent of adding such a sweep-up category now when it was not necessary before?
What is the amount of capital expenditure investment allowance that has been granted thus far and how are they broken down by project type and by expenditure categories? Will there be a broader exercise to review the list of qualifying project types against our strategic national priorities today, such as our green economy and the push to make it more AI- and data-centric?
Mr Speaker, beyond the specific tweaks contemplated in this amendment Bill, I wonder if we are due to relook our whole investment attraction toolkit in the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act 1967 as a whole, given the significant change in landscape brought about by the Multinational Enterprise and Minimum Tax Act passed last month.
From time to time, we have been amending and tweaking the Act to modify, add or remove the various incentives led by our agencies such as the Economic Development Board and Enterprise Singapore. However, with Pillar Two of BEPS 2.0, there is now much less room for below-the-line tax incentives such as concessionary tax rates or deductions that potentially reduces a company's effective tax rate.
This is not even taking into account the potential impact of Pillar One, which has not been implemented yet. From a more macro level, how should we look to redesign our investment incentives and toolkit in this post-BEPS 2.0 world? Given the involvement of various different Ministries and agencies, who would take the lead in this regard?
I would be grateful for the Minister's insights on how we are going to do this and to assure Singaporeans that we will still be able to attract good companies to anchor themselves in Singapore and create good jobs and flow-on opportunities as a result. Instead of a piecemeal adaptation of the Act, should we expect an overhaul in the form of a new, consolidated Act in the near future?
Mr Speaker, Sir, it is well accepted that to secure our future in the world, we must continue to maintain Singapore's advantages in having a stable political climate, reliable infrastructure, strong legal framework and a highly educated workforce. But in business, you ultimately cannot ignore the dollars and cents. It is imperative that we navigate how to give businesses the right monetary incentives while remaining true to our international commitments. Notwithstanding the clarification sought, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Sir, this Bill is a reprise of the theme of making our corporate tax environment more competitive in the aftermath of the roll-out of BEPS 2.0, which was debated last month in Parliament. I spoke on the joint debate on the Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Bill and associated Income Tax (Amendment) Bill then, as did my Sengkang teammate, Louis Chua. But I will offer some additional thoughts here. In particular, I will speak about the nature of incentives for corporations and more generally, about the principle of effective taxes on businesses.
The overarching economic objective of incentives offered via tax breaks is to encourage firms to expand their investments and scale up their operations. In Singapore, this is targeted at high value-added products and services, and the pathway begins with, initially, schemes such as the Pioneer Certificate Incentive or Start-Up Tax Exemptions, which offer a tax holiday of three to five years.
When this expires, it may be followed by the DEI, which grants a concessionary tax rate of between 5% and 15%, at least today, based on earnings that exceed the average of the prior three years. Schemes such as these have allowed Singapore to keep its effective tax rates (ETRs) relatively competitive.
The rates that companies actually pay, rather than what on the face they owe, of course, are different, and in the case of the statutory tax rate, it has been in place at the 17% rate since 2010. Businesses, on average, however, paid less than a third of that: 5.1% in that year and an even lower 4.3% in 2019.
This need not be a bad thing per se. Economists know that low taxes on capital promotes investment from both domestic and foreign sources, which, in turn, can drive growth. But it is worth reflecting a little on why we accept this trade-off. After all, we do not willy-nilly grant tax relief to income on labour or land, believing that workers and landowners, rich and poor, should pay their fair share, at least in paying for the public goods that we all enjoy.
Here, at least, we must be convinced that such tax reliefs generate benefits of additional investment that will lead to new jobs or create new competitive industries or yield greater opportunities for other companies that exceed the costs of the forgone tax revenue, which could have been directed to myriad other purposes.
Whether these tax rates do so, however, is far from established. To be fair, the Government does require that a certain number of jobs be created as qualifying conditions for these schemes, but it is not known whether these jobs would have been created anyway. Nor do we know if, in the absence of these incentives, there may have been some gaming of the criteria with temporary or ghost positions created to meet the conditions, only to be extinguished thereafter.
I would be curious to know if the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI), or Ministry of Finance (MOF) for that matter, has ever conducted rigorous studies that show how low ETRs are causally linked to job creation or spillover effects and, if so, if they would be willing to share them with this House and the public.
Sir, regardless of what one thinks about the efficacy of keeping effective taxes low, the reality is that the global roll-out of BEPS 2.0 threatens to upend this comfortable arrangement, at least for larger corporates here. New legislation being passed around the world, such as our own Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Bill just passed last month, will now allow top-up taxes to be levied by other jurisdictions, should they view our effective taxes as unjustifiably low. The stipulations of BEPS, of course, only apply to the largest MNEs. This offers some leeway for us to marginally improve the corporate tax environment for the corporations that are not among the largest. This is where the present Bill plays an important role. Still, in my view, some aspects merit deeper questioning.
First, the amendments to section 22 propose to limit the favourable tax treatment to five years, through to the end of 2028. This sort of built-in deadlines to tax holidays, often referred to as sunset clauses, are now standard fare in public policy surrounding corporate tax incentives.
Indeed, even special economic zones, the traditional preserve of tax freedom worldwide, have now begun to routinely incorporate sunset provisions. However, it is crucial that sunset clauses not be prolonged indefinitely, because doing so could give rise to opportunities for politicking and quid pro quo rent-seeking, as firms lobby for extensions of special treatment.
I will note that in the Bill, in clause 2J, it seems to suggest that DEIs have been in place since 2012. It will be useful for this House to understand if there might yet again be an extension of the DEI for qualifying firms, or if the Government will, indeed, commit to adhering to the 2028 date as a genuine sunset.
Second, the proposed amendments to section 41 include, under the definition of fixed capital expenditure, in Part 4A2, the \"acquisition of know-how or patent rights\". While I understand the motivation behind why one might wish to include such expenses as part of fixed capital, the immediate concern is that this could be used as a loophole to creatively transfer existing intangible assets from one corporate entity to another as a means of reducing taxable income.
This sort of potential abuse in transfer pricing was, after all, one of the motivating drivers of the BEPS project to begin with. It would be ironic if our laws inadvertently provided yet another reason for countries to accuse us of seeking a role as a tax haven, albeit on the smaller scale than the MNEs covered by BEPS.
Third, I observe that there is a distinctive treatment of the conditions associated with accessing concessionary tax rates when it comes to manufacturing versus services, at least as documented in the existing DEI literature. For example, to qualify for a tax rate of 5% in the former, a firm must expend an additional $13 million in fixed asset investment and employ an additional 30 skilled employees by the fifth year.
In contrast, while the equivalent qualifying expenditures for the latter group are the same in the fifth year, it adds further requirements that $8 million be invested and 18 skilled employees be hired by the third year. It will be helpful to understand the justification between this disparate treatment of the two sectors.
Mr Speaker, the end result of this Bill will be, I believe, a better lock on the balance of taxation between the ETRs paid by our largest companies relative to our smaller ones. To be clear, the Minister for Finance had, in response to Parliamentary Questions filed by my hon friend, Louis Chua, previously stated that the ETR for SMEs over the past decade runs between 4% and 5%, while that for larger corporations amounted to between 10% and 11%.
While one may take issue with the precise way that this calculation is made, my sense is that the combination of BEPS-related stipulations embedded in last month's Bills, alongside the Bill that we are debating today, will go a significant way towards redressing any residual bias in favour of granting large corporations excessively generous tax relief.
This is welcome because, as I shared last month, we really should be weaning ourselves off a growth model that is excessively reliant on foreign capitals and MNEs and moving towards one that is conducive to entrepreneurship and supporting the development of homegrown SMEs as much as possible.
After all, MNEs benefit disproportionately more than SMEs from the public goods provided by the taxpayer, our favourable business environment, safe domestic market for skilled labour and stable political climate and have the necessary resources to contribute back towards sustaining the system that they have benefited so much from. We need not fear making these companies pay their fair share, given how their location decisions are driven primarily by the availability of skilled workers, open economic borders, high quality transportation infrastructure and a sound institutional environment, and only secondarily by low taxes on corporate income.
By the same token, we need to help our small firms which are struggling under the burden of high and rising costs, especially as rising rental costs on land snuff out affordable factory facilities and office spaces. And when the high costs of living are eventually transmitted into durable increases in real wages, these firms will also need to manage their ongoing costs of running their businesses amidst a small, cost-conscious domestic consumer market. Tax relief will give them a genuine shot at growing and perhaps flourishing in the long run.
That is an outcome that I am certain all of us in this House would look forward to seeing and for this reason, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Neil Parekh.
Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. The amendments to the Bill not only align Singapore's tax policies with global trends, but also reinforce our status as a competitive business hub amidst shifting international standards.
As jurisdictions worldwide compete for investments through tax incentives, we must ensure our policies remain competitive and compliant with international norms, such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's guidelines fostering both economic resilience and sustainable growth.
Sir, by introducing a new 15% concessionary tax rate and extending the DEI, this Bill strengthens our appeal to high-value investments in advanced manufacturing, AI and green technology. The amendments also encourage foreign investment supporting economic growth through favourable tax incentives for strategic industries, such as finance and logistics.
The amendments support companies involved in regional operations qualifying development projects and capital investments through targeted tax relief. Furthermore, clause 3 of the Bill also extends tax relief periods for eligible projects up to the end of 2028, ensuring sustained support for businesses expanding in Singapore.
I also applaud provisions in the Bill supporting innovation and infrastructure growth with amendments to the capital expenditure allowance which will encourage businesses to invest in new technologies, infrastructure and high-tech industries by widening the scope of eligible activities. In turn, this allows Singapore to position itself as a global leader in high-tech industries.
Also, by streamlining tax relief frameworks, these amendments provide legal clarity and ease of planning, empowering businesses to pursue growth with confidence.
Sir, I have some clarifications for the Minister of State. First, will companies benefiting from existing incentives need to reapply under the new framework or will their current exemptions automatically continue? Second, since BEPS 2.0 primarily targets large multinational enterprises, what specific benefits will SMEs gain from these amended tax incentives and how will they remain competitive in this new environment? Third, under clause 2 of the Bill, are specific thresholds in place for qualifying for the 15% tax rate, particularly for companies managing regional operations? Fourth, how will the new amendments align with Singapore's international tax treaties to prevent double taxation and support cross-border activities? Fifth, what penalties will be imposed for non-compliance with milestone-based relief provisions and will there be an appeals process for this?
Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I fully support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Mark Lee.
Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, previously, I highlighted the need for Singapore to continually refine tax incentive strategies and strengthen non-tax benefits to maintain our competitive advantage amidst evolving global tax trends. This is particularly pressing as the global minimum tax rules take place in various jurisdictions, including Singapore.
The proposed Economic Expansion Incentives Bill introduces enhancements to Singapore's tax framework, specifically targeting the DEI and Investment Allowances for eligible companies. These refinements aim to drive economic growth by supporting business development, innovation and investment, ultimately strengthening resilience and competitiveness in a shifting global landscape.
The Bill introduces an additional 15% concessionary tax rate for certain qualifying income, alongside existing 5% and 10% rates for the DEI. This is applicable to qualifying income derived on or after 1 January 2024.
It is encouraging to see the Government respond very proactively by introducing changes to existing suite of tax incentives to ensure their relevance as part of the overall economic support package to attract foreign investments. I would like to commend Government agencies like the Economic Development Board, which has helpfully published the required economic commitments to be awarded the new 15% concessionary tax rate (CTR) under the DEI. This is useful as it provides certainty to businesses and allows them to plan their operations and apply for the tier of incentive tax rate which is most suitable for their business.
The amendment also allows companies to switch between the 5%, 10% and 15% base rates and their corresponding stepped-up rates, subject to eligibility criteria, thus allowing flexibility to these companies in managing their tax burden over the tax relief period. This flexibility is commendable as it acknowledges the financial volatility that businesses may face. However, I recommend clear guidance be issued as to the process or application timeline for such rate substitutions as it would ensure that the system operates smoothly and avoids potential confusion among businesses.
Tax relief periods for DEI recipients may now be extended up to 31 December 2028, potentially benefiting companies with longer project timelines. I would like to suggest that the Ministry could periodically review these timelines against the evolving economic conditions to ensure that they remain relevant and beneficial.
For the Investment Allowance scheme, or IA, the amendments enable the Minister to prescribe projects in relation to which the IA may be given in regulations. This means that there is greater upfront clarity as to whether a particular project can qualify for the IA. This is welcomed by businesses. However, while broadening the eligibility scope is positive, can the Ministry clarify the timeline and criteria for such inclusions? This will allow companies greater certainty when planning investments in sectors not traditionally supported by investment allowances.
In conclusion, these amendments aim to secure Singapore's attractiveness by providing flexibility of choice in our incentive regimes to cater to companies in different stages of growth and support sustainable business development. By providing flexible and targeted tax incentives, we can continue to attract diverse businesses that contribute to Singapore's economic dynamism. Notwithstanding my questions and recommendations, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, I wish to declare my interest as, in my professional capacity, I am involved in developing and expanding aerospace and aircraft maintenance, repair and overall capabilities in Singapore.
Singapore's attractiveness for FDIs is underpinned by our robust legal framework, skilled workforce, political stability, excellent transportation system and world-class infrastructure, just to name a few. Our tax incentive frameworks, including the Pioneer Incentive and DEI, give us a competitive edge to attract companies looking to build capabilities globally.
Last month, in this Chamber, during the debate on the Income Tax Bill and Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Bill, we extensively discussed the increasing global competition to attract investments, the minimum effective tax rates, the importance of continued investments in Singapore and ensuring that MNEs comply with BEPS 2.0 requirements.
This Economic Expansion Incentive Bill further strengthens our investment toolkit by introducing significant enhancements to Singapore's tax incentive framework, something which has also been mentioned by Member Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Key enhancements include an additional layer of concessionary tax rates aligned with global tax standards introduced by BEPS 2.0; extended tax relief; a revised definition of fixed asset investment; and an expanded scope of qualifying activities under DEI.
First, in clauses 2 and 3, the amendments to section 21 add an additional layer of concessionary tax rates, which is a welcome enhancement. Depending on the structure, companies may not find the current two tax tiers of 5% or 10% useful. Thus, some companies affected by the minimum ETR may still find the 15% rate valuable in developing their capabilities in Singapore.
Second, clause 4 amends sections 41 and 43 on investment allowances, broadening the definition of fixed capital expenditure to support companies developing and expanding capabilities in Singapore. When building new capabilities, the required infrastructure has become increasingly specialised, especially when requirements for particulate control, flatness of building and temperature and humidity regulation are required in the project.
The rising building costs in Singapore, which has increased by over 30% in some cases post-COVID-19, has exacerbated these challenges. Therefore, the inclusion of capital expenditure on structures specially designed for carrying out the project as a qualifying expense is much appreciated.
Expanding the definition of fixed capital expenditure to include the acquisition of know-how or patent rights, can also attract projects where commercialisation or industrialisation builds on acquired intellectual properties (IPs). For example, this will attract companies developing industrialised solutions for additive manufacturing of exotic metals, like titanium, for the medical and aerospace industries or creating quantum computing solutions based on acquired IPs.
Including productive equipment to be used outside of Singapore within the investment framework also reflects the realities of today's supply chains, where value streams often span multiple jurisdictions. This provision allows labour-intensive work in partner countries, while Singapore focuses on higher-value tasks, benefiting our workforce through upskilling and creating high-value jobs. That said, I have several points of clarification.
What criteria will overseas investments need to meet to qualify as allowable fixed capital expenditure? Additionally, what are the asset retention requirements? The Bill also grants the Minister authority to define the list of qualifying business activities. What are the criteria for determining these qualifying activities and how often will this list be reviewed? Mr Speaker, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Alvin Tan.
Mr Alvin Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Neil Parekh, Mr Mark Lee and Mr Sharael Taha and, of course, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, for their strong support of the Bill. They spoke about the DEI and Investment Allowance schemes, and on the need for a holistic review of our investment attraction toolkit to ensure Singapore remains attractive to global investors in a post-BEPS world.
Allow me to start, first, with the DEI scheme. The first set of questions relate to the DEI's new 15% concessionary tax rate tier. The questions surround whether we need this when it is not too far from our current corporate income tax rate of 17% or if this responds to the 15% minimum ETR under Pillar Two of BEPS 2.0 and how will SMEs or the awards of existing in-scope DEI recipients be affected?
Mr Saktiandi Supaat rightly noted that the in-scope MNE groups will be subject to the minimum ETR of 15% under Pillar Two of BEPS 2.0 and that the difference between the new 15% DEI concessionary tax rate and our statutory corporate income tax rate of 17% is, in fact, narrow. We made these changes as part of our periodic review to ensure our incentives continue to remain relevant.
Notwithstanding the narrow differences in the tax rates, we have received industry feedback, for instance, that a company affected by the global minimum ETR of 15% under Pillar Two of BEPS 2.0 might find the new 15% tier sufficient for their needs. The new 15% tier may also be useful to other companies, which may only be able to make economic commitments at a level commensurate with this new 15% concessionary tax rate.
Mr Sakthiandi Supaat also asked if SMEs and smaller MNEs could still expect to be granted the DEI of 5% and the 10% concessionary tax rates as a norm. The short answer is yes. The DEI 5% and DEI 10% concessionary tax rate tier will be available to all eligible companies, regardless of their country of origin, the size of the company or whether they are in scope of Pillar Two. This also applies to the new DEI of 15% concessionary tax rate tier.
Mr Neil Parekh asked if companies benefiting from the existing incentives need to re-apply under this new framework. The answer is no. In fact, in line with upholding Singapore's reputation as a trusted and transparent business hub and as a general principle, the Government will not unilaterally amend a company's concessionary tax rate if it continues to meet its incentive outcome.
The second set of questions relate to the use of DEI. What criteria or thresholds are applied to determine whether a business is granted a 5%, 10% or 15% tier, and what are the number and proportion of DEI recipients enjoying the 5% and 10% concessionary tiers?
Our economic philosophy, Mr Speaker, has always been to support all companies that can bring value to Singapore and to have the incentivised companies commit to generating economic contributions to Singapore that are commensurate with the incentive benefit that they enjoy. This is regardless of where they come from, their country of origin or their size.
We systematically assess each application for a new DEI award or the amendment to an existing award considering the merits of each and every case. To be eligible for DEI, the company must engage in high-value-added activities in Singapore, either through a new set-up or if they decide to expand existing activities in Singapore.
Economic agencies will then assess the new or updated project, based on the scale of the project and the projected quantitative and qualitative economic benefits. Quantitative economic benefits include skilled employment, fixed asset investment and total business expenditure committed under the project. Qualitative benefits include the generation of spin-offs for the economy, the quality of jobs created from the project and the commitment to grow capabilities in technology, skillsets and know-how in Singapore.
Based on projected economic commitments by the company, we will then grant the DEI recipient a commensurate concessionary tax rate in respect of its qualifying activities. The take-up of DEI fluctuates from year to year. There is a good mix of both DEI 5% and DEI 10%, with DEI 10% making the bulk of this mix.
Of course, because the new concessionary tax rate tier is new, we will not yet be able to assess the expected take-up rate of this new DEI 15% concessionary tax rate tier. But we are introducing this new tier to continue to anchor new investment commitments amid the tight global competition for investments.
The third set of questions relate to the governance of the DEI awards. Mr Mark Lee suggested having clear guidance on the process or an application timeline for rate substitution to ensure its smooth implementation. In fact, this practice of rate substitution is not new.
Existing DEI recipients can approach economic agencies to discuss any changes in their circumstances and also the impact on their incentive award. For instance, where there are changes in the global business landscape or climate, or if there were shifts in industry trends or corporate restructuring, a company may then need to make changes to their project deliverables. This is over the course of doing business.
This may warrant then a reexamination of the tax incentive and the conditions tied to the tax incentives, which may involve a change in the concessionary tax rate to ensure, again, that the tax benefits remain commensurate with the scale and the impact of the incentivised project. Mr Saktiandi and Mr Mark Lee also mentioned the extension of the DEI scheme until the end of 2028, also a point that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim mentioned. Mr Mark Lee suggested periodically reviewing the sunset dates to ensure the incentive remains relevant. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked how the Government measures DEI efficacy and the corporate tax, which we have forgone through DEI. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also asked about this forgone tax.
The extension of the DEI for another five years to 31 December 2028 is, in fact, in reference to the limited scope of DEI that allows for a DEI tenure of up to 40 years for headquarter and non-headquarter service companies. We are amending the sunset date to align with the rest of the DEI scheme in general, which is already 31 December 2028. So, I would like to assure Members who have asked this question that we review our incentives periodically to ensure that they remain relevant. But this is a point to ensure that these are aligned to the existing 31 December 2028 dates.
Sir, we consider a range of factors when we assess whether to extend an incentive scheme such as DEI. This includes the estimated incremental value-add that the scheme is projected to create and the incremental economic commitments such as skilled employment, fixed asset investments and business expenditure that the supported projects can anchor here in Singapore.
To Mr Saktiandi Supaat's question on corporate tax income \"forgone\" under DEI, a point that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also raised, we consider any tax forgone by the award of the tax incentives to be notional in nature. DEI is not automatically granted to all companies looking to invest in Singapore. Instead, it is offered judiciously, only if our economic agencies assess that the incentive is crucial to land the investment here and that the investment will generate a net benefit for Singapore's economy. In other words, we assess how effective the tax incentive is based on benefits brought forth by the project, for example, the number of good jobs created, and if not for the incentives, whether the investment may land here in the first place.
Mr Neil Parekh asked about penalties that will be imposed for non-compliance with milestone-based relief provisions and if there is an appeals process. I wanted to assure Members that the Government maintains a high bar in terms of the commitments we expect from recipients of these incentives. Where there is a breach of incentive conditions, we will give the company an opportunity to show cause and explain reasons for the breach. And if there are no strong justifications and the intended economic benefits are not realised, we will hold the incentive recipients accountable and not hesitate to either amend or withdraw the incentive, including clawing back the benefits enjoyed.
To Mr Neil Parekh's question on aligning our amendments to Singapore's international tax treaties to prevent double taxation and cross-border activities, I wish to affirm that the proposed amendments do not affect the application of the Avoidance of Double Taxation Agreements that Singapore has signed with other countries. Singapore has been and will continue to be committed to fulfilling our international commitments. This trust factor is a key value proposition for companies investing in Singapore.
Let me now move on to questions by Members relating to the Investment Allowance scheme. Mr Sharael Taha sought clarification on the criteria for an overseas investment to qualify as allowable fixed capital expenditure and the asset retention requirements. Typically, the productive equipment that is incentivised under the Investment Allowance scheme is to be used in Singapore. That could be a plant, for example, or productive equipment. The only exceptions to this are space satellite and submarine cable systems, as these need to be obviously deployed outside of Singapore. To qualify for Investment Allowance, the company must hold onto the incentivised equipment for a period of time.
Sir, Mr Mark Lee asked about the timeline and criteria for including a new qualifying project under the Investment Allowance scheme, so companies will have greater certainty when planning investments in sectors not traditionally supported by Investment Allowances.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked if we will review the list of qualifying project types against our current strategic national priorities, such as our green economy, data as well as our AI ambitions. Sir, I would like to assure Members that we are periodically reviewing the list of qualifying activities under the Investment Allowance scheme to ensure that these qualifying activities align with our strategic national priorities and are relevant to Singapore's next phase of economic development.
And as Members suggest, given that we have plans to use AI to transform our economy and also our push for a green economy, we are happy and open to consider the Investment Allowance scheme as a potential incentive. MTI will evaluate Members' suggestions more thoroughly. So, I thank Members for their suggestions.
Sir, but when considering the activities we want to continue to qualify for the Investment Allowance scheme or not to include under the scheme, we assess them based on their potential, as I mentioned earlier on for other incentives, to create high economic value-add and positive spin-offs to the rest of the economy. Again, this could be in the form of jobs created or new partnerships with local suppliers.
Sir, Mr Saktiandi Supaat also asked about the rationale to allow the Minister to prescribe categories of qualifying projects now and why it was not necessary before. The short answer is we are doing so to give the Government greater flexibility to respond to the rapidly changing economic landscape by providing for qualifying project types to be introduced, updated or removed via subsidiary legislation. It allows for the Minister to move quicker in a rapidly evolving space.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat also asked about the amount of capital expenditure investment allowance we have granted thus far and the breakdown by project type and by expenditure categories. Similar to the DEI, the Investment Allowance is offered judiciously and we consider any taxable income forgone by the Investment Allowance award to be notional in nature, as I mentioned earlier on.
Sir, we have awarded the Investment Allowance for a variety of projects and sectors, from manufacturing to specialised engineering and technical services like aircraft maintenance, repair and overhaul. The value of the capital expenditure Investment Allowance that has been awarded is a fraction of the total projected value of investments.
I will now address Members' questions on the need for a holistic review of our investment attraction toolkit to ensure Singapore remains attractive to global investments in a post-BEPS world.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat rightly pointed out that the implementation of Pillar Two of BEPS 2.0 would reduce the effectiveness of certain tax incentives, since MNEs with consolidated annual revenues of at least €750 million will be subject to a minimum effective tax rate of 15% wherever they operate. Although BEPS 2.0's Pillar Two may reduce the room for tax competition amongst countries, it does not reduce competition for investment. The global economic landscape has become even more competitive, with major economies like the US, Germany and Japan rolling out generous incentives to attract investments.
Therefore, to ensure our incentive schemes remain relevant and competitive, both MTI and MOF have been continuously refreshing our incentive toolkits and updating legislations under our purview as required. The new Refundable Investment Credit scheme, which was debated last month here in Parliament, is one recent example. We have no plans currently to overhaul the EEIA at the moment, but I note the Member's feedback to consider a new consolidated Act.
Let me just look through some other questions.
Sir, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim had a question on the sunset clause provision. I think I addressed that already. This is one arrow in our quiver, in our toolkit, to ensure that our incentives have enough levers and to ensure Singapore's continued economic relevance. Having this sunset clause introduces discipline. There is a definite end date. It is a process to ensure that we, as the economic agencies and the Government, will review our incentive schemes periodically. It also sends a message to the businesses to not take for granted that the incentives will continue perpetually. So, I think that is very useful. The alignment to other DEI schemes in general is important for us to do that. It also reduces uncertainty.
The question on the difference in incentives criteria for both manufacturing and services is a good one. Manufacturing, as the Member would know, and services are very different. Our incentive design takes into consideration the competitive landscape we face and the gestation periods of the respective project types.
If you think about manufacturing, a manufacturing company typically takes years to set up a plant, to qualify and to hire relevant workers and also to train their workers for these relevant skills, and then, later on, to ramp up operations. The level of commitment required also recognises, in part, the competition that Singapore faces. That is on manufacturing. And I think, in MTI, we open many of these plants. We know that there is a gestation period and these companies need to hire workers, train them and make sure that the plant is operational. You compare this with the manufacturing sector, for example, to our global headquarters as well as the services sector, the typical project gestation period is much shorter, because you do not need to have those plants. It is not as sticky in that regard. And our incentive requirements must therefore also reflect the differences between manufacturing as well as the services sector.
Finally, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked whether the Minister's ability to add new qualifying categories will encourage companies to abuse the incentives by shifting the assets abroad or around, without generating new economic incrementals or benefits. I want to ensure the Member that the Investment Allowance is given with respect to new substantive projects that our economic agencies have assessed to be in line with our economic priorities. Purely shifting assets around would not pass muster with our robust assessment framework.
Sir, we will continue to do more. Singapore's attractiveness as an investment location does not only depend on tax factors or incentives to anchor investments. The Government will continue to invest in our non-tax, non-incentive advantages such as a highly educated workforce and talent pool, our robust infrastructure, our excellent connectivity, a well-established legal system and a well-developed financial system. These advantages took decades to build and strengthen and are the result of consistent efforts by the Government working alongside businesses and our tripartite partners to create a vibrant and competitive economy for our people.
Sir, I just wanted to take a bigger picture and to share with Members that again, as Minister Vivian Balakrishnan mentioned earlier on, the world is becoming more uncertain, the world in becoming more volatile. There has been fragmentation, there has been fractures of what we knew as the trading system, and just because of all of these factors, the global competition for talent, the global competition for investments is heating up, if it is not already at very intense levels.
Singapore is small. We have very limited resources, we have constraints, land, labour, carbon and, for all the strengths that we have – a well-connected financial system, highly educated workforce and the likes – which I mentioned earlier on, these are things that are important strengths and levers that we have.
But, at the same time, we cannot take for granted, because we are small, that MNCs which have a choice to invest their plants or their services or to situate their headquarters anywhere in the world, will choose Singapore. That is why we must be on the forward footing, we must continuously be agile-minded and agile-footed and amend, change, and be flexible with our suite of tools that are available to us to attract these investments into Singapore and to create good jobs for Singaporeans.
With that, Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their strong support for this Bill and Sir, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Any clarifications? Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you, Speaker, and I thank Minister of State Alvin Tan for his comprehensive responses. Two quick clarifications on my part. The first, if I could verify that the DEI is in fact not automatically granted to any company that commits to meet the qualifying conditions, for example, for the 5% bar, S$13 million additional foreign asset investment and 30 additional skilled workers, but actually is subject to clearance by staff at MTI?
And if so, and if it is possible, to share the success rate of applicants to the DEI in the past or relatedly, how many successful applicants have subsequently experienced termination of the incentive for not meeting the terms of their letter of agreement (LOA) commitments? Or perhaps, if I should file a Parliamentary Question if these numbers are not immediately available?
Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Assoc Prof Lim for his questions. For the DEI, as I mentioned, the economic agencies will assess that based on all of the different commitments and it has to be commensurate to those commitments under the qualifying activities.
And again, the whole Bill was meant to ensure flexibility, so that, for example, if there are changes to the external environment, changes to the investment climate, the economic climate, it gives the economic agencies as well as the company itself, scope to negotiate and say, \"Well, I am at this tier now, I can do more\". Then, you adjust it, commensurate to the incentive.
Or the company can say, \"Oh, it's a bit challenging, I need more time\". Then, you can tier up as well. So, that flexibility gives companies some certainty and it also allows for economic agencies to work closely with companies to invest in Singapore.
Mr Speaker: Any more clarifications for Minister of State Alvin Tan? I do not see any.
[(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 Alvin Tan]. (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":"Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Amendment) and Other Matters Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Law (Mr Murali Pillai) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Sir, as this House is well aware, the Government is committed to upholding Singapore's status as an international financial centre and key trading and transhipment hub, built on a clean, robust and credible system. Our system would be undermined if criminals were to abuse our system to carry out illicit activities.
Singapore thus needs to be vigilant. To this end, Singapore has taken a resolute stance against money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing. The measures which have been taken include:
(a) adopting the three key pillars of prevention, detection and enforcement, as set out in the report by the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Anti-Money Laundering published recently in October 2024. These three strategies are also used to combat terrorism financing and proliferation financing;
(b) continuously reviewing our processes and updating our laws to ensure that they remain effective and in line with international standards. For instance, the Government has passed the Anti-Money Laundering and Other Matters Act 2024, which will enhance the ability of the Government to detect and act against money laundering with enhanced data sharing and strengthened prosecutorial levers; and
(c) supporting global trends to combat money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing. To this end, Singapore has been an active member of the Financial Action Task Force, or FATF for short, since 1992. The FATF sets the international standards for tackling money laundering, terrorist financing and proliferation financing. Singapore has been assessed by the FATF to have a strong legal and institutional framework and we are determined to maintain our good standing.
This Bill is in line with the Government's consistent approach, as it seeks to strengthen our international cooperation regime and framework for trusts. There are two main components to this Bill.
First, Singapore's international criminal cooperation regime will be updated to ensure it remains efficient, effective and in line with international standards. This will enhance our ability to cooperate with other jurisdictions to combat crime. Second, the Trustees Act will be updated to better support Singapore's legal regime by revising the trustees' obligations and imposing effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions.
I will take hon Members through these two components of the Bill.
First, let me begin with the changes to the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, or MACMA for short. Mutual legal assistance is a process where states seek and provide assistance to one another for the purposes of criminal investigations, prosecution and other proceedings.
A strong international cooperation framework is especially vital in our world today, as crime is increasingly transnational in nature. In this regard, it is in our interests to ensure that our laws are updated to allow us to cooperate effectively with other countries to prevent and punish crime.
Mr Speaker, the feedback that we have received from FATF is that our quality of assistance is generally high, often supporting complex investigations and helping to secure convictions. We, however, do not rest on our laurels. The Bill will further improve our processes and capabilities to assist. I will highlight four key amendments that the Bill will make to the MACMA.
First, the Bill will empower our law enforcement authorities to take statements from persons for the purposes of assisting foreign criminal investigations.
Currently, section 21 of the MACMA requires that criminal proceedings have commenced in the foreign country before a witness may be compelled to give evidence to aid in those proceedings. This generally means that prosecution must have been initiated. As such, if the foreign country is still investigating and has yet to commence proceedings, then Singapore would be unable to assist with the taking of evidence under section 21 of the MACMA. In contrast, our domestic authorities are empowered, under our Criminal Procedure Code, to take statements from persons for the purpose of domestic investigations, before the matter reaches our courts. A new section 21A will address this issue to ensure that powers available for domestic authorities are also available for use in response to requests for mutual legal assistance.
Second, with this Bill, Singapore can assist to identify, freeze, seize or confiscate property \"intended to be used\" in connection with the commission of a foreign offence. This will add to our current powers, which pertain to property \"used\" in the commission of such offence. This expands the scope of property covered under the MACMA and strengthens our ability to deprive criminals of their property. This is in line with FATF's definition of \"criminal property\", which covers instrumentalities used and intended for use in money laundering and other offences.
Third, the Bill will clarify when foreign proceedings are deemed concluded for the purposes of enforcement of a foreign confiscation order. While the MACMA already contains examples of when proceedings are considered concluded, such as discontinuance of proceedings or acquittal, the Bill will further clarify that proceedings are concluded when there is no right of appeal following the acquittal, for example, or that all rights of appeal have expired or are exhausted. This clarifies a grey area in determining when proceedings are concluded, such as where the defendant has been acquitted but the foreign state is still pursuing an appeal.
Fourth, Singapore will be able to enforce foreign confiscation orders made by \"a competent authority\", in addition to such orders made by a Court. A foreign confiscation order is an order made in connection with the foreign offence for the recovery, forfeiture or confiscation of any payment or property. Currently, we can only enforce foreign confiscation orders made in judicial proceedings. However, not all countries follow this system.
A number of jurisdictions, especially those with civil law systems, have confiscation orders which may be issued by an authority other than a Court. There is thus a need to take a broader approach. Recognising confiscation orders made by a \"competent authority\" will enhance Singapore's ability to deprive criminals of their illicit proceeds.
Mr Speaker, in addition to amending the MACMA, the Bill also covers a couple of amendments to the Extradition Act. We have updated the amendment of \"foreign state\" to clarify that it is within Singapore's sovereign power to make an extradition request to any territory and not only those listed in the Third Schedule.
The Bill also contains other technical amendments, all intended to improve Singapore's international cooperation regime – to make it clearer, smoother and more efficient. For example, the Bill will allow an overseas document to be deemed, to be authenticated under the MACMA or the Extradition Act, when it is sealed with an official or public seal, or stamped with an official stamp of that country, or of a minister, a department or official of the government of that country. This is in line with our intent, as mentioned earlier, to take into account the varying practices of foreign countries, where processes for sealing or stamping may differ.
Sir, we will continue to review Singapore's international cooperation regime to ensure that our processes remain relevant and effective. As we continue to do so, we will ensure that robust safeguards are in place to ensure that Singapore will only act in meritorious cases.
With that, I conclude the first part of my speech on international criminal cooperation. I now turn to my next part on key changes to the trust regime.
I will first explain the background of how trusts may be misused. I will then detail how our legal regime aims to combat such misuse. I will end by going through the amendments that the Bill seeks to make to bolster our legal regime.
Generally, a trust is created when a person, the settlor, transfers legal title of certain identified property to another person, the trustee. The trustee is obliged to deal with that property for the benefit of another, the beneficiary. Trusts can be used for a wide variety of legitimate purposes, including succession planning, protection of vulnerable persons and charitable giving.
However, trusts can also be misused by criminals. While the trustee is the legal owner of the trust assets, the trust assets are held for the benefit of the beneficiary. Trusts can thus be used to conceal the person who is ultimately entitled to benefit from the asset, particularly when they are used as part of a complex structure.
How do we combat such misuse? As part of our three-pillar framework, we have enacted laws which require gatekeepers of the financial system, such as banks and other financial institutions, to obtain information as part of customer due diligence or CDD checks, thereby detecting and preventing misuse.
Where the customer is a trustee, the CDD checks should also be applied to persons with ownership or control over the trust, such as the settlor and the protector, as well as the beneficiaries, or persons who will benefit from the trust. These CDD checks would include enhanced measures, such as checking on the source of funds for the settlor, in cases of higher money laundering or terrorist financing risks.
For these CDD checks to work and for the banks to be able to obtain the information needed to prevent money laundering, financing of terrorist and proliferation activities, trustees must be required to obtain and hold information about the trust that they administer.
Similarly, if a law enforcement agency is conducting an investigation and wishes to find out more about the source of certain funds, and who the ultimate beneficiary is, their investigations would be facilitated if trustees are required to hold the relevant information. Thus, an obligation on trustees to hold such information complements the gatekeepers' CDD obligations and the powers of investigation of the law enforcement agencies.
The obligations imposed on trustees depends on the type of trust and their risk profile. Some trustees, such as trust companies that are in the business of providing trust services professionally, are licensed and regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). This is to ensure that the trust companies adhere to high standards of integrity, professionalism and business conduct, and observe anti-money laundering and counter-financing of terrorism requirements similar to other financial institutions providing wealth management services.
Trust companies may be involved in administering complex trust structures and dealing with high value assets and transactions, which exposes them to greater risk of being used for money laundering and other financial crimes. Trust companies' obligation to obtain and hold relevant information is found under the Trust Companies Act, the supporting subsidiary legislation and binding Notices issued by the MAS.
The risk profiles of trustees that are not regulated by MAS are normally lower. These lower risk trusts are typically not complex, as setting up a complex structure would typically require the assistance of professionals such as a trust company. To illustrate, a trust set up by an aged parent by transferring assets to a trusted family member to provide for a disabled child would fall under this category. Such trustees' obligations are generally found in the Regulations introduced under Part 7 of the Trustees Act. The amendments to the Trustees Act being moved today are primarily to Part 7 of the Trustees Act.
