1 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) how does the Government identify, groom and develop promising athletes to achieve success in their respective sports; (b) what are the different forms of support and assistance available to such athletes during their sporting careers; and (c) how many athletes have benefitted from such schemes in recent years.
2 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what forms of support and assistance can be further enhanced to enable our national athletes to succeed in their respective sports; (b) how can world-class coaches in the respective sports be attracted and retained to coach our elite national athletes; and (c) what are the Government’s plans to enhance collaboration and partnerships with the private and people sectors to continue supporting and developing Singapore athletes.
\tThe Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Speaker, I thank the Members for their interest in how we support our Team Singapore athletes. With Mr Speaker’s permission, may I take both Question Nos 1 and 2 together?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, Sir. The Government has established a comprehensive approach to identify, nurture and develop Team Singapore athletes. There are two key overarching strategies in this approach.
The first is to provide broad-based, accessible programming and continually enhance sporting infrastructure to give every Singaporean the opportunity to pursue their sporting interests, and hone and develop their skills. The second is to provide holistic, but individualised and personalised support to talented athletes so that they can maximise their own potential and represent Singapore at elite competitions like the Major Games.
Sir, please allow me to elaborate on both these strategies.
To make sports accessible to all Singaporeans, the Government devotes significant resources on mass participation programmes and courses. This includes Sport Singapore (SportSG)’s ActiveSG Academies and Clubs, which offer a more structured way for Singaporeans to pursue their sporting interests and develop their skills.
MCCY and SportSG also work closely with the MOE schools, the People’s Association and the private sport academies to develop, coordinate and implement across the board sport programmes that allow young Singaporeans to experience sports and hone their skills and talents. This itself also helps to grow the base of available talent. The National Sports Associations (NSAs) also play a key role in providing exposure and training opportunities to young Singaporeans.
Our efforts extend beyond mass programming. It is also essential that there is quality infrastructure to enable Singaporeans to engage meaningfully in sports. Over the last three years, we have invested an average of almost $90 million each year to develop and operate stadiums, running tracks, sports halls, pools and other venues that are accessible to the general public.
This strategy not only allows us to foster a strong and broad-based sporting culture in Singapore, but provides opportunities to spot young sporting talents who can be offered pathways to develop their skills and potentially represent our country as national athletes, as Member Xie Yao Quan had asked about.
Sir, over the years, the Government has also developed the High-Performance Sport, or HPS, system which is designed to nurture each high-performance athlete, maximising his or her own potential. The HPS is administered by the Singapore Sport Institute, or SSI, and the National Youth Sport Institute, NYSI.
The HPS system provides athletes with end-to-end support and development. The system assists each athlete in a holistic and personalised way, as I have mentioned. We are able to go down to specific physical attributes, strengths and potential of each individual athlete, as well as determine the demands and requirements of their own respective sport, to maximise performance outcomes.
Central to this approach is the development of a Daily Training Environment for each athlete, under which they are given a range of support and guidance in areas such as sport science and sport medicine, coaching and counselling. All of this are part of the HPS system.
For example, the SSI and NYSI employ leading-edge technology to test, monitor and track performance, setting achievement milestones relevant for the individual challenge each athlete to meet his or her own full potential.
Let me illustrate how the HPS system has supported champion para-swimmer Yip Pin Xiu. Sir, I will use examples in the course of this answer to support and explain some of the points I make, but these examples serve as illustrations as no two sports, and indeed, no two individual athletes are similar, and the HPS system is designed to be curated to bring out the best in each individual athlete.
In Pin Xiu’s case, sport biomechanists at the SSI record and analyse her swim timings and performances, rigorously. They also work closely with her coach and performance director to make fine adjustments and optimise her strokes.
Pin Xiu’s SSI sport physiologist performs regular tests to monitor her own body conditions and provided valuable feedback to her coach on calibrating the volume, frequency and also intensity of her training. At the 2020 Tokyo Paralympic Games, for instance, the SSI sport physiologist employed various forms of heat retention to regulate Pin Xiu’s body temperature while she was in the holding room awaiting her events and this helped her to maximise her performance outcomes at the races. Taken together, SSI’s support for Pin Xiu – and many other athletes – has helped boost their competition performances.