I will now turn to detail each of the key amendments to the Trustees Act: first, the scope of information which the trustees will need to obtain; second, an update to the sanctions for non-compliance with the obligations introduced under Part 7 of the Trustees Act; and third, on the powers to investigate trustees that breach their obligations introduced under Part 7 of the Trustees Act.
On the first point of the scope of information. Part 7 of the Trustees Act requires trustees to obtain and hold information on each person who is a \"relevant trust party\". This includes the settlor, the trustee, the beneficiaries and any person who has any power over the disposition of any property that is subject of the trust.
The amendments to the Trustees Act will expand the scope of the information to be collected. With the amendments, the Trustee will now be required to collect the basic information of the trust. This includes the identifier of the trust, for example, the name of the trust, or its tax reference number. It also includes the trust deed and the place where the trust is administered.
The term \"relevant trust party\" will be expanded to include the \"class of beneficiaries\" and \"natural persons exercising ultimate effective control over the trust\". A \"class of beneficiaries\" refers to a group of individuals who are not yet known or identified in a trust instrument. One example of a group may be the future descendants of the settlor.
Trustees will likely already have such information. This information will usually be set out in the trust instrument which the trustees would likely have in their possession. The trust instrument is the document setting out the terms of the trust and how the assets of the trust are to be managed or administered for the beneficiaries.
On the second point on sanctions for non-compliance, the Trustees Act currently provides that any contravention of the obligations introduced under Part 7 shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding S$1,000. However, the maximum fines that may be imposed for comparable breaches in other pieces of legislation are higher. In the Accountants Act, as well as other pieces of legislation that this House has passed – the Companies and Limited Liability Partnerships (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act and the Business Trusts (Amendment) Act – the maximum fine for similar breaches is S$25,000.
To ensure alignment with the maximum fine for other similar offences and that the sanctions for breaches of obligations introduced under Part 7 of the Trustees Act are dissuasive and effective, we will update the maximum fine provided for in Part 7 of the Trustees Act to S$25,000.
The amendments also introduce the power of composition. Thus, in appropriate cases, a composition sum of up to one-half of the amount of the maximum fine may be levied in lieu of prosecution.
The third set of amendments will grant a public officer called the Commissioner of Trust Enforcement (CTE) under the Ministry of Law the power to investigate offences under Part 7 of the Trustees Act. Previously, this power lay with the Police. With these amendments, the CTE and any authorised officers he may appoint will be empowered to investigate any breach of the trustees' obligations, introduced under Part 7 of the Trustees Act.
This transfer of investigative functions from the Police to MinLaw will develop MinLaw's subject matter expertise and allow investigators to more effectively address any breaches of the obligations introduced under Part 7 of the Trustees Act.
Beyond this, the CTE will also be empowered to issue codes of practice, guidelines or standards of performance if and when required. These codes and guidelines or standards, if issued, will help to guide trustees of relevant trusts on how best to comply with their obligations.
Collectively, these amendments will bolster Singapore's national strategy for anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism and proliferation financing by preventing trusts from being misused by criminals.
In conclusion, Sir, the Bill will strengthen Singapore's international cooperation regime, bolster its national strategy against money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing, and align itself with international standards. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill represents another critical step forward in strengthening our enforcement against complex financial crimes. However, the Bill needs examination to ensure we balance effective crime control with the rights of Singaporeans. Today, I would like to raise several clarifications.
First, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have concerns regarding privacy and safety. The proposed changes, particularly those broadening cooperation and permitting statements for foreign criminal probes, raise important questions. How can we ensure that we balance international cooperation with our citizens' fundamental right to privacy? Striking this balance is challenging. We need strong assurances that the privacy rights of Singaporeans will not be compromised.
Additionally, what is the plan for cooperating with non-prescribed foreign countries? While broad cooperation can be beneficial, it must come with reciprocity and robust safeguards. Moreover, how will the Government protect sensitive information shared with foreign authorities, ensuring it is used only for its intended purpose? Can the Minister of State outline these safeguards and explain how they will be enforced?
It is important that residents are informed if and when their information is shared, and that they have avenues for recourse if they believe their rights have been violated.
Cooperation is key to tackling cross-border crime. However, it should not come at the expense of our residents' privacy. I urge the Minister of State to address these concerns to alleviate the worries of Singaporeans and ensure that the right safeguards are in place.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my second point addresses the confidentiality of banking information. The updated regulations permit financial institutions greater access to customer data, which can be a sensitive matter for many residents. What protections are in place for Singaporean and Permanent Resident customers when their financial data is requested by foreign entities? There is considerable variation in data protection standards globally. How can we ensure that our citizens' financial data will be safeguarded, regardless of the requesting country?
Additionally, the Bill must promote transparency. There should be a clear and transparent process for residents to be informed of any data requests involving their accounts. Ideally, they should have the right to contest these requests. Singaporeans place great trust in our financial system. We must not allow unchecked access to customer data by foreign entities to erode that trust.
Residents deserve assurances that their privacy and financial security are protected. Furthermore, as Singapore is recognised as a safe haven for global investments, can the Minister of State confirm that our banks have the authority to refuse financial disclosures if complying would harm their reputations? We need to understand whether they can decline unjust requests.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my third point pertains to property confiscation orders. This is an issue that directly affects Singaporeans with assets or ties overseas. What safeguards exist to protect residents from unjust foreign confiscation orders? Given that foreign legal standards can vary widely, how can Singaporeans contest potentially unfair seizures based on foreign laws? I also propose implementing a cap or stricter criteria for enforcing foreign confiscation orders. Will there be a review process to ensure that foreign orders are sound or even in line with our local laws? This additional layer of protection could prevent disproportionate or unjust seizures originating from other jurisdictions.
Supporting international justice is essential, but we must also safeguard Singaporeans from potentially unjust claims on their property. I urge the Minister of State to address these concerns and confirm that the fundamental property rights of our citizens will not be compromised.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, over the past two years, we have witnessed an alarming rise in money laundering cases, not only globally, but right here in Singapore. I have consistently advocated for stronger measures against financial crime, both inside and outside this House. I appreciate the Government's firm stance demonstrated through recent Bills like the Anti-Money Laundering and Other Matters Bill and the Corporate Service Providers Bill.
With each of these Bills, I have raised questions in Parliament regarding major financial crimes and our strategies for tackling them. Tightening our laws, collaborating closely with international partners and enhancing due diligence are vital in today's landscape. Staying vigilant and proactive is our only means to ensure Singapore remains a trusted financial hub. Protecting their integrity is paramount.
This is why I am glad this Bill is being tabled. It represents another critical step forward in our enforcement against complex financial crimes. I fully support our fight against cross-border crime. These issues are significant concerns for all Singaporeans, especially as criminals grow increasingly sophisticated. If implemented with care, these amendments will substantially bolster our enforcement efforts.
However, I have raised several clarifications. Firstly, maintaining a balance between international cooperation and privacy, safeguarding customer data held by financial institutions, ensuring protection against unjust foreign confiscation orders and lastly, reinforcing transparency in how residents' data and property are managed in international criminal cases. As we move forward, it is essential to uphold the delicate balance between justice and privacy. I hope the Government will carefully consider my clarifications.
Let us work together to build a system that not only strengthens our defences, but also respects and protects the rights of every Singaporean. Only then we can truly create a secure, resilient and trusted nation. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Neil Parekh.
Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. The amendments in this Bill aim to bolster Singapore's framework for international cooperation on criminal matters. Sir, earlier this year, this House discussed Ministerial Statements on this matter and subsequent legislation to strengthen our detection of financial crimes and the recovery of ill-gotten gains.
The Bill before us further demonstrates the commitment of the Government and policing authorities to exhaust every effort in combating financial crimes. By aligning with the updated FATF recommendations, the Bill strengthens Singapore's position as a compliant and cooperative jurisdiction in the global fight against financial crimes. This, in turn, can reinforce the country's position as a trusted financial centre, attracting investors and multinational corporations looking for a secure and transparent business environment.
The amendments also enable quicker and more effective cooperation in criminal matters with other nations. Singapore's capacity to support international law enforcement in asset confiscation, extradition and information sharing can make it a key player in global financial crime investigations. Stricter regulations on trustees and asset management enhance Singapore's defense against money laundering, promoting a stable and secure financial system.
However, we must also acknowledge the challenges these changes may bring. Compliance and operational costs are likely to rise, particularly for financial institutions and businesses. These sectors will face increased administrative and regulatory burdens, which could necessitate investment in staffing, technology and legal resources.
Also, the balance between privacy and cooperation is another challenge we must carefully manage. Heightened obligations to share information with foreign authorities may raise privacy concerns, particularly for clients who prioritise confidentiality. While we are committed to international cooperation, we must also ensure that we protect the data privacy of our clients to maintain Singapore's attractiveness as a financial hub.
There is also the issue of international reciprocity. While Singapore is committed to fulfilling international requests for assistance, these amendments will only be effective if there is a reciprocal commitment from other jurisdictions. If other countries fail to uphold their side of the bargain, Singapore could find itself disproportionately bearing the burden of international cooperation.
Finally, we must remain mindful of the impact on smaller financial entities. Smaller firms, particularly those with limited compliance resources, could find it difficult to meet the new standards, leading to a possible consolidation of the market. We must ensure that these changes do not inadvertently push smaller players out of the market, as diversity in our financial ecosystem is essential to the continued growth of our economy.
I have some clarifications for the Minister of State. First, as international cooperation is critical for tackling cross-border crimes, how would Singapore streamline communication and operational procedures with foreign authorities to maintain swift collaboration?
Secondly, it would be helpful to have more details on the Attorney-General's specific powers and responsibilities in transmitting certified evidence to foreign authorities, along with the safeguards for managing sensitive data.
Third, what processes and procedures can be implemented to address potential imbalances if other nations do not reciprocate Singapore's efforts in cooperation and resource allocation?
Fourth, clause 6 refers to providing assistance to non-prescribed foreign countries under certain conditions. I would request clarification on the process the Attorney-General would use to verify compliance guarantees from these countries.
By fostering a transparent and secure financial environment, this Bill can increase confidence among international partners and clients. I believe strengthening guidelines around the handling and transmission of sensitive information will require businesses to adhere more closely to best practices in data security, and help prevent breaches and supporting overall client confidence.
Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications this Bill has my full support.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, I thank hon Members Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Neil Parekh who spoke in support of the Bill. I commend them for their advocacy to make sure that Singapore has a high bar, preventing it to be a place for financial crime and also, in relation to providing cooperation to other foreign jurisdictions in the fight against financial crime.
I will respond to address the questions that hon Members raised on the Bill, which relate to the topic of mutual legal assistance.
Mr Yip has raised concerns relating to privacy, confidentiality and transparency. I note that the pith of Mr Yip's questions is whether the MACMA and the amendments to it, strike the right balance between these concerns and the need for international cooperation in order to combat crime. These are understandable concerns.
Mr Parekh also raised similar queries, with specific emphasis on the processes and procedures for mutual legal assistance. These are important questions.
When it comes to striking the right balance, we regularly grapple with such considerations when designing laws that confer powers over information and property belonging to private individuals and entities. In the context of mutual legal assistance, it is critical that we do not, and indeed we will not, blindly accede to every request that we receive. I propose to respond in two parts. First, to address the general point about maintaining the right balance, I will broadly explain the existing safeguards set out in the MACMA, which ensures that the right balance is struck between the interests of the private individuals and entities on the one hand, and the demands of justice on the other. Second, I will further address Mr Yip and Mr Parekh's specific queries.
But before turning to the safeguards in the MACMA and responding to the Members' queries, I would like to make a brief aside to address Mr Parekh's point about the compliance and operational costs in the trusts sector.
The amendments to the Trustees Act are unlikely to raise financial and operational costs significantly. As stated earlier, the Trustees Act already imposes obligation on trustees to obtain and hold information on each \"relevant trust party\". Insofar as the amendments also require the trustees to collect additional information, including the basic information of the trust, this information should be readily available from the existing documentation which the trustee will already have.
Sir, as mentioned in my speech earlier, we will ensure that we have robust safeguards in place to ensure that Singapore acts only in meritorious cases.
Let me elaborate on the safeguards set out in the MACMA. In the first instance, section 19 of the MACMA sets out a list of requirements, such as a description of the offence and the relevant facts, that the foreign country must provide in order to make a request for assistance to Singapore. This ensures that every request will contain the relevant information that would enable the Singapore authorities to carry out a full assessment to determine if assistance can and should be granted in each case.
Next, section 20 of the MACMA sets out several grounds under which assistance must or may be refused. I will highlight a few as examples. For instance, a request must be refused if it relates to the investigation, prosecution or punishment of a person in respect of any conduct which, if it had occurred in Singapore, would not have constituted a Singapore offence. This reflects the requirement of dual criminality, which generally applies to forms of assistance that are coercive in nature, including those seeking to obtain information or confiscate property from persons in Singapore. In other words, if the conduct in question would not have constituted an offence, had it occurred in Singapore, then we will not assist.
Other examples where we must refuse assistance include: (a) where there are substantial grounds for believing that the request was made for the purposes of investigating, prosecuting, punishing or otherwise causing prejudice to a person on account of the person's race, religion, sex, ethnic origin, nationality or political opinions; or (b)\twhere the thing requested is of insufficient importance to the investigation or could reasonably be obtained by other means; (c)\tthere is also a general ground for refusal where it is contrary to public interest to provide the assistance sought. These grounds for refusal, and many others that you will find in section 20 of MACMA, will ensure that we only act in meritorious cases.
In addition to assessing whether any ground for refusal under section 20 may apply, under section 41 of MACMA, the Minister acts as a further check to ensure that the taking of any action is in the interests of the sovereignty, security or public order of Singapore.
Our courts act as a final safeguard, including where the request pertains to the obtaining of information or confiscation of property of persons in Singapore.
Under the MACMA, the court has to be satisfied that the relevant legal requirements are met. For instance, to obtain a production order for information in the possession of a financial institution, the court must be satisfied that:
(a)\tthere are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has carried on or benefited from a foreign offence;
(b)\tthere are reasonable grounds for believing that the thing is likely to be of substantial value to the criminal matter, and is not subject to legal privilege; and
(c)\tit is not contrary to public interest for the thing to be produced or that access to it be given.
To summarise, Mr Speaker, Sir, MACMA contains robust safeguards, to ensure that assistance is provided only in meritorious cases, even as we seek to enhance our international criminal cooperation regime.
Sir, I will now deal with the specific queries from Mr Yip and Mr Parekh.
Mr Parekh's first query was how Singapore would streamline communication and operation procedures with foreign authorities.
Amending our laws and regulations would only go so far when interfacing with foreign authorities. Singapore regularly engages with our foreign counterparts, not only bilaterally, but also in multilateral and regional settings such as at FATF, the United Nations and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Singapore is also a member of informal networks, such as the Southeast Asia Justice Network, or SEAJust, which is a cooperation network that provides an informal platform facilitating direct contact and communication between central authorities for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. As of 2024, there are 22 members to SEAJust, which go beyond those in Southeast Asia, such as Australia, China, France and the United States of America. Such international engagements and networks allow us to share with other countries our respective laws, procedures and practices, including amendments such as those being considered today. This in turn creates a better understanding of each other's requirements and facilitates assistance both ways.
Mr Yip and Mr Parekh asked how we cooperate with non-prescribed foreign countries, which are countries that we do not have a mutual legal assistance treaty with. Based on section 16 of the MACMA, we will require the country to give an undertaking of reciprocity and the same safeguards in the MACMA will apply to its request.
We also keep records of the foreign requests that we receive, including the undertakings that these countries provide. Thus far, we have not encountered a situation where a foreign country has refused to honour its undertakings.
Mr Yip further asked about what recourse is available to persons affected by a foreign request, such as a production order or an application to enforce a foreign confiscation order. For production orders, Mr Yip may wish to note that under our laws, the person required to comply with an order may contest the order. In the case of, for example, bank records to trace the movement of funds, the person or entity would be the bank. As for confiscation orders, section 30 of MACMA provides that the Court must be satisfied that the person affected by the foreign confiscation order would at least have had the opportunity to defend himself in a foreign court.
The Third Schedule of MACMA further provides that the Court is not to exercise its powers to realise property in Singapore unless a reasonable opportunity has been given to persons holding any interest in the property to make representations to the Court. In the same vein, our Bill will also provide that in cases where property is to be handed over to the requesting country, such persons must similarly be given a reasonable opportunity to make representations to the court.
Mr Speaker, this goes towards striking the right balance between privacy, confidentiality and transparency and our ability to provide international assistance to combat crime, which I have mentioned at the beginning of my reply.
Mr Yip also asked how the Government will ensure that sensitive information will be used only for its intended purpose. In a similar vein, Mr Parekh asked about the Attorney-General's powers and responsibilities in transmitting evidence to foreign authorities, along with safeguards for managing sensitive data.
Under the MACMA, foreign authorities must undertake that the information or thing requested will not be used for a matter other than the criminal matter in respect of which the request was made, except with the consent of the Attorney‑General. The Attorney-General may also request that the thing requested would be returned upon completion of the criminal matter. In the course of assessing the request, the Attorney-General would ensure that the relevant undertakings are provided. If they are not provided, the request would be refused.
Clause 8 of the Bill will give the Attorney-General more options to decide how a thing is to be handled or disposed of. For instance, where it pertains to digital information, the foreign authority may be required to delete the information when it is no longer required for the criminal matter. This provides Singapore with more options and greater control over the management of sensitive data, after it is handed over to the requesting authority.
Mr Yip asked about safeguards that protect residents from unjust foreign confiscation orders and proposed to implement a cap or stricter criteria for enforcing foreign confiscation orders.
I would first clarify that our foreign confiscation order regime would only affect assets located in Singapore and would not apply to assets located overseas. Next, I would reiterate that the MACMA contains robust safeguards, as well as stringent criteria – and I would also highlight that these are in line with international standards. These protect our citizens and our residents from any unjust foreign confiscation orders.
I do not think it would be advisable to introduce a cap on foreign confiscation orders, as this might lead to arbitrary results. Furthermore, FATF recommends that powers that are available to domestic competent authorities should also be available for use in response to requests for mutual legal assistance. In other words, parity is key and it would be difficult to justify why a cap should apply to foreign confiscation orders, especially if this could constrain international efforts against money laundering.
Once again, I thank the hon Members who have spoken and supported the Bill. In summary, this Bill is about strengthening our regime for international cooperation, and our trusts framework. It ensures, in line with our consistent approach for, prevention, detection and enforcement, that Singapore's processes for international cooperation remains relevant and effective, with robust safeguards, and that the misuse of trusts will be curtailed. Mr Speaker, with that, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications for Minister of State? I do not see any.
[(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 Murali Pillai]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.40 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.21 pm until 3.40 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.40 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"MediShield Life Scheme (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Health, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
MediShield Life, our national health insurance scheme, was launched in 2015 and is an integral part of Singapore's \"S+3Ms\" healthcare financing framework, comprising subsidies, MediShield Life, MediSave and MediFund. MediShield Life protects all Singaporeans against large healthcare bills for life, regardless of pre-existing health conditions. This ensures that no Singaporean is denied appropriate healthcare due to an inability to pay.
The MediShield Life Scheme Act 2015, or the Act, was enacted in 2015 to support the establishment, governance and administration of MediShield Life. The Act has not been amended since it was passed. Since then, two key developments have taken place, which warrant amendments to the Act.
First, the landscape for healthcare delivery has evolved since MediShield Life's launch in 2015. The centre of gravity for healthcare delivery has been shifting to the outpatient, community and home settings, because not all patients require care in a hospital for their treatment. With this shift, more patients can benefit from easier access to necessary care.
To support this, MediShield Life coverage has been gradually expanded to more types of treatments beyond the acute inpatient setting. For example, in 2020, we expanded MediShield Life to cover inpatient palliative care within community hospitals and inpatient hospices. We are continuing our efforts to do more to support care outside of the acute inpatient setting, in the community and at home.
Last month, the Ministry of Health (MOH) announced that MediShield Life's coverage would be expanded to new outpatient treatments and home-based medical care. One example is the Home Ventilation and Respiratory Support Service (HVRSS), which provides mechanical-assisted ventilation to persons with breathing insufficiency, in the comfort of their homes. We need to amend the Act to allow MediShield Life to cover the increasing number of treatments that are now being delivered beyond the hospital setting as well as new care models that may emerge in the future.
Second, over the last nine years since its launch, the Government has gained more experience in administering MediShield Life. We have identified issues that have limited our ability to administer it effectively and efficiently. A key area to be covered in this regard is premium recovery.
When MediShield Life was made universal in 2015, it became mandatory for all Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents to pay their premiums and contribute to the national risk pool. This also means that we must recover premiums from those who are able to but evade making payments.
Having had nine years of experience administering this, we have identified areas where the Act needs to be strengthened to better support premium recovery and improve scheme administration. In view of these developments, the MediShield Life Scheme (Amendment) Bill, or the Bill for short, seeks to amend the Act to achieve three objectives: (a) support expansion of coverage to new models of care; (b) strengthen provisions to support premium recovery efforts; and (c) improve scheme administration. Allow me to elaborate.
Our first objective is to support the expansion of MediShield Life coverage to new models of care received outside the physical premises of healthcare providers. This requires amendments in two areas.
First, we will amend the Act to redefine where treatments or services can be received. Today, section 3(1) of the Act requires the insured to receive treatment or services in an approved medical institution. However, going forward, clause 3 of the Bill amends section 3(1) to enable MediShield Life to cover medical treatment or services received by the insured, as long as it is from an approved medical institution. This means that the scheme will be able to cover care that is received entirely outside the premises of a medical institution and provides flexibility to cover newer care models that may develop in future.
Second, we will set out a clearer and more robust governance framework that allows scoped approvals, and suspensions and revocations of such approvals, of medical institutions in respect of approved medical treatment or services they provide under MediShield Life. This will allow MediShield Life to support patient access to new models of care whilst ensuring appropriate use of MediShield Life Fund monies.
Therefore, clause 4 of the Bill introduces the new sections 3A and 3B which set out the framework for scoped approvals, and suspensions and revocations of such approvals. Under the framework, the Minister for Health can approve providers to be approved medical institutions in respect of specific approved medical treatment or services and/or specific delivery modes for the purposes of MediShield Life.
Additionally, where a \"medical institution\" has been granted more than one licence under the Healthcare Services Act 2020 to provide \"licensable healthcare services\", the Minister has the prerogative to approve all, or only one or some of such licensable healthcare services provided by the approved medical institution for the purposes of MediShield Life. We will also introduce provisions to enable the Minister to impose conditions of approval and to suspend or revoke the approvals given.
To support the framework, clause 2(c) of the Bill amends section 2(1) by introducing a new concept of \"claimable medical treatment or services\". This ensures that the scheme only covers medical treatments or services provided by approved medical institutions according to the scope of their approval. Under the new amendments, the Minister is also empowered to grant approvals to medical institutions.
For example, while HVRSS will be an approved medical service from late 2025 onwards, it does not follow automatically that all providers will be able to make MediShield Life claims for it. MediShield Life will only cover HVRSS where a medical institution has been approved in respect of the service for the purposes of MediShield Life, and if the service is provided in accordance with the conditions of that medical institution's approval.
Taken together, the amendments will allow MediShield Life to be responsive to emerging models of care. It will also enable the Act to be more targeted in its approvals, and suspension and revocation of the approval of providers and their claimable medical treatment or services. This will strengthen the accountability of approved medical institutions and ensure compliance with the claim guidelines for MediShield Life.
Let me move on to the second objective: amending the Act to strengthen our premium recovery efforts. MediShield Life is a universal scheme which relies on collective responsibility through risk-pooling, to provide all Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents peace of mind in affording large, unexpected healthcare bills throughout their lives. All policyholders must play their part by paying their premiums. This ensures that MediShield Life can continue to meet its obligations and support those of us who fall ill and need to make a claim.
At the same time, we recognise the need to keep premiums affordable, especially for vulnerable groups. This is why the Government provides strong support in the form of premium subsidies for lower- and middle-income households, Pioneer Generation and Merdeka Generation subsidies, and additional MediSave top-ups.
We also have a comprehensive set of measures to facilitate the payment of premiums. For example, for those who have missed premium payment due to insufficient MediSave balances, we remind them to top up MediSave and facilitate the process for immediate family members to take over premium payment. For those who need further help with their premiums even after subsidies and MediSave use, and have limited family support, we will assess their eligibility for Additional Premium Support (APS).
However, there are some individuals who do not pay their premiums despite these measures and become defaulters. In such cases, premium recovery and enforcement is needed. Any owed premiums that cannot be recovered will affect the MediShield Life Fund's sustainability and ultimately, affect MediShield Life's ability to meet its claims. If left unrecovered, these debts will have to be shouldered by other policyholders in the form of higher premiums.
A key enabler of this premium recovery process is the service of a demand note. Today, a demand note needs to be served before recovery measures, such as the appointment of an agent to recover outstanding premiums, and the imposition of interest and penalties for late payments can commence. The note may be served by the prescribed recovery bodies under the Act – the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board and the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS). It notifies defaulters of their owed premiums and of the time by which these must be paid before further measures are taken.
We will amend the Act to recognise the different modes through which demand notes and other documents, are served on a defaulter. At present, demand notes are only deemed served if sent by registered post to a person's residential address provided in accordance with section 31 of the Act or any correspondence address provided by the person under certain prescribed circumstances. This is pursuant to regulations made under the limited scope provided by section 34(2)(k) of the Act.
However, this has impeded the recovery of outstanding premiums, such as in cases where no valid address information on the defaulter is available or service at an overseas address is required. Clause 10 of the Bill inserts the new sections 33A and 33B. The new sections provide how demand notes and other documents permitted or required by or under the Act to be served may be effectively served. With those new sections, section 34(2)(k) of the Act is no longer necessary and will be deleted by clause 11.
This would include serving them through additional modalities such as digital means, which will improve operational efficiency and streamline premium recovery actions for the recovery bodies. For example, a demand note may be served by sending it to an email address of a person where there is deemed consent to such service in accordance with the new section 33B(3)(b).
The Minister is also empowered to make regulations to allow a demand note to be served via an existing electronic service such as CPF Board's \"my cpf\" portal or IRAS' \"myTax Portal\" by applying the requirements set out in existing laws regarding these electronic services to the service of demand notes by CPF Board or IRAS respectively.
This facilitates recovery bodies in their recovery efforts, especially in relation to individuals on whom they were previously unable to serve demand notes and documents by registered post.
While we have a strong set of recovery measures to ensure the sustainability of the scheme, we should take a calibrated approach based on the means of defaulters. For example, some defaulters may come from lower-income households with complex circumstances. We should be more empathetic towards such groups of people and provide them a longer time to pay their outstanding premiums. On the other hand, premium recovery should proceed along the normal timelines for those with more means to pay their outstanding premiums, such as individuals from higher-income households.
To support this, clause 9 of the Bill amends section 28 to broaden the scope for access and use of means information to assess whether premium recovery and enforcement measures under Part 3 of the Act should be exercised on premium defaulters with lesser means.
Finally, let me touch on the last objective: amendments to improve the administration of the scheme, which aim to streamline, clarify and strengthen existing processes.
First, we will specify MediShield Life premiums in a manner that is more accessible, such as on MOH's website, instead of legislation. Currently, MediShield Life premiums must be prescribed in regulations. There is scope to enable premium amounts to be more conveniently accessed by Singaporeans as well as to streamline the administrative process by reflecting premium revisions for operational efficiency.
Therefore, going forward, clause 5 will amend section 4 to allow the amount of premiums payable for each insurance period to be specified in a prescribed manner, including a website, with consequential amendments made by clause 11 to section 34(2). This mirrors the practice adopted for CareShield Life, our national long-term care insurance scheme.
Second, we will make clear the date when a person is taken to attain a particular age for the purposes of calculating their MediShield Life premiums. This is achieved through the amendment to section 2(4) of the Act by clause 2(f).
For most Singaporeans, their age is taken to be on their birth anniversary. However, there is a small group of individuals whose birth date and/or month cannot be ascertained. Currently, our practice is to take their birth date to be on the first day of the month in which the individual was born, if their birth date cannot be ascertained; and their birth month to be in January, if their birth month cannot be ascertained. This is not currently set out in legislation. The proposed amendment to section 2(4) will clarify this.
There is another group of individuals who are born on a leap day. For them, MediShield Life starts on 29 February in the year they are born and in subsequent years, their birth anniversary is taken to be on 1 March. Going forward, the birth anniversary for these individuals will be taken to be on 1 March in non-leap years, and on 29 February in leap years. This mirrors the approach taken by CareShield Life today and ensures consistency across our schemes.
This amendment will not impact these individuals' MediShield Life cover or premiums, as there will not be any breaks in their coverage and premiums continue to be calculated based on their age over the insurance period.
Lastly, we will expand the scope of offences arising out of false or misleading information provided under the Act.
Today, section 19 makes it an offence where a person knowingly provides material information which is false or misleading and knowing that the information will be included in a health declaration, means declaration or claim application. However, such information may also impact the payment of benefits under MediShield Life, as well as the disbursement of premium subsidies or APS.
Therefore, the scope of such offences will be expanded to include cases where the information provided may affect the amount of grants, subsidies or benefits to be paid or given to an individual. The amendments by clause 6 to section 19 provide for this.
The amendments will enable us to take a stricter stance against such offenders and ensure the proper payment of claims as well as the disbursement of grants and subsidies, to protect the interest of Singaporeans.
Mr Deputy Speaker, let me conclude. The Act serves as the fundamental legislative framework that enables the implementation and operation of MediShield Life, an important component of our S+3Ms healthcare financing framework. This Bill ensures that coverage of MediShield Life keeps pace with changes to our healthcare landscape whilst allowing the Government to more effectively and efficiently administer the scheme. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. With an ageing population and people living longer, healthcare needs and costs are rising. The proposed expansion of MediShield Life coverage and benefits will manage healthcare costs especially for larger bills and make them more affordable for Singaporeans.
The higher claim limits for hospitalisation and inpatient care as well as existing outpatient treatments, the inclusion of new benefits to cover additional outpatient treatments including mental health, community and home-care treatments, and the extension of MediShield Life coverage to new, potentially life-saving therapies that are proven safe, clinically and cost effective such as Cell, Tissue and Gene Therapy Products, recognise and provide for the shifts in healthcare and patient needs especially for larger bills.
I do note that the Minister of State in her speech did share about the fact that these new treatments are only for approved medical institutions and only for the approved scope of these medical institutions. If this is the case, I think it will be also very important that this is clearly communicated to patients when they do seek these treatments, so that we will not have a situation of the assumption that it will be covered and then we have a situation where they are not covered, they are not eligible.
With increasing healthcare cost, these proposed changes are welcomed as it will help patients manage large medical bills. The increase in claims for existing outpatient treatments covered by MediShield Life and the inclusion of additional new patient treatments will hopefully encourage more appropriate and right-siting of care. Currently, some patients do opt for inpatient care at hospitals for treatments that may not require hospitalisation as claims or coverage for these treatments are not covered for outpatient treatments or day surgeries, leading to unnecessary costs and wastage.
When one is ill, being able to afford and have access to appropriate treatment is not only important for the well-being for persons who are ill but also gives peace of mind to the patient and their family members. Thus, having appropriate and sufficient healthcare insurance to handle unexpected or sudden health situations that require surgery or major treatments and hospitalisation will help ensure affordability for all, for treatments and for large bills.
So, while I support the proposed amendments, there are a few points I would like to speak on and seek clarification in my speech today and the focus is on how these amendments may impact the individual. I know that the Bill is meant to handle the specific frameworks for the implementation of MediShield Life, but ultimately, MediShield Life touches lives and touches individuals so I would like to touch on these points.
So, first, on higher deductibles and affordability; second, on more support and guidance on Integrated Shield Plans and decisions on Integrated Shield Plans; third, on pre and post-hospitalisation coverage; and fourth, premium subsidies and MediSave top-ups.
Let me now touch on higher deductibles and affordability. While the proposed amendment includes premium assistance provided to the lower- and middle-income individuals in older age groups, the recommendations do include an increase to inpatient deductibles and the introduction of a new outpatient deductible of $500. This may be financially challenging for some. The increase in MediSave withdrawal limits will help patients pay for the increase in deductibles. Deductibles are an important feature of MediShield Life to prevent overuse or overconsumption of healthcare spending and to ensure that coverage of MediShield Life is for specifically larger medical bills. Before patients can claim for MediShield Life payouts, they need to pay deductibles. So, while deductibles are an important feature to manage, as I said, the overuse and can be paid with MediSave, the proposed increase for inpatient deductibles and the introduction of a new outpatient deductible may place a financial strain for some, for example, for those who are unemployed and have no income or low balances in their MediSave. If faced with such circumstances, what help can they seek?
On pre- and post-hospitalisation coverage, in the consideration for expansion of coverage for MediShield Life to cover large medical bills, was consideration given to include pre and post-hospitalisation treatments prior to the need for inpatient services? Maybe I should have asked this question of the Review Committee rather than of the Minister of State. But the reason why I am asking for this is because usually, most patients, prior to admission will require several consultations and scans or tests to be done to ascertain their condition and early-stage treatments which are usually outpatient. After discharge from hospitals, they may also require recovery treatments, and these can add up and sometimes cost more than a hospital stay.
I understand that there is always trade-offs and balances of what gets covered and premium affordability. But given the intent of MediShield Life to ensure affordability for larger medical treatments, can there be an option in MediShield Life for those who require coverage for pre and post-hospitalisation treatment to pay an additional premium for the coverage. While there could be adverse selection and this will increase premium payable for those who do select the premium, it will be more affordable than having to make out-of-pocket payment for pre and post hospitalisation charges.
I know this is a very difficult decision because at the end of the day, it is about over-consumption as well as coverage, but I hope that some serious consideration can be given to that, especially now that more treatments are outpatient, moving towards outpatient treatments given the improvements in medical technology.
I have also received feedback from our residents – and it was also reported in Forum of The Straits Times in August this year – that getting appointments to see specialists at public hospitals may take time, sometimes as long as a few months. For some who have an Integrated Shield Plan (IP) that covers pre- and post-hospitalisation charges, the reason they have cited for having IPs to enable them to be able to get an earlier appointment to consult a specialist either at a public hospital or private hospital but usually they do it at the public hospital and the feedback is that as a non-subsidised patient, it is easier to get an earlier appointment to see a specialist at the public hospital and to have the appropriate tests and diagnosis.
So, apart from coverage of medical expenses, on the other side is the capacity of specialist consultation and tests at public hospitals and this will need to also be balanced and reviewed. I know this is again not part of the Bill, but at the end of the day, when you look at MediShield Life and you look at coverage, it is about treatment that is received and the institutions where they are received – and our public hospitals are held in very high regard for the quality of their services.
Let me talk about more support and guidance on IPs.
With the increase in the claim limits and expansion of coverage and benefits of MediShield Life, will MOH consider providing more support and advice to Singaporeans on the appropriate coverage for healthcare insurance? And why I am saying this is because it was reported that about half of patients with IPs for private hospitals still end up using subsidised care at public hospitals. So, what it means is that they are paying for healthcare insurance that they do not even use. This is costly and unnecessary expense and put financial strain especially for seniors as IP premiums cost a lot more. While there is a lot of information on IP including cost comparisons, the fact is that so many are paying for what they do not use and that shows that more can be done to help Singaporeans make the right decisions on their healthcare insurance.
For some, the proposed amendments with the increase in claim limits, expansion of coverage and benefits could mean that MediShield Life may indeed give adequate coverage and the decision could be to give up their IPs which cost more as one ages.
We do need however to understand that the decision for one to give up an IP needs to be considered carefully as eligibility to purchase coverage for IPs require one to be in good health and with no pre-existing conditions. So, if they give it up, they would problems getting back on. Those decisions are quite serious. But the cost of IP really is quite high as one ages.
Finally, on premium subsidies and MediSave top-ups. With the higher claim limits, expansion in coverage and increased benefits, premiums will increase and there will be a cap on the average about 22% on average with a cap of up to 35% over the three years. The proposed premium subsidies and MediSave top-ups are needed and will help the affordability of premiums and will cushion the impact of the increase for most Singaporeans.
For the Enhanced Mean-Tested Premium Subsidies for Singapore Citizens, I would like to ask MOH if they would review and consider eligibility for the lower- and middle-income individuals who live in properties with annual value (AV) greater than $25,000 but do not own the property they live in or any other property? This is not a bIanket approval that I am asking for but to be able to look at it on individuals that may need it and why I say this because we do have residents who cannot afford to own their own homes and they have on the goodwill of their relatives been able to stay with their relatives. And some of them live in residences that are valued higher than $25,000 and AV is what is used for means-testing and so some may require support for the premium but given their residential address, will not be eligible for the subsidies. So, I hope that MOH would look at this when appeals of such requests come up.
So, in conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, while it is important that healthcare remains affordable and there is adequate medical coverage, paradoxically, our goal should be to stay healthy and not to have to use it often. In the spirit of Healthier SG, we should all do our part and lead healthy lifestyles. This would not only lower healthcare costs which is what we are talking about today but also improve the quality of life for individuals. The proposed pilot to allow those over 40 years of age to redeem premium discounts with Healthpoints via the Health Promotion Board's (HPB's) Healthy 365 app is a refreshing approach and a good nudge to promoting a healthy lifestyle. So, I hope to see how this will work out as it goes, as it is implemented.
Mr Deputy Speaker, when the MediShield Life Scheme was first introduced in 2015 by then Health Minister, Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong, he reminded us that, I quote, \"MediShield Life Scheme is the embodiment of Singaporeans' aspiration for a more inclusive, caring and progressive society\". The proposed amendments are in line with the aspiration and principle to ensure that quality healthcare is accessible and affordable to all Singaporeans who need it. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, the MediShield Life Scheme (Amendment) Bill 2024 introduces several changes to the MediShield Life framework to adjust premium structures, enhance administrative powers and improve affordability of healthcare coverage. I would like to seek some clarifications on several areas that may impact Singaporeans financially and administratively.