The HPS system supports all our elite athletes by recognising each athlete as a unique individual with specific gifts and abilities. The Government invests in the system and continually enhances it so that our athletes will be supported and developed in a way that best addresses their own individual needs and maximises their potential. The focus is on enabling each athlete to be at their best, to do their best and to succeed against the best in their chosen sport.
Integral to this system is the provision of excellent coaching for our elite athletes, a point which Member Poh Li San asked about. The Government extends substantial grants to the NSAs to enable them to hire selected coaches to train our elite athletes. Additionally, SSI’s sport scientists, specialists and experts work closely with many of these coaches to better integrate them into each athlete’s Daily Training Environment. We endeavour to identify and hire the best coaches for our athletes – foreign or local coaches, and sometimes a blend, so that our coaching environment can also benefit from foreign expertise.
For instance, one of Team Singapore’s fencing coaches is Joseph Davin Engert, who was a former top German national youth fencer and a two-time World Cup Junior champion. Together with our own local coach Henry Koh, who was himself a double bronze medallist at the 2003 SEA Games, they recently led two of our fencers, Amita Berthier and Kiria Tikanah, to their maiden Olympic Games in Tokyo.
There is also local coach Pang Qing Liang, who guided national para-archer Syahidah Alim to her first World Championship title in 2019, an unprecedented feat for a Singaporean. Syahidah has also maintained her top three world rankings to-date over this period of time. For his efforts, Qing Liang won a Singapore Disability Sports Award for best high-performance coach in 2020.
Sir, top coaches are in high demand all over the world, and many talented expatriate coaches rarely remain with one team or in one country for long. Therefore, in hiring top foreign coaches for our athletes, we also want them to transfer their know-how, skills and expertise to Singaporean coaches, so that we can grow our own pool of talented local coaches.
For example, Mulyo Handoyo had coached several international badminton champions including former Olympic Champion Taufik Hidayat as well as guided our very own Ronald Susilo to a career-high world ranking of sixth. While he will step down soon as our national badminton singles head coach after a successful four-year stint to spend more time with his family after being away for an extended period due to the COVID-19 pandemic, he will leave behind a mentoring legacy which impacts not just our players but also our own local coaching pool.
One of them is badminton coach Kelvin Ho. Kelvin is a former national athlete who won a bronze at the 2009 SEA Games before retiring from competition a year later. He has since honed his coaching skills, using his own experience as a top class shuttler and also benefitting from the guidance of coach Mulyo. Many members in this House would have been familiar with the role which Kelvin played in guiding Loh Kean Yew and other shuttlers to their recent successes on the court.
There are many notable local coaches like Qing Liang and Kelvin within the Team Singapore fraternity.
Recently, ex-national swimmer Gary Tan was named as the successor national swimming coach, replacing Australian Stephan Widmer. Gary learnt his craft under Widmer and his predecessor Sergio Lopez. I am confident that Gary with continue in the fine traditions of our Singapore swimming sporting culture.
Sir, in total, the Government invests about $70 million in this HPS system each year, every year. Over the last five years, these investments have paid for many of the initiatives and efforts I have just described. These include: (a) purchasing and operating new technological systems to support the SSI’s sport science facilities; (b) funding the cost of coaches and training programmes, both locally and overseas; (c) providing world-class facilities to allow elite athletes to train in the most optimal conditions possible; and (d) undertaking research and development to offer new and innovative forms of support to our athletes.
Let me share two recent examples of these initiatives. Several years ago, the SSI established an environmental chamber in which factors such as temperature, humidity, wind and altitude can be closely controlled and calibrated. This chamber allows SSI’s sport scientists to monitor the effects of these variables on the performance of each athlete and calibrate their training accordingly. This in turn allows our athletes to acclimatise and to get used to factors such as altitude and temperature in their training environment for competitions.