Clause 11 amends section 34 of the Act, which grants the Minister broad powers to make regulations, including determining premium rates for different classes of insured persons. MediShield Life premium subsidies now consider both per capita household income (PCHI) and the AV of one's residence. The AV tiers provide the highest subsidy to lower income insured persons living in properties with AVs of up to $21,000 and a reduced subsidy for AVs between $21,000 and $25,000, while AVs above $25,000 receive no subsidy, unless they are from the Pioneer or Merdeka Generation.
This criterion could present a financial challenge for some low or no-income households, particularly retirees living in private property and are born in 1960 or later. These individuals may face rising medical bills yet do not qualify for premium subsidies due to the property they live in. Many of these elderly Singaporeans are unlikely to downsize their homes, especially if they are currently suffering from serious illnesses. The physical and emotional disruption of relocating during a vulnerable period is impractical and could worsen their health conditions.
For retirees and other low-income households, I urge the Government to consider removing AV as a means-testing criterion. Minimally, those with AVs above $25,000 should still be allowed to apply for premium subsidies, and a holistic and transparent assessment should be made based on their individual circumstances. This approach would allow the scheme to target subsidies more effectively towards those who genuinely lack cash flow for their healthcare needs.
Clause 5 grants the Minister flexibility to set premium rates through prescribed means, possibly via online publications. Although this change could streamline the process, I have some concerns about the stability and predictability of premium rates. Policyholders, especially those with lower incomes, rely on consistent healthcare costs to plan their finances. Frequent premium adjustments could challenge their ability to budget effectively.
Will the Government establish a regular schedule for premium adjustments, and if not, how much advance notice will policyholders receive to prepare for changes? This will provide policyholders with more transparency and predictability regarding their healthcare expenses.
Clause 4 grants the Minister discretion to approve medical institutions and the treatments they offer as eligible for MediShield Life claims. Although this change may help manage costs, it could also limit access to necessary care if certain treatments or institutions do not receive approval. Unapproved services might force policyholders to pay out-of-pocket, discouraging them from seeking essential treatment.
Could the Minister of State clarify if the criteria for approving medical services, and a complete list of approved services and institutions will be published regularly? This will help policyholders to make informed healthcare choices and avoid unexpected costs.
Additionally, does this amendment allow the Minister to designate Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and other traditional medical practices as approved medical treatments in the future? Many Singaporeans rely on TCM and other traditional practices for managing chronic conditions and maintaining overall health.
Clause 6 broadens the scope of offences related to false or misleading information in health declarations, means declarations or claims. This amendment aims to deter fraud, but it may disproportionately impact elderly or less tech-savvy policyholders who may make honest mistakes in their submissions.
What are the provisions for rectifying minor or first-time errors, especially for vulnerable groups? Establishing a grace period or correction mechanism would prevent harsh penalties for honest mistakes, particularly for seniors unfamiliar with digital processes.
Clause 9 allows the Government to use means information to assess eligibility and support recovery actions for outstanding premiums. Although this approach may ensure targeted resource allocation, it could place additional pressure on low-income policyholders. Aggressive recovery actions, if based primarily on financial data, could create financial stress for households already struggling to meet healthcare costs.
Will the Government provide safeguards like automatic premium loans or deferred payment options to protect financially vulnerable policyholders and help them maintain coverage without incurring penalties? Will these policyholders lose coverage if they still fail to pay their premiums?
Clause 10 introduces electronic methods for serving official documents, including email, which may improve efficiency. However, policyholders who are less comfortable with digital platforms might miss important updates, potentially leading to unintended coverage lapses or penalties.
Does the Government offer additional communication methods, such as phone calls or in-person notifications, to ensure all policyholders receive and understand crucial information?
Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill seeks to enhance the MediShield Life framework, but these changes must not place unnecessary burdens on those who rely on the scheme the most. For low-income households, I urge MOH to review the use of AV as a criterion for means testing, so that retirees and those with limited cash flow can receive subsidies based on their actual financial need.
Sir, I support the Bill, but I look forward to the Minister of State's responses to my questions.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Ng Ling Ling.
Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, the challenges that confront healthcare in Singapore are two-fold: the ageing population and the rising costs of healthcare. The recommendations and inputs of the MediShield Life Council in its 2024 review are timely in ensuring co-insurance and deductibles in MediShield Life remain affordable for Singaporeans, while considering the shift in healthcare delivery from hospital care to outpatient and home-based care, as well as the advances in medical technologies.
I welcome the changes and support the latest MediShield Life Scheme (Amendment) Bill. Notwithstanding this, I would like to raise some clarifications relating to: one, the enhanced eligibility and coverage expansion for outpatient treatments and advanced therapeutics; two, deductible and co-insurance changes; three, premium adjustments; and four, emphasis on preventive care.
Firstly, I am glad to know that to support the rising costs of medical bills for Singaporeans, the Government will be increasing existing inpatient and day surgery claim limits on MediShield Life to fully cover nine in 10 subsidised bills. I welcome the increase in claim limits as it will ensure that Singaporeans can continue to receive adequate support during critical hospitalisation without compromising on the scheme's sustainability.
Additionally, the Bill has made amendments to include newly defined terms such as \"approved medical institution\", \"claimable medical treatment or services\" and \"licensable healthcare service\". By referring healthcare providers to those licensed under the Healthcare Services Act 2020, the new definitions broaden the range of providers, such as outpatient facilities, community care providers and potentially, even home-based medical care that will be eligible for MediShield Life coverage.
This allows patients to benefit from outpatient facilities as outpatient claim limits are also refreshed to fully cover nine in 10 subsidised bills. With the expansion of outpatient coverage, patients will also have more access to convenient care options beyond the traditional hospital settings.
Similarly, I am supportive of the expanded coverage of high-cost treatments and high-cost drugs for blood conditions and conditions with childhood onset, that are clinically effective and cost-effective. This will ensure that these medications remain accessible to those who need them, while keeping insurance premiums and overall bill costs affordable. Nevertheless, given the newly recommended claim limits mentioned for high-cost treatments, I would like to ask how would MOH address concerns about the sustainability of covering such treatments in the long run?
I have several clarifications to make regarding the expanded eligibility and the impact on service access. I would like to ask how are outpatient services selected to be included in MediShield Life coverage and what cost-effectiveness assessment has been done to assess these newly covered outpatient services?
I would also like to ask MOH what safeguards are in place to control cost increases resulting from a higher volume of outpatient claims to be expected? Additionally, how does MOH plan to balance the inclusion of a wide range of outpatient services while preventing over-utilisation, which may drive up overall healthcare costs in the long term?
Secondly, I understand that MOH intends to increase both the inpatient deductible by up to $1,500 and the outpatient deductible by up to $500 per year. My concerns lie with the impact of increased deductibles on lower-income households, especially lower-income seniors who are staying alone, as well as those with frequent outpatient needs. These families and individuals may not have sufficient MediSave to cover the deductibles and may end up having an increased out-of-pocket cashflow burden.
I hope that MOH can consider additional support or a tiered deductible structure for such cases through some forms of means-testing of their household incomes. This will help patients to worry less about their out-of-pocket payments if they have insufficient MediSave funds.
Additionally, I also hope that MOH can consider including Flexi-MediSave in the consideration of the deductibles that are currently calculated. Many residents of mine in Jalan Kayu, who have issues with their medical bills, spoke to me about the limits imposed on the Flexi-MediSave, increasing their out-of-pocket cash payments. These are especially so, for those who have frequent Specialist Outpatient Clinic appointments for regular reviews of their medical conditions.
Besides deductibles, I also understand that MOH will be introducing a tiered co-insurance structure ranging from 3% to 10% for outpatient treatments, which mirrors the current co-insurance component for the inpatient or day surgery care. I do support this move to ensure large outpatient bills remain affordable for subsidised patients. Nevertheless, I hope to understand how MOH will determine the tiered co-insurance. What will be the specific threshold that will dictate that co-insurance percentage to be used for the outpatient bill and how is this threshold calculated by MOH?
I would now like to focus on a key concern that impacts our residents the most – the adjustments of the MediShield Life premiums. With the rise in policy claim limits and the expanded scope of coverage to include high-cost treatments, premium adjustments are an inevitable measure to maintain the sustainability of MediShield Life.
However, this increase in premiums will particularly impact older Singaporeans, some of whom may not have accumulated sufficient MediSave funds over their working lifetime to cover these rising costs. While the Government has assured us that measures are in place to mitigate these changes, I would like to understand more about how MOH plans to better support our lower-income seniors, especially those who may have minimal MediSave balances in the long term.
I fully support the Government's allocation of an APS amounting to $80 million, as it will provide critical support to those who are unable to afford their premiums even after premium subsidies or those who lack family support. However, I am interested to know how effectively this support reaches those in need. May I ask, on average annually, how many individuals have applied and been approved for the APS to cover their MediShield Life premiums so far? Additionally, given that some seniors may face challenges in navigating the application process, can there be a proactive system to identify those who will have insufficient MediSave funds for auto-inclusion for the APS?
I believe this would be especially helpful for seniors whose MediSave balances may become depleted over time due to frequent hospitalisations and those who lack family support. Ensuring accessibility to this support without additional administrative application burdens on the applicants' part, would help safeguard our seniors from the risk of being uninsured due to financial constraints or the lack of literacy to navigate application process.
Finally, I would like to touch on incentivising preventive care using MediShield Life. On various occasions, many of my colleagues in this House, have shared their views on how we can incentivise residents to take up preventive care measures by offering incentives or premium discounts. I am glad that the Government has accepted the Council's recommendation to pilot offering premium discounts to those who lead healthier lifestyle, such as through Healthpoints in the HPB's Healthy 365 programme.
I believe that financial incentives would be useful in empowering individuals to act according to their preference for a healthier lifestyle. This approach not only encourages preventive action, but may also, over time, reduce the burden of claims on MediShield Life, ultimately helping to contain premium burden for everyone.
In this regard, I hope MOH can consider broadening the range of preventive actions that qualify for incentives, beyond physical activities alone. For example, regular health screenings, vaccinations and active management of chronic conditions could also be rewarded, as they play a crucial role in detecting and addressing health issues early. Additionally, could MOH consider offering a tiered discount system, where individuals, who consistently participate in preventive care initiatives or over multiple years might earn progressively larger discounts on their premiums? Such measures would further encourage longer-term commitment to healthier living.
Furthermore, I would like to suggest an outcome-based subsidy model for those with chronic conditions. Under this model, individuals could receive additional subsidies if they demonstrate improved health outcomes over time, such as better control of blood pressure or blood sugar levels. This would serve as an incentive for individuals to actively manage their conditions and could, in the long run, lead to reduced claims on MediShield Life by decreasing complications related to chronic diseases.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the MediShield Life Scheme has been an important policy tool to support Singaporeans in managing large hospitalisation bills and ensuring that essential healthcare services remain affordable to all. Today, as we are faced with the dual pressures of an ageing population and rising medical costs, the latest adjustments on policy claim limits and expansion of claimable items towards advanced therapeutics, as well as outpatient and home-based care, signal the Government's commitment towards supporting Singaporeans to care for their health and well-being.
As we continue to navigate those challenges, I believe that the healthcare needs of vulnerable groups, including our seniors and lower-income households, must be prioritised. These groups would likely feel the impact of rising premiums most over the longer term, especially if they do not have enough MediSave funds. Therefore, I hope that the Government can ensure that resources for these groups remain accessible and sufficient. I also hope that the Government can use this as an opportunity to consider how incentives in MediShield Life premiums and claims can better support preventive measures, as we work towards more sustainable healthcare for future generations.
Notwithstanding my considerations raised, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the MediShield Life Scheme (Amendment) Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant.
Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join this debate on amendments to an important piece of legislation which aims to assist Singaporeans with their healthcare expenses. It is especially relevant now, with a growing ageing population.
The amendments before the House align the MediShield Life Scheme with the evolving healthcare needs. By enabling better oversight through approvals and conditions for medical institutions, the Bill promotes service quality and cost-effective healthcare delivery. These updates enhance Singapore's ability to deliver sustainable healthcare coverage, while managing public health funds efficiently. Medical institutions must now seek approval from the Minister to provide specific medical treatments eligible under the MediShield Life Scheme.
The Minister can impose conditions on service delivery modes like telemedicine, the provision of outpatient medical services remotely and at permanent premises to ensure appropriate healthcare delivery. The ability to revoke or suspend approvals ensures compliance with the Healthcare Services Act 2020, promoting accountability and service quality.
The Bill also ensures only treatments provided by approved institutions under specified conditions will qualify for MediShield Life claims, ensuring proper allocation of insurance funds. Amendments to clause 5 will allow for premiums to be published online for transparency, with rates varying by insured persons' risk profiles and needs. Also, clause 6 will expand scope of offences for false information to ensure accountability in health declarations and protect MediShield Life from abuse.
In my view, some of these changes, while introducing new compliance requirements, will benefit medical institutions from more streamlined approval processes and clearer service delivery standards, and will lead to improve patient care. During this transition, in order to avoid any disruption in claims processing, close coordination between insurers and health providers will be required.
Sir, I now have some specific clarifications for the Minister of State. First, what are the specific timelines for approval or rejection of applications by medical institutions for treatment coverage under MediShield Life? Second, will insured persons undergoing treatments, under the previous framework, continue to receive coverage during the transition period? Third, will the conditions for service delivery vary across institutions and how will these be communicated to the public? Fourth, what processes will be in place for institutions or individuals to appeal decisions related to approval revocations or for denial of claims?
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, this Bill has my complete support.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.
Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. MediShield Life has become an indispensable pillar of Singapore's healthcare system, providing critical coverage that ensures no Singaporean is left without access to essential medical treatment. This amendment Bill seeks to modernise and expand MediShield Life to meet the evolving healthcare needs. I commend the Ministry for its proactive efforts, especially, given today's complex and dynamic healthcare landscape.
Today, I would like to focus on just one critical issue raised by these amendments: the impact on financial sustainability of MediShield Life.
Sir, the amendments in this Bill allow for more flexibility in approving institutions and services for MediShield Life coverage. This flexibility can increase access to necessary treatments and provide coverage for services that better meet patients' changing healthcare needs. However, with this expansion comes the responsibility to carefully manage costs, ensuring that the scheme remains sustainable and the premiums remain affordable for all insured persons.
In recent years, we have seen significant growth in the scope of medical services in Singapore. This includes expanding telemedicine and digital health services, which offer accessible options like remote consultations and monitoring. Advanced treatments in areas like oncology and personalised medicine are also available, but often come at a high cost. Additionally, the importance of mental health has become increasingly apparent and pertinent, and there is a growing need for affordable mental health services within our healthcare framework.
While the current amendments allow for the inclusion of more institutions and services, I ask the Ministry to consider mental health services within MediShield Life in future evaluations, especially as demands for these services grow.
As the demands for these varied and sometimes high-cost services grow, we must consider how MediShield Life can responsibly support new healthcare needs, including mental health, while maintaining the scheme's financial sustainability. For instance, including private hospitals offering specialised treatments, such as advanced cancer therapies, could lead to high demand and increased claims under MediShield Life. Without careful oversight, a surge in claims could increase premiums for all insured members, affecting affordability.
To address these challenges and safeguard MediShield Life's financial sustainability, I urge the Ministry to consider three key measures.
Firstly, to establish clear criteria for essential coverage, defining essential versus optional coverage within MediShield Life will help manage costs. By prioritising treatments that benefit the majority, we can ensure that resources are used effectively, preserving MediShield Life's affordability and accessibility.
Secondly, implement regular financial reviews. Regular reviews of MediShield Life's financial performance, especially concerning new services and approved institutions, would enable us to make timely adjustments. These reviews could act as an early warning system, identifying areas where costs may rise unsustainably and allowing for targeted measures to keep premiums stable.
Thirdly, is to explore sustainable mental health coverage. As the demand for mental health grows, I encourage the Ministry to consider ways to sustainably include essential mental health treatments in MediShield Life's coverage. Addressing mental health needs is critical to holistic care. By exploring financial sustainability options, we can ensure MediShield Life continues to evolve with our society's needs.
Expanding coverage thoughtfully and sustainably will allow MediShield Life to remain a robust healthcare safety net that provides affordable, reliable and essential care to all Singaporeans. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, this MediShield Life (Amendment) Bill aims to expand MediShield Life coverage to meet the ever-increasing healthcare needs of Singaporeans. With this revision, MediShield Life will be able to approve medical institutions and services that are eligible for coverage under this scheme.
However, in our effort to expand this coverage, it is crucial for us to ensure the financial sustainability of the MediShield Life scheme, so that premiums remain affordable for all citizens.
I have proposed three key steps to achieve this goal: firstly, establishing clear criteria for essential services; secondly, implementing regular financial reviews; and thirdly, considering sustainable ways to include mental health services in MediShield Life.
With these measures, MediShield Life will continue to be an affordable, reliable and relevant healthcare safety net for all Singaporeans.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, I support the Ministry's efforts to keep MediShield Life responsive to Singaporeans' healthcare needs. However, we must ensure that these amendments are implemented with financial prudence. By establishing clear coverage criteria, conducting regular financial reviews and exploring sustainable ways to include essential mental health services, we can safeguard MediShield Life's long-term viability. Notwithstanding the concerns I raised earlier, I truly believe MediShield Life can continue to be a source of peace of mind for every Singaporean, supporting a healthier, more resilient society.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Syed Harun.
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the context of my comments on this Bill, I declare that I am a medical practitioner in private practice. Since 2015, MediShield Life as a national health insurance scheme has afforded all Singaporeans universal and lifelong basic protection against large healthcare bills. And very importantly, this is regardless of age or pre-existing conditions. It is a key pillar to enable access to good healthcare, along with the other tenets of the \"S+3M\" strategy outlined by the Minister of State earlier, the rest being subsidies, MediSave and MediFund.
I note from the MediShield Life 2024 Review Council report that the principles anchoring MediShield Life continue to be: one, coverage for all, for life; second, protection against large medical bills, of course sized at the level of and for public healthcare; third, collective responsibility through risk-pooling at a national level; and fourth, affordable premiums with additional support for target groups and a clear commitment that no one will lose MediShield Life coverage because of an inability to pay premiums.
I also note that the Government has accepted the MediShield Life Council's recommendations for the MediShield Life 2024 Review and intend for the changes to be implemented progressively from April 2025 onwards.
Mr Deputy Speaker, to ensure long-term viability of such a national healthcare insurance scheme, healthcare providers need to operate within a framework of effective regulations, legislation and accountability mechanisms, much of which this Bill already attempts to address. Among other things, these would have to include ensuring quality of standards and to the extent possible, clinical guidelines to standardise care, regulations to ensure cost-effectiveness of treatment, transparency in billing and claims by the providers and accountability mechanisms, especially at the level of the providers.
These come with a view to keep the MediShield Life claims within what is fair, what is reasonable and what is clinically appropriate, and so that claims are neither allowed to be excessive nor exorbitant for any particular condition. The eventual intent, of course, is to ensure that at the national level, the MediShield Life premium remains affordable to sustain for every Singaporean.
I note that substantive portions of the amendment Bill look at two key areas: the first being approval, revocation or suspensions of medical institutions in respect of approved medical treatment or services under the new sections 3A and 3B; as well as amendments to Part 4 of the Act under Offences, specifically under False or Incorrect Health Declaration, Means Declaration or Claim Application.
My view is that the amendments proposed are sound and reasonable. It covers the breadth of licensable healthcare services and service delivery modes under the Healthcare Services Act in 2020 and lends further clarity to offences that could fall within the remit of MediShield Life claims.
However, as we increasingly consider the shifting of care from inpatient settings to outpatient, to home and to community settings and part of these are already articulated in the MediShield Life Council 2024 report, one can reasonably anticipate an even broader-based participation from private sector medical practitioners, not just those anchored in private hospitals but also potentially those working in home-based, in primary care and in community settings. This is especially with the MediShield Life Council report recommending expanding coverage to include new outpatient treatments and home-based medical care, such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, home ventilation and respiratory support services and outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy.
With the changes not only to MediShield Life but also with the ongoing implementation by MOH for Healthier SG initiatives, the upcoming Health Information Bill slated next year and recent announcements by the Ministry relating to information sharing across public and private sector institutions on the National Electronic Health Records, I urge the Ministry to engage private sector medical practitioners more closely on the last-mile impact and concerns arising from the impending broad shifts to the healthcare landscape. Specifically, those coming from smaller or singular clinic entities and how they could be better supported in navigating these slew of changes that are ongoing and anticipated in the coming years.
I understand that perception surveys and stakeholder engagements are done from time to time to gauge the readiness of private healthcare providers on the potential changes that could be afoot in the healthcare sector. However, I am also concerned about the cumulative impact of regulatory and legislative changes being done in relative quick succession and how they are affecting private medical practitioners of smaller and singular clinic entities disproportionately.
It is notable that the number of private sector medical practitioners are not insignificant and based on the Singapore Medical Council's 2023 Annual Report, they make up about a third of all registered medical practitioners in Singapore, as of December 2023.
The structure and relationship of private hospitals vis-a-vis the private medical practitioners, are more heterogeneous and not as singular and strongly rooted as those in the public hospitals and that could add further complexity to ground implementation of MediShield Life claims.
For MediShield Life to be truly accessible and impactful to every Singaporean, as hoped and as intended by policy, a key enabler would be the medical practitioners themselves, who need to be supported well at the last mile in order to offer good custodianship of this scheme. I hope the Ministry will lend emphasis and greater support for this group as the proposed changes to the MediShield Life take root in the coming year.
This also runs in parallel to the point made for patients at the last mile by the hon Member Ms Jessica Tan about considering MediShield Life changes in wider context and not in isolation. Mr Deputy Speaker, my comments notwithstanding, I rise in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill promises important refinements to our MediShield Life scheme. Nevertheless, I seek clarifications on four key areas to ensure fair healthcare access for all Singaporeans, especially the elderly and those with limited mobility.
First, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am concerned about the potential impact of moving towards online publication on our less digitally savvy seniors. The Bill proposes that premium rates be specified in a prescribed manner, which may include a website. While I understand the intention to leverage digital platforms, many seniors still struggle with digital literacy. This shift could create a significant barrier to assessing vital information about their healthcare costs.
How will elderly residents who may not feel comfortable navigating online resources, access and understand their premium rates? What safeguards will be implemented to ensure they receive adequate notice of any premium changes?
Unexpected increases without sufficient warning could place an undue financial burden on vulnerable individuals. Should we not mandate both online and offline channels for premium information to ensure accessibility, transparency and fairness for all Singaporeans, regardless of their digital skills?
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
In our digital-first, but not digital-only society, we must ensure our elderly residents are not left behind in understanding their healthcare costs. One suggestion is to conduct community outreach programmes for seniors to help them understand premium changes.
Secondly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Telehealth Approval Framework can be clearer in some sections. This could impact telehealth access, particularly with the new provisions in section 3A regarding \"service delivery mode\".
This Bill appears to grant broad powers to approve or restrict specific delivery modes without a clear criterion. Why is this the case? Granting extensive powers without clear guidelines can lead to ambiguity and unpredictability. How will residents know which telehealth services are claimable under MediShield Life? A clear and readily available list of approved services is essential for both patients and providers. Furthermore, what will happen to existing telehealth claims when a provider's delivery mode approvals are modified? Will there be a grace period or transitional arrangements to avoid disrupting ongoing care? Clarity on this point is important to maintain patient trust and ensuring continuity of care. Regularly updating and clearly communicating telehealth claim approvals to the public can improve accessibility and transparency.
Additionally, should we not include statutory consultation requirements before restricting service delivery modes? Such consultations would ensure that decisions are well-informed and consider the needs of all stakeholders while protecting patients from unintended consequences. Despite the risks, telehealth holds immense potential for improving healthcare access, especially for those with mobility limitations. We must ensure this potential is not hampered by unnecessary restrictions.
Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed expansion of means-testing powers under section 28(1A) may spark anxiety among constituents. While I recognise the importance of responsible resource allocation, this expansion requires careful consideration to prevent vulnerable individuals from falling through the cracks. Simply expanding these powers without simultaneously strengthening the appeals process and establishing clear safeguards can be problematic.
The amendments raise several critical questions. How will these expanded powers impact residents who are asset-rich but cash-poor, a situation particularly prevalent among our elderly population? Many seniors own their homes, bought during their working lives, giving the appearance of wealth, yet may struggle to meet daily expenses. Will this Bill inadvertently penalise them for having illiquid assets? What concrete safeguards are being put in place to prevent the over-zealous application of these new powers?
Without clear guidelines and robust oversight, there is a real risk of denying subsidies to deserving individuals based on overly strict interpretations of their financial situations.
The Bill also lacks clarity on how means-testing information will be used. We need transparent criteria to ensure fairness. Means-testing should serve as a safety net, ensuring that those genuinely in need receive the support they require. It should not become a barrier to accessing vital healthcare services.
Fourthly, Mr Speaker, Sir, there are worries that the new framework for approving medical institutions outlined in section 3A might impact residents' ability to access their chosen healthcare providers. How will this transition impact residents currently receiving treatments at institutions that may not receive approval under the new framework? Will they be forced to switch providers mid-treatment, potentially compromising their health and well-being?
How will the Ministry ensure equitable access to care across all regions? Is there recourse for residents if their preferred local medical institution loses approval? What mechanisms will be in place to ensure that residents' voices are heard and their concerns addressed if their preferred provider is no longer approved?
Moreover, there should be a minimum notice period before approval changes take effect. This will allow patients sufficient time to make alternative arrangements and avoid disruptions to their treatment. For many patients, especially seniors, the relationship with their healthcare provider is critical in managing their health. This bond of trust and familiar routine provides comfort and encourages adherence to treatment plans, particularly for those with complex or chronic conditions. Disrupting this vital connection by forcing a change of providers can be unsettling and may even lead to patients abandoning necessary care.
Therefore, adequate time to adapt is crucial. A sufficient notice period before any approval changes is essential to allow patients, especially elderly residents, to adjust to new arrangements and maintain continuity of care without undue stress and disruption. A medical institution's approval process should not dictate a resident's access to essential and affordable healthcare.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must carefully consider the implications of the MediShield Life Scheme (Amendment) Bill to ensure that it serves all Singaporeans equitably. We have discussed the importance of premium transparency, emphasising the need for accessible information for our elderly residents, both online and offline. I highlighted the necessity for a clear Telehealth Approval Framework that supports accessibility while avoiding unnecessary restrictions. I raised concerns about the expansion of means-testing powers, stressing the need for robust safeguards to protect vulnerable individuals, especially those who may appear asset-rich but struggle financially. Lastly, we examined the new medical institution approval framework and its potential impact on patient-provider relationships, underscoring the importance of maintaining continuity of care.
As we move forward, let us commit to creating a healthcare system that truly prioritises the needs of our residents, particularly our seniors and those with mobility challenges. It is our duty to ensure that no one is left behind in accessing essential healthcare services. Together, we can build a healthcare system that is not only robust and efficient, but also compassionate and inclusive. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Rahayu Mahzam.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam: Mr Speaker, I thank the Members for their questions and comments on the MediShield Life Scheme (Amendment) Bill. Members have also raised questions on the changes to MediShield Life that were announced last month as part of the 2024 review. Let me briefly address these questions before moving on to comments relating to the Bill.
As the Members have pointed out, this review of MediShield Life is a significant one. The Government has accepted the recommendations made by the MediShield Life Council and we will be making three changes to the scheme.
First, we will ensure MediShield Life coverage remains adequate for Singaporeans, given the rise in healthcare costs. We are most concerned about major health episodes that result in large medical bills and cause financial strain. Therefore, MediShield Life's claim limits will be increased to better protect Singaporeans against such bills.
Second, healthcare is increasingly delivered outside of the hospital, in the community and home settings. This is more convenient for patients and their family members. To support this shift, we will enhance outpatient coverage significantly to include treatments, such as for depression.
Third, technological advancements have enabled the emergence of novel drugs such as cell, tissue and gene therapy products. While these have the potential to cure serious diseases, many of them are very expensive. Insurance, like MediShield Life, is a suitable way to finance such treatments, which are costly but have a low incidence rate. Therefore, MediShield Life's coverage will be extended to selected high-cost treatments that are clinically- and cost-effective.
With the enhancements in coverage, it is inevitable that premiums have to go up. However, the Government is committed to helping Singaporeans manage the premium increase and will provide an additional $4.1 billion in support measures, comprising MediSave top-ups and premium subsidies, for the next three years. This will more than offset the total increase in premiums of $1.8 billion over the same period. For more than nine in 10 Singaporeans, the additional support will more than offset the premium increase over the next three years.
Members have raised comments in three broad areas: one, affordability of healthcare for patients; two, affordability of premiums for policyholders; and three, sustainability of the scheme.
Let me deal with each of these in turn.
First, on affordability of healthcare for patients. Ms Ng Ling Ling, Ms Jessica Tan and Dr Wan Rizal asked how the MediShield Life Council had selected the new areas that MediShield Life coverage would be extended to in this review and whether other areas such as pre- and post-hospitalisation treatments or mental health services were considered for coverage in the review.
In general, the Council prioritised treatments that had significant affordability gaps, were suitable for risk-pooling, clinically- and cost-effective and supported the shifting of care to lower-cost settings. This includes expansion of coverage to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, which is used to treat depression. We will also be raising the MediShield Life psychiatric ward limits by about 40%, from $160 per day to $230 per day.
In making recommendations on where to enhance or extend coverage, the Council strikes a fine balance between improving patient affordability and premium impact. That is not to say that patients do not have support for their pre- and post-hospitalisation needs, such as consultations or scans, when seeking subsidised care at our public healthcare institutions. Patients can already access a combination of subsidies and MediSave, where applicable, for these. Likewise for other mental health services.
Ms Ng Ling Ling and Ms Jessica Tan also asked about the impact of the deductible changes on patients, especially the lower income. The inpatient deductible has not been adjusted since the introduction of MediShield Life in 2015. With rising medical bills, the deductible has become less effective in sieving out smaller, more affordable bills that can be paid for by MediSave. The revision in deductibles will refocus MediShield Life's coverage on larger medical bills which, in turn, will moderate the premium impact. With significant enhancements to outpatient coverage and home-based medical care, we will also introduce a new outpatient deductible of $500. This will keep the scheme focused on larger outpatient bills and ensure premiums remain sustainable.
The Government will raise MediSave withdrawal limits in tandem with the MediShield Life changes to help patients pay for the higher deductibles.
I understand the Members' concern about the lower-income households and seniors who may not have sufficient MediSave. The MediSave top-ups by the Government will provide some help for these more vulnerable groups. I also wish to assure the House that Singaporeans who face difficulty affording their bills after subsidies, MediSave and MediShield Life, can apply for financial assistance such as MediFund. No one will be denied access to appropriate healthcare due to an inability to pay.
Second, on premium affordability. Ms Ng Ling Ling asked how vulnerable groups, such as the lower-income, elderly and those with chronic conditions, will be supported in affording their premiums. I wish to assure the Members that we have taken special care to support them. As announced by the Government earlier, premium increases will be capped at 35%, which mostly benefits older age groups. Premium increases will also be phased in evenly over the next three years to help all policyholders.
On top of this, older Singaporeans in lower- to middle-income households will also benefit from the means-tested premium subsidy enhancements that were recently announced. They will receive higher means-tested premium subsidies of up to 60%, from up to 50% today.
Seniors, including those with lower MediSave balances, will also benefit from additional MediSave top-ups provided by the Government, which can be used to pay their MediShield Life premiums. These include an increase in MediSave top-up for the Pioneer Generation by up to $300, bringing their maximum annual top-up to $1,200; an enhancement of the one-time MediSave Bonus under the Majulah Package for Young Seniors by $500; and an additional MediSave Bonus of $500 for Young Seniors and the Merdeka Generation with lower MediSave balances. Lower-income Singaporeans who require more support paying for the premiums after subsidies and top-ups may also be invited to apply for APS, which will fully cover their premiums for the next two years.
With this package of support, most seniors, regardless of income, will have their premium increases fully offset over the next three years. In addition, the MediShield Life premiums of older Pioneer Generation seniors will continue to be fully covered.
Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Gerald Giam also asked how lower-income individuals who are living in or owning properties with high AV will be supported. It is true that such individuals receive lower means-tested premium subsidies on account of their higher AV properties. This is because those who live in properties with a higher AV would generally be better off than those who live in properties with a lower AV. While this approach is not perfect, it strikes a balance between being more precise in assessing applicants' means, while keeping the process simpler for most applicants.
However, the Government periodically reviews the eligibility criteria for subsidies so that Singaporeans with greater needs can continue to receive the support they require. For instance, the AV thresholds were recently raised earlier this year. With this, those staying in or owning these lower-value private properties can still qualify for premium subsidies.
Those who need more help or are facing extenuating circumstances may appeal for more assistance, which would be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Let me assure Members that no one will lose MediShield Life coverage due to an inability to pay premiums.
Lastly, sustainability of the scheme. Ms Ng Ling Ling and Dr Wan Rizal have commented about rising healthcare costs and the impact to the long-term sustainability of the MediShield Life scheme, especially with the expansions of MediShield Life coverage. This is indeed an area that the Government is committed to addressing. We have implemented various strategies on this front.
First, we have been re-designing the healthcare system to better support right-siting of care from our acute hospitals to other settings such as the outpatient, community and home settings where one can receive the same care at lower costs. Our enhancements to MediShield Life coverage through the recent review will also support patients in accessing care at such settings.
Second, we have been applying Health Technology Assessments to more high-cost technologies and drugs. This allows us to rigorously assess that a new treatment is clinically- and cost-effective before we extend financing coverage to it. This also allows the Government to negotiate for more competitive prices from industry, moderating the cost impact to our system.
Third, and most important, is our increased focus on staying healthy. This is why we have Healthier SG, which is our national initiative focusing on preventive health and chronic disease management. We have introduced premium discounts in this review, to complement our national efforts to incentivise healthier living, where Healthpoints can be redeemed for MediShield Life premium discounts.
I am glad that Ms Ng Ling Ling is supportive of this idea, and has raised useful suggestions such as broadening the range of activities that qualify for incentives and implementing a system to encourage sustained activity. We will take all of these into account as we study the outcomes of this pilot, before deciding whether to make the scheme permanent.
I thank the Members for their support of the MediShield Life changes. These will go some way in providing relief for Singaporeans amidst rising healthcare costs. Premiums will need to go up, but we have provided a significant package of support that offsets premium increases for more than nine in 10 Singaporeans over the next three years.
The Government will continue to work with the MediShield Life Council to review the scheme regularly to ensure that it remains a source of assurance for large healthcare bills and that its premiums remain affordable for Singaporeans. At the same time, we will continue to press on with our efforts to keep our healthcare system sustainable for many years to come.
I will now move on to address Members' questions and comments on the MediShield Life Scheme (Amendment) Bill. Let me address them according to the three areas of amendments we are making to the Act.
First, on supporting the expansion of coverage to models of care received outside the physical premises of providers. As mentioned earlier, we will enhance MediShield Life to cover more types of care, such as home-based medical or telehealth services delivered outside of the traditional hospital setting. This will allow more patients to receive the care that they need in a more convenient way.
Going forward, we expect to see the emergence of more care models where treatment or services are completely delivered outside of a physical medical institution. These care models may eventually become the standard of care. The MediShield Life Council will review the coverage of MediShield Life from time to time and recommend to the Government if it would be appropriate for the scheme to cover treatments and services offered under these models.
This Bill will provide flexibility for MediShield Life to cover such treatments and services in future, where we so decide to, which will allow patients to make claims for these treatments and services.
To Mr Yip Hon Weng's query on how patients can know which services are claimable under MediShield Life, I would like to share that new approved medical treatment or services, including home care and telehealth services, will be publicised through the MediShield Life Council's report, on the MediShield Life website and be stated clearly in the MediShield Life Scheme Regulations 2015.
In addition, the expansion of the scheme's coverage will be complemented by amendments setting out the framework for approvals and suspensions and revocations of approvals, of medical institutions under the scheme.
Mr Gerald Giam spoke about the criteria for approval of medical institutions. This framework will allow MOH to continue safeguarding and ensuring the appropriate use of MediShield Life monies, while maintaining a clear and robust framework for managing medical institutions participating under the scheme.
For instance, to be approved, the medical institution will need to have a valid licence issued under the Healthcare Services Act 2020. The scope of the medical institution's approval under the scheme is also tied to the specific licensable healthcare services that it is authorised to provide by its licence, as well as their respective service delivery modes.
The key appointment holders of the medical institution, as well as any medical practitioner that is employed or engaged to provide the approved medical treatment or services in that medical institution must also not be found to be in breach of certain requirements, such as being convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty.
The Minister for Health may also impose conditions of approval, which could include requiring the medical institution to ensure that MediShield Life claims are submitted in accordance with the relevant claim rules.
Mr Yip Hon Weng raised concerns about the broad powers for approvals, suspensions and revocations, and how they will affect patients currently receiving treatment and services. Similarly, Mr Neil Parekh asked how the conditions of approval would apply and be communicated, whether there would be continuity of coverage for insured persons under the new framework, as well as the processes in place for the approval or rejection of applications, or for appeals related to revocations. Let me touch on all of these issues together.
First, as stated in my opening speech, the Minister is empowered to grant approvals to medical institutions under the new amendments. Unless there are extenuating circumstances, medical institutions that have existing approvals as of the date immediately before the amendments come into effect, can be approved in respect of approved medical treatment or services that are or are part of their existing licensable healthcare services and respective service delivery modes. Hence, to address Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Neil Parekh's concerns about continuity of care, we do not expect the care of existing patients to be disrupted by this transition.
Second, enforcement measures can now also be tailored to respond to specific medical institutions, or specific treatments or services offered by them that fail to comply with the requirements or their conditions of approval under the MediShield Life Act. With this, when we take action against the medical institution for other treatment or services which are not provided in compliance with the Act, we can still safeguard the patient's ability to continue making claims for approved medical treatments or services that are provided in compliance with the Act.
Let me illustrate how this works. A single medical institution today may be delivering multiple care models or treatment through different licensed healthcare services or different service delivery modes. Today, enforcement measures taken against an approved medical institution in a non-compliant area would involve suspending or revoking the approval of the entire medical institution.
The amendments, however, will allow the Minister for Health to suspend or revoke the approval given in respect of a specific medical treatment or service provided by a medical institution. This could be when a non-compliant service delivery mode is used by the medical institution. The approval for the medical institution to submit claims for other treatments or services via other delivery modes remain valid, and patients can still be covered by MediShield Life.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if there would be transitional arrangements in situations where approvals to medical institutions are suspended or revoked, to avoid disruptions to ongoing care of patients. The amendments require medical institutions providing any non-compliant medical treatment or services to inform all patients of the suspension or revocation of approval of such medical treatment or services immediately. Claims made by patients for such treatment or services provided before the suspension or revocation will continue to be processed without issue.
The Minister for Health can also permit claims for such treatment or services provided during the suspension or after the revocation, if necessary, to safeguard the patient's interest. This power to safeguard MediShield Life monies will be exercised judiciously, to minimise any undue care disruptions to patients.
Third, let me assure Members of the House that there are safeguards in place to ensure accountability and due process.
To Mr Neil Parekh's question, the conditions of approval will be made clear to medical institutions and we have provided clear grounds for when approvals may be suspended or revoked under the Act. These include circumstances where the approval has been obtained fraudulently or if the licence granted to the medical institution under the Healthcare Services Act 2020 to provide the licensable healthcare service that the approved medical treatment or services is or is a part of has also been revoked or suspended.
For these reasons, we do not think it is ideal to include statutory consultation requirements before restricting service delivery modes, as Mr Yip Hon Weng has suggested. In cases where patient safety is at risk or where the provider has committed fraud, restrictions of coverage will likely need to be immediate.
That said, any restriction of service delivery modes will be exercised judiciously and only applied where the conditions of approval have been breached. In addition, in suspending or revoking an approval, the medical institution concerned must be given written notice and a reasonable opportunity to make representations as to why the approval should not be suspended or revoked, which is already our practice today.
Dr Syed Harun also asked that we engage private medical practitioners to support them in navigating these changes. Indeed, private providers are an important part of our healthcare ecosystem. We will continue to partner and educate them on these changes.
Altogether, the amendments in this category allow MediShield Life to be more flexible and responsive to the evolving healthcare landscape.
The Act also needs to be amended to better support premium recovery. For a universal scheme like MediShield Life, premium recovery is necessary to discourage policyholders who can afford to, but wilfully decide not to fulfil their premium obligations. This in turn keeps the scheme sustainable.
Without a robust set of premium recovery measures, it is entirely possible that premium defaults could go up, translating to bad debts which could materially impact the Fund and result in higher premiums for all. This would be unfair to policyholders who have paid their premiums and undermines collective responsibility.
Over the years, the premium default rate, which is the total premium debt as a proportion of total premiums payable, has remained low, below 1%. This means that the vast majority of the policyholders are able to pay their premiums. This is made possible through a comprehensive support system to help Singaporeans, especially those of less means, with their premiums, thereby reducing the likelihood of individuals defaulting in the first place. I had covered these in detail earlier in my speech.
Even with these support measures, there will be a small group of individuals who do not fulfil their premium obligations. When deduction of the premium from the policyholder's or his designated payor's MediSave fails, the Government embarks on a series of premium recovery measures.
Family members, such as parents and spouses, will be identified to pay for their loved ones' premiums using MediSave, on an opt-out basis. Those notified may choose to cancel this payment arrangement if they do not wish to help with their family members' premiums.
Eligible individuals will also be invited to apply for APS. MOH works with the Ministry of Social and Family Development to conduct proactive outreach to low-income, elderly individuals who may need help with their APS applications.
Quarterly reminder letters are also sent to remind policyholders to top up their MediSave accounts, change the premium payor or arrange for monthly instalment payment plan for their owed premiums.
Significant efforts are made to ensure that those who are genuinely in need receive support to pay their premiums. Only when these efforts are exhausted, would premium enforcement commence.
Before any enforcement action can be taken against defaulters, a demand note must first be served. A demand note notifies defaulters of their outstanding premiums and gives them sufficient time to pay their premiums, before interest and penalties are imposed and further enforcement measures like agent appointments are taken. These measures take reference from income tax recovery measures and are already provided for in the existing legislation.
IRAS, which is a prescribed recovery body under the MediShield Life scheme, sends the demand notes via mail, as provided for under the legislation.
However, there are some defaulters who are difficult to reach via post. This includes individuals who do not update their residential or correspondence addresses with the Government after they renounce their Singapore Citizenship or lose their Permanent Residency status, as well as individuals residing overseas in areas with unreliable postage services.
As demand notes are often not successfully delivered to such individuals, enforcement against this group is limited in effectiveness. Therefore, the Act amendments provide for more avenues through which demand notes may be served, including via digital means. So, to address Mr Gerald Giam's concern, this is actually on top of existing means such as the physical mail. This maximises the likelihood that recovery bodies can serve demand notes on defaulters who do not maintain a valid postal address.
We will leverage on two additional avenues: one, the Bill will provide for demand notes to be served via email; two, the Bill will also empower the Minister to make regulations to allow demand notes to be served via existing electronic service platforms. This could include IRAS' \"myTax Portal\" and CPF Board's \"my cpf\" portal. We will work with both agencies to explore the feasibility of tapping on their electronic service platforms. This is a fair approach – Singaporeans already use these portals to manage their tax- and CPF-related matters, and it is reasonable for the Government to make contact with them through such channels.
We will explore with IRAS and CPF Board on the feasibility of sending notifications through SMSes and emails, to ensure demand notes are brought to the attention of the recipients.
As I mentioned earlier, everyone must pay for their premiums as part of our collective responsibility to one another and to ensure the sustainability of the scheme. This is why we have a strong set of recovery and enforcement actions in place.
However, we are mindful that some Singaporeans may face difficulties paying for their premiums due to complex circumstances. Hence, we adopt a compassionate stance towards premium recovery and enforcement. This way, we do not inadvertently cause hardship to those who are unable to meet their premium obligations. For example, we withhold enforcement from vulnerable groups as such elderly above the age of 85 years old.
One proxy for an individual's ability to pay their premiums is their means information. The proposed amendment will support the use of means information to enable a calibration of our premium recovery and enforcement efforts when it comes to Singaporeans with genuine difficulty in affording their premiums.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about how such means information would be used, the criteria used to calibrate enforcement efforts and whether such criteria would reduce accessibility for individuals that do not meet the bar. Mr Gerald Giam also raised concern that some Singaporeans with complex circumstances may face difficulties paying premiums and this is precisely why we are creating this avenue to allow for a more calibrated approach.
I would like to assure the Members that the intent of this amendment is not to withhold subsidies and support from Singaporeans. On the contrary, it is meant to help Singaporeans – by ensuring that premium enforcement measures are targeted at those who have more means, while calibrating enforcement measures for those who have less means.
Means information is used to derive per capita household income. This is aligned to many other Government schemes that differentiate subsidies based on PCHI to ensure that resources are targeted at those who need more support. We acknowledge the Members' concern that this may not differentiate retired seniors with different financial situations, including those who are asset-rich and cash-poor. This is why we have APS, which serves as a discretionary safety net, to give support to those who may have fallen through the cracks and face genuine difficulty affording their premiums.
Eligibility for APS is assessed holistically with appeals considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the unique social and financial circumstances, and needs of individuals.
Individuals receiving APS will have their outstanding premiums, as well as premiums for the next two policy years fully covered. Premium enforcement would not apply to them. For individuals who do not qualify for APS, we will still exercise flexibility for those with extenuating circumstances, on a case-by-case basis. For instance, we may delay premium enforcement until their financial circumstances improve. If some require a longer time to pay their premiums, they may contact the CPF Board, which oversees premium collection, to work out an instalment payment plan.
For premium enforcement, we work with the MediShield Life Council on detailed criteria as well as the appeal guidelines for cases at the margins, to ensure enforcement does not unfairly penalise such groups. Let me take the chance here to reiterate that no one will lose MediShield Life coverage due to an inability to pay premiums.
Besides refining provisions to support premium recovery efforts, we are also making some amendments to clarify and strengthen existing administrative processes.
One such amendment is allowing the MediShield Life premium schedule to be specified on a website rather than in legislation. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the potential impact of such a move on our less digitally savvy seniors.
Let me clarify that the amendment is not meant to change anything about how premiums are communicated to Singaporeans. All policyholders will continue to receive a premium notification letter which details their premiums payable and premium subsidy entitlements for a given policy year. These will continue to be delivered through mail, SMS or email, depending on the policyholder's contact information available to the CPF Board. So, Singaporeans, including seniors, already have many platforms through which to access information about premiums, and this amendment will not change this.
Instead, this amendment is simply intended to allow MediShield Life premiums to be published on a website instead of through legislation. In enabling this, we will significantly streamline the administration of the scheme. This is also the approach already in place for other healthcare schemes such as CareShield Life, for which premiums are available online instead of through legislation.
Mr Gerald Giam spoke about the stability and predictability of premium rates. The premiums are already published on the website today and we have also given advance notice for the next policy cycle – it is actually three years' worth of premiums in the press release and also in the Council's report.
To address also another administrative point that Mr Gerald Giam raised on individuals who unknowingly provide false or misleading information – actually, such conduct does not amount to an offence under the Act.
In addition, we fully acknowledge the need to help Singaporeans, especially our seniors, understand the key healthcare policies such as MediShield Life, and changes that are made to them from time to time. So, in addition to ongoing efforts to raise awareness and improve public understanding of MediShield Life, MOH is also working closely with various community partners like grassroots leaders and Silver Generation Ambassadors to engage Singaporeans on the recent changes to MediShield Life. Such efforts allow us to reach more citizens, including seniors, and ensures that no one is left behind.
Let me conclude. The debate has largely focused on how we can ensure that MediShield Life continues to adequately protect Singaporeans against large medical bills, while ensuring that the scheme remains sustainable and premiums affordable for all Singaporeans. This has always been our objective from the initial launch and subsequent reviews of the MediShield Life scheme, and the design of the Act which provides us the legislative framework to operationalise it.
This Bill will strengthen the legislative framework to help us better achieve these objectives by:
Enabling MediShield Life to provide adequate protection as the healthcare delivery landscape evolves from hospitals to the community and home settings;
Providing a clear and robust framework to manage medical institutions participating under MediShield Life to ensure the appropriate use of MediShield Life monies, especially as MediShield Life coverage expands to new treatments and services; and
Facilitating the implementation of premium enforcement measures to ensure that everyone pays their premiums as part of collective responsibility to one another and to ensure the sustainability of the scheme.
I thank Members for their support of this Bill. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications for Minister of State? Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I thank the Minister of State for responding to my questions. I just have two main clarifications.
First, the Minister of State assured us earlier that no one would lose MediShield Life coverage due to an inability to pay premiums. How about policyholders who miss payments for reasons such as ineligibility for premium support despite appeals, missed reminders or other issues. Are there any circumstances under which they could lose MediShield Life coverage due to a failure to pay premiums?
Secondly, does the Bill allow the Minister to designate TCM providers as approved providers for the purpose of MediShield Life claims if they need accreditation criteria for TCM practitioners, which I understand from the Minister this morning during Question Time will be ready next year? I know the Minister of State provided a list of conditions in her response just now, but it is not clear if it potentially includes TCM.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam: I thank Member for the query. In respect of the second question – first, I just want to add that the MediShield Life scheme is something that we review and its coverage is something that we will continue to monitor and assess. So, this is something that will allow for us to continue to look at it and if it meets the criteria, it would be something that can be included. This is something that we will look at on a regular basis.
On the assurance, actually, we ensure that people will not lose their coverage because of that. But as I explained, the whole thinking behind this is that there is 1% of those that we are not able to recover from and we just want to ensure that out of this, the people who are doing it out of just not wanting to comply and not wanting to actually make payment are then caught out.
But for those who are actually in really dire circumstances, the processes that I have earlier mentioned will be able to catch them and will ensure that there will be some support given in the event they really cannot pay because of the difficulties.
Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications? I see none.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Rahayu Mahzam]. (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":"Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Mr Baey Yam Keng) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill, or EC Bill in short, seeks to introduce minimum energy efficiency standards (MEES) for all existing energy systems in industrial facilities.
Mr Speaker, the world is undergoing a major energy transition in the global effort to reach net zero, in order to avert the worst effects of climate change. At the first global stocktake at the 28th Conference of the Parties (COP28) last year, the international community collectively moved from setting broad-based net zero targets to taking definitive steps towards implementing decarbonisation solutions. Nearly 200 countries agreed on the need to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems. Singapore contributed actively at the global stocktake. We supported the COP28 Presidency to achieve key outcomes such as accelerating the energy transition in this critical decade, including calling on Parties to recognise that energy efficiency improvement is a critical pathway to decarbonisation. One of the key initiatives was the Global Renewables and Energy Efficiency Pledge, which called on countries to collectively triple renewable energy capacity and double the global annual average rate of energy efficiency improvements by 2030.
Singapore is doing our part in this energy transition, as outlined in our \"4 switches\" approach, which comprises solar energy, power imports, low-carbon alternatives and natural gas. We have been accelerating green energy transition by scaling up the deployment of renewable energy projects and achieved an installed solar capacity of 1.35 giga-watt peak (GWp), a fivefold increase from 2019. This puts us on track to meeting our solar deployment target of at least two GWp by 2030. Two months ago, we raised our low-carbon electricity imports target from four GW to around six GW by 2035. We are also investing in research and development activities in emerging low-carbon fuel technologies, such as hydrogen.
Even as Singapore deploys more solar power, imports low-carbon electricity and develops alternative energy sources, natural gas will continue to play an important role in our energy mix. The recent launch of the second liquified natural gas (LNG) terminal at Jurong Port will help Singapore meet the growing demand, diversify our sources and enhance our local infrastructure to support the importation of natural gas.
Besides these efforts, energy efficiency is also key to our drive towards sustainability while safeguarding our energy security and ensuring cost competitiveness. As a small and open economy, Singapore imports almost all of our energy supply. This makes it doubly important that Singapore raises our energy efficiency and makes every watt of energy count. Singapore's energy intensity is comparable to the 11th lowest among 38 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OCED) countries, according to the latest data from the International Energy Agency. With higher energy efficiency, our companies do not have to compromise on their economic productivity even if they do not increase their energy demand. We must press on to do more with less and to seize every opportunity to improve our energy efficiency.
Today, Singapore drives energy efficiency through a combination of policy instruments and incentives.
First, the cost of electricity is not subsidised. Pricing energy correctly incentivises businesses and consumers to use electricity efficiently and avoid wasteful consumption.
Second, the carbon tax makes businesses internalise the cost of carbon emissions in their consumption and investment decisions. The pricing of carbon spurs companies to reduce their emissions and energy consumption in a way that makes the most economic sense to them. Carbon tax revenue is then used to support efforts to transition to a decarbonised green economy.
Third, incentive schemes, such as the Resource Efficiency Grant for Emissions (REG(E)) and Energy Efficiency Grant (EEG) are available to help big and small companies undertake energy efficiency improvement projects and implement energy-efficient equipment. These help companies reap energy savings and improve their bottom line.
Fourth, we put in place regulatory frameworks that promote energy efficiency in various sectors. For example, in the building sector, the Building Control Act was recently enhanced to introduce the new Mandatory Energy Improvement regime, where owners of energy-intensive buildings will be required to conduct an energy audit and implement energy efficiency improvement measures to reduce their energy consumption. To help our households become more energy-efficient and reap energy cost savings, we implemented mandatory energy labels and minimum energy performance standards. Since introducing the labels and standards, the average energy efficiency of energy-intensive household equipment, such as air-conditioners and refrigerators, has improved by 59% and 42% respectively.
The Energy Conservation Act or ECA, is our regulatory tool to enhance industrial energy efficiency. The ECA was enacted in 2012 to introduce mandatory energy management practices for energy-intensive industrial facilities. These are facilities with energy usage threshold exceeding 54 terajoules in two out of the three preceding calendar years. Presently, there are 237 of such facilities, covering about 80% of Singapore's primary energy consumption. The ECA was then enhanced in 2017 to strengthen energy management practices and introduce minimum energy efficiency standards (MEES) for industry systems.
Today, the ECA covers every stage of an industrial facility's life, including design and initiation, operations and maintenance, as well as any subsequent expansion plans. Companies are required to review their energy performance from the onset, meet specific energy efficiency requirements for systems and equipment, report their energy performances and continually explore opportunities to enhance energy efficiency.
Since the introduction of ECA in 2012, the industry has achieved an average energy savings of about 2,800 terajoules per year, which is enough to power approximately 175,000 HDB 4-room flats, equivalent to about $230 million of cost savings per year.
Mr Speaker, the EC Bill will build on these efforts and help us push ahead to improve energy efficiency in the decades ahead. The EC Bill will require all existing industrial facilities to comply with stipulated MEES for energy-consuming industry systems.
In enhancing the ECA in 2017, section 26B was introduced to stipulate MEES for energy-consuming industry systems. These MEES sought to target energy efficiency improvements at the systems level, as opposed to the equipment level. This encourages companies to take a holistic approach in optimising and improving the energy efficiency across their system as a whole, which will result in greater energy savings.
To ensure that the standards prescribed are commercially sensible for businesses, the National Environment Agency (NEA) also considers the payback period of these energy-efficient technologies and provides industries with ample lead time before the MEES requirements kick in. The detailed MEES requirements for chilled water system were developed after close consultation with the industry in 2018.
NEA announced the MEES for chilled water systems in December 2019. Based on data reported by companies under the ECA, chilled water systems, which are commonly used by industrial facilities for process or space cooling, account for approximately 16% of electricity consumed in industrial facilities. This makes chilled water systems the highest electricity-consuming common system in the industry.
Based on 2016 energy use reported by companies regulated under the ECA, over 70% of these systems were found to be operating at sub-optimal energy efficiency levels. The MEES for chilled water systems was then set as the energy efficiency benchmark for industry and provides guidance for industrial facilities on how to optimise their systems to achieve higher energy efficiency and cost savings.
We implemented the first phase of MEES for chilled water systems by requiring new industrial facilities operational on or after 1 December 2020 to conform to MEES. Incorporating energy-efficient chilled water systems from the outset reduces the environmental impact of operating a less efficient system throughout its lifespan. In addition, this allows facility owners to reap substantial cost savings. One example is Soitec Microelectronics Singapore, a wafer and semiconductor manufacturing company that has installed an energy-efficient chilled water system in their new building in 2022. This has helped Soitec Microelectronics save about S$320,000 per year from lower energy use and reduced its carbon emissions by 400 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalence annually. The requirement also helps new facilities avoid more expensive retrofitting and operational disruption, if they upgrade to more energy-efficient models down the road.
We are now ready to implement the second phase of MEES for chilled water systems by applying the requirements to existing energy-intensive industrial facilities, accounting for about 80% of Singapore's primary energy consumption. These facilities will need to conform to MEES by 1 December 2025. All remaining industrial facilities, which are less energy-intensive and not currently regulated under the ECA, will have a longer runway to conform by 1 December 2029 under Phase 3. By then, the chilled water systems installed in existing industrial facilities prior to the announcement in 2019 would be at least 10 years old. It would make economic sense to switch to more energy-efficient types since it will reach the system's end of life in a few years' time. It would be timely for the facility owners to carry out retrofit works to enhance their chilled water system to comply with MEES.
I am heartened that many of the existing facilities have seized the opportunity to meet MEES ahead of the compliance timeline of the second phase. Stats Chippac Pte Ltd, a semiconductor manufacturing company, is one such example. Stats Chippac saw the benefits that could be gained from the MEES requirements and has tapped on the REG(E) to upgrade its chilled water system. The upgrade has improved the energy performance of the chilled water system by 25%, resulting in cost savings of around S$1.5 million per year from lower energy use. The payback period for its investment was just five years, after factoring in the grant received, which is well within the 15-year lifespan of chilled water systems. This meant that Stats Chippac stands to save over $15 million in total by upgrading to a MEES-compliant chilled water system.
To help the industry offset the capital cost of retrofitting their chilled water system, companies can tap on existing Government schemes, such as the REG(E) and the EEG, before the mandatory requirements kick in. Large manufacturing companies can apply for Economic Development Board's REG(E) to adopt energy-efficient equipment or technologies, including retrofitting their chilled water system. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) can tap on the EEG funds to offset the cost of complying with MEES for their chilled water system. They will receive a higher tier of support of up to 70%, capped at $350,000 under the EEG Advanced Tier.
Overall, the MEES for chilled water systems is estimated to help reduce energy consumption in industrial facilities by at least 245 GWh annually, equivalent to taking more than 21,000 cars off the road. The proposed amendments will also allow us to extend the MEES framework to existing ECA facilities for other energy-consuming systems which are currently under review. NEA will continue to adopt the consultative approach that was used to develop MEES for chilled water systems. We look forward to continuing the partnership with the industry to jointly unlock more opportunities to improve energy efficiency and reap energy and cost savings.
The Bill will also introduce two other housekeeping amendments to the existing ECA requirements.
One, development works under the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) Plan Lodgment scheme will be required to meet our Energy Efficiency Opportunities Assessment (EEOA) requirements. This is to ensure that such development works are held to the same requirements as the other new industrial facilities. Requiring Plan Lodgment cases to undergo EEOA at the planning stage helps to ensure that they are energy-efficient from the onset. This allows them to enjoy more energy cost savings in the long run and avoid costly retrofitting works in the future. To effect this, the requirement for development works to meet the EEOA in section 26A of the ECA will be expanded to include URA Plan Lodgment scheme cases.
Two, this Bill will lay the groundwork to require certified energy managers to endorse the Energy Management System and EEOA reports to improve the overall quality of the reports.
Mr Speaker, to conclude, the EC Bill will ensure that our energy efficiency remains the cornerstone for the sustainable future of our industry. Enhancing industrial energy efficiency is a win-win solution for both businesses and Singapore. Using less energy to do more will go a long way to reduce business costs, power up Singapore's energy security and help us meet our climate ambitions. With that, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill will expand the scope of energy conservation measures. It will extend minimum energy efficiency standards to more existing industrial systems and require more works under the URA Plan Lodgment scheme to undergo an energy efficiency opportunities assessment. I have three points of clarification to raise.
My first clarification is on the categories of individuals with duties under the ECA. Under ECA, every company is required to appoint energy managers. The new section 23A will also require a relevant person with operational control over any energy consuming systems to be registered. Duties and offences are prescribed for these individuals and relevant corporations. It is less clear what duties company directors and officers bear.
It is possible that company directors or officers may be liable if a registered corporation commits an offence with the consent or convenience of the director or officer. But this is not spelled out clearly in ECA. This leads to ambiguity over the responsibilities of directors and officers.
In other areas, such as workplace safety, the duties of directors and chief executives are clearly provided for. There is even a code of practice on chief executives and board of directors workplace safety and health (WSH) duties. On matters of sustainability and energy, the duties of company leaders are less clear. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary elaborate on the duties of company directors and officers when it comes to energy conservation measures under ECA?
My second point is on the long-stop date for report submission. Presently, a registrable corporation with a water-cooled tube water system installed is required to submit a first report by 1 December 2025, to show that its operating tube water system performance meets the MEES threshold and that its measurement and verification system is accurate.
According to NEA, existing industrial facilities that are not yet regulated under ECA will be required to conform to MEES and submit a first report by 1 December 2029. This is five years away. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share whether there are plans to stagger the timeline of report submissions by the various facilities over this five-year period? Prior to the first report submission before the long-stop date, what measures will be taken by NEA to encourage the other industrial facilities to meet and surpass the MEES?
My third and final point is on how the EEOA and MEES reports submitted to NEA are used to encourage improvements in energy performance. It is commendable that we are expanding the scope of reporting to more facilities. However, report submission is not the end in itself. The ultimate purpose of these reports is to spur improvements in energy performance.
NEA has shared that for MEES reports, NEA will review the annual average operating system performance and other key performance data of the tube water systems annually. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary explain what NEA will do with the findings of its review? Will these findings be communicated to companies or published on an aggregated industry-wide level so that companies can benchmark their performances?
More generally, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share what follow-up steps are taken by the Ministry upon reviewing the EEOA and MEES reports submitted, to help companies achieve more efficiency in their energy use? Notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill has significant implications for our nation's sustainability efforts. I support the intent of this Bill to enhance energy efficiency. However, I have several clarifications regarding its potential impact on our residents and local businesses.
First, Mr Speaker, Sir, the expanded registration requirements, ongoing monitoring and potential penalties raises concerns about their impact on small businesses. How will the Government support small businesses with limited resources to meet these new energy efficiency monitoring requirements? Will the Ministry consider implementing simplified reporting mechanisms tailored to their capacity? With penalties for non-compliance reaching $5,000, we must consider whether smaller players could be disproportionately affected compared to larger corporations.
For a small enterprise already struggling with rent and low profit margins, a $5,000 fine for minor lapse in energy reporting could wipe out their profits for a month. Meanwhile, a multinational corporation would barely notice such a penalty. This disparity feels unjust.
Additionally, how would the Ministry ensure that the registration process for these new registrable relevant persons is smooth and efficient? We need to avoid unnecessary administrative burdens on businesses. Offering grace periods and flexibility, especially for those with a proven history of compliance, would show a commitment to supporting those already making an effort.
Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, the requirement for existing systems to meet MEES presents a potential challenge. Retrofitting older facilities can be costly. Given that many local businesses may be using older systems, what specific financial assistance or incentives will be provided to help them upgrade and meet these new standards? How will the Government balance the immediate financial burden of retrofitting against the long-term benefits of energy savings, particularly for SMEs? Could this lead to unintended consequences, such as increased costs being passed down to consumers, especially in sectors like retail and food and beverage? This could further inflate living costs. Are there lessons and resources from past energy efficiency initiatives that can help develop a targeted support strategy for older facilities?
Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill's emphasis on energy managers and their role in ensuring compliance leads to more responsibility for these individuals. How will the Ministry ensure that training for energy managers is accessible to smaller firms, not just large enterprises? What measures are in place to prevent the concentration of expertise within larger corporations, which would marginalise smaller businesses? If energy management expertise becomes concentrated solely within large corporations, smaller businesses may fall behind in meeting the new requirements. This could lead to penalties and the loss of their competitive edge.
Moreover, the need to hire or train energy managers may inadvertently increase manpower costs for SMEs that are trying to tightly manage their overheads. For larger businesses, will this requirement make Singapore a less cost-effective location? Coupled with the expenses to comply with MEES requirements, could this drive towards sustainability hinder our economic attractiveness?
I propose a proactive approach to address this resource disparity. The Government should partner with community groups, local educational institutions and industry associations to develop and deliver accessible training programmes, specifically for smaller firms. Subsidised training, online resources and targeted mentorship are just a few examples of how we can empower our SMEs to meet these new challenges.
Furthermore, how will the Ministry ensure that the Director-General's powers to assess and monitor energy efficiency are exercised transparently and fairly? Clear guidelines and accountability are essential for building trust and ensuring compliance. The Ministry must clearly define the Director-General's powers, establish transparent assessment criteria and provide mechanisms for businesses to appeal decisions.
Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, raising awareness is paramount to help residents and businesses understand how these changes will affect them. A lack of awareness could lead to confusion and compliance challenges. Beyond merely disseminating information, we need to educate stakeholders about the reasons behind these changes. Highlighting the long-term environmental and financial advantages of energy conservation will promote greater support and motivate a true move towards sustainable practices.
What steps will be taken to ensure that all stakeholders, particularly smaller businesses, are well-informed about the new registration and reporting requirements? How can the Government cultivate a culture of energy conservation that goes beyond mere regulatory compliance, making a true community-led effort? Ongoing dialogue is essential for identifying challenges, addressing concerns and adapting our approach, as needed.
Regular public forums and feedback sessions with affected residents and businesses are critical to ensuring that these regulations remain relevant and effective. Moreover, how will we know if these regulations achieve their intended goals? The Ministry must establish clear metrics for measuring the impact of these changes on energy consumption, cost savings and environmental outcomes.
These results must be shared transparently with local communities, rather than being buried in Government reports. Regular public updates that engage local communities are essential for maintaining accountability and public trust.
In closing, Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to reiterate my support for the EC Bill and its goals. Nevertheless, it is important that we protect our local businesses, especially our SMEs, as we move towards a more sustainable future. To help achieve this, I recommend a few key actions.
First, we should simplify the reporting processes so that small businesses can easily meet the new energy efficiency requirements without facing overwhelming challenges.
Second, the Government needs to consider providing financial assistance to help these businesses upgrade their older systems to meet new standards without breaking the bank. We must also ensure that training programmes for energy management are accessible to smaller firms. This way, expertise does not just sit with larger companies and everyone has a chance to succeed.
In addition, the rules around the Director-General's oversight needs to be clear and fair, allowing businesses to appeal decisions, when necessary. It is also essential to maintain an ongoing conversation with residents and businesses. Regular public forums will help us identify any issue and make adjustments, as needed.
Finally, we should have clear ways to measure the impact of these new rules on energy use and savings, sharing those results openly with the community. Let us remember that energy efficiency should feel like a partnership, not a burden. We want our local businesses to feel empowered in their journey towards sustainability, not overwhelmed by new regulations. Together, we can create a strong community where everyone benefits from our commitment to a greener future. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng.
Mr Baey Yam Keng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Louis Ng and Mr Yip Hon Weng for their comments and support for the Bill. Let me address the issues that they have raised.
First, on capacity-building efforts for the industry. Mr Yip Hong Weng asked if small companies have access to capability-building programmes and services that could help them in the energy efficiency improvement efforts. I am pleased to share that there are several programmes available today that small companies can access.
One example is the Singapore Certified Energy Manager programme, which is co-administered by NEA and the Institution of Engineers Singapore. Since its introduction in 2008, this programme has equipped over 1,500 energy professionals with the technical skills and competencies to manage energy services within their organisation.
Another example is the Energy Efficiency Technology Centre (EETC), which is a collaboration between NEA and the Singapore Institute of Technology. Since its introduction in 2020, it has upskilled engineering students and existing practitioners in industrial energy efficiency. By providing low-cost energy assessment services, EETC also supports energy efficiency improvements at SMEs.
To date, over 40 SMEs and close to 500 professionals and students have benefited from EETC's services and programmes. For example, EETC has helped Fuisland Offset Printing (S) Pte Ltd, a printing company, to identify opportunities to reduce idle power usage and to address the inefficiencies of their printers. This saved Fuisland 24,000 kilowatt hour (kWh) annually. Fuisland is currently implementing other recommendations across the enterprise to enhance their overall energy efficiency.
Another example is Watson EP Industries Pte Ltd, a small manufacturing company which worked with EETC to assess their machinery performance and energy consumption more accurately and to identify energy efficiency improvement opportunities, such as upgrading their inefficient air conditioning units. This helps Watson save about 63,000 kWh annually, which translates to about $20,000 cost savings per year.
This brings me to my second point, on how the Government is supporting and engaging companies to enhance their energy efficiency. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the funding support that is available to smaller companies, which may have limited resources. As mentioned in my opening speech, the Government has introduced funding support schemes to help big and small companies undertake energy efficiency improvement projects.
The EEG helps companies by co-funding investment in energy-efficient equipment. The EEG provides two tiers of support – a base tier to support up to $30,000 for pre-approved energy efficient equipment; and an advanced tier to support companies for larger investments that drive greater energy efficiency. SMEs receive a higher tier of support of up to 70%, capped at $350,000 under the EEG Advanced Tier.
Mr Yip asked if MEES requirements would result in higher costs for small companies. In most cases, it would not. In fact, companies stand to reap significant cost savings from energy efficiency improvements, especially with the Government's funding support. With the EEG, small companies can achieve a shorter payback period on their investments through the reduced capital costs and enjoy considerable cost savings from lower energy use during the lifespan of the equipment.
To illustrate, an SME that taps on the EEG to retrofit a chilled water system with a cooling load of 1,000 refrigeration tons would be able to reduce the investment's payback period by about 20% to two years. Thereafter, the SME will stand to enjoy savings of around $1 million every year from this more energy-efficient system.
Mr Louis Ng and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about efforts to engage the industry on the requirements under the ECA. Indeed, NEA has engaged the industry on energy efficiency improvements through multiple channels.
This includes working with trade associations and chambers to reach out to companies, particularly SMEs, to raise awareness of how they can make energy efficiency improvements and access funding support through schemes, such as the EEG. NEA also organises regular industry engagement sessions and puts out circulars to update the industry on the latest developments and upcoming regulatory requirements, ahead of their compliance timelines.
NEA adopts a targeted approach through one-on-one engagements with companies to help them understand their performance and identify areas for improvements. NEA shares the analysis of how the company's energy efficiency journey compares against the industrial average and encourages companies to adopt industry best practices. Together, these efforts support companies to take concrete steps to raise their energy efficiency and reduce business costs in the long run.
Third, on energy reports. Mr Louis Ng is right that the energy reports submitted by companies can help to spur energy efficiency improvement at various levels.
First, at the company-level. The process of preparing the reports enables companies to get facility-level insights, such as its energy performance and potential for energy efficiency improvement. NEA also provides support by reviewing each company's energy consumption and their energy efficiency improvement plans, ensuring that these plans are forward-looking, span the next one to five years and include at least one planned energy efficiency measure.
Second, at the industry-level. As I mentioned earlier, aggregated data from the reports is used to form the industry average on energy efficiency performance, which is then shared with companies to help them benchmark their own energy efficiency performance. NEA is also better able to assess the challenges faced by the industry in improving energy efficiency and assess whether current measures are translating into concrete energy efficiency improvement efforts.
Third, at the national level. NEA also has an interest in tracking the overall effectiveness of our energy efficiency measures, as Mr Yip alluded to. Insights from the energy use reports, together with the EEOA and MEES reports, inform the next bound of policymaking on further energy efficiency gains in industrial facilities. For instance, as I shared in my opening speech, the reports highlighted that the majority of the chilled water systems in industrial facilities were inefficient, which led to the introduction of MEES for chilled water systems. Moving forward, we are also gathering input on the feasibility of applying MEES to other common industrial energy-consuming systems.
Next, I will address questions on key responsibilities and processes under the ECA. Mr Louis Ng asked about the duties of company directors under the ECA. While company directors do not have specific responsibilities under the ECA, the Energy Conservation (Energy Management Practices) Regulations do prescribe specific responsibilities for the Chief Executive of the company.
Under the Regulations, the Chief Executive is the person principally responsible for the management and conduct of the business of the corporation. The Chief Executive is required to endorse the corporation's annual submissions to NEA, such as the annual energy use report, energy efficiency improvement plans and energy efficiency opportunities assessment report. In addition, the Chief Executive is required to provide a signed statement assuring the completeness and accuracy of information submitted for the status of registration of his corporation.
Mr Louis Ng also asked about the timeline for industrial facilities that are not regulated under the ECA to conform to MEES. As mentioned in my opening speech, this would fall under the third phase of MEES for chilled water systems, where we have catered for a longer lead time for this group of less energy intensive facilities to prepare for compliance by 1 December 2029. As such, there are no plans to stagger the timeline of report submission over the next five years.
Mr Yip Hon Weng sought clarifications on the energy efficiency reporting requirements for small companies that fall under the revised definition of \"new venture\" under the ECA. The submission of EEOA reports for new ventures is streamlined under the Building and Construction Authority's (BCA's) CORENET X platform, which is also used for the submission of their building plans. NEA is working with BCA to ensure that companies which have new ventures will be able to complete their EEOA obligations without any delay to the construction of these new ventures. NEA is engaging the companies at the early planning stages of their new ventures to help them understand the process and requirements of the EEOA.
Mr Yip Hon Weng also asked about the registration process of new \"registrable relevant persons\", which represent the companies required to comply with MEES. Registration is done on the Emissions Data Monitoring and Analysis portal that companies who have facilities regulated under the ECA are already familiar with. They would have used it for past registrations and submissions of their energy use reports. NEA will support new companies to familiarise them with the various administrative processes, if needed.
Finally, let me touch on how the ECA will be administered, including providing flexibility for companies that might have genuine difficulties in meeting certain requirements.
The ECA empowers the Director-General to enforce the MEES, including directing companies to carry out necessary measures to ensure that the prescribed system can meet the prescribed standards. The NEA Director-General exercises these powers fairly and transparently across the facilities regulated under the ECA. NEA has also developed Standard Operating Procedures to ensure that the ECA is implemented consistently and fairly across companies.
There are also flexibility provisions for companies that face genuine constraints in meeting the requirements of the ECA, which Mr Yip Hon Weng spoke about. Under section 31B, NEA has the power to exercise flexibility to help companies that are unable to meet the ECA requirements due to extenuating circumstances. Such companies may write in to NEA, which will then work with them to understand their challenges, assess the request on a case-by-case basis and, where appropriate, grant time extensions or conditional waivers.
I hope that these clarifications help Members better appreciate these prescriptions and regulations under ECA, which were intended to build essential capabilities within companies for better energy management, while having room to exercise discretion where needed.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the EC Bill was first introduced in this House in 2012 to help our industrial facilities become more energy efficient. This is an important lever for Singapore to reduce our industrial greenhouse gas emissions. Over recent years, we have made significant strides towards a more sustainable future and enhanced our climate targets. Our ambitious net zero goal by 2050 requires a major energy transition. Enhancing our industrial energy efficiency today, is a necessary step to prepare Singapore for a sustainable tomorrow.
So, I call on all Members of the House to give your support to this Bill. With this, Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip and Mr Ng, any further clarifications? No? Okay.
[(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":"Sewerage and Drainage (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second Time.\"
The Sewerage and Drainage Act, or SDA for short, was enacted in 1999, and the last Sewerage and Drainage (Amendment) Bill was in 2012. The SDA provides powers to regulate the construction, maintenance, improvement, operation and use of sewerage and drainage systems and the discharge of sewage and trade effluent.
Over the past decades, the SDA has allowed the Public Utilities Board (PUB) to regulate discharges into our sewerage system. This ensures that the used water received at our Water Reclamation Plants or WRPs, can be effectively and efficiently treated and sent to the NEWater Factories for further treatment to produce NEWater. NEWater, an ultra-clean, high-grade reclaimed water, plays a critical role in Singapore's water supply. It is delivered to key customers like wafer fabrication plants and is also used to top up our reservoirs during dry spells.
We have also taken steps to improve our stormwater drainage system over the years. In 2008, we completed the Marina Reservoir by damming up the Singapore River. This alleviated flooding in the low-lying areas in the city centre and provided us with a new source of catchment water. Over the years, we have continued to develop innovative drainage solutions. Just this September, we marked the opening of Alkaff Lake at Bidadari Park, which not only functions as a stormwater retention pond to prevent floods in the Bidadari Estate during heavy rain, but also serves as a recreational space to bring people closer to water.