The second example, when the Badminton World Federation announced that it would be switching to synthetic feathered shuttlecocks for environmental reasons, the SSI’s sport biomechanics team conducted an intensive comparative study of the flight and projection characteristics of the new shuttlecocks and how each of our individual Team Singapore badminton players perform with them. This study resulted in valuable customised guidance to each player on how he or she can modify his or her movements to adapt to the speed and flight of the new shuttlecocks. These are some of the examples of the intrinsic support which we provide to Team Singapore athletes, through the HPS system.
In the coming years, we will continue to commit a high level of funding to the HPS system because we believe this will enable us to continue enhancing the system, especially in areas that will maximise the individual performance of our elite athletes.
Sir, besides funding HPS at a broad infrastructural systems level, at the broad infrastructure, systems level, a significant portion of funding also goes to supporting our athletes directly. For example, there is the spexScholarship, which is offered to the most promising athletes to allow them to excel at the Major Games and who can then serve as role models for young Singaporeans.
The scholarship provides a monthly stipend that allows athletes to take care of their daily expenses. There is also funding to help offset their coaching costs, participate in local and overseas training and competitions, purchase equipment and obtain additional sport medicine and sport science support if they require it. There is, of course, a range in the amount of the financial support available, with our top athletes supported at several thousand dollars per month for those who can excel at the highest level of their sport.
The spexScholarship has been given to 168 able-bodied and para-athletes since its establishment in 2013. There are currently, at this point in time, 76 scholarship holders, coming from a diverse cross section of sports. Several of them have won medals at the Major Games and at the world championship level and a handful, like Pin Xiu and Kean Yew, are household names amongst Singaporeans.
But, Sir, the Government’s support for our elite athletes is not just a matter of dollars and cents, it is not just financial support, and not only about the technical or sports science support. It also extends to many other aspects of our athletes' lives and enables them to compete in sports while excelling as students, professionals and as exemplary members of society.
We recognise that each athlete will face different challenges outside of the sporting arena, at different stages of their own lives.
The Sport Excellence (spex) framework addresses these needs. It comprises several schemes to help athletes at various stages and across various facets of their lives, so that they can thrive in both sporting and non-sporting environments. Let me briefly describe some of these initiatives.
The spexEducation scheme was set up in 2013 to help athletes meet the demands of sports and education. I think it is a question that many parents, many athletes ask themselves: \"How do we do both well at the same time?\" The scheme assists student-athletes to balance their sporting and academic pursuits by supporting them with school admissions, scholarships and also importantly, scheduling their day-to-day classes and exams around their training sessions and competitions. This scheme has been made possible through agreements between SportSG and 16 partner Institutions of Higher Learning (IHLs), including the ITEs, Polytechnics, NUS and SMU.
More than 500 student-athletes have benefited from this scheme. One of them is national shooter Martina Veloso, who has won two Commonwealth Games gold medals and a gold at the International Shooting Sport Federation World Cup in 2014. Martina, a graduate of Nanyang Polytechnic, is a beneficiary of the spexEducation scheme.
The Polytechnic, itself, is a strong supporter and partner of the scheme, proactively assisted Martina in managing her class and examination schedules, granted her extensions for the submission of assignments and offered her a customised path of study that accommodated her own training, and also travel and competition commitments.
There is also the spexBusiness network to help athletes who are stepping into the workforce secure jobs and pursue meaningful careers whilst at the same time balancing their own sporting commitments. The scheme also provides support to those who are retiring from active competition and training, in their transition to full-time work.
\t
The network currently comprises more than 60 companies and organisations across more than 25 industries. These provide a wide array of career opportunities to Team Singapore athletes. They include Deloitte, Adidas, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) and OCBC Bank, just to name a few.
Since 2013, 330 former and current athletes have been assisted through this scheme.
Take Sophie Soon for example, our national para-swimmer. She is one such beneficiary. Sophie started her internship in 2019 at Toyota Motors Asia Pacific, which is a spexBusiness partner. The company supported