But our work is not done. Findings from Singapore's Third National Climate Change Study, or V3 study, project that Singapore will see longer and more frequent dry spells by 2100, averaging one every 10 to 60 months. We also expect more extreme daily rainfall across all seasons which will increase the likelihood of flash floods.
As a weather-resilient National Tap less affected by dry spells, NEWater's importance will thus grow and we must take further steps to protect the quality of our used water which affects how we are able to treat it into NEWater. We will also need to ensure that our stormwater drainage system continues to be protected and kept in good working order, so that it can withstand more frequent extreme weather events.
Our proposed amendments to the SDA seek to achieve these two objectives. Better secure our used water system and in turn safeguard the production of NEWater; and also enhance our flood resilience by better protecting the stormwater drainage system and keeping it in proper working order.
We will also introduce amendments related to PUB's operations, to better support their operational needs as Singapore's national water agency.
Let me elaborate on each group of amendments.
First, on securing our used water system. Singapore has an extensive sewerage system with about 3,600 kilometres (km) of sewers and 48 km of Deep Tunnel Sewerage System (DTSS). As Singapore develops further, our sewerage system will also expand. Last year, PUB completed tunnelling works for Phase 2 of the DTSS, comprising 98 km of deep tunnels and link sewers. Our sewerage system channels used water from industries and households to our water reclamation plants which provide the treated used water as feedstock to our NEWater factories.
To better secure our NEWater supply, we must leverage technology to better protect the sewerage system and take stronger actions against illegal discharges.
A key feature of the Bill is to support the use of technology to better protect our sewerage system. General Waste Collectors (GWCs) collect sewage, greasy waste and organic sludge for disposal at WRPs. Their tankers need to be registered with PUB annually and they are only allowed to collect authorised waste.
However, some GWCs may illegally collect unauthorised waste or dispose any collected waste directly into sewers instead of our WRPs to avoid paying for the costs of treatment or disposal. In 2021, PUB investigated two such cases, but the cases could not be established as PUB was unable to verify their collection routes.
To deter such illegal actions, clause 42 amends section 74 to empower regulations to be made to impose requirements for these tankers to be installed with tracking and locking devices. These devices provide GPS tracking and geo-fenced smart-locking capabilities to allow the discharge valves of GWC tankers to only open at designated points in our water reclamation plants.
Aside from illegal discharges, our sewerage system is also impacted when contractors physically damage our sewerage system such as when a piling rig punctures a sewer. Clause 42 will also enable regulations to require the installation of tracking devices on piling and soil investigation rigs. This will provide real-time alerts to PUB and contractors if their rigs are near our sewerage system, so that preventive actions can be taken where necessary.
Clause 43 enacts a related amendment to the Public Utilities Act 2001 for large water supply pipelines. Prior to introducing these measures, PUB engaged the industry to seek their feedback. GWCs welcomed the change as they could at the same time use the GPS devices for fleet management. Contractors were also supportive as the GPS devices would help them avoid damaging the sewers during works, which could result in much higher costs and delays.
Since April 2023, the industry has already implemented these requirements. All GWC tankers registered with PUB have installed GPS devices. Tracking devices have also been installed on piling and soil investigation rigs deployed to projects in the DTSS or trunk sewer protection corridor. Hence, the amendments seek to regularise these requirements.
With recent improvements in technology, contractors now have more advanced methods such as probing with plastic drill bits and sonar detection to identify buried services including sewers before carrying out activities like excavation or drilling works. The industry often prefers these advanced methods as they are less intrusive and more efficient than physically digging a trial trench. Clause 9 thus provides for PUB's acceptance of such alternative methods.
Today, we have a suite of end-to-end measures to deter illegal discharges into the sewerage system. Upstream, we have a thorough vetting process before granting approvals for discharge. Our officers conduct regular inspections and monitoring throughout the network. When illegal discharges are detected, we may issue stop work orders, revoke approvals for trade effluent discharge and impose penalties on offenders. We also communicate regularly with companies that discharge trade effluent to remind them of the important role that they play in protecting our sewers.
Thus far, most companies have acted responsibly. But there are some irresponsible offenders, including some recalcitrant ones, whose actions have threatened our used water system.
Illegal discharges can disrupt NEWater feedstock. Toxic and harmful discharge can kill the microorganisms used to treat used water at the WRPs. This results in the water being unfit for further treatment at our NEWater factories. To rectify the impact, PUB would have to temporarily halt the NEWater production process and ramp up other National Taps to make up for these disruptions.
Illegal discharges also jeopardise the safety of the people who work hard to maintain our used water system. When companies illegally discharge high concentrations of volatile organic compounds such as benzene and toluene, workers that maintain our sewers and operate our water reclamation plants may breathe in the toxic fumes. These highly flammable compounds also create fire and explosion risks. Even as PUB takes all necessary measures to ensure the safety of its workers, we should seek to eliminate such hazards in the first place.
PUB also has to expend resources to investigate and carry out extensive sampling to identify the source of the illegal discharge and take remedial actions. This is costly and time-consuming.
To enhance deterrence, we have reviewed the penalties under the SDA and propose to enhance these to ensure the penalty regime remains effective. We will implement changes in two areas: raise maximum penalties and introduce mandatory minimum penalties.
In our review, we considered three objectives. First, penalties should better reflect the severe impact to our water supply. Irresponsible actions can cause disruptions to the NEWater production process. They can also endanger workers operating and maintaining our used water sewerage system and working at our WRPs. Therefore, the penalties should better reflect the gravity of such irresponsible actions. This is done both by raising the maximum penalty and introducing minimum penalties.
Second, the penalty quanta should be substantial enough so that companies are not incentivised to flout the law instead of taking the necessary measures.
Third, the penalty quanta should be generally aligned with those of similar offences in other Acts. For example, we aligned the maximum penalties in the SDA with that of similar offences in the Environmental Protection and Management Act 1999. In setting the minimum penalty quanta, we also considered that several Acts had mandatory minimum penalties of about 20% of the maximum penalty.
The first enhancement is to raise maximum penalties. Clause 12 of the Bill will amend section 16(5) to increase the maximum penalty from $20,000 to $50,000 for repeat offenders who discharge trade effluent without approval or not in accordance with conditions of that approval or regulations.
Clause 13 will amend section 16A(6) relating to the discharge of dangerous or hazardous substances without approval or not in accordance with conditions of that approval or regulations, which causes injury, death, damage to sewers, or severe disruption to treatment, by doubling the maximum penalty for repeat offences. The maximum penalty for repeat offences will thus be raised from $200,000 to $400,000.
Clause 14 will amend section 17(4) to increase the maximum penalty from $40,000 to $100,000 for offences relating to the failure to comply with PUB's order to stop and/or treat the discharge of hazardous substances.
Clause 42 will amend section 74(2) to double the maximum penalty from $15,000 to $30,000 for repeat offences under regulations.
Penalties for sewerage offences, such as carrying out unauthorised sewerage works, will also be raised to match corresponding increases in penalties for drainage offences. These actions impact the conveyance capacity of our sewers and may result in leaks or even sewer overflows, which pose public health and environmental pollution risks.
Clause 7 will amend section 11(4) to increase the maximum first-offence penalties for the alteration of sewerage system without approval, from $20,000 to $50,000. Maximum penalties for repeat offenders will be increased from $20,000 to $100,000.
Clause 10 will amend section 14(4) to increase maximum first-offence penalties for carrying out works affecting or likely to affect the sewer or sewerage system without approval, from $20,000 to $50,000. Maximum penalties for repeat offenders will be increased from $20,000 to $100,000.
Clause 17 will amend section 20(1) to increase the maximum first offence penalties for the damage caused to a public sewerage system, from $40,000 to $50,000. Maximum penalties for repeat offenders will be increased from $40,000 to $100,000.
Clause 17 will also amend section 20(2) relating to damage caused to the public sewerage system, increasing the penalty for repeat offences from $200,000 to $400,000.
The second enhancement is to introduce minimum penalties for four offences relating to illegal trade effluent discharge, across both first and subsequent offences.
Clause 12 will amend section 16(5) to insert a mandatory minimum penalty for discharging trade effluent without approval or not in accordance with conditions of that approval or regulations. This will be $4,000 for the first offence, and $10,000 for repeat offences.
Clause 13 will amend section 16A(5) to insert a mandatory minimum penalty for discharging dangerous or hazardous substances into any public sewerage system without PUB's approval or not in accordance with the conditions of that approval or regulations. Mandatory minimum penalties will be set at $10,000 for the first offence, and $20,000 for the second offence.
Clause 13 will amend section 16A(6) to insert a minimum penalty for discharging dangerous or hazardous substances without approval or not in accordance with the conditions of that approval or regulations, which causes injury, death, damage to sewers or disruption to treatment. This will be set at $40,000 for the first offence, and $80,000 for repeat offences.
Clause 14 will amend section 17(4) to insert a minimum penalty for failing to comply with an order to stop and treat discharge of hazardous substances into the public sewerage system. This will be set at $20,000.
There are other offences in legislation with minimum penalties, such as the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act 1990, which has a minimum penalty for the discharge of oil or oily mixture from ships.
While the intent of the amendments to the penalty regime is to increase deterrence, we recognise that this measure cannot work in isolation. PUB will continue to work closely with companies, including through engagement sessions to share best practices, to ensure that their trade effluent is managed and discharged responsibly.
Next, let me move on to the amendments intended to enhance flood resilience.
In Singapore, we adopt a holistic \"Source-Pathway-Receptor\" approach to manage stormwater. At source, we try to slow down surface runoff at developments to reduce peak flow into public drains. At locations where stormwater runoff is generated, we require new developments of more than 0.2 hectares to implement solutions. Solutions could include detention tanks or nature-based solutions to slow down stormwater run-off entering the public drainage system.
Along the pathways or the routes through which stormwater is conveyed, PUB designs drains and canals to convey stormwater efficiently. To enhance our pathways, we raised design standards for drains in 2011 to cater for more intense rainfall events. We also implemented important drainage improvement projects like the Stamford Diversion Canal for this purpose.
Finally, at the \"receptors\" where floodwaters may propagate to and affect infrastructure, receptor solutions provide additional flood protection for buildings and key infrastructure. For example, Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station entrances are required to be elevated above ground level with a minimum crest level to prevent stormwater from entering the MRT stations.
The stormwater drainage is one continuous system – actions affecting one part of the system can have severe impact elsewhere in the system. To provide an example, in 2021, there was a construction firm that was doing road-widening works. In the process, they blocked off a roadside drain and diverted the flow to a new drain section that was still under construction. They did so without PUB's approval and this irresponsible action eventually led to a flood. Traffic came to a standstill for about two hours, 13 vehicles were partially submerged and one person was taken to hospital.
The proposed amendments will introduce measures across the system to improve stormwater management. The capacity and function of drains and reservoirs can be compromised due to unauthorised modifications or obstructions caused by debris and silt. This can cause stormwater to back up and flood surrounding developments. We will raise penalties to deter damage or unauthorised modifications to the stormwater drainage system.
Clauses 21 and 22 amend sections 23(4) and 24(4) respectively to increase the maximum first-offence penalties for the alteration of stormwater drainage system without approval and interfering with drains that cause flow obstructions respectively, from $20,000 to $50,000. Maximum penalties for repeat offenders will be increased from $20,000 to $100,000.
We aligned the penalty quantum to that of section 26 which relates to works affecting the stormwater drainage system.
Clause 23 amends section 26(5) to double the maximum penalty for repeat offenders who carry out works or activities which could affect any stormwater drainage system or lead to the discharge of silt directly or indirectly into any stormwater drainage system from $50,000 to $100,000.
Clause 24 amends section 30(2) to increase the maximum penalty for first offences for causing damage to the stormwater drainage system from $40,000 to $50,000 and raises the maximum penalty for repeat offenders from $40,000 to $100,000.
We want to be comprehensive and consistent in our coverage of activities that may affect the stormwater drainage system. Currently, the SDA only regulates construction activities that affect the stormwater drainage system and non-construction activities in State Land drainage reserves. Clause 22 expands the SDA to also prohibit non-construction activities that cause obstruction to all drains, including those outside of state land drainage reserves.
PUB has silt control powers for the discharge of surface water containing silt from construction activities into the stormwater drainage system. However, non-construction activities, such as sand stockpiles for landscaping works, also have the potential to cause silty discharge. For example, we have seen a case of a contractor improperly storing material like soil and sand near Punggol Reservoir, resulting in silt being washed into the reservoir during rain. Clause 23 amends section 26 to extend PUB's silt control powers to non-construction activities and discharges into reservoirs.
Managing flood risks is a collective effort. With more intense weather events, it is not feasible to expand our drains to cater for every extreme rainfall event. Premises owners and occupiers have a part to play in ensuring the flood resilience of their own premises, which also affects the surrounding developments and connected drainage system.
Clause 20 will introduce new sections 22A and 22B to require owners of premises to keep their stormwater drainage systems, drains and flood protection measures in proper order.
Clause 42 amends section 74 to enable regulations to be prescribed towards these requirements in relation to flood protection measures. For example, requiring minimum platform levels at new developments and redevelopments, and requiring crest levels for all entrances, exits or openings to basements or underground structures like tunnels and underground MRT stations.
Finally, a third group of amendments are technical in nature and relate to PUB's operations to safeguard the sustainability of our water supply.
It has been 12 years since the last Sewerage and Drainage (Amendment) Bill was passed. These amendments update the SDA provisions so that they stay relevant and effective in supporting PUB's operations in today's context.
When there are any illegal alterations, works or damage that affect the public sewerage system, stormwater drainage system, or drain, clauses 7, 10, 17 and 21 to 24 provide for PUB to urgently step in to carry out rectification works to restore the function of the public sewerage system, stormwater drainage system, or drain, and recover the cost of the rectification works from the culprit. Currently, PUB is unable to recover the costs if it steps in to carry out rectification works, even when it is clear that the damage was caused by the irresponsible party. PUB can only recover costs if the party responsible for the damage had first defaulted on PUB's written notice to perform rectification works.
Clause 33 amends section 43 to ensure that PUB officers have powers of entry to deal with emergency situations involving public sewerage systems and stormwater drainage systems, such as chokes or pipes that had developed structural defects over time, so that PUB can undertake urgent rectification work necessary for the service or safety of the public. This amendment mirrors existing powers of entry in emergency situations in the Public Utilities Act 2001. Emergency situations are those that involve damage or obstruction to a public sewerage system or stormwater drainage system where PUB assesses that rectification work is necessary for the service or safety of the public.
Clause 34 amends section 44A to allow officers to take videos in addition to photographs and require the production of video surveillance footage, during investigations to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of investigations.
Works to sewerage and drainage systems must be completed in accordance with plans approved by PUB, to protect public safety. To ensure this, clause 27 amends section 33 to enable PUB to issue a written notice requiring developments to apply for a Compliance Certificate which will complete the works certification process and penalise those that fail to comply with the written notice.
Clause 29 will amend section 36 to clarify who are the owners or occupiers of premises who may be directed to carry out rectification works. This is aligned with the existing provisions for sewerage matters.
I spoke earlier about protecting our sewerage system. Clauses 9 and 10 will amend sections 13A and 14 respectively to regularise our existing practice of protecting sewers under construction and constructed sewers that have not yet been commissioned. The clauses will require companies to ascertain locations of such sewers to prevent damage to them.
Clause 42 amends section 74 to empower regulations to be made for the issue of stop work orders so as to stop the discharge of trade effluent, when needed to protect the public sewerage system.
When taking over public drains or sewers constructed by other agencies and developers, PUB needs to impose a Defects Liability Period (DLP). Clause 27 amends section 33 to formally allow PUB to impose the DLP and to provide PUB with recourse should defects arise during the DLP or any warranty against defects is not assigned to PUB.
Clause 41 inserts a new section 73A which allows PUB to issue administrative exemptions from legislated requirements on a case-by-case basis, in instances where stakeholders face specific compliance constraints.
For example, new developments with a small footprint might not be able to meet PUB's Minimum Platform Level requirement as this could lead to additional measures, such as ramps required for barrier-free access. In such cases, PUB may allow the installation of flood protection systems, like flood barriers, to give the same level of flood protection.
Clause 40 amends section 70 to provide for composition sums collected by PUB under the SDA to be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
Clause 38 inserts a new section 60A to make it clear that certain drainage and sewerage systems built on private land do not form part of the land and do not belong to the landowner.
We are standardising and clarifying terms used in the SDA, both through clause 2 which clarifies terms, such as \"sewerage system\" defined in section 2 and through other clauses which remove overlaps in the use of the terms \"sewage\" and \"trade effluent\" throughout the Act.
Clause 26 inserts a new section 32A to enable the incorporation by reference of PUB's Codes of Practice for both sewerage and drainage to enable PUB to enforce the requirements more effectively.
Finally, clause 35 amends section 47 to remove the right of appeal to the Minister in relation to three provisions, where there is already recourse to the Courts.
In summary, we must protect our sewers from damage and take errant companies to task to better secure our used water system. This will safeguard our weather-resilient NEWater tap. We must also protect our stormwater system to enhance flood resilience. This will prepare us to adapt to extreme weather patterns that will come with climate change.
The proposed amendments to the SDA I have elaborated on will provide PUB with the legislative powers to do so, and I invite premises owners, developers and stakeholders to work with us and play a part in securing our water future together. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to voice the concerns of residents living in landed estates of my Yio Chu Kang constituency. This includes those from Lentor Estate and Yio Chu Kang Gardens. Some are worried about the implications of this Bill. While I acknowledge the Bill's aim to clarify and strengthen our sewage and drainage systems, I seek clarification on several aspects. These aspects could impact my constituents and the broader community.
First, Mr Speaker, Sir, the requirement for homeowners to maintain their sewerage and drainage systems may pose a considerable financial burden. For many middle-income residents and seniors with no fixed incomes, these costs can represent a significant strain. Faced with increasing cost of living challenges, some residents may feel compelled to defer or neglect essential maintenance. They may opt for the cheapest quick fix rather than a sustainable long-term solution. This approach not only jeopardises their properties, but also risks creating problems for their neighbours and the wider community. Furthermore, it may lead to disputes with neighbouring property owners who may find themselves compelled to cover the costs or, worse, take legal action to enforce compliance.
Can the Minister explain why this Bill does not incorporate a cost-sharing mechanism for private owners, especially concerning shared drainage facilities between neighbouring properties? Such a mechanism would acknowledge the shared responsibility for these critical infrastructure components. What measures will the Government implement to ensure that \"asset-rich and cash-poor\" households, such as retired seniors, are not disproportionately burdened by these maintenance costs? Financial assistance or subsidies should be considered to mitigate potential hardship.
Additionally, has the Government conducted a thorough assessment of the cumulative financial impact on residents, particularly those in older estates where ageing infrastructure may require more frequent and costly maintenance? To allow residents ample time to adjust to these new financial responsibilities, could the Government consider a phased implementation of these requirements? This would provide residents with the opportunity to budget and plan accordingly.
Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, expanding PUB's authority to access premises without prior notice in emergencies brings up valid concerns regarding the privacy of residents. While I recognise the importance of swift action in emergencies, we must find a balance between public safety and individual rights.
Can the Minister elaborate on the specific measures that will be put in place to guarantee transparency and accountability in the exercise of these emergency powers? Clear protocols and oversight mechanisms are essential to prevent potential abuses. To avoid ambiguity and ensure consistent application, could the Government provide more precise guidelines defining what constitutes an \"emergency\" under the Bill?
In addition, how will residents be informed about such emergency entries? Will there be a clear process for residents to challenge the necessity of the entry and seek redress if they believe their rights were violated? Could the Government explore alternative mechanisms, such as requiring warrants in non-life-threatening situations, to balance the need for a rapid response with residents' fundamental right to privacy? If a resident is not at home during an emergency entry, will there be forced entry? Will there be any compensation for such an occurrence?
Thirdly, Mr Speaker, permitting PUB to charge fees for assuming the maintenance of specific drainage systems brings up concerns about possible cost hikes for community amenities and facilities. This could eventually affect overall living expenses. How will PUB establish the fee structure for these services? What safeguards will be implemented to prevent excessive fee hikes that could unduly burden residents and community organisations? To ensure accountability, could we implement transparency requirements mandating PUB to publicly disclose how collected fees are utilised for maintenance and improvements?
Moreover, has the Government considered the potential cumulative impact of these fees on Town Councils and the subsequent effect on residents' maintenance fees? Town Councils manage many shared drainage systems and passing these costs onto residents could create additional financial strain. Could the Government consider waiving or reducing fees for community-led maintenance initiatives or public amenities that serve the broader community? This would encourage community involvement and avoid penalising public spaces and activities that are beneficial for everyone. Since sewage management is a public good, should it not be funded by the Government rather than placing additional costs on residents?
Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, empowering PUB to adopt external standards without parliamentary scrutiny may cause some concerns about consistent regulatory compliance for residents and businesses. How will PUB ensure that the adopted standards are appropriate for local communities, especially older estates with unique infrastructural challenges? A one-size-fits-all approach may not be suitable for all areas. Before adopting external standards, should there be a mechanism for public consultation and feedback to ensure that these standards align with the needs and capacities of local communities and businesses?
What measures will be taken to prevent changes in standards from disproportionately affecting small businesses and homeowners who may have limited resources to adapt to new requirements? Would PUB be required to publish a comprehensive impact assessment before adopting significant changes to standards? This would enhance transparency and would allow for informed decision-making.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, while this Bill offers enhanced management of our sewerage and drainage systems, it is important to address the potential implications for residents and the wider community.
We must ensure that shared responsibilities for maintenance do not become undue financial burdens, especially for vulnerable populations. While emergency powers are necessary for safety, they must be exercised responsibly and transparently, balancing the need for efficiency with residents' rights for privacy. New fees for drainage system maintenance should be transparent and reasonable and the adoption of external standards should prioritise local needs and involve community consultation.
Consistency is key to fair implementation. We need to work together to create a system that serves the best interests of all residents. This is not just about policy, it is about people. I urge the Ministry to carefully consider these clarifications. Together, we can forge a path forward that is equitable, effective and truly reflective of our commitment to the residents we serve. I support the Bill.
Mr 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":"Business Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sewerage and Drainage (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, I declare that I am a lawyer by profession, whose practice areas include, but are not limited to, criminal and regulatory matters. I rise in support of this Bill.
The amendments proposed herein are timely, especially since the last Sewerage and Drainage (Amendment) Bill, or in short, SDA, was in 2012. Mr Speaker, my speech for today will focus on the enhanced penalties proposed by this Bill, which, in my view, are greatly needed.
In Senior Minister of State Amy Khor's reply to an oral Parliamentary Question during the sitting on 6 August 2019, she shared with this House that since 2014, PUB has prosecuted 119 companies for illegal discharge of trade effluent into the sewers, where the discharge did not comply with the stipulations. Senior Minister of State Khor further shared that of the 119 prosecuted companies, 21 were second-time offenders and another 23 committed the offences more than twice.
The first clarification I seek is for the latest statistics. This will form the backdrop for the enhancement of the penalties sought to be implemented by this Bill. It will perhaps also elucidate the impetus and necessity for these enhanced penalties.
The enhanced penalties proposed by this Bill, if passed, will strengthen the punitive levers to deter illegal discharge and impose harsher punishments. For first-time offenders, there will now be a minimum fine in the sum of $40,000. The maximum fine of $200,000 will not be changed. As for the offenders who commit an offence for the second time or more, a minimum fine will also be introduced in the quantum of $80,000. On the other hand, the maximum fine will be doubled to $400,000.
Mr Speaker, it is a trite legal principle that the punishment must fit the crime. To this end, while I understand from Senior Minister of State Amy Khor's speech earlier on, on how these fine amounts were derived, such as taking reference from other enforcement statutes, such as the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act. But the more important issue would be that, would this be sufficient to deter the targeted illegality?
While we take care to not exact a punishment that would exceed the crime, this must be balanced against the risk that offenders may simply view any fine as an acceptable business cost. This will undermine legislative intent as well as public safety.
Just recently, news reports carrying pictures of a river of red flowing through a canal close to Kembangan MRT station. The sight, by itself, was concerning enough such that members of the public reported it to NEA.
In a 2019 Straits Times news article, PUB had reportedly prosecuted 38 companies in that past year for illegally dumping waste water containing chemicals or other materials into the public sewers. 18 out of those 38 companies, almost half, were repeat offenders. Clearly, repeat offenders have not been deterred. According to PUB, trade effluent illegally discharged into public sewers pose significant risks to public health and the environment.
Mr Speaker, a group of unsung heroes who work tirelessly for the sake of our people and environment, but who are exposed to the risks of such irresponsible behaviour, are our sewerage and drainage workers. The onus is on the Members of this House to ensure that they, too, get to work under safe and fair conditions. Thus, I ask the Ministry if we should also consider mandating business owners to take up public liability insurance?
Notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Amy Khor. Sorry, I missed out Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): I have to apologise to you as well, I guess, for whatever I have done.
Sir, this Bill will secure our used-water system, enhance our flood resilience and enhance PUB's operations. I have three points of clarification to raise.
My first point is on the introduction of minimum fines. Sections 16, 16A and 17 will be amended to impose minimum fines for offences relating to discharge of dangerous or hazardous substances. Mandatory minimum sentences restrict a judge's ability to exercise discretion in determining an appropriate sentence based on the facts before the court. I appreciate that mandatory minimum sentences can send a public signal on the severity of an offence and serve a deterrent effect.
Mandatory minimum sentences may also signal the Government's view that the sentences imposed by the courts, thus far, have not been sufficiently high. However, there are less restrictive measures for achieving deterrence and signalling to the court that heavier sentences should be imposed. This may include sentencing guidelines by the Sentencing Advisory Panel or even statements from the Minister in Parliament on the severity that certain offences should carry. Can the Senior Minister of State elaborate on why it is necessary for these offences to resort to mandatory minimum sentences?
My second point is on the recovery of expenses incurred by PUB. Under the current Sewerage and Drainage Act, there are provisions for PUB to recover expenses reasonably incurred by PUB, including from persons who fail to comply with PUB's notices and orders or in cases of emergencies. The Bill will introduce amendments to refine the PUB's powers to recover and apportion costs and expenses as it thinks just.
I support such recovery mechanisms based on the polluter pays principle. These provisions ensure that the cost of undoing any damage done is not externalised to taxpayers. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify what is the intended effect of introducing wording that PUB may recover costs it thinks \"just\"? What criteria will PUB apply in determining when it will or will not recover costs?
Can the Senior Minister of State share how actively the existing cost recovery provisions have been utilised? Can the Senior Minister of State share the quantum of the sums that have been recovered and the types of cases where PUB have taken steps to recover expenses? Can the Senior Minister of State also share whether PUB's intention is to rely on the cost recovery mechanisms more often in the future?
My third and final point is on PUB's powers to enter any premises without notice in cases of emergencies. Under the current Act, powers to enter without notice may only be exercised for classes of premises declared by the Minister to be liable to inspection without notice or where an authorised officer suspects that an offence was committed.
The Bill makes eleven amendments to allow PUB to enter any premises without notice to carry out urgent rectification works in cases of emergency. This is a significant expansion of PUB's powers. Can the Senior Minister of State provide more guidance on what situations constitute cases of emergency? Can the Senior Minister of State also share which individuals will determine whether there is a case of emergency requiring entry without notice? Upon entry without notice, is there a time limit within which PUB is required to notify the owners of the entry?
Notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Amy Khor.
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their interest in and support of this Bill. Let me address the queries and concerns raised under three topics, namely penalties, flood protection and enhancing PUB's operations.
First, on the topic of penalties. Mr Louis Ng asked why there is a need to introduce mandatory minimum penalties for illegal trade effluent discharge. Ms Hany Soh asked how the penalty amounts were derived and whether they would be sufficient to deter the targeted illegality.
Illegal trade effluent discharges have severe impacts on our used water system and, in turn, our NEWater production. They can also pose safety risks to PUB staff. PUB has undertaken much effort to send a strong signal, through industry engagement and publicising enforcement efforts, to reinforce the gravity of such illegal discharge offences. We had also increased maximum penalties in 2012 and 2015, including for three of the offences that we are now proposing to introduce mandatory minimum penalties for.
Despite these measures, there remains a number of recalcitrant offenders. Ms Hany Soh asked for the latest statistics. From 2017 to 2023, PUB prosecuted 90 offenders for 295 trade effluent-related offences in court. On average, about 70% of the offenders prosecuted every year are repeat offenders.
To provide an example, in April 2018, a recalcitrant company was caught in the act during PUB's overnight inspections, discharging industrial used water containing 16 different types of prohibited Volatile Organic Compounds. These compounds are flammable and could cause fires in the sewers and downstream at the Jurong Water Reclamation Plant, thus posing serious safety risks. Additionally, the company's discharge contained heavy metals and chemicals in concentrations that exceeded the allowable limits, which could severely disrupt the used water treatment processes and consequently, NEWater production. Prior to this, the company had already committed 20 offences of illegal discharge over several past occasions. For these acts, under prevailing legislation, the recalcitrant company was fined only $16,600 for two offences.
To give another example, in March 2018, a company was prosecuted for discharging used water containing hazardous substances into the sewerage system at their premises. Prior to this, they had committed offences over four occasions between 2012 and 2015. The recalcitrant company was fined $12,000 for three offences. The recalcitrance of these companies show that the fines imposed on them are clearly inadequate to discourage them from re-offending.
I echo Ms Hany Soh's sentiments that the workers who work hard to maintain our sewerage and drainage system should be able to work under safe conditions. PUB takes all necessary measures to ensure the safety of its workers, including providing insurance coverage for worker injuries. Our amendments will strengthen deterrence to prevent the illegal discharges which threaten worker safety.
Therefore, we are introducing mandatory minimum penalties for illegal trade effluent discharges in order to come down harder on offenders. It will help ensure that, for both first-time and recalcitrant offenders, the penalties are adequate. This is in view of the potential impact to NEWater production. The increased penalties better reflect the severe impact on public safety and our water supply, as well as better align with similar offences in other Acts. Together with the existing suite of measures that I touched on earlier in my opening speech, the increased penalties will help increase deterrence.
Even as we impose heavier penalties to correct behaviour, preventive measures are equally important to avoid having illegal discharges in the first place. The mandatory minimum penalties will work alongside these efforts to deter illegal trade effluent discharge. Let me elaborate further.
Before we grant trade premises the approval to discharge trade effluent, we have a thorough process to review the type of chemicals used and the quantity and quality of discharge from these trade premises. PUB will also assess whether these premises have adequate wastewater treatment facilities to remove their waste or have engaged licensed waste collectors to remove their waste.
We inspect and monitor our sewers 24/7 using a real-time online network of over 100 volatile organic compound sensors at various industrial clusters across Singapore. This is complemented by more than 150 microbial electrochemical sensors for heavy metals and cyanide. If we detect any abnormalities, PUB officers will be deployed swiftly to address the illegal discharges at source and mitigate the impact to PUB's processes.
I urge companies to play your part by properly treating or disposing your waste before discharging trade effluent into our sewerage system.
Next, on flood protection. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the requirement for home owners to maintain their drainage system, the potential financial burden this may pose to home owners and whether the Bill should have a cost-sharing mechanism among private owners who share drainage facilities.
Maintaining a drainage system involves regular inspection and clearing of litter and other debris like leaves to ensure the smooth flow of water through the drains. It also involves repairing damaged drains when they occur, but this would be infrequent. In landed estates, this is a shared responsibility between PUB, NEA and home owners.
For public drains, such as roadside drains in landed estates, PUB has an ongoing programme to systematically maintain, upgrade and rehabilitate them. NEA also performs regular inspection and flushing of these public drains. For private drainage systems, home owners are responsible for the maintenance of their own private drainage systems, such as perimeter drains that run within their properties. Given that private drains belong to the owners of such properties, it is their responsibility to maintain them and it would not be prudent to make use of Government funds to do so. Their failure to repair or maintain their private drainage system could ultimately lead to flooding and property damage at their own premises and neighbouring premises.
Today, legislation already requires home owners to maintain their private sewerage systems and drains. Most home owners already maintain their drains properly today. The proposed amendment in the Bill is to explicitly spell out this requirement.
Regarding the cost-sharing mechanism that Mr Yip suggested, the Bill does provide for this. For private stormwater drainage systems that serve a group of residents, neighbours can arrange amongst themselves to apportion the costs of maintenance. The Bill also provides for PUB to help step in to carry out the works and apportion the costs where necessary, based on the facts of the case.
On drainage, Mr Yip Hon Weng also asked whether permitting PUB to charge fees for assuming the maintenance of private drainage systems could lead to cost hikes for community amenities and facilities. I would like to reiterate that all property owners are already required to maintain their own private stormwater drainage systems. They can choose the most cost-effective way to do so. This allows them the flexibility to choose to do so either on their own or engage commercial providers to assist them.
The situations where PUB may have to step in to maintain these private drainage systems using public funds are rare. This only happens if there is a risk of flooding that may impact the public or neighbouring properties. So, this, indeed, if it happens, is ad hoc. In such rare instances, since public funds are used, it is only fair that PUB charges a fair fee, in line with good financial governance.
As I have explained in my opening speech, actions in one part of the stormwater drainage system can lead to significant impact elsewhere. We seek the cooperation of all premises owners to play their part to keep our stormwater drainage system in proper working order so that we can keep everyone safe from floods.
Finally, on enhancing PUB's operations. Mr Louis Ng also asked what are the costs that PUB can recover that it thinks are \"just\", when PUB steps in to carry out urgent rectification works instead of a responsible third party.
The Bill provides for PUB to step in urgently, when necessary, to carry out rectification works to restore the function of the public sewerage system or stormwater drainage system and provides the legal powers for PUB to recover the cost of the rectification works from the culprit. This provision applies when there are any illegal alterations, works or damages that affect the conveyance of the public sewerage system or stormwater drainage system. In such cases, PUB will recover the cost of the works that the culprit would have incurred had he undertaken the necessary rectifications himself. This is consistent with the principle that those responsible for causing the damage should bear the cost of rectification rather than for this expense to be passed on to taxpayers.
To give an example, in 2020, a contractor illegally damaged a one-metre-diameter sewer outside Yio Chu Kang MRT station. The contractor was laying gas pipes and had punctured through the sewer, which served a large area of Ang Mo Kio. Conveyance was affected and flow was building up with imminent sewer overflow. The contractor did not have the resources to deploy mitigating measures and PUB had to step in urgently to divert the flow. The diversion cost of about $300,000 that PUB incurred was eventually recovered from the contractor. The cost recovery was done administratively then. This Bill provides PUB the legal powers to do so in future.
Mr Louis Ng and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about emergency powers of entry without notice. Broadly, they raised concerns on why these powers are necessary, how they will be operationalised, and processes for redress following the entry. Let me address each in turn.
First, emergency powers of entry are crucial to protect public health and safety. A choke in the public sewerage systems may lead to sewage overflow in neighbouring units, impacting public health. A blocked stormwater drainage system may cause flooding during heavy storms, posing safety risks to the wider public and potentially causing property damage to an area.
Currently, PUB must serve a 14-day notice under the SDA before PUB can enter a property to conduct repairs. In urgent situations where immediate action is required to address public health and safety concerns, this is just too long a wait. Damage could already be done. In our experience, most occupiers will readily oblige when PUB explains the situation. However, there is a small number who refuse to cooperate. These powers will have to be used in such situations.
Next, let me address the operationalisation of these powers. PUB officers will only request entry into premises during emergency situations. These are situations when a suspected sewer or drainage choke threatens the health and safety of surrounding units.
In such situations, PUB's authorised officers will obtain the necessary internal approvals to ensure accountability in the exercise of emergency powers. Upon arrival on site, the officers will first seek the consent of the occupier to enter their premises by explaining the urgency of the situation, backed by these emergency entry powers. If the owner refuses, PUB will strive to resolve the situation through other means where possible, such as approaching the owners of other premises further from the choke to request alternative access, and adopting other technical solutions, such as pumping and localised protection. However, these may involve higher cost, more time, reduced efficiency and disamenities to other neighbours. If no occupier is present, PUB's authorised officers would request for the Police to be present prior to entering the premises. After completing the works, PUB will promptly notify the owner about the emergency rectification works and provide contact details for any follow-up questions or service feedback.
I want to assure Members that we strive to balance between individuals' privacy and emergency needs, and PUB will exercise these powers reasonably and judiciously.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the incorporation of Codes of Practice (COPs) by reference. He asked how PUB would ensure that the adopted standards are appropriate and not overly onerous for local communities, especially older estates with unique infrastructure challenges.
I would like to clarify that the new requirements will not be retrospectively applied to old developments. Instead, PUB actively engages businesses and residents in these existing developments that are in flood prone areas to raise awareness on rainy weather preparedness and distributes portable flood barriers to mitigate flood risks for these stakeholders.
PUB's COP on Surface Water Drainage, and the COP on Sewerage and Sanitary Works provide technical information and guidelines for owners of new developments or those looking to redevelop their premises, on planning, designing and constructing the associated systems to ensure that safety and functional requirements are adhered to. These COPs will be incorporated by reference through regulations, giving PUB legal recourse when there are violations.
PUB consults extensively with key stakeholders to develop and amend these COPs. These include professional bodies like The Institution of Engineers, Singapore and the Singapore Plumbing Society, as well as trade associations and other public agencies. This collaborative approach ensures that the COPs are technically sound and practicable.
I would like to assure Mr Yip that we do not adopt a one size fits all approach. For example, the COP on Surface Water Drainage specifies minimum platform levels and crest levels that developments must meet to protect themselves against floods. For developments with links to essential facilities like MRT stations, we will impose more stringent requirements to provide a higher level of protection. In cases where site constraints make it challenging to meet these standards, we will consider allowing alternative solutions such as implementing flood barriers to achieve the same outcomes. In fact, the Bill has also provided for PUB to waive its legislated requirements in such situations.
In conclusion, the Sewerage and Drainage (Amendment) Bill is intended to protect our used water system, strengthen flood resilience and enhance our operational effectiveness. PUB will continue to partner with industry, private developments, and the wider public to engender collective action toward these goals. With that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Any clarifications for Senior Minister of State Khor? I do not see any.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan]. (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":"Building Respectful and Harassment-free Workplaces for Teachers and Educators","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
Building Respectful and Harassment-free Workplaces for Teachers and Educators
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): At the Annual Schools Work Plan Seminar this September, the Minister for Education raised an important conversation on setting clear expectations and boundaries for teachers and educators to manage their workload, including their right to disconnect outside of school hours and limiting communication with parents to official channels such as their school email or office number. I thank the Minister for asserting these baselines that will lay the foundation for building respectful and harassment-free workplaces for teachers and educators.
It is indeed timely and critical to raise this conversation as their roles and responsibilities today have expanded well beyond merely imparting subject knowledge. And together with Senior Parliamentary Secretary Shawn Huang, we recently engaged union leaders from the education cluster of unions which cover unions across the entire education sector from pre-school to mainstream as well as Institutes of Technical Education (ITEs), polytechnics, universities and private education providers on the protection and well-being of teachers and educators across the education and continuing education and training (CET) ecosystem. I thank them for sharing with us their valuable insights and feedback based on experiences on the ground and handling grievances of teachers and educators.
Teachers and educators today are tasked with addressing a wide range of student needs including supporting students' 21st century competencies, Character and Citizenship Education, Co-Curricular Activities, well-being as Teacher Counsellors, and many more. These tall orders cannot be met without enhanced support and protection for them. In the past four years I have persistently raised questions in this House on enhanced well-being support and harassment prevention for this group. Through this Adjournment Motion, I hope and wish to reiterate the call to foster workplaces that uphold dignity, safety, and respect for teachers and educators through a pre-emptive, strengthened, and holistic approach, or what I call the \"3Ps\" of Prevent, Protect and Partner.
First, \"Prevent\". Teaching is a work of heart, and our teachers and educators are deeply committed to taking care of students, but we cannot expect them to be accessible to parents and guardians, or even students and school leaders, round the clock, especially for non-urgent matters. Unrestricted communication can lead to fatigue, stress and burnout, impairing their ability to fully focus on what matters most: teaching.
I am heartened that the Ministry of Education (MOE) has addressed this issue proactively through its refreshed Guidelines for School-Home Partnership, also known as the GSHP, which serves as a how-to guide for working together \"positively, constructively, and respectfully\". However, I opine that any ambiguity about expectations and boundaries left open to individual interpretation can lead to unconscious encroachment into teachers and educators' personal time, as well as place the burden of setting limits on them, which can be both challenging and uncomfortable.
I therefore propose for each school and educational institutions to develop and make transparent a set of communication protocols to empower teachers and educators to set clear and firm boundaries from the onset. These protocols will serve as a more school-specific and enforceable extension of the refreshed GSHP, where schools can stipulate official hours during which teachers and educators may be contacted and establish alternatives for urgent matters outside those times, in a way that best fits their own context and in consultation with all stakeholders. These protocols will help parents and guardians as well, by preventing misunderstandings on when and how to reach out and ensuring that communication is efficient and purposeful.
Establishing these boundaries will not compromise the quality of support offered to students and families. Most students and families use existing communication channels appropriately and thus are already respectful of these boundaries. And in fact, when teachers and educators can maintain work-life harmony, they return each day refreshed, prepared and engaged, benefiting students directly. Establishing these boundaries marks a significant step towards a more balanced, supportive and sustainable education system.
An especially vulnerable group here is preschool teachers, who have frequent interactions with parents, since parents of young children tend to be very highly involved and protective. Young children also have higher emotional and physical needs, which can blur professional lines. In situations where parents disagree with teachers' handling of children displaying difficult behaviour or expect them to be overly accommodating to unreasonable requests, teachers may feel pressured into accepting disrespectful or harassing behaviour.
This is where the commitment of strong leadership to upholding guidelines and protocols is key, without which guidelines and protocols remain mere suggestions. Good practices can only take root when standards are reinforced consistently and their importance demonstrated through action. Teachers and educators need to know that school leaders have their backs. I commend the school leaders, supervisors, and superintendents that check in with their officers regularly. I also urge them to readily empower teachers and educators to stand up against harassing or disrespectful behaviour should they occur.
Second, \"Protect\". There are few cases of harassment and bullying of teachers and educators in Singapore. However, for the minority of cases, each should be investigated seriously and without delay, with strong consequences for aggressors and compassionate support for those affected. I urge schools to re-examine and, where necessary, strengthen their punitive measures and escalation procedures and processes. At the same time, we must prioritise repairing the harm caused to victims, recognising that those who have experienced harassment or bullying may suffer lasting effects on their career confidence, mental health and sense of security.
Teaching is an inherently socially and emotionally demanding job, but teachers and educators should never accept disrespectful behaviour like abusive language from parents and guardians, inappropriate comments in the classroom, or unwelcome physical contact as \"part of the job\". Every teacher and educator must be made aware of their rights and protections available to them to prevent underreporting and failure to seek support. They should feel safe to inform their school leaders or MOE, or in more severe cases where their safety is threatened, file a police report without fear of retaliation, blame or being penalised in their performance reviews. School leadership must also be sensitive to the implications of power dynamics and equipped to escalate the matter after mediation or formal warnings have failed.
Our teachers and educators make a vital contribution to our nation by nurturing the young minds of tomorrow. They have the right to work in environments free from harassment, intimidation and discrimination. We cannot risk allowing behaviour that undermines them to go unchecked. Implementing stronger punitive measures and escalation processes will underline a position of zero-tolerance. This includes in-school suspensions with counselling and reflection requirements or mandatory social-emotional learning lessons for students as well as stronger penalties and interventions for adult offenders. Consequently, any accusations made should be thoroughly investigated and the accused should have the opportunity to respond.
Perhaps the Ministry can also look into conducting mandatory training programmes on recognising, preventing and healing from harassment and bullying that are trauma-informed for all school staff. When in doubt, teachers and educators who are union members can also approach their union for help. Our teachers' and education unions in Singapore hear many cases of grievances a year, ranging from managing students' misbehaviour and abusive attacks from parents to work appraisals, mental health issues and career progression. Our unions stand ready to champion all teachers and educators from trainee teachers to veteran faculty, from pre-schools to special education (SPED) schools to Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) including ITE, polytechnics, universities, private education providers and international schools as well.
For IHLs, where parents are less involved and students more mature and motivated in pursuing their academic and career goals, the number of harassment cases may be limited. But even a small number of isolated cases can have serious impacts, not only on the individuals involved but rippled across the broader school community. To build a respectful and inclusive teaching and learning environment, campuses can consider working together with unions to provide a dedicated office that can professionally receive, handle and manage harassment complaints.
This dedicated office typically acts as an informal and neutral \"help desk\" of sorts, that provides confidential conflict resolution options and resources to faculty, staff and students that are, crucially, free from departmental influence. At the moment, an equivalent of such a dedicated office that acts as an unbiased and third-party channel does not seem to exist or be widely known in IHLs. Faculty, staff and students' primary recourse is to approach school leaders, human resources (HR) departments or supervisors, which may discourage reporting of sensitive or uncomfortable matters.
A dedicated office is, thus, especially helpful for those who are not ready to pursue formal action but still want to discuss options or seek advice on navigating the system, a more flexible approach to formal HR processes. The dedicated office's mandate can also be expanded to include proactive responsibilities, such as identifying systemic issues and recommending changes to workplace policies, standards and codes of conduct to school leadership based on case trends and feedback.
I am heartened that teachers and educators who require psychological support are able to tap on a host of resources including MOE's in-house professional counselling services, schools' Wellness Ambassadors and additional funding and resources for Staff Well-being Committees. I would suggest, additionally, that teachers and educators who have experienced harassment and bullying be given the option to take mental health leave from work, if needed, or in the interim, participate in the Teacher Work Attachment Plus programme to regain a sense of confidence and stability.
Further, access to these well-being resources should include allied educators, like school counsellors and special educational needs officers, as well as allied staff in SPED schools, like teacher aides and vocational education personnel, who may face higher physical risks and emotional strain but receive less support and protection than teachers. It is commendable that MOE has made significant efforts to break down silos between mainstream schools and SPED schools, including increased opportunities for intermingling among children as well as attachments, rotations and secondments for teachers.
I submit that MOE should ensure that Allied Educators and SPED non-teaching staff are not overlooked in the policy decisions surrounding their well-being, protection and career progression.
Third, \"Partner\". We often say, \"It takes a village to raise a child\". To promote a positive school culture of mutual support and trust, we need all hands on deck. If our teachers and educators are not given the respect that they are due, there is a problem beyond that of individuals' actions. It is a community problem, influenced by our shared beliefs, perspectives and practices. The community then needs to be part of the solution. Law enforcement agencies and community partners need to step up as well to partner with and support our educational institutions.
Parents and guardians, for one, play an influential role in instilling into and reinforcing students' respect for teachers and educators. Our children take their cues from us. When we treat their teachers and educators with courtesy and gratitude, we inspire our children to do the same. If they feel misunderstood or think that something is unfair, rather than responding defensively, we can guide them to discuss these issues respectfully.
MOE has also stepped up its efforts in engaging and cultivating strong partnerships with families by working with parent support groups (PSGs). Such networks help share responsibility and resources and can make a big difference in easing teachers and educators' workload. By simply sharing homework help or answers to straightforward questions with each other, instead of defaulting to teachers and educators as the point-of-contact, parents and guardians free up time for teachers and educators to focus on more meaningful tasks. Schools should continue to encourage parents and guardians to reach out to their peer networks as a primary resource, leveraging technologies like an online forum or private chat group. PSGs can also organise more informal meet-ups, so that parents and guardians can get to know one another better and foster a sense of community.
I am mindful that teachers and educators' issues can be deeply gendered, given that this is a profession disproportionately over-represented by women. Female teachers from primary school to junior college, for example, make up over 70% of the teaching staff, according to education statistics released in 2023.
Although the profession is of course not the sole purview of women, it has a strong association with nurturing and emotional labour, roles traditionally assigned to women. As such, teachers and educators may be expected to perform additional emotional labour, such as comforting students and handling interpersonal conflicts without formal compensation, despite the demands on their time and energy. This devaluation not only impacts them financially, but also the respect and recognition they receive, since it perpetuates the notion that such work is less skilled. This is also known as \"invisible labour\".
Teachers and educators should, therefore, be fairly compensated for their extended duties in providing nurturing and emotional labour, such as teachers who take on additional caseloads as teacher counsellors. While schools currently have the flexibility to reduce the teaching or committee duties of teacher counsellors to provide them with adequate time to counsel students with moderate needs, formally recognising and compensating their work via an incentive bonus scheme can help validate the extra work often expected from those in teaching roles, reducing burnout and acknowledging their full contributions.
On a more macro level, we also want to make sure that the teaching profession is respected and appreciated by the wider community, which can help prevent and reduce the mistreatment of teachers and educators. By raising the status of teaching as an attractive, meaningful and esteemed career does not have to come from the top-down, but from within.
I am, therefore, imploring school leaders to entrust teachers and educators with more autonomy over their ways of working and teaching. This means holding space for teachers and educators to share their feedback as well as listening and taking into consideration their ideas.
Teachers and educators possess first-hand and in-depth knowledge of their students' evolving needs, making them uniquely positioned to identify gaps in school programmes, culture and policies. We must believe they hold within themselves, the creativity and innovation to create impressive and contextually relevant ways of working and teaching that are sustainable and effective. Partnering teachers and educators in this regard, therefore, also reflects respect and recognition of their expertise.
To be clear, what I am suggesting is not to add yet another role onto teachers and educators' ever-growing list of demands that they also be counsellors, helpline operators, administrators, event organisers and so on. On the contrary, by allowing teachers and educators a say in how they work and teach, we may be able to address their perennial pain points of managing heavy workloads, burnout and poor student behaviour.
More importantly, which I find lacking, is the strong involvement of our unions in the co-creation and development of these policies and frameworks to build a harassment-free and respectful workplace or school environment across the entire education spectrum. I suggest that MOE can spearhead a coordinated national tripartite effort to prevent the abuse and harassment of teachers and educators, perhaps, by forming a tripartite workgroup to create a framework on building a respectful and harassment-free workplace. This will allow teachers and educators' voices to be represented and allow them a seat at the table.
The framework can aim to provide educational institutions with: one, a common definition of abuse and harassment and, thereby, a consistent set of standards to safeguard teachers and educators; two, recommended protocols for immediate incident response, reporting and post-incident management; and three, recommended follow-up actions to be taken against perpetrators that prioritise restorative practices for students and strengthens penalties and interventions for adult offenders.
When parents respect teachers and educators, their children do too. When school leadership trusts their officers to do what they do best – teach; it sends a powerful message about the quality and value of the profession.
In conclusion, the success of any educational institution rests on the well-being of its teachers and educators. I urge all relevant stakeholders in our child-raising \"village\" to commit to building a respectful and harassment-free workplace for our teachers and educators. When we prevent harassment and bullying by enacting clear and transparent guidelines and protocols, protect teachers and educators by strengthening punitive measures, escalation processes and restorative practices and, finally, cultivate strong partnerships among ecosystem stakeholders, we foster a school culture where every teacher and educator feels valued, supported and safe.
Teachers and educators, whom we make exceptional demands of, are passionate individuals who have chosen to dedicate their careers to educating our children and youths. I am confident that every single one of us in this room can think of at least one teacher or educator who has touched our lives and changed us in some irrevocable way. Our teachers and educators must be empowered to report instances of abusive behaviour and harassment without fear of repercussions.
The National Trades Union Congress' affiliated unions in the education cluster stand ready to champion their needs and well-being. Let us pay their contributions forward by upholding the dignity, safety and respect for all teachers and educators, because every teacher matters, every educator matters and every worker matters. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Gan Siow Huang.
The Minister of State for Education (Ms Gan Siow Huang): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Patrick Tay for his heartfelt appreciation and concern for our teachers and educators.
In front of the MOE building at Buona Vista stands a poignant structure: a hand gently lifting a child. This powerful image captures the essence of our teachers' calling. Every day, in classrooms across our nation, our teachers embrace the profound responsibility of \"holding the future of Singapore in their hands\".
Each of us has been touched by the dedication of a teacher at some point in our lives. From kindergarten to university, these teachers shape not just our minds, but also our character. That is why teachers are so valued by our society and deserve our respect. We deeply appreciate the vital role that our teachers play and we are committed to supporting their well-being.
We recognise that being a teacher comes with its own set of challenges and pressures. All of us at MOE are deeply committed to creating a safe and nurturing environment for our teachers to flourish in their roles that they play. An essential part of fostering this supportive environment in our schools and MOE Kindergartens, is ensuring that our teachers are protected from any form of mistreatment. It is necessary that we call out abusive, harassing and disrespectful behaviour towards our teachers and educators.
When our teachers or non-teaching staff face or witness an incident of workplace harassment, they should report it and approach their school leaders for advice and support. Alternatively, they can also reach out to MOE HR. Whichever route they choose, the reported incident will be taken seriously, treated with utmost confidence and thoroughly investigated. We will not hesitate to take action against the perpetrator, including filing a police report, where necessary.
It is also crucial to provide a safe environment and support for the victims of harassment, as the harassment could emotionally affect our teachers and educators. Professional counselling services are available to our teachers and educators, to support them in their recovery and mental wellness. Where appropriate, we also facilitate alternative work arrangements or grant leave to further support the victims in their healing process. Our educators in IHLs and SPED schools have access to such support too.
Private preschool operators have in place similar policies and measures to safeguard their educators' interest. The Early Childhood Development Agency has also put in place guidelines in preschool educators' learning frameworks to guide educators in establishing and fostering effective partnerships with parents.
While there are various measures and support systems in place for our educators across all levels, it is important to recognise that their ability to perform their crucial roles often depends on a support system that extends beyond the classroom and the institution. This support system includes parents and the unions, all of whom play vital roles in enabling our educators to do their job well.
Parents are our key partners in nurturing our young. This partnership is most effective when founded on mutual trust and respect. This year, MOE and the National Advisory on COMmunity and PArents in Support of Schools, or COMPASS, refreshed the GSHP. These guidelines incorporate inputs from parents and educators and provide focused guidance on how schools and parents can work together in ways that matter to our children.
Mr Patrick Tay suggested for schools to be clearer and more specific in outlining how parents should engage with educators. It is important for individual schools and their parents to develop a shared understanding and tailor the guidelines to serve the school context and the parent community. These are not one-off discussions, but ongoing conversations that our schools need to have with our educators and parents, with the support of the PSGs.
Last Saturday, I joined about 200 PSG members from across about 100 schools to go through the GSHP and also other resources to better equip parents in their parenting journey. The parents who were participating were very appreciative of these resources and tools. I think we should give them time to work out with the schools when school reopens next term to work out the protocols for communication between the parents and the schools.
I am always inspired by our PSG members' passion and commitment in supporting our children and the wider community. In many of our schools, PSGs provide mutual support and share information and other resources with fellow parents. This is especially beneficial for parents who are new to the school system or experiencing key milestones in their children's education. They do this typically through parent chat groups and may even step up to moderate conversations to create safe spaces for parents to share their concerns, experiences, tips and encourage one another. It is heartwarming to see such positive peer support in action.
Parents generally appreciate our teachers and respect the boundaries. However, once in a while, we encounter parents who are misaligned in their expectations of our teachers. These parents are also important partners, but as I mentioned earlier regarding our stance on mistreatment, MOE will take a firm stand against any abusive, harassing or disrespectful behaviour. Failure to do so could sap our teachers of a disproportionate amount of their attention, at the expense of other students.
Another crucial element of our educators' support system is the strong partnership with teachers' unions. MOE HR works closely with the unions to support the well-being of our teachers and educators. We hold quarterly dialogues to discuss matters such as capacity building, mental well-being support and grievance handling. The unions provide an additional source of feedback on ground issues and highlight specific cases of teachers and educators who require stronger support.
We thank the teachers' unions for advocating a safe work environment and for their inputs to MOE's Engagement Charter. This new Charter specifically addresses parent-teacher interactions, placing greater emphasis on the expected conduct of parents when interacting with school staff and the importance of mutual courtesy and respect. Through the unions' professional development and counselling support network, our teachers can enhance their skills and competencies in engaging stakeholders, including parents.
I also thank Mr Patrick Tay for his suggestion to set up a national tripartite effort to deal with abuse and harassment of teachers and educators. The education landscape in Singapore comprises diverse institutions from preschool to tertiary level, with various stakeholders and concerns, as well as structures and processes to support their educators and teachers. What works for MOE schools may not work for other educational institutions.
We encourage our unions in the education cluster to continue to partner the respective educational systems and build on their existing structures and processes to enable educators to work in a respectful and harassment-free work environment.
Educators and teachers, whether in public or private institutions, can seek help from the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP). TAFEP has put in place the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment which serves as a practical guide to prevent and manage harassment at all workplaces. Since 2019, TAFEP has also set up the Workplace Harassment Resource and Recourse Centre which provides support —
Mr Speaker: Minister of State, you have got about half a minute left.
Ms Gan Siow Huang: — which provides support to victims of workplace harassment. These resources are available to all teachers and educators.
Mr Speaker, we deeply value our teachers and educators, and care for their well-being. We understand the challenges they face and the dedication they bring to their roles every day. With support of the school community and partnership with parents and unions, we are committed to uplifting our teachers.
Our aim is to ensure that our teachers and educators remain not just future-ready and relevant, but also resilient in the face of challenges. Together, we can create an environment where our teachers feel respected, supported and empowered to mould the future of our nation.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 2(3)(a), I wish to inform hon Members that the Sitting tomorrow will commence at 11.00 am.
Adjourned accordingly at 7.51 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":"User Experience of Passport-less Clearance at Changi and Possible Refinements and Security Assessment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"18 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Home Affairs with the implementation of the passport-less clearance at Changi Airport (a) what has been the early experience of travellers and staff; (b) what refinements are needed; and (c) whether there has been any security issues.
Mr K Shanmugam: Passport-less immigration clearance has been fully implemented across all four Changi Airport terminals since 30 September 2024. Arriving and departing Singapore residents can clear immigration by simply using facial and iris biometrics, without the need to present their passport. All foreign visitors can also enjoy passport-less clearance when they depart Singapore.
As of 15 October 2024, close to 1.5 million travellers have undergone passport-less clearance. Travellers have welcomed the initiative, as immigration clearance is now even faster and more convenient. The average clearance time for each traveller has been reduced by 60%, from 25 seconds to 10 seconds. For staff, the initiative has streamlined processes and raised productivity. For instance, there are now far fewer instances of travellers requiring assistance with passport scanning.
Travellers undergo a similar screening process as they would under automated clearance when passports are required. The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) continues to use a combination of iris and facial biometrics to authenticate the identity of travellers. Our view is that the process has adequate security checks.
ICA will continue to monitor and engage relevant stakeholders. This includes working closely with the airlines to ensure prompt submission of passenger and crew information, as delayed or late submission may affect the passport-less clearance process.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effect of Removal of Mandatory Saturday Services at Childcare Centres on Wages of Educators","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"20 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Social and Family Development how will the Early Childhood Development Agency ensure that the wages of early childhood educators are not negatively impacted as a direct result of the removal of mandatory Saturday services at childcare centres which will come into effect from January 2025.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Shifting to a five-day work week serves to improve the well-being of early childhood educators and make early childhood careers more attractive and sustainable. This change should not come at the expense of educators’ wages. The total monthly working hours and wages agreed between the educators and employers should remain as stated in their current contracts, unless mutually agreed otherwise.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for Age Restriction on Redeeming MediShield Life Premium Discounts Earned Through Healthy 365 App","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Health what is the rationale for excluding policyholders aged below 40 from qualifying to redeem MediShield Life premium discounts using Healthpoints that are earned through the Healthy 365 app.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: This is a pilot project to encourage individuals to lead healthier lifestyles by allowing them to redeem their Healthpoints for discounts on their premiums.
This pilot is targeted at individuals aged 40 and above because it is in support of Healthier SG, which targets the same age group. By focusing on this age group, we are also more likely to see clearer correlation between healthy lifestyles and good health and provide the evidence to consider if it can be a permanent feature of MediShield Life.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Holistic Measures to Support Families and Friends of Self-radicalised Youths even Post Detention","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether holistic measures are in place to support the families and friends of self-radicalised youths, including psychological, financial and social support, even after the youths have been released from detention.
Mr K Shanmugam: When a youth is dealt with under the Internal Security Act (ISA), an Internal Security Department (ISD) aftercare officer is assigned to the family. The aftercare officer will provide social support to the family and work with community partners, such as the Inter-Agency Aftercare Group, to provide the family with financial support, if necessary. Religious counselling, psychological support and other rehabilitation initiatives are also extended to the family members where appropriate.
For instance, in the case of the self-radicalised 14-year-old youth who was issued with a Restriction Order in June 2024, ISD will be arranging for him and his parents to be enrolled in cyber-wellness programmes to sensitise them to the dangers of online radicalisation.
Friends of youths dealt with under the ISA who need psychological or social support can approach their schools.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Reskilling Initiatives for Mid-career Professionals and Measures to Support Workers in AI-impacted Sectors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the effectiveness of current reskilling initiatives for mid-career professionals in Singapore; and (b) whether the Ministry has plans to further enhance the support for such workers in sectors at high risk of displacement from automation and artificial intelligence.
Dr Tan See Leng: There is a wide range of reskilling programmes that all workers can tap on. Let me mention a few that are more focused on mid-career workers: Workforce Singapore’s Career Conversion Programmes (CCPs), Mid-Career Pathways Programme (MCPP), and SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme (SCTP).
The CCPs have supported the placement of over 7,000 locals in 2023. The majority of our CCP participants perform well. Approximately nine in 10 of participants stayed employed for at least 24 months and seven in 10 earned more than their last drawn salary. Earlier this year, we enhanced the CCPs by expanding the eligibility criteria and increasing the salary support caps to further support the reskilling of employees to take on growth job roles within the company.
We have also seen positive take-up of the MCPP and SCTP programmes since their launch in April 2022. The MCPP has supported more than 2,100 mid-career individuals through company attachments with more than 1,700 host companies to widen their professional networks and gain meaningful, industry-relevant skills and experience. Likewise, the SCTP has supported more than 5,000 individuals to acquire skills so that they can pivot into sectors with good hiring opportunities. We will continue to review our programmes to ensure they remain relevant to workers.
To support workers at high risk of displacement from automation and artificial intelligence, our approach is to provide insights on opportunities in the labour market and equip our workers with the skills to take on good jobs. The Government has launched 17 Jobs Transformation Maps (JTMs) to provide insights on the impact of technology on jobs in specific industries. Three new JTMs, including one on generative artificial intelligence in the financial services sector, will be launched. With these insights, workers can proactively tap on reskilling initiatives, such as the TechSkills Accelerator in the information and communications technology sector or the Technology in Finance Immersion Programme in the finance sector, to prepare for jobs of the future and enhance their resilience against tech-driven displacement.
To provide greater assurance to displaced workers, we will also be launching the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support scheme next year to provide them with temporary financial support while they search for roles that better utilise their skills and experience.
The tripartite partners will continue to work closely to strengthen the employment resilience of our workforce. Workers must do their part, take the initiative to plan their careers and take deliberate steps to upgrade themselves. Employers will need to press on with business transformation, job redesign and proactively train and redeploy their workers into good jobs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of US Federal Reserve Rate Cut on Singapore's Economy and Steps to Manage Volatility in Property Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what are the Government’s short-term and medium-term concerns and expectations arising out of the US Federal Reserve’s 50-basis-point reduction in its key lending rate in relation to issues, including (i) home mortgages, (ii) retirement adequacy and (iii) business borrowing in Singapore; and (b) what steps is the Government taking or considering to quell any knee-jerk reactions to the cut in lending rate, especially in the property sector.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): Globally, interest rates have started to ease as inflation has fallen from decades of high levels. Core inflation in Singapore has also moderated substantially from its peak in early 2023, which was the highest in close to 15 years. Domestic interest rates are expected to ease, along with global interest rates. Financial markets currently expect the three-month compounded Singapore Overnight Rate Average to decline from 3.3% to about 2.5% at end-2025.
The reductions in global and domestic interest rates are expected to benefit existing mortgage borrowers. For example, fixed rate packages fell from the peak of about 4.5% in end-2022 to about 3% in the first half of 2024. For those who borrow from the Housing and Development Board, interest rates have remained unchanged since July 1999 at the lower rate of 2.6%.
The Government’s objective is to promote stability in the property market. Measures, such as the Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty, Loan-to-Value limits and Total Debt Servicing Ratio, remain in place and will continue to restrain property demand.
On retirement adequacy, Central Provident Fund (CPF) members are protected against the risks of low market interest rates by interest rate floors provided by the Government. CPF Ordinary Account has a 2.5% interest rate floor, while the Government has extended the 4% interest rate floor for CPF Special, MediSave and Retirement Accounts for another year from 1 January to 31 December 2025.
Borrowing costs for businesses are also expected to decline. Banks in Singapore have the capacity to lend, supported by lower funding costs and strong financial positions.
While the turn in the global monetary cycle may lift sentiments, the economic outlook is subject to significant uncertainties from geopolitical tensions and trade frictions. Households and businesses should continue to exercise financial prudence when borrowing.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Singtel Landline Outage on Healthcare Services and Patients and Assistance Rendered","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the impact of the Singtel landline outage on affected healthcare institutions and services; (b) how many patients experienced delays in accessing medical services due to the disruption, such as appointment booking or emergency assistance; and (c) whether there are any adverse outcomes for patients as a result of the delays and what assistance has been rendered to them.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Singtel landline outage lasted about three hours and did not disrupt patient care services in our Public Healthcare Institutions. However, the outage disrupted calls to the three public healthcare clusters’ contact centres, which usually handle appointment-related requests, such as rescheduling, booking, cancellation of appointments.
In total, an estimated 2,300 calls, or 10% to 30% of daily call volumes, were unable to be completed during the outage. Mobile and broadband services were not affected. Patients were able to use alternate channels, such as the Healthhub and Cluster Apps, Livechats and Online Contact Centres and email channels during the outage.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria in Selection of Sponsors and Keynote Speakers at Annual Singapore International Energy Week","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how are sponsors and keynote speakers for the annual Singapore International Energy Week selected; (b) what is the amount paid by Aramco as the top sponsor of the event with a significant presence and a keynote speech; and (c) how will the views shared by the chief executive of Aramco during his keynote speech on 21 October 2024 affect the perception of Singapore's decarbonisation efforts, especially since his views run counter to Singapore's decarbonisation and energy transition goals.
30 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry in respect of the Singapore International Energy Week (SIEW) organised by the Energy Market Authority (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of the remarks by the chief executive of the key event sponsor, Aramco, in his keynote address; and (b) whether the organiser vets the headline speeches for factual errors and to ensure they espouse values compatible with Singapore given the impact of SIEW on Singapore's international reputation.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Every year, a wide range of public and private sector leaders from around the world share their perspectives on the global energy transition at the Singapore International Energy Week (SIEW). The speakers are invited to focus their remarks on the SIEW theme for the year and are responsible for the content of their speeches. The organiser does not vet their speeches.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the energy transition. Each country would have to chart its own path to navigate the energy trilemma of security, affordability and sustainability, based on its unique circumstances. To remain credible, SIEW must remain an open platform for participants to share these different perspectives.
This year’s SIEW was supported by several companies, including Aramco, Siemens Energy, EDP Renewables, ExxonMobil, Sembcorp, DBS Bank, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (SMBC) and Google. We are unable to disclose further details of SIEW’s sponsorship arrangements due to commercial confidentiality.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Increase EV-charging Lots in HDB Car Parks with High Population of EVs Registered for Season Parking","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the current number of electric vehicles (EVs) registered for season parking in HDB carparks; and (b) whether there are plans to increase the availability of EV charging lots in HDB carparks where there is a higher number of EVs registered for season parking.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: As of end September 2024, there are about 8,800 electric vehicles (EVs) registered with season parking at Housing and Development Board (HDB) car parks.
The average EV charger utilisation rate at HDB car parks is currently under 10% and remains sufficient to meet the demand from EV drivers. We closely monitor EV charger utilisation at all HDB car parks, and work with the EV charging operators to scale up deployment of EV chargers where necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support Mechanisms Available to Mitigate Mental Health Impact on Young Users of AI Platforms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information what support mechanisms are available to young users and their families to mitigate the mental health impact on young users arising from interactions with artificial intelligence platforms, particularly those designed to simulate human interactions.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Research on the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) platforms on mental health is still nascent and there is no conclusive evidence to date.
The Government’s approach has been to equip Singaporeans, including young users, to use technology in a safe, healthy and balanced manner. For example, Cyber Wellness and Mental Health Education lessons are taught in schools as part of the Ministry of Education’s Character and Citizenship Education curriculum. Through the lessons, students are taught to be safe, respectful and responsible online users. They also learn to take care of their mental well-being, differentiate between stress and distress, regulate their emotions and seek help early. Across various subjects, students also acquire relevant digital literacies, such as to critically evaluate communication with AI technologies, collaborate with one another using AI, and use AI tools safely and responsibly.
To equip parents to guide their children’s online interactions and support their digital well-being, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) offers bite-sized resources on the Digital for Life (DfL) portal. In addition, programmes, such as the recently concluded DfL Festival, provide opportunities for parents and children to learn about emerging technologies and how to protect themselves against online harms.
The National Library Board’s Source, Understand, Research, Evaluate (S.U.R.E.) initiative also offers resources on the benefits and risks of technology, including generative AI.
For families who suspect their child is struggling with mental health issues arising from digital technology use, including interactions with AI platforms, they can seek help from community service providers, such as TOUCH Community Services, which runs counselling and intervention programmes for youths affected by cyber and mental wellness issues. Young users may also approach Youth Community Outreach Teams (or CREST-Youth) and Youth Integrated Teams, which provide mental health services to youths aged 12 to 25.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Requests for Assistance with Visa Applications by Singaporean Students Furthering Studies in Australia","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs in light of Australia’s plans to impose an enrolment cap on the number of international students from 2025 (a) whether the Ministry has received any requests for assistance with visa applications from Singaporean students; and (b) how can the Ministry assist and support these students, especially those who are midway through their studies at Australian universities.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has not received requests for assistance from Singaporeans. The Australian government has indicated that international students who have already started their courses will not be affected by the proposed caps.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Possibility of Allowing Policyholders Over 55 Years Old to Opt Out of Enhanced MediShield Life Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider allowing policyholders above the age of 55 to opt out of the enhanced MediShield Life scheme, enabling them to pay premiums at the existing rate with the existing coverage, considering the premium increases resulting from the Government’s acceptance of the MediShield Life Council’s recommendations.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: MediShield Life is our national health insurance scheme to provide basic healthcare security to our population for life. For the scheme to work, all Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents need to participate in the risk pool. In the spirit of collective responsibility in an inclusive society, everyone contributes so that everyone benefits. There is, therefore, no opting out of this scheme.
The scheme enhancements that were recently announced ensure that MediShield Life protection remains adequate amidst rising healthcare costs, and as one grows older and consumes more healthcare.
To help Singaporeans manage the premium increases, the Government will provide an additional $4.1 billion in support measures, which will more than offset the total premium increases of $1.8 billion over the next three years. The support package includes enhancements to means-tested premium subsidies and MediSave top-ups.
Overall, more than nine in 10 Singaporeans will receive premium support that fully cushions their premium increases over the next three years. For example, all Pioneer Generation and Merdeka Generation seniors are among those who will not see a nett premium increase for the next three years. There is also Additional Premium Support to help Singaporeans who still face difficulty in paying their premiums.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress of Inter-Ministry Committee on Drug Prevention for Youths, Initiatives Rolled Out and Future Plans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether he can provide an update on the progress of the Inter-Ministry Committee (IMC) on Drug Prevention for Youths; (b) what are the initiatives rolled out by the IMC; and (c) what are its future plans.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) last updated Parliament on the work of the Inter-Ministry Committee (IMC) on Drug Prevention for Youths at the 2024 Committee of Supply debate, as well as during the Ministerial Statement on Singapore’ Drug Control Policy in May 2024.
We have made further progress. To date, we have appointed over 1,000 DrugFreeSG Champions and equipped them with the skills and knowledge to spread the anti-drug message in their communities. We launched the Drug Victims Remembrance Day at Ngee Ann Civic Plaza on 17 May 2024, which was followed by a roving exhibition across eight different locations between May and July 2024. Over 35,000 people attended those exhibitions. We have also worked to ensure that every Singaporean in school and in our institutes of higher learning, as well as those serving full-time National Service will receive preventive drug education messaging at least once a year.
There are more plans in the pipeline. MHA will provide another update on the IMC’s work at the 2025 Committee of Supply debate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Estimated HDB BTO Units to be Launched from 2025 Onwards Available for Eligible Singles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development in view of the overwhelming demand from first-time single home buyers in the recent October 2024 HDB BTO exercise, what is the projected number of HDB BTO units to be launched from 2025 onwards which eligible singles can apply for.
Mr Desmond Lee: Under the New Flat Classification Framework which applies to sales from October 2024 onwards, eligible first-timer singles can apply for new 2-room flexi flats island-wide. Previously, they were limited to applying for new flats in the non-mature estates.
To meet this demand, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) is increasing the supply of 2-room flexi Build-To-Order (BTO) flats. From 2024 to 2026, HDB will launch up to 14,000 2-room flexi BTO flats island-wide. This is more than a 50% increase from the 9,000 units launched in the non-mature estates from 2020 to 2023. We are prepared to continue putting out a strong pipeline of flats to meet demand.
In February 2025, HDB will offer about 5,000 BTO flats across five projects. HDB will also hold the largest-ever Sale of Balance Flats exercise with more than 5,500 flats across various towns or estates.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Timeline for Companies to Purchase Carbon Credits Through Singapore's Carbon Market Cooperation Agreements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment when can companies expect to purchase carbon credits through Singapore’s carbon market cooperation agreements with other countries.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Starting from 2025, carbon tax-liable companies can purchase international carbon credits (ICCs) generated from authorised projects to offset up to 5% of their 2024 taxable emissions.
Singapore has signed Implementation Agreements (IAs) with Ghana and Papua New Guinea on Article 6 carbon credits cooperation. Operationalisation of the Singapore-Papua New Guinea IA is pending Parliamentary approval of its domestic framework required for participation in Article 6 cooperation. For the Singapore-Ghana IA, we launched the call for project applications on 30 September 2024 and are working closely with Ghana to assess the applications. When they are authorised by both Ghana and Singapore, these projects will be published online on Singapore’s Carbon Markets Cooperation website. ICCs generated from these projects can be purchased and used for carbon tax offset.
We are also pursuing similar partnerships with more than 20 other countries, including Bhutan, Cambodia, Chile, Peru and Mongolia.
The availability of ICCs will require active participation from the private sector, and the Singapore Government will continue supporting these efforts as more IAs are signed. For example, in July 2024, Minister of State Alvin Tan led an inaugural business mission to Ghana to facilitate the development of carbon credit projects under the Singapore-Ghana IA. The Economic Development Board has also established the Singapore Carbon Market Alliance to bring corporates together to foster a vibrant and trusted carbon market and facilitate companies’ access to Article 6-compliant ICCs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strengthening Penalties for Animal Cruelty in Review of Animals and Birds Act to Ensure Effective Deterrence","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development (a) what specific measures will the Ministry be considering in the review of the Animals and Birds Act to strengthen penalties for animal cruelty; (b) whether the Ministry will consider increasing jail terms and fines; (c) how do Singapore’s current penalties under the Act compare with those of other developed nations; and (d) what timelines are set for implementing changes to ensure effective deterrence against animal cruelty.
Mr Desmond Lee: As part of the National Parks Board's (NParks') efforts to safeguard animal health and welfare, as well as public health and safety, we have embarked on a review of the Animals and Birds Act. This includes a review of the penalty framework, including fines and jail terms, to ensure that they are effective in deterring acts of animal cruelty and abuse.
NParks will continue to take a collaborative approach in this review and consult the public and community stakeholders. We will also study the regulations and penalties of overseas jurisdictions.
We will share more details of the review, including the timeline, when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Guidelines on Access, Use and Protection of Data Captured by Proposed AI-enhanced Bus Camera System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry has established guidelines to ensure that data captured by the proposed AI-enhanced bus camera system is used solely for stated purposes instead of general surveillance; (b) whether other Government agencies can request for permission to access the captured data; (c) whether the AI technology will identify faces and link them to the NRIC database; and (d) if so, what safeguards are in place to protect individual privacy and allay mass surveillance concerns.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: All public buses are currently fitted with cameras which record video footage from multiple perspectives during bus service hours. These cameras support the work of the Bus Captains to enhance passenger safety, and the video recordings can be used for investigations when an incident happens on and off the bus.
To improve operational efficiency, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) will use the existing road-facing cameras on board our buses, including detecting vehicles which encroach onto bus lanes and illegal parking, as well as road and infrastructure defects that could pose safety risks.
LTA has no plans to use the video footage to identify faces and link them to the National Registration Identity Card database. Government agencies’ usage of data for official purposes are subject to prevailing laws, or where it may be in the public interest. Such usage must adhere to security guidelines that are in place.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Statement-taking Process in CPIB and Action Taken Against Two Officers for Taking Inaccurate Statements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in view of a recent report that statements taken by two officers of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) were “inaccurate and unreliable” (a) what course of action has been taken by the CPIB against the two officers; and (b) whether the Government will undertake a review of the process by which statements are being taken.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The Prosecution has filed Notices of Appeal in relation to the Court’s judgment for PP v Pek Lian Guan, Pay Teow Heng. As the matter is still before the Court, we are unable to comment further.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Proper Use of Personal Learning Devices in Schools to Effectively Support Students' Learning","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education (a) what tools and policies are in place to ensure that Personal Learning Devices (PLDs) in schools effectively support students' learning while limiting access to non-educational content during school hours; (b) how does the Ministry address cases where students attempt to bypass these restrictions; and (c) whether additional security or monitoring measures are being considered to improve adherence to usage guidelines.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: My response will cover the question raised by Dr Wan Rizal, and the questions raised by Ms Hazel Poa and Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim which are scheduled for subsequent Sitting on or after 12 November 2024. [Please refer to \"Study into Pros and Cons of Use of Personal Learning Devices in Schools\", Official Report, 12 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 146, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section; and \"Students' Usage of School-Issued Devices for Non-educational Purposes by Bypassing Restrictions Placed\", Official Report, 13 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 147, Written Answers to Questions section.]
In addition, I will also address written Parliamentary Questions by Dr Wan Rizal and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. I invite Members to seek clarifications as needed.
Since the introduction of Personal Learning Devices (PLDs) to enhance teaching and learning, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has provided schools with guidance and support, and professional development of teachers, on the use of PLDs for teaching and learning. Cyber wellness lessons were enhanced to promote safe and responsible PLD use. Learning resources on developing digital literacies were made available to students.
To further support the safe and effective use of the PLDs, all PLDs were installed with the Device Management Application (DMA). The DMA blocks access to inappropriate content and regulates screen time. Cases of suspected DMA bypass are investigated and appropriate school-based consequences meted should any misdemeanor be established.
MOE commissioned the National Institute of Education to conduct a two-year study starting in September 2022 to understand the impact of PLDs on teaching and learning, as well as students’ development of 21st Century Competencies, cyber wellness and mental well-being. Interim findings suggest that students found the use of PLDs beneficial for their learning, communication with teachers and collaboration with peers. Students also demonstrated good cyber wellness knowledge, including awareness of cyber risks. Students are learning to translate this knowledge into action when using the PLDs, especially during non-school hours.
MOE recognises that parents are key partners in a student’s education journey. MOE recently collaborated with the Ministry of Social and Family Development and the Health Promotion Board on the Parenting for Wellness initiative. To enable our students to use technology productively and safely for learning, the toolbox for parents includes resources to help navigate the challenges of parenting in the digital age effectively, such as setting screen use limits on digital devices. I encourage parents to make good use of the bite-sized practical tips and strategies to support their children’s growth and development.
We will continue to refine our policies on the use of PLDs and support for schools, students and parents with the findings from the study and feedback we receive.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Need for Another Study by NHB to Assess Historical, Heritage and Architectural Significance of 38 Oxley Road for Preservation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth why is another study by the National Heritage Board (NHB) needed to assess whether 38 Oxley Road has national historical, heritage and architectural significance as to be worthy of preservation, in view that the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road had assessed in 2018 that it has “architectural, heritage and historical significance” based on a research report by NHB.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The National Heritage Board (NHB) conducts research on buildings, sites or structures with the potential to be considered as a National Monument. Such research could cover technical aspects, such as the historic, cultural, architectural and national importance of the building, site or structure. The research is then presented to the Preservation of Sites and Monuments Advisory Board (PSM AB), set up by NHB under section 7 of the Preservation of Monuments Act, for their independent assessment, as part of the decision-making process on whether the building, site or structure should be preserved as a National Monument. The PSM AB makes this assessment based on objective criteria, for all sites which have the potential to be preserved as a National Monument.
In the case of 38 Oxley Road, this research was done by NHB for the 2018 Ministerial Committee Report. While the research was incorporated into the Report, the Ministerial Committee concluded that no decision had to be made at that point in time, and all options would be kept open. Hence, the research was not presented to the PSM AB for their assessment then on the suitability of 38 Oxley Road as a National Monument.
In view of the recent application by the owner to demolish the building, which would immediately rule out a proper and full consideration of options, NHB has commenced the process to determine 38 Oxley Road’s eligibility and suitability for preservation as a National Monument. This includes presenting the research to the PSM AB for their independent assessment. Based on the assessment, NHB would then provide a recommendation to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth to decide whether to issue a Preservation Order for the Site under the Preservation of Monuments Act.
This follows the usual assessment process before any building, site or structure can be preserved as a National Monument, and we will apply this accordingly to 38 Oxley Road.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Difference in Terms of Reference of New NHB Study on 38 Oxley Road from 2016 Ministerial Committee's Assessment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what are the terms of reference for the National Heritage Board (NHB)'s current study of 38 Oxley Road to assess if the site has historical, heritage and architectural significance; and (b) how does the present NHB study differ from the terms of reference of the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road formed in June 2016 and which assessed that the building has historical, heritage and architectural significance.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The National Heritage Board (NHB) conducts research on buildings, sites or structures with the potential to be considered as a National Monument. Such research could cover technical aspects, such as the historic, cultural, architectural and national importance of the building, site or structure. The research is then presented to the Preservation of Sites and Monuments Advisory Board (PSM AB), set up by NHB under section 7 of the Preservation of Monuments Act, for their independent assessment, as part of the decision-making process on whether the building, site or structure should be preserved as a National Monument. The PSM AB makes this assessment based on objective criteria, for all sites which have the potential to be preserved as a National Monument.
In the case of 38 Oxley Road, this research was done by NHB for the 2018 Ministerial Committee Report. While the research was incorporated into the Report, the Ministerial Committee concluded that no decision had to be made at that point in time, and all options would be kept open. Hence, the research was not presented to PSM AB for their assessment then on the suitability of 38 Oxley Road as a National Monument.
In view of the recent application by the owner to demolish the building, which would immediately rule out a proper and full consideration of options, NHB has commenced the process to determine 38 Oxley Road’s eligibility and suitability for preservation as a National Monument. This includes presenting the research to the PSM AB for their independent assessment. Based on the assessment, NHB would then provide a recommendation to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth to decide whether to issue a Preservation Order for the Site under the Preservation of Monuments Act.
This follows the usual assessment process before any building, site or structure can be preserved as a National Monument, and we will apply this accordingly to 38 Oxley Road.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Successful Applications to AIC for Funding of Hearing Aids Purchase Outside of SMF and ATF","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Health in the past three years (a) how many applications have been made by Singaporean seniors to the Agency for Integrated Care for funding to purchase hearing aids outside of, or not having qualified for assistance under, the Seniors Mobility and Enabling Fund or the Assistive Technology Fund; and (b) of which, how many succeeded in their applications and what is the range of funding allowed for the successful applicants.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Seniors’ Mobility and Enabling Fund (SMF) and Assistive Technology Fund (ATF) provide eligible seniors with means-tested subsidies of up to 90% for hearing aids. On average, of the 4,000 unique seniors who applied for SMF subsidies for hearing aids annually since 2019, more than 99% were successful, with most of them receiving 90% subsidy. In 2024, the Annual Value and Per Capita Household Income criteria for means-tested subsidy schemes, including SMF and ATF, were revised, to ensure that Singaporeans with greater needs continue to receive support
Seniors who do not qualify for SMF or ATF subsidies and require financial assistance for hearing aids can approach the Agency for Integrated Care, SG Enable or medical social workers at our public hospitals. Depending on their individual circumstances, the seniors can be matched to other forms of financial support available, including from Social Service Agencies and charities. The Government does not track the applications made by Singaporean seniors for such alternative funding for hearing aids.
The Government will continue to review SMF and ATF regularly to ensure that the schemes provide adequate support to those in need.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Overstayers Who Remain in Singapore Illegally Over Past Two Years and Overstayers At-large","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in each year of the past two years, what is the average number of foreigners who remain in Singapore illegally after the expiry of their visit passes issued by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority; and (b) what is the total number of overstayers who have not yet been arrested by the authorities. \n
Mr K Shanmugam: In the past two years, an average of 450 overstayers were arrested each year. Of these, about 270 were holders of a Short-Term or Long-Term Visit Pass.
We estimate that there are about 500 to 600 overstayers who have not been arrested. This is less than 0.001% of our annual visitor arrival numbers. Some may have inadvertently stayed past the validity of their issued pass, while others do so intentionally for reasons, such as to seek employment.
It is not always possible to immediately arrest overstayers as they may have changed their contact details or residential address from the details previously declared to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA). That said, ICA will continue its rigorous enforcement checks and work with other law enforcement agencies, such as the Singapore Police Force, to detect and arrest overstayers to ensure the situation is kept under control.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Status of Anti-discrimination Legislation First Announced at National Day Rally 2021","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Manpower what is the status of the anti-discrimination legislation first announced by the former Prime Minister at the National Day Rally 2021.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Workplace Fairness Bill will be tabled in Parliament this month.
48 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Transport (a) when does LTA expect to conclude its feasibility studies on a proposed new rail line in the north and northeast regions as indicated in the Land Transport Master Plan (LTMP) 2040; and (b) whether an update on the new rail line will be provided in the next update of the LTMP.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Rail projects are major public investments that require careful consideration of various factors, such as current and future land-use needs, engineering feasibility and potential environmental impact.
Residents in the North and North-East are presently served by the North-South Line, North-East Line and Thomson-East Coast Line. Under our bus and rail enhancement plans, we will further improve the connectivity for residents in the North and North-East regions. These include new and improved bus services under the Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme, the opening of Punggol Coast station in December this year, and the Cross Island Line Phase 1 and Punggol Extension in the early 2030s.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expectation and Funding of Local Vernacular Print and Digital Media to Continue Projecting Singapore's Voice Internationally","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Ministry expects local vernacular print and digital media to continue projecting Singapore’s voice internationally; and (b) whether sufficient funding is available to support such initiatives.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Our local vernacular print and digital media serve as important platforms to amplify Singapore’s perspectives in the international domain and reflect our values and way of life to external audiences. This is in addition to their primary responsibility of providing timely and trusted information for all Singaporeans, catering especially to the needs of our vernacular communities.
As previously shared with Members, Government funding is provided to support the vernacular capabilities of our Public Service Media entities, alongside other areas, such as talent and technological development. In doing so, the Government works closely with both Singapore Press Holdings Media and Mediacorp to ensure resources are put to good use.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Initiatives to Engage Parents to Alleviate Pressure of PSLE on Students and Parents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Education how does the Ministry plan to further engage parents to alleviate the pressure of the PSLE on students and parents to prevent their mental burnout.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Examinations, such as the Primary School Leaving Examination, serve as useful checkpoints for students to gauge their learning and enable them to progress smoothly to suitable learning environments.
All examinations come with some amount of pressure. Our starting point should not be to remove all stressors for our students, but to inculcate in them skills to manage pressure, and the mindset to view assessments as an essential part of learning and growth.
Parents play a critical role to inculcate this mindset. Let us work together to help children embrace learning beyond grades, so that they can develop the right attitude towards learning. Give our students the space and opportunities to realise their full potential by discovering new passions and becoming curious, creative learners for life. To support this, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has introduced efforts, such as providing more options and pathways in our education system, including through Full Subject-Based Banding and different opportunities in higher education.
Conversely, if parents are overly anxious about grades, children will not understand the intrinsic value of learning. When MOE removed mid-year examinations to reduce the overemphasis on grades and create space for more engaging learning experiences, some parents turned to tuition centres which provided mock mid-year examinations. This runs counter to the shifts we are making in our education system, and the mindset shifts we are trying to cultivate.
Educating our students requires a whole-of-society effort. We seek support from parents to complement schools' efforts by modelling behaviours that focus on learning and self-improvement, rather than on grades and outperforming others. In addition, parents can use the various resources provided by MOE and other agencies, including from the Parenting for Wellness initiative, to support our children through their educational journey. Many of us in this House are parents. It is incumbent on us to help our children grow with the right mindsets in learning so that they can thrive in life beyond schools.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protocol for A&E Doctors in Ordering Diagnostic Tests and Safeguards to Prevent Critical Signs Being Missed","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the current guiding principles for how doctors in the accident and emergency (A&E) departments of public hospitals treat patients and decide on the diagnostic tests to order; and (b) what are the safeguards in place to prevent incidents where the conservative ordering of diagnostic tests can lead to critical health situations being missed out and treatment delayed. \n
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Our public hospitals’ Emergency Departments (EDs) handle a large number of patients, some urgent, others less so. They have to triage patients to prioritise the urgent cases, provide initial treatment and decide if patients require life-saving interventions, admission, further diagnostic tests or outpatient treatment.
ED physicians, in particular, play an important role in guiding these decisions. They assess and manage patients based on established treatment protocols, guidelines and clinical judgement.
EDs are, therefore, a critical touchpoint. That said, not all tests leading to a definite care plan need to be performed in the ED; they can be performed later during the inpatient hospital stay based on the clinical assessment by the inpatient care team. The operations of ED are complex, high paced, deal with a wide range of patients and are constantly in flux.
Treatment protocols are, therefore, regularly reviewed, taking into account the available clinical evidence and established best practices. Relevant process and outcome indicators are closely monitored to ensure clinical quality and patient safety.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Individual Requests for Assistance Received by Redesigned and Unmanned Neighbourhood Police Posts in Last 12 Months","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs how many individual requests for assistance have been received by the redesigned and unmanned Neighbourhood Police Posts in the last 12 months.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police do not track the number of individual requests for assistance received by the redesigned Neighbourhood Police Posts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Direct Bus Services by Private Operators for Residents in Fernvale to CBD During Peak Hours","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider allowing private bus operators to provide direct connection bus services for residents in Fernvale to and from the Central Business District (CBD) during the morning and evening peak periods as residents still find that the additional trips by SBS Transit City Direct Bus Service 671 to and from CBD not quite sufficient.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Land Transport Authority welcomes private bus operators to operate additional bus services to complement our public transport services and provide more travel options for the residents.
Besides City Direct Service 671, Fernvale residents are presently served by the privately-operated Premium Bus Services 550 and 592 to the Central Business District. Residents may access these bus services along Sengkang West Avenue, Sengkang West Way or Jalan Kayu.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Cost of GovTech as a Cost Centre and Expected Timeline to Increase Revenue-Generating Capacities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) in the last three years, what is the total annual cost booked to GovTech as a cost centre; (b) whether there are plans to increase the revenue-generating capacities of GovTech and its associated departments; and (c) if so, what are the key milestones and timelines.
Mrs Josephine Teo (for the Prime Minister): The primary role of GovTech is to harness and develop info-communications technology solutions and capabilities to drive our Digital Government and Smart Nation efforts. From financial year (FY) 2021 to FY2023, GovTech’s average annual expenditure was $1.7 billion, which was less than 2% of total Ministry expenditure.
GovTech is almost fully funded from (a) central grants from the Government and (b) other Government agencies paying for the use of GovTech’s services and products. This is unlikely to change significantly in the near future.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for Rescheduled Opening of Punggol Regional Sports Centre to 2026","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth what are the reasons for the rescheduling in the opening of Punggol Regional Sports Centre to 2026.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The construction of Punggol Regional Sports Centre started in 2020 and was originally scheduled to be opened in 2023. However, the project, like several others in various sectors, faced multiple challenges, such as material and labour shortages, due to the impact of COVID-19 on the construction industry.
As a result, the construction progress was significantly delayed and the opening of the sports centre had to be delayed to 2026.
Meanwhile, Punggol residents can use the sports facilities in Punggol under the Dual-Use Scheme. These include four indoor sports halls at Edgefield Secondary, Greendale Primary, Oasis Primary and Punggol View Primary and the school field at Punggol Secondary. Punggol residents can also consider using the nearby Sengkang Sports Centre.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Safety Whilst Striving for Operational Readiness of SAF in Light of Exercise Wallaby Incident","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Defence how the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) continues to strive for operational readiness matched with safety in light of the recent incident during Exercise Wallaby.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: Both safety and operational readiness are part of Singapore Armed Forces' (SAF’s) core missions in peacetime. It is possible, indeed mandatory, to achieve both without compromising the high standards of either goal.
For safety, zero training fatalities remain a key deliverable for all unit commanders. It can be achieved only with a strong safety culture and a robust safety management system that emphasises both leadership accountability as well as personal responsibility of soldiers. Safety indicators constitute part of their unit’s performance measurement and reporting. Individual soldiers are taught to exercise responsibility for their own safety as well as those around them. Continued command emphasis, safety education, incident and near-miss reporting reinforce such behaviours.
SAF trains realistically in challenging terrain and tempo of drills, such as Exercise Wallaby and many others. To achieve safety outcomes and zero fatalities in these exercises, detailed assessment of risks in each part of the exercise is required, together with discrete plans to avoid injuries.
Commanders’ lead in these measures and the safe conduct of exercises is a key deliverable. Best practice safety designs and features are studied and built into warfighting platforms and other equipment. Safety standards and procedures are specified for a range of operational and training activities. Soldier training is conducted progressively to ensure that they master the basics before moving on to more demanding tasks and complex situations, and pre-activity safety briefs and drills are conducted as reminders. When incidents or near-misses happen, as it did where one Hunter armoured fighting vehicle rear-ended another during Exercise Wallaby in Australia, thorough investigations are conducted and lessons learnt shared across the units.
The SAF Inspector-General’s Office, headed by the Chief of Staff – Joint Staff, is responsible to oversee all these efforts and outcomes. The Inspector-General’s Office conducts safety assessments through regular physical audits of SAF Formations and units and reviews of notable safety incidents and near-misses. It is assisted by external experts and review panels, including the External Review Panel on SAF Safety, to benchmark and provide inputs to enhance SAF’s safety management culture, systems and practices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protocol for Staff Interventions in Physical Bullying by Students Under 14 Years Old and Sharing Guidelines with Parents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the typical intervention steps or approach taken by primary school staff for the handling of physical bullying by students under the age of 14; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider providing the intervention guidelines to parents so that they are aligned with the school on the steps to take given that referring such cases to the Police may not be the best channel as the perpetrators are children.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: My response will address the question raised by Ms Carrie Tan scheduled for today and another question raised by Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim for a subsequent Sitting, on managing bullying involving younger students. [Please refer to \"Equipping Parents with Measures in Preparing Children to be Resilient in Handling Cyberbullying\", Official Report, 12 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 146, Written Answers to Questions section.]
I invite Members to seek clarifications, if need be.
We would like to refer Members to the Ministry of Education's (MOE's) response on bullying in schools at the Parliament Sitting on 14 October. [Please refer to \"Review of Measures and Help Provided in Student Bullying Incidents\", Official Report, 14 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 142, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
The key points were: (a) MOE takes all forms of hurtful behaviour and bullying seriously; (b) from young, students are taught pro-social behaviours and how to respond to bullying; (c) when incidents occur, schools handle the cases sensitively, according to their level of seriousness.
Support is provided to both victims and perpetrators. Retributive justice must be combined with restorative justice and rehabilitation. Parents are critical partners in our effort to educate and support our students.
In addition, we would like to assure Members that the approach taken by schools in managing bullying, including for younger students, is age-appropriate and considers their maturity and the seriousness of the offence. Schools also share strategies with parents to support their children and reinforce pro-social behaviour. Resources have been provided to parents on supporting their children to respond to bullying.
We seek the support of parents and the community to collectively guide our students to be empathetic and kind.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Possibility of Cooperation on Civil Nuclear Research with Other Countries after Signing of Cooperation Agreement with US","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the civil nuclear cooperation agreement which Singapore signed with the United States of America on 31 July 2024 precludes Singapore from cooperating with other countries on civil nuclear research or applications.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: No.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Feasibility of Extending MediShield Life Coverage to Include Maternity Charges","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Health whether Medishield Life coverage can be extended to include maternity charges so as to reduce a financial burden on expecting parents.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As MediShield Life is a basic health insurance scheme which protects Singaporeans against large subsidised medical bills arising from accidents or illnesses, general maternity expenses are not covered by MediShield Life. Instead, the Government provides subsidies of up to 80% for maternity expenses, and MediSave use through the MediSave Maternity Package. MediShield Life coverage does kick in for the treatment of serious pregnancy and delivery-related complications.
Beyond subsidies for maternity expenses, the Government also provides significant additional support for parents, such as the Baby Bonus Cash Gift, and the MediSave Grant for Newborns, which will be increased from $4,000 to $5,000 from 1 April 2025.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Stateless Persons with Special Passes in Singapore and Possibility of Their Access to Singpass Accounts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many stateless persons with Special Passes are residing in Singapore currently; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider reviewing the current position of not allowing them to have access to Singpass accounts; and (c) if not, why not.
Mr K Shanmugam: As at 31 December 2023, there were 853 stateless persons living in Singapore, 204 of whom are on Special Passes.
The Government is reviewing whether stateless persons residing in Singapore on Special Passes may be given Singpass accounts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Salary Range Monitoring on MyCareersFuture Portal to Ensure Accuracy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry conducts checks on MyCareersFuture portal to ensure that salary ranges for jobs listed on the portal are accurate.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower does not conduct checks on the salary ranges listed in the job advertisements posted on the MyCareersFuture portal or other job portals. Companies have the flexibility to set the salary ranges for the jobs they offer and to list these in their job advertisements.
The onus is on hirers to provide a fair and accurate description of the job and associated salary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of BCA's Regulations and Guidelines for Periodic Facade Inspections to Take into Account Impact of Climate Change","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development (a) how often does BCA review regulations and guidelines for periodic facade inspections; (b) whether BCA has considered updating the regulations and guidelines to account for more extreme weather as a result of climate change; and (c) whether BCA will be conducting additional inspections of buildings considering the possibility of earlier deterioration due to more extreme weather.
Mr Desmond Lee: The periodic facade inspection regime was recently introduced in 2022. The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) will continue to keep abreast of developments in structural safety and materials and climate change projections. Taking reference to this and prevailing building safety standards in other jurisdictions, it will review our regulations and guidelines where necessary.
BCA also recently completed a study on the effects of climate change on façade materials, which showed that most materials can withstand the more extreme climate conditions that are projected. For potentially vulnerable materials, the current inspection regime is assessed to be sufficient to address their potential deterioration in a timely manner. With more extreme weather, BCA is also studying and updating design wind speeds used in structural calculations, in consultation with industry experts and other agencies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Delay in Implementing 2019 Legislative Changes to Include Suspects Aged 16 and 17 Within Juvenile Justice System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what are the reasons why the Youth Courts are still not ready to implement the legislative changes passed in 2019 to include youth suspects aged 16 and 17 within its juvenile justice system; and (b) what are the limitations that have contributed to this delay.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The extension of Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) Youth Home Orders to older youths aged 16 to below 18 cannot be implemented without considering infrastructure, programme and curriculum changes.
When the legislative changes are brought into effect, we expect to cater to 40% more youths in MSF's Youth Homes. Existing facilities have to be enhanced to accommodate older youths safely and without compromising the rehabilitation of the younger youths. Works also have to be carried out on a secure facility that continues to operate 24 hours a day and seven days a week. New rehabilitation programmes have to be designed or existing ones enhanced in order to provide effective intervention.
The older youths also have different education requirements, as most will be in the post-secondary phase. Facilities have to be prepared so that they can be offered an adequate range of academic and vocational offerings. MSF has been working with the Ministry of Education, Institute of Technical Education, polytechnics, SkillsFuture Singapore and Workforce Singapore. We are making good progress and expect the legislative changes to come into effect in early 2025.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Technologies Available to Detect Second-hand Smoke in Homes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what technology is presently available to detect second-hand smoke in homes; (b) what are the limitations preventing the use of such technology, if any; and (c) when did the Ministry last conduct a review on the technology available to detect second-hand smoke in homes which is causing disamenities to neighbours.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Various technologies, such as indoor air quality monitors, can detect volatile organic compounds and fine particulate matter, like PM2.5, which are emitted by cigarette smoke. However, such devices are unable to distinguish the source of such compounds, that is, whether they come specifically from cigarette smoke, and the location from which they originate. Elevated PM2.5 levels can be caused by many activities, including cooking or burning of incense, apart from smoking.
While we continue to monitor technological developments and innovations in this area, mitigating second-hand cigarette smoke in homes ultimately requires everyone to play their part. I urge smokers to exercise social responsibility and refrain from lighting up where second-hand cigarette smoke can affect those around them, including neighbours living beside, above or below them. Families and friends of smokers, as well as the general public, can help reinforce these social norms.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of EV Tax Rebates and Possible Reform of COE System to Hasten Uptake of Greener Vehicles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport (a) how much of the tax rebates for electric vehicles flow through to the end-consumer in the form of lower cost of vehicle ownership; (b) whether these tax rebates are absorbed by the car dealers by marking up the prices of electric vehicles or by bidding higher for Certificates of Entitlement (COE); and (c) whether the Government needs to do more, including by reforming the COE system, to hasten the uptake of greener vehicles.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: We have received related questions for the subsequent Sitting. I will address them together in my reply at the 12 November 2024 Parliament sitting. [Please refer to \"Review of Zero Vehicle Growth Policy, Vehicle Quota System and Rebates Given High COE Prices, Increased E-vehicles Adoption and Rollout of ERP 2.0\", Official Report, 12 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 146, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Introducing Regulations on Fees and Charges by Banks and Financial Institutions for Refinancing Property Loans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether MAS will introduce regulations relating to the fees and charges that banks and financial institutions charge for the refinancing of property loans.\n\n
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): Banks compete to offer attractive property loans to customers. Customers can choose to refinance their outstanding loans with their existing bank or with a new bank. They may compare the terms, pricing and fees charged on these loans. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) requires financial institutions to provide prospective borrowers with a factsheet that clearly discloses fees and charges, including fees incurred should the borrower seek to refinance the loan within a lock-in period.
MAS is not considering directly regulating fees and charges. The existing disclosure requirements enable competition in the market so that borrowers have the necessary information to enable them to make informed decisions when choosing a property loan and when considering whether to refinance the loan.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Initiatives to Encourage Philanthropic Giving to Minority Arts Groups","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether the Ministry has any specific plans to encourage philanthropic giving to minority arts groups.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The Government takes a broad-based approach to encouraging philanthropic giving to the arts. Our initiatives benefit, but do not focus solely on minority arts groups.
To encourage philanthropic giving, the Cultural Matching Fund (CMF) provides dollar-for-dollar matching grants for private cash donations to registered charities and Institutions of a Public Character in the arts and heritage sectors. Beneficiaries of the CMF include arts groups, such as the Indian dance group Apsaras Arts and the Malay theatre group Teater Ekamatra.
To support smaller arts groups, the National Arts Council (NAC) administers the Sustain the Arts (stART) Fund. This Fund supports operational needs, capacity building, and community impact programmes for eligible arts groups with Total Operating Expenditure below $1 million. It is funded by donations from the private sector and may be matched through CMF. Through the stART Fund, NAC has channelled donations to programmes, such as Tamil theatre production Vilangkuppannai by theatre organisation Agam Ltd, and ORANG (working title) by Malay dance group P7:1SMA.
In addition, the Government has provided significant support for minority arts groups to develop their craft and reach wider audiences. This was detailed in an earlier reply to Parliamentary Question on 9 Sep 24. [Please refer to \"Plans and Initiatives to Support Minority Arts Groups to Reach Wider Audiences\", Official Report, 9 September 2024, Vol 95, Issue 140, Written Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Decision-maker and Responsibility for Patient Undergoing Course of TCM and Mainstream Healthcare Treatments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health in view of the Ministry's plan to incorporate Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) into public clinics and hospitals, in the event a patient's condition does not improve or worsens while undergoing a course combining both TCM and mainstream healthcare treatments, which doctor in charge will make the decisions for the patient and who will bear the responsibility for the patient’s outcome.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The integration of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) into our hospitals will need to be evidence-based and carried out cautiously and progressively. Today, the only acupuncture service offered as a mainstream treatment in our public hospitals is in the area of lower back and neck pain management, and how it was done offers a clear indication on the approach moving forward.
To start with, there is clear evidence supporting its efficacy. Further, there are clear protocols, with the roles and responsibilities of both mainstream healthcare providers and TCM providers well-defined. For example, the patient must be first assessed by the medical specialists and a referral made for acupuncture treatment for lower back and neck pain. After a course of acupuncture treatment, patients have to be reassessed by the referring medical specialists who will decide whether to have another course of acupuncture treatment or discontinue the treatment.
We expect further TCM treatments that will be incorporated into public health institutions to undergo a similar approach and process rigour.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Back-up Contingency for Essential Hotlines to Enhance Robustness Against Telco Disruptions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"71 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether essential landline hotlines, such as 995 and 999, have a hot-swappable alternative telco backup contingency to address the possibility of a single telco failure, such as the 8 October 2024 disruption to Singtel’s telecommunications network; (b) if not, why not; and (c) whether there will be a comprehensive after-action review to harden Singapore’s hotlines robustness for emergency services against telco disruptions due to technical failures or cyber sabotage.
Mr K Shanmugam: Currently, the 995 and 999 hotlines are connected to multiple Singtel telephone exchanges for system reliability and resilience. However, they do not have the ability to \"hot-swap\" to an alternative telecommunications company.
During the Singtel service outage, both 995 and 999 continued to receive around one in two calls. When the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and Singapore Police Force (SPF) learnt of the technical difficulties faced by some callers, the public was informed to contact SCDF via short message service (SMS) 70995, and SPF via SMS 70999. They could also report incidents via the SGSecure application.
SCDF and SPF are conducting a comprehensive review with Infocomm Media Development Authority to evaluate additional resiliency measures, including the feasibility of telecommunications company diversity for our emergency hotlines.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reports of Irresponsible and Unfair Retrenchment, and Support for Affected Employees","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"72 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Manpower in light of recent reports on layoffs by various companies (a) whether the Ministry has received any reports of irresponsible and unfair retrenchment as defined under the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment; and (b) how is the Ministry supporting these retrenched employees.
Dr Tan See Leng: For the period of January to June 2024, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) has received a small number of complaints of employers not abiding by the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment. TAFEP has engaged all the employers and did not find evidence of irresponsible or unfair retrenchment.
On the Ministry’s support for the retrenched employees, the Member may wish to refer to our comprehensive response provided during the 15 October 2024 Parliament Sitting. [Please refer to \"Protocols and Enforcement Measures for Oversight of Retrenchments\", Official Report, 15 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 143, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
In particular, the Government has worked closely with our tripartite partners to develop an ecosystem that supports workers on every step of their career journey. This includes: (a) helping workers build career resilience through picking up industry-relevant skillsets; (b) assisting affected workers through employment facilitation and career coaching; and (c) the upcoming SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme, which will further help involuntarily unemployed persons to bounce back.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Costs Incurred by NParks in Maintenance and Treatment of Animals Seized During Investigations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development for each year in the past five years, what are the mean and median costs borne by the National Parks Board for the costs and expenses incurred in the maintenance and treatment of animals seized during investigations.
Mr Desmond Lee: The National Parks Board (NParks) bears the costs and expenses involved in the maintenance and treatment of animals in its centres. This includes animals that have been seized during investigations, as well as those that are brought to the centres under the Trap-Neuter-Rehome/Release-Manage programme for community cats and dogs.
NParks does not track the costs and expenses incurred in the maintenance and treatment of specific animals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Police Intervention Guidelines for Youths Aged Below 14 Involved in Physical Assault and Bullying Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"74 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) under what circumstances do Police Officers arrest youths below 14 years old in physical assault and bullying cases; (b) whether there are guidelines based on severity of harm or injury before Police intervention is justified for incidents in schools; and (c) if not, how does Police determine which cases are handled by Police and which cases fall outside Police intervention so that parents are aware of the appropriate recourse channels when a child suffers physical assault by a peer.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police work closely with the Ministry of Education to deal with bullying and physical violence among students, striking a balance between punishing and deterring such behaviour and rehabilitation in view of the young age of the offenders.
For cases that are assessed to be egregious, the Police will investigate and consult the Attorney-General’s Chambers on the action to be taken against the offender. The assessment of whether to investigate and pursue prosecution would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In general, the Police would consider factors, such as the extent of harm caused and the need for deterrence.
Cases that are not egregious are best dealt with by the school. The school can investigate and decide on the appropriate course of action, including disciplinary action and counselling the victims. Teachers can help the offending students mend their ways through education and restorative efforts.
Parents of children who are victims of bullying and physical violence should alert the schools. All reports are treated seriously. For cases that are egregious, the school will make a Police report.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Installation of Lifts at Overhead Bridges in Fernvale for Benefit of Seniors and Families with Young Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"76 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport whether LTA will consider installing lifts at overhead bridges in Fernvale for the benefit of seniors and families with young children.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Since 2018, all new pedestrian overhead bridges (POBs) are installed with lifts to provide barrier-free access. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has also been retrofitting some POBs built before 2018 with lifts. We have focused on POBs near Mass Rapid Transit stations, bus interchanges and healthcare institutions, such as hospitals and polyclinics. These POBs experience higher footfall and serve more seniors. Priority is also being given to POBs without nearby street-level or alternative barrier-free pedestrian crossings.
In Fernvale, LTA has included the POB along Sengkang West Way near Blk 469B under its lift retrofitting programme. LTA will continue to assess other POBs in Fernvale for lift retrofitting.
77 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Health whether there are any ongoing or planned studies in Singapore to explore the usefulness of body roundness index as a predictor of obesity and related health risks for the population.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: There is currently insufficient evidence on the usefulness of Body Roundness Index as a predictor of obesity and related health risks for Asian populations. The Ministry of Health will continue to monitor research findings and, in the meantime, use predictors, such as waist circumference and body mass index, for our national screening programme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Flexible Working Arrangements in Civil Service and Cost-Benefit Study on Working from Home","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in view of more large companies in the private sector requiring employees to return to work in the office five days a week (a) whether the Civil Service will continue to support flexible working arrangements; and (b) whether the Government has conducted any studies on the benefits of working from home on businesses, such as environmental impact from lesser commuting and financial impact from lower operating and rental cost.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The Government recognises that there is a growing need for flexible work arrangements (FWAs), given the demographic changes facing Singapore and the evolving demands on Singaporeans with an ageing society. As highlighted in the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests (TG-FWAR), FWAs are increasingly important in supporting working caregivers, encouraging workforce re-entry, sustaining labour force participation and enhancing talent attraction and retention. Flexible work also presents other benefits, such as to the environment, from reduced commute.
The Public Service is committed to implementing FWAs to support the evolving needs of our workforce. By the end of this year, Public Service agencies will have in place procedures relating to reviewing formal FWA requests in line with TG-FWAR.
The introduction of FWAs in the Public Service has, at the same time, not seen us shy away from our commitment to deliver effective policies and services. The recently released Singapore Public Service Outcomes Review 2024 shows that there has been good progress in key areas, such as growing opportunities for all, strengthening the economy, ensuring high-quality and sustainable living environment and safety and security. We will continue to monitor the implementation of FWAs within the Public Service moving forward and adjust our approach, where necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Largest Categories of Goods and Services Procured by Government in Value Terms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance apart from large construction and info-communications technology tenders, what are the next five largest categories of goods and services procured by the Government in value terms.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Apart from Construction and Information Communications Technology (ICT), the top categories of goods and services awarded by the Government through Government Electronic Business (GeBIZ) are:
(a) Facilities Management;
(b) Professional Services;
(c) Transportation;
(d) Dental, Medical & Laboratory; and
(e) Administration & Training.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Dollar Amounts of Corporate Income Tax Revenues Forgone in Last Five Years from Incentives Granted","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in the last five years, for companies currently granted concessionary corporate income tax rates via tax incentives, what is the estimated annual dollar amounts of foregone corporate income tax revenues based on the difference between their effective tax rates versus (i) average effective corporate income tax rates and (ii) the statutory corporate income tax rate.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Like many jurisdictions, Singapore uses a range of grants and tax incentives to compete for investments. Such incentives are not automatically granted to all companies looking to invest in Singapore. They are offered judiciously, only if the economic agencies assess that the incentive is necessary to land the investment here and the investment will generate a net benefit for Singapore's economy. The value of incentives awarded is a fraction of the projected total value of the investment.
Tax revenue forgone from these tax incentives are notional. It is not correct to assume that our tax base will remain unchanged if we did not provide such incentives.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Broadening Tax Relief for Parent Relief/Parent Relief (Disability) to Include Seniors to Help Them Stay Active in Workforce","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the tax relief for Parent Relief/Parent Relief (Disability) which recognises individuals supporting their parents or parents-in-law can be broadened to include dependants who are (i) above 50 years old or (ii) earning an annual income not exceeding $5,000, so as to encourage seniors to stay active in the workforce for as long as possible.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Parent Relief, including Parent Relief (Disability), is provided to promote filial piety and provide recognition to taxpayers for their efforts in supporting their parents, grandparents, parents-in-law and grandparents-in-law in Singapore. It was announced in Budget 2024 that the income threshold for dependant-related reliefs, including Parent Relief, will be increased from $4,000 to $8,000, with effect from the Year of Assessment 2025.
There are other Government schemes which support seniors to stay active in the workforce and encourage employers to hire seniors. These include, the Senior Employment Credit, Part-Time Re-Employment Grant, SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme and Career Conversion Programmes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Update of Terminology to \"State of Palestine\" on Singapore's Diplomatic Position","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what is the impact on Singapore's diplomatic position or language following the recent directive by the International Criminal Court (ICC) to update its terminology to use \"State of Palestine\" in submissions and particularly in light of the Assembly of States Parties to the ICC, which officially recognised Palestine as a member state in 2015, following Palestine's deposit of its instrument of accession to the Rome Statute.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: There is no impact. The United Nations (UN) has used the designation \"State of Palestine\" in official UN documents and on Palestine's nameplate at UN meetings since 2012, following the adoption of UN General Assembly Resolution 67/19, which accorded Palestine non-member observer State status.
As I stated in Parliament on 2 July 2024, Singapore is prepared, in-principle, to recognise the State of Palestine and will make this move at the appropriate time. [Please refer to \"Singapore's Stance on Proposal for UN Membership for Palestine and Assistance for Rebuilding of Palestine\", Official Report, 2 July 2024, Vol 95, Issue 137, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
The key consideration is that such a move should help progress towards peace and a negotiated two-state solution. In particular, there will need to be an effective Palestinian Government that accepts Israel's right to exist and categorically rejects terrorism.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Representations from US for American Citizen Imprisoned for National Service Defaulting Offences","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) whether the Ministry has received any representations from the United States relating to the case of an American citizen who was sentenced to nine weeks' imprisonment on 7 October 2024 for National Service defaulting offences; and (b) if so, what has been the Government's response.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: No.
7 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the average waiting time for an applicant to start lessons for a Class 4 driving licence in the past one year; (b) whether demand for these lessons has exceeded supply significantly; and (c) if so, how does the Ministry plan to resolve the backlog of applicants due to the shortage in driving lesson slots.
Mr K Shanmugam: Between October 2023 and September 2024, the average waiting time for an applicant to start their Class 4 driving lessons was about five months. The recent increase in waiting time is attributed to an increase in foreign workers applying for Class 4 driving licences and a shortage of instructors in the driving schools.
Traffic Police (TP) will allow driving schools to employ foreign instructors, to supplement the local pool and alleviate the shortage of driving instructors. This will increase training capacity. In addition, TP will prioritise applicants who require Class 4 driving licences for occupational purposes.
Singapore Safety Driving Centre is currently the only driving school that provides facilities for Class 4 training and testing. TP is prepared to license more centres that can meet the requirements for Class 4 training, which are set out in the Schedule of the Road Traffic (Driving Instructors and Driving Schools) (Exemption) Order 2011.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Social Media and Artificial Intelligence's Role in Accelerating Radicalisation of Youths and Plans to Address Impact","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how has social media accelerated the radicalisation of youths; (b) how will artificial intelligence (AI) play a role in the radicalisation of youths in the next five years; and (c) what are the plans to address the adverse impact of social media and AI on youth radicalisation.
Mr K Shanmugam: Youth radicalisation is a pressing concern. Since 2015, following the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the Internal Security Department (ISD) has dealt with 14 youths, aged 20 or below, under the Internal Security Act. Six had intentions to mount attacks in Singapore. All were self-radicalised through violent extremist materials they found online.
The Internet facilitates radicalisation by providing a ready source of violent extremist material and terrorist propaganda, easily accessed by our digital-native youth. Consumption of such material may be amplified by social media algorithms that recommend more extremist content once the youths start searching for such content. These online platforms also serve as echo chambers, where interactions with likeminded users may reinforce radical beliefs. Extremist and terrorist elements have also misused social media and online gaming platforms to radicalise and recruit youth. These factors have resulted in an acceleration in the speed of radicalisation. From the point where a youth encounters such online material, to the point of his or her radicalisation, the process can be as fast as a few months, if not weeks.
Artificial intelligence (AI) will further hasten the radicalisation process and facilitate terrorism-related activities. Terrorist groups are exploiting AI tools to generate and disseminate their online propaganda. AI can quickly auto-translate existing propaganda into multiple languages and create personalised messages at scale to facilitate recruitment efforts. AI is also being used to produce increasingly convincing synthetic multimedia, indistinguishable even to the trained eye. These \"deepfakes\" have been used by malicious parties to sow discord in society as well as incite violence.
The Government takes a holistic approach to tackle the threat of online radicalisation among youths. In recent years, we have strengthened our legislative levers to block or remove extremist and terrorist propaganda, including those generated by AI. For example, the amended Broadcasting Act (effective since February 2023) and the Online Criminal Harms Act (effective since February 2024) allow the Government to disable access to egregious or criminal content online, including those that advocate and instruct on terrorism and those that incite violence. However, it is not feasible to detect or remove all such content.
To tackle the radicalisation threat upstream, ISD has been working with other Government agencies and community partners to conduct outreach. For example, ISD has collaborated with the Ministry of Education, to conduct counter-terrorism and counter-radicalisation outreach to schools, including school leaders, teachers, school counsellors and student leaders. There are also efforts to enhance the students' media literacy through the school curriculum. These efforts aim to sensitise youths and educators to the dangers of radicalisation and the importance of early reporting of suspected radicalisation cases.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recruitment and Resignation Rates of Singapore Police Force Volunteer Special Constabulary and Volunteer Special Constabulary Community","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Home Affairs in each year of the past five years, what are the rates of recruitment and resignation for the Singapore Police Force Volunteer Special Constabulary and Volunteer Special Constabulary Community, respectively.
Mr K Shanmugam: The total number of Volunteer Special Constabulary (VSC) officers and VSC (Community) officers recruited and those who resigned each year for the past five years, since 2019, is reflected in Table 1 below.
10 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what steps will SCDF take to tighten oversight by the certification body entrusted to handle applications for doors to be certified fire-proof to ensure that fire safety labels are not abused; and (b) whether there are authentication tools, such as a unique QR code, on the fire safety labels or certifications for any party to verify the validity of the labels.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) enhanced oversight over the Product Listing Scheme in 2020, when it introduced the Fire Safety (Regulated Fire Safety Products) Regulations. The Regulations set out the accountability of manufacturers, suppliers and the independent, accredited Certification Bodies (CBs).
Regulated fire safety products, which includes fire doors, must meet the requisite fire safety standards. Independent, accredited CBs are responsible for certifying that fire doors meet these standards and are provided with an appropriate fire safety label.
Suppliers or manufacturers of certified fire doors are required to provide proof of the fire door's intended installation location before CBs issue a label. The labels themselves are tamper-proof so that once affixed, they cannot be transferred to another item. CBs perform random site inspections to verify if the declared location of the fire door is accurate. Since 2022, the location of every newly-certified fire door and the accompanying fire safety label's serial number may be found on the respective CBs' online directory. This allows other parties, like premises owners, to confirm and also report any discrepancies.
The SCDF conducts annual audits of CBs to ensure that they uphold these protocols effectively.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Investigations Involving Migrant Workers Holding Placards at Work Site on 24 October 2024","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he can provide an update on investigations into an incident involving several migrant workers holding placards at a work site on 24 October 2024.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police are investigating the individuals involved in the incident for offences of organising and taking part in unlawful public assemblies, which is prohibited under the Public Order Act 2009. This includes the employers of the migrant workers, who had allegedly organised the public assemblies.
Separately, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has released a statement on 25 October 2024, confirming that the migrant workers involved were not owed salary payments and had no wellbeing concerns. MOM is also investigating the employer for illegally deploying the workers and abetting the workers to perform illegal acts under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act and will take appropriate actions, if necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Co-sharing Hawker Stalls for Optimisation Given Ageing Hawkers Increasingly Unable to Work Long Hours","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in view of the first and second generation hawkers ageing and increasingly unable to work for long hours, whether the Ministry will consider some form of co-sharing of hawker stalls to optimise the provision of food services to residents.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency has introduced the Joint Operator Scheme since 2012 which allows eligible stallholders to appoint joint operators to share operating hours at their stalls. Stallholders are still required to personally operate at their stalls and ensure no overlap in operating hours with their joint operators, to prevent the possibility of subletting. This scheme allows hawkers to enjoy flexibility in their working hours while enhancing the vibrancy of markets and hawker centres at the same time. Eligible stallholders can also appoint their family members as nominees to operate the stalls on their behalf due to old age.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Misrepresentations of Thawed Frozen Meat as Fresh Meat and Advice for Consumers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry has received any complaints about merchants misrepresenting thawed frozen meat as fresh meat in the past five years; and (b) what are the signs that consumers can look out for to help them identify such misrepresentations.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Over the past five years, the Singapore Food Agency has been alerted to 11 cases of misrepresentation of thawed frozen meat sold as fresh meat. Enforcement action was taken against one case while the remaining other 10 cases were found to be unsubstantiated.
Food establishments engaged in the sale of thawed frozen meat are required to label them accordingly. Consumers can look out for such labels before their purchases. Thawed frozen meat can only be identified through laboratory testing. Enforcement action is taken if misrepresentation is found after laboratory testing.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Littered Waste Collected Annually and Progress of Initiatives Towards a Litter-free Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what are the amounts of littered waste collected yearly from 2021 to 2024 at local urban, recreational and nature environments respectively; (b) what are the measured environmental impact including carbon footprint of these littered waste for such period; and (c) what is the progress in respect of the ongoing initiatives towards a litter-free Singapore.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency (NEA) oversees the cleaning of public spaces, such as roads, pavements and certain private estates in Singapore, while Town Councils manage the cleaning of Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates. NEA does not track the total amount of litter collected from different areas, such as public spaces and recreational parks, as all types of litter and organic waste, such as leaves, are collected together when cleaning is conducted.
The Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) and NEA have been ramping up efforts and working closely with stakeholders to keep Singapore clean; especially this year, which we have designated as the Year of Public Hygiene. We adopt a multi-pronged approach that combines enforcement against litterbugs and partnership with the community. NEA has stepped up anti-littering enforcement, including more than 100 anti-littering enforcement blitzes at hotspots with higher offence rates and public feedback reports.
In addition to enforcement efforts, NEA works with partners, such as residents, community leaders, Town Councils, schools and other organisations, to foster collective action and social responsibility to keep our public spaces clean. So far, this year, our partners have organised more than 130 activities that promote a stronger culture of cleanliness.
There are also other initiatives, such as the Public Hygiene Council's (PHC's) annual Keep Singapore Clean campaign and CleanPods, which advocate the value of maintaining cleanliness beyond our own homes and fostering the habit of picking up after oneself. To make it convenient and sustainable for residents and volunteers to help keep our neighbourhoods and environment clean, PHC has a network of 21 CleanPods distributed around parks, beaches and housing estates that provides access to shared clean-up tools.
A whole-of-society approach is needed to keep our public spaces clean. I urge everyone to play their part in keeping Singapore a clean, green and sustainable home.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tools in Managing Students' Use of Personal Learning Devices and Research Done on Impact of Usage","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education (a) what resources, guidelines or training are available to assist parents and teachers in managing their students' use of Personal Learning Devices responsibly, both in school and at home; and (b) whether the Ministry plans to introduce additional measures to support the development of balanced digital habits by students.
16 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education (a) whether research has been conducted on the impact of the usage of personal learning devices on students' attention spans and academic performance; and (b) whether there are plans to refine the use of these devices based on findings regarding their effectiveness and any identified distractions.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: My response will cover the Questions raised by Dr Wan Rizal; and the questions raised by Ms Hazel Poa and Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim which are scheduled for subsequent Sittings on or after 12 November 2024. [Please refer to \"Study into Pros and Cons of Use of Personal Learning Devices in Schools\", Official Report, 12 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 146, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section; and \"Surveys to Assess Impact of Providing Digital Devices to Students on their Learning Abilities, Learning Habits, Academic Performance and Attention Span\", Official Report, 13 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 147, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
In addition, I will also address written Parliamentary Questions by Dr Wan Rizal and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. I invite Members to seek clarifications, as needed. [Please refer to \"Tools in Managing Students' Use of Personal Learning Devices and Research Done on Impact of Usage\", Official Report, 11 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 145, Written Answers to Questions section; and \"Students' Usage of School-Issued Devices for Non-educational Purposes by Bypassing Restrictions Placed\", Official Report, 13 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 147, Written Answers to Questions section.]
Since the introduction of Personal Learning Devices (PLDs) to enhance teaching and learning, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has provided schools with guidance and support, and professional development of teachers, on the use of PLDs for teaching and learning. Cyber Wellness lessons were enhanced to promote safe and responsible PLD use. Learning resources on developing digital literacies were made available to students.
To further support the safe and effective use of the PLDs, all PLDs were installed with the Device Management Application (DMA). DMA blocks access to inappropriate content and regulates screen time. Cases of suspected DMA bypass are investigated and appropriate school-based consequences meted, should any misdemeanour be established.
MOE commissioned the National Institute of Education to conduct a two-year study, starting in September 2022, to understand the impact of PLDs on teaching and learning as well as students' development of 21st Century Competencies, cyber wellness and mental wellbeing. Interim findings suggest that students found the use of PLDs beneficial for their learning, communication with teachers and collaboration with peers. Students also demonstrated good cyber wellness knowledge, including awareness of cyber risks. Students are learning to translate this knowledge into action when using PLDs, especially during non-school hours.
MOE recognises that parents are key partners in a student's education journey. MOE recently collaborated with the Ministry of Social and Family Development and the Health Promotion Board on the Parenting for Wellness initiative. To enable our students to use technology productively and safely for learning, the toolbox for parents includes resources to help navigate the challenges of parenting in the digital age effectively, such as setting screen use limits on digital devices. I encourage parents to make good use of the bite-sized practical tips and strategies to support your children's growth and development.
We will continue to refine our policies on the use of PLDs and support for schools, students and parents with the findings from the study and feedback we receive.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics of Students with Reported Special Education Needs in Mainstream Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Education in respect of mainstream school students with reported special education needs, what is the current breakdown in percentage of those who have (i) autism spectrum disorder (ii) intellectual disabilities (iii) sensory disabilities (iv) physical disabilities (v) neurodiverse conditions other than autism and (vi) multiple disabilities, respectively.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Among mainstream school students with special educational needs (SEN), students with dyslexia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) make up the vast majority. Students with other disability profiles, such as sensory disabilities, physical disabilities and multiple disabilities, make up a very small percentage of mainstream school students with SEN.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Training Examiners on Criteria to Use When Making Decisions During National Examinations in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Education in respect of national examinations which are conducted in schools (a) whether examiners are trained on the quantitative and objective criteria to make decisions during the examinations, such as considering a request to replay the audio tracks for a listening comprehension examination; and (b) under what conditions are examination personnel permitted to make decisions based on subjective criteria.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Prior to the conduct of the national examinations, examination personnel are briefed on the standard operating procedures relating to the preparation and conduct of the examinations, including procedures to deal with various scenarios, such as late arrival of candidates due to train disruptions and unclear audio broadcast during the Listening examinations.
In complicated or unusual situations, examination personnel will consult the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) on the measures to be taken. This is to ensure that the examinations are conducted fairly for all candidates.
For Listening examinations, SEAB has put in protocols to handle disruptions, such as environmental noise from movement of heavy vehicles, flypasts or muffled playback from the speakers. For such disruptions, the examination personnel are allowed to replay the affected tracks to ensure fair assessment for affected students.
In the recent incident from the 2024 GCE O-level English Language Listening examination, five centres out of 140 examination centres reported having to replay part of the audio tracks in one to two of their classrooms, due to environmental noise or muffled playback from the speakers. The assessment format required tracks 2 to 6 to be played twice. Therefore, in the case of a replay, the affected tracks would be replayed after all tracks have been played and according to the examination format.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enrolment and Graduation Rates of Female vis-a-vis Male Students in Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Courses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education over the past five years (a) what are the enrolment and graduation rates of female students in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning courses across Singapore's universities and polytechnics; (b) how do these figures compare to that of the male counterparts; and (c) what targeted measures are being implemented to increase female participation and retention in AI-related academic programmes.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Over the past five years, female students comprised about a quarter of enrolment in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning programmes at the polytechnics and autonomous universities (AUs). Similar to male students, more than 90% of these female students graduate from their programmes.
The polytechnics and AUs will continue to raise awareness and interest in AI-related careers and courses through avenues, such as Open Houses and programmes for female students. For example, the Nanyang Technological University's Promotion of Women in Engineering, Research and Science (POWERS) programme equips female students with professional and personal skillsets to embark on science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) careers. The polytechnics partner with the Infocomm Media Development Authority, through the SG Women in Tech (SGWIT) initiative, to grow female students' interest in technology careers, through talks, workshops, hackathons and mentorship opportunities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Eligible Recipients of Government Assistance and Review of Income Eligibility Criteria","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) for the past five years, what is the annual number of recipients of Government assistance who are on debt repayment arrangements; (b) whether the Ministry can consider reviewing the income eligibility criteria for its assistance schemes and grants to accommodate applications from families in financial hardship that are contributed in part by formal debt repayment arrangements or who are financing the long-term care of dependants including aged relatives; and (c) if not, why not.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: In assessing ComCare applications, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) does not consider debt repayments by the household and the information is not collected in the application. Hence, MSF does not have the data requested.
The Member appears to be suggesting that higher income households who have debts should be eligible for ComCare, because their expenses include debt repayment. This would be difficult to justify on principled grounds. While the desire to relieve the burden of debt is understandable, we cannot ignore the real and high likelihood that this creates the wrong incentives. We should not inadvertently induce households to make rash decisions to take on higher debt, while expecting that tax-funded social safety nets will bail them out. This would undermine the social compact and public support for a social safety net for Singaporeans.
The Member raised a second scenario, involving households that face financial hardship supporting their elderly dependants. For such cases, they may approach the Social Service Offices for assistance. Where necessary, clients with long-term care needs will be referred to Government agencies and community partners for the relevant support. The household can then direct their income towards the needs of other members of the household.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans for Construction of Mosque in Tengah New Town","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) whether there are any plans for a mosque to be built in Tengah New Town; (b) if not, why not; (c) if so, where is the planned location of the mosque; and (d) when will the mosque be completed.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) manages the building of mosques to meet the religious needs of the Muslim community. Those that are already built also need to be rejuvenated over time. The overall plans on mosque developments, such as upgrading and lease renewal, are centrally coordinated and take into consideration demographic changes and the development of new towns and estates across the island.
The Mosque Building and Mendaki Fund (MBMF), which collects contributions from working Muslims in Singapore, supports the building and upgrading of mosques in Singapore. Over the years, these funds have been used to build mosques in new residential estates, such as Sengkang and Punggol, as well as in more mature estates in Jurong and Woodlands, which have seen an increase in demand for prayer spaces, in coordination with the relevant agencies. Leases were also renewed with the MBMF.
MUIS will be prudent in applying MBMF to support the various religious needs of the community. MUIS will also continue to work with the agencies to assess the need for the development of new mosques or to rejuvenate existing ones.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singaporeans Seeking Dental Treatment in Johor Bahru and Measures to Enhance Competitiveness of Dental Industry","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has data on the number of Singaporeans who have sought dental treatment in Johor Bahru (JB) in the past year; (b) what is the average cost difference between comparable dental procedures in Singapore and JB; (c) how many dental clinics in Singapore have closed in the past five years; and (d) what specific measures is the Ministry implementing to enhance the competitiveness of Singapore's dental industry against regional competitors.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health does not collect or track data on Singaporeans seeking dental treatment in Johor Bahru or the costs of dental procedures there. From 2019 to 2023, the number of dental clinics in Singapore increased by over 10% from 1,091 in 2019 to 1,228 in 2023.
Cost of doing business in Singapore is higher than Johor Bahru. That said, we will continue to ensure that dentists are well-trained and competent and dental services in Singapore are safe, of high quality and, through various support schemes, remain affordable for Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Singtel's 8 October 2024 Outage on Access to Emergency Hotlines and Services and Steps to Address Vulnerabilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information in light of Singtel's outage on 8 October 2024 which affected calls to the Police and SCDF (a) whether the Government has data on the number of users who were not able to access (i) emergency hotlines and (ii) essential services; (b) how did the Ministry and Singtel assist the impacted Ministries and providers to attend to affected users; (c) how quickly was this assistance rendered; and (d) what measures are being introduced to address such vulnerabilities and their impact on seniors and less digitally connected persons.
Mrs Josephine Teo: I will answer Parliamentary Question Nos 11 to 16 on today's Order Paper as well as written Parliamentary Question No 23 on today's Order Paper, filed by Member of Parliament See Jinli Jean, together as they relate to the same incident. [Please refer to \"Root Cause for Singtel's Recent Outage, Impact of Disruption to Essential Services and Measures to Ensure Telecom Operational Continuity and Resilience\", Official Report, 11 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 145, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
On 8 October 2024, Singtel's fixed line voice service faced intermittent service disruption. This affected some residential and corporate users, including Government emergency phone lines, such as the Singapore Civil Defence Force's (SCDF's) 995 and Singapore Police Force's (SPF's) 999, and customer service lines for some Government agencies, healthcare organisations and companies. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Ministry of Health will be responding to queries on the service impact on their respective sectors arising from the incident. During the disruption, it is estimated that half of the calls could still be connected. All services were progressively restored over four hours after the start of the incident.
The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) takes a serious view of this incident and is investigating the cause of this disruption and whether Singtel's incident response was adequate. Preliminary findings suggest that there was a technical issue, which affected the proper functioning of a network component in one of the two systems supporting Singtel's fixed line voice service. The two systems, located in separate telephone exchanges, are designed to immediately take over the full load of the other when one system malfunctions. However, in this instance, the failover did not happen seamlessly, which caused the intermittent service disruption. There is no evidence to suggest that the incident was related to a sabotage or cyberattack. IMDA is continuing its investigations.
The telecommunication network in Singapore is a key infrastructure that supports our nation's connectivity needs and requirements. IMDA holds key service providers, like Singtel, to high service standards and requires them to conduct regular audits on their network and infrastructure. This includes, ensuring the security of network design, redundancy measures and business continuity plans. Service providers must also ensure that their networks are resilient against disruptions. IMDA will not hesitate to take strong action under the Telecommunication Act, including imposing financial penalties, should any lapses be identified. IMDA is working with MHA, SCDF and SPF to conduct a comprehensive after-action review on the availability of our emergency hotlines when disruptions occur.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Provision of Alternative Versions of Content in Age-appropriate Categories by Online Media Streaming Platforms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Censorship Review Committee (CRC) can consider looking into online media streaming platforms, such as Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon Prime, and seek their consideration to provide alternative versions of certain content but in age-appropriate categories; and (b) whether CRC will endorse these platforms where they provide certain content in different versions according to age-appropriate categories.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) adopts a co-regulatory approach with online streaming content providers, such as Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon Prime. Such service providers are required to adhere to IMDA's Content Code for Over-the-Top, Video-On-Demand and Niche Services, including fulfilling the necessary access control requirements to protect the young from unsuitable content. These requirements include rating all content on their services, presenting the rating prominently and providing parental locks for content rated NC16 or higher. The selection of content offered on these platforms are commercial decisions, but are expected to meet the above requirements. Where breaches are reported, IMDA will engage the platforms to rectify
There are currently no plans to convene a Censorship Review Committee. The Government takes into consideration Singapore's prevailing media and social landscape in deciding if and when to convene content regulatory reviews and the appropriate format for such reviews. On content, policies and standards that are specific to different media platforms, the IMDA continues to consult a range of advisory committees. These varied approaches provide greater flexibility and timeliness in responding to shifts in the media landscape, community sentiments and societal norms.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proactive Enforcement Against Recalcitrant Illegal Bird Feeders and Mandatory Counselling to Address Underlying Issues","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Derrick Goh asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether more proactive enforcement measures can be taken against recalcitrant illegal bird-feeders to supplement existing surveillance and enforcement efforts; and (b) whether the recalcitrant feeders can be provided with or mandated to receive counselling, including psychological support, to address potential underlying behavioural issues.
Mr Desmond Lee: The National Parks Board (NParks) adopts a multi-pronged approach to manage bird-feeding in estates. NParks partners with agencies, such as the People's Association (PA) and Town Councils (TC), to conduct on-site surveillance and take enforcement actions.
To complement surveillance and enforcement efforts, NParks has been increasing its outreach and public education efforts to deter illegal bird-feeding. For instance, NParks conducts outreach programmes to educate the public on proper food disposal practices and discourage pigeon feeding.
For repeat offenders or those with mental health needs, NParks works with the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC), TCs, the Municipal Services Office and PA to understand their motivations, address misconceptions and discourage them from feeding birds.
NParks offers these feeders nature-based activities as alternatives to feeding. These include community gardening, which creates opportunities for them to be engaged socially with others; and birdwatching, where they can observe how wild birds forage naturally without human-generated food sources. For individuals with mental health needs, AIC will link them with appropriate services, such as counselling, for support.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Directions Issued under Wildlife-related Measures for Development Works and Steps Taken to Verify Compliance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development in respect of the 445 development projects where directions have been issued under section 10 of the Wildlife Act on wildlife-related measures for development or works since 2020 (a) what are the most common types of directions issued; (b) what steps does the Ministry take to verify compliance with the directions; and (c) what are the consequences for the three projects which have recorded contraventions.
Mr Desmond Lee: The measures imposed within directions issued under section 10 of the Wildlife Act depend on the nature of the development and its location. The most common types of measures are pre-felling checks for bird nests and other wildlife and restricted working hours, as they mitigate common impacts arising from development.
To ensure compliance with directions, developers may be required to develop and implement an Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan and provide monitoring reports to the National Parks Board (NParks). NParks reviews these reports to verify compliance with the directions issued. NParks also conducts site inspections for developments, where necessary.
For the three projects that have recorded contraventions against directions issued, NParks had taken enforcement action against the main contractors involved.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Processing Time for HDB HFE Letter from Application to Document Submission and Possible Extension of Validity Period","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the median processing time for the HDB Flat Eligibility (HFE) letter from (i) the point of application and (ii) the point all required documents are submitted to HDB; and (b) whether the Government can consider extending the validity period of the HFE Letter to minimise the need for re-application.
Mr Desmond Lee: Between 1 November 2023 and 31 October 2024, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) processed more than 135,000 applications for the HDB Flat Eligibility (HFE) letter. Applications with complete documents are generally processed within about a week. For applications submitted without complete documents, HDB will need to request for the full set of documents to be submitted before processing the application. Applicants are, therefore, advised to provide accurate and complete information during their HFE letter application for a faster response.
In November 2023, as part of a regular review to improve the flat buyer's experience, HDB extended the validity period of the HFE letter from six to nine months. This serves to strike a balance between providing home seekers with greater convenience and ensuring a holistic and fair assessment of their eligibility for housing subsidies and loan based on recent household income. There are currently no plans to further extend the validity period of the HFE letter.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extent of Artists' Involvement in URA's City Planning Work","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Minister for National Development to what extent are artists presently involved in the city planning work of the Urban Redevelopment Authority.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), in partnership with agencies and local stakeholders, works with the artistic community to implement public art projects and placemaking initiatives to create distinctive and lively public spaces.
For example, with support from URA, through its Lively Places Fund, One Kampong Gelam (OKG) engaged artists Akai Chew, Leow Wei Li and Leonard Yang to transform the facade of 45 and 47 Sultan Gate through a vibrant wall mural inspired by the rich iconography of Kampong Gelam. The artists also invited the local community and visitors to contribute to the mural by painting and sharing their memories and hopes for the area, fostering a stronger sense of community.
Details on the Lively Places Fund are provided on URA's website.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Illegal Bird Feeders Caught in 2024 and Means and Manpower Deployed in Surveillance and Enforcement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many illegal bird feeders are caught in 2024; (b) how many are repeat offenders; and (c) what have been the means and the number of manpower deployed to carry out the surveillances of illegally feeding birds and enforcements.
Mr Desmond Lee: Under the Wildlife Act, offenders can be fined up to $5,000 for their first offence of feeding any wild animal, including birds; and up to $10,000 for subsequent offences. Between January 2024 to October 2024, the National Parks Board (NParks) took enforcement action against 209 offenders for feeding birds illegally, including 30 repeated offenders.
NParks works closely with agencies, such as the People's Association as well as Town Councils, to manage bird feeding issues. As part of its efforts to address illegal bird-feeding in estates, NParks conducts on-site surveillance, including the deployment of closed-circuit television cameras at identified feeding hotspots. From January to October 2024, NParks had conducted more than 2,200 surveillance operations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Challenges of Inter-agency Approach to Tackling Hoarding Issues and Plans to Streamline Enforcement under Single Entity","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for National Development in light of the Hoarding Management Framework (HMF) led by the Municipal Services Office (MSO) and involving multiple agencies (a) what are the top challenges faced under the current inter-agency approach; and (b) whether the Government will consider streamlining enforcement powers and put the responsibility of tackling all hoarding issues under a single agency to address these challenges more effectively.
Mr Desmond Lee: The inter-agency Hoarding Management Core Group (HMCG) focusses on protracted and severe hoarding cases. Where there are fire safety, public health or animal welfare risks, the Singapore Civil Defence Force, National Environment Agency or National Parks Board will intervene with their regulatory levers. Agencies also work with community partners to engage hoarders and their families to keep up decluttering efforts.
Nonetheless, despite agencies' effort, some hoarders refuse to cooperate. The issue could also recur for a variety of reasons. As a measure of last resort, the upcoming Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Bill proposes to empower the Community Relations Unit (CRU) in Municipal Services Office to apply to the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) to declutter a residential unit, after the CDRT has found the hoarding to be causing unreasonable interference to the neighbours' enjoyment of their properties and the hoarder has failed to comply with the CDRT's order to declutter.
Hoarders' underlying motivations and family support networks vary from case to case. There is no one-size-fits-all solution and enforcement is only one of several measures that the agencies use to tackle hoarding issues. Enforcement is also not suitable for all cases.
A whole-of-society approach is needed to address hoarding in a more holistic and sustainable manner. This entails the Government, social service agencies, community groups, grassroots organisations and the private sector coming together to learn from and tap on each other's strengths and capabilities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Coffee Shop Operators Unable to Find Replacement Halal Food Stallholders Resulting in Non-renewal of Tenancy Agreement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for National Development over the last five years (a) how many coffee shop operators received warnings or instructions to find replacement halal food stallholders within the same tenancy period; and (b) how many coffee shop operators did not have their tenancy agreement with HDB renewed as a result of not providing at least one halal food stall.
Mr Desmond Lee: Since 2005, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) rental coffee shop operators are required to provide at least one halal stall under their tenancy agreement with HDB. Should any halal stallholder cease operations, HDB requires the coffee shop operator to find a replacement within the current tenancy period. If the operator fails to do so, HDB may decide not to renew the tenancy or, as a last resort, terminate the tenancy.
In the past five years, 12 coffee shop operators received reminders to find a replacement halal food stall within their respective tenancy periods.
Operators who face difficulties may appeal to HDB for more time to find a replacement halal stallholder. HDB will assess these appeals on a case-by-case basis. Coffee shop operators are generally able to comply with the requirement for halal stall provision, although some could take more time to find a replacement halal stallholder due to relatively lower demand in the area. So far, HDB has not rejected any tenancy renewal due to non-provision of halal stalls.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Outcome of National Arts Council's Sector Transformation Fund vis-a-vis Its Intended Goals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what has been the outcome of the National Arts Council's Sector Transformation Fund; and (b) whether it has achieved its intended goals.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The Sector Transformation Fund (STF) was introduced in 2022 with the objective of supporting arts companies in their transformation efforts. This includes developing financial and operational resilience as well as exploring areas for innovation and growth.
Under the scheme, companies can receive funding to pursue the following outcomes, at both organisational and sectoral levels: (a) generate market demand by creating new and/or innovative arts experiences; (b) improve operational efficiency; or (c) develop diverse revenue streams.
The STF funding has enabled participating arts companies to identify market gaps, invest in technological solutions to improve their operations and create new markets for their products. Since 2022, STF has supported close to 40 companies for business consultancy or the implementation of transformation projects, or both.
For example, performing arts company Sri Warisan tapped on STF to digitise and host past productions on a centralised Cloud storage platform. This transformed their business operations by streamlining the sharing of files for teaching staff and external partners, including for programmes like the Light to Night Festival. Book publisher TrendLit used the STF funding to work with 10 artists to produce merchandise containing literary elements. This enabled the company to diversify its offerings and collaborate with retail and design companies that were previously not involved in the literary arts scene.
The National Arts Council also supports arts companies' transformation efforts through other sector-wide programmes. Such programmes include, the Arts x Tech Lab, which supports arts practitioners to create innovative arts experiences; as well as the Acceleration Programme for the Arts, which helps to build artists' business and financial competencies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Appointment of Independent Panels/Juries to Assess Programming for Major Government-supported Arts Events","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the Ministry has considered appointing independent panels or juries composed of members from the arts community and outside of it when assessing the programming for major Government-supported arts events, such as the Singapore Art Week and the Singapore International Festival of the Arts; and (b) if so, what factors has the Ministry taken into consideration in its deliberations.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Such advisory panels already exist and information on these panels are available online. For example, the current Singapore International Festival of the Arts (SIFA) Advisory Panel not only includes members from the arts community, but also a representative from the entertainment sector. The current Singapore Writers Festival (SWF) Advisory Panel comprises members from the arts sector as well as professionals with education and media experience.
These advisory panels ensure the major festivals offer quality arts offerings for different segments of Singaporeans. They also provide advice to the festival director and commissioners ranging from the overall artistic direction of the festivals to areas, such as marketing.
For the Singapore Art Week (SAW), the National Arts Council co-leads a workgroup with the Singapore Tourism Board. The workgroup includes key visual arts institutions as well as private and public sector partners, to facilitate the cross-sharing of ideas and foster collaboration across major stakeholders in Singapore's visual arts industry.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"US ETF Equity Index Funds Available for CPF Members to Invest Through CPFIS and Plans to Include Direct Investment Options","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower (a) which are the US Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) equity index funds that CPF members can currently invest in directly under the CPF Investment Scheme (CPFIS); (b) given that the CPFIS-approved list includes only Singapore-based ETFs and that US equity exposure is available only through unit trusts with higher expense ratios, whether the Ministry plans to include direct investment options in US ETF equity index funds under CPFIS; and (c) whether CPF will proactively seek to add low-cost US ETF index funds to improve returns for CPF members.
Dr Tan See Leng: To safeguard Central Provident Fund (CPF) members' interest, only Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) listed on the Singapore Exchange (SGX) can be included under the CPF Investment Scheme (CPFIS), as foreign products are subject to changing regulations in jurisdictions outside of the Government's regulatory oversight.
Currently, there are ETFs listed on the SGX with exposure to United States (US) equities1. Fund managers of SGX-listed ETFs may choose to apply for their products to be included under the CPFIS, depending on their commercial considerations. The CPF Board carefully assesses these applications, taking into consideration factors, such as investment-related fees and investment track records.
CPF members already have the option to invest directly in a number of low-cost, passively-managed unit trusts with US equity exposure through CPFIS2. These unit trusts have comparable expense ratios as ETFs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The SPDR S&P 500 ETF and the SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF are currently listed on the SGX.","2 : More information on the list of unit trusts and other products included under the CPFIS can be found on this website: https://www.cpf.gov.sg/member/growing-your-savings/earning-higher-returns/investing-your-cpf-savings/cpf-investment-scheme-options"],"footNoteQuestions":["34"],"questionNo":"34"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Active Monitoring/Alert System to Detect Oil Spillage to Ensure More Effective and Expedient Recovery Efforts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport regarding the oil leakage from a Shell land-based pipeline between Bukom Island and Bukom Kecil on 20 October 2024 (a) whether an active monitoring or alert system is in place to detect oil sightings in Singapore’s water; and (b) what are the lessons and experiences from previous oil leaks and spills that the Government is applying to ensure that the recovery efforts are more effective and expedient.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: I thank the Member for the Question. This Question has been addressed in the reply to Question Nos 7 and 8 for Oral Answer at the 11 November 2024 Sitting. [Please refer to \"Inspection for Structural Integrity of Oil Pipelines, Measures to Prevent Oil Spills and Penalties for Recent Incidents\", Official Report, 11 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 145, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress of Noise Barrier Installations Along MRT Viaducts in Yio Chu Kang and Success of Noise Minimisation Efforts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Transport whether he can provide an update on (i) the progress of noise barrier installations along MRT viaducts near the Nuovo condominium in Yio Chu Kang (ii) plans to conduct another round of noise level assessments at Ang Mo Kio Avenue 6 given that the previous studies are conducted about five years ago (iii) the effectiveness of ongoing maintenance efforts on ageing MRT tracks to minimise noise and (iv) further collaborative measures with relevant agencies to address noise concerns in residential areas where barrier installations may be challenging.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Noise barriers are installed along stretches of Mass Rapid Transit system (MRT) viaducts where there are residential developments that are located close to the viaducts and where noise levels exceed the National Environment Agency's guidelines. In addition to the installation of noise barriers, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) also works with train manufacturers and operators to reduce noise at the source. This includes, fitting trains with noise-dampening wheels, using ballast and concrete sleepers on elevated tracks to better absorb vibration and noise and servicing train wheels and tracks more frequently, as needed.
The MRT viaduct near Nuovo condominium has not been identified as a location for the installation of noise barriers, as the nearest residential developments are beyond the distance where noise barriers are typically required, including Nuovo condominium which is about 70 metres away from the viaduct.
If the Member has specific feedback about noise, he can also reach out to LTA.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Minister of State for Transport","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"The following statement was made by Minister of State for Transport (Mr Murali Pillai) in the reply to a supplementary question for Question Nos 7 to 8 at the Sitting of 11 November 2024:
The Minister of State for Transport (Mr Murali Pillai): Mr Speaker, Sir, to the question that Miss Cheryl Chan posed, the answer is yes. After every oil spill, every incident, there will be a study to see what are the lessons that can be drawn and then we look to see how we can improve our plans that are in place as well and also engage the respective stakeholders. And through the cooperation of all the stakeholders, we aim to ensure that we minimise the risk of oil spills. [Please refer to \"Adequacy and Effectiveness of Oil Sighting and Alert Mechanisms, and Maritime Incident Response and Mitigation Strategies\", Official Report, 11 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 145, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Mr Murali Pillai circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual correction to my reply given during the Sitting of 11 November 2024. My statement should read as follows:
The Minister of State for Transport (Mr Murali Pillai): Mr Speaker, Sir, to the question that Miss Cheryl Chan posed, after every oil spill, every incident, there will be a study to see what are the lessons that can be drawn and then we look to see how we can improve our plans that are in place as well and also engage the respective stakeholders. And through the cooperation of all the stakeholders, we aim to ensure that we minimise the risk of oil spills.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":6331,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Wan Rizal","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20241111/vernacular-Dr Wan Rizal - MediShield Life (Amdt) Bill 11 Nov 2024 - Malay.pdf","fileName":"Dr Wan Rizal - MediShield Life (Amdt) Bill 11 Nov 2024 - Malay.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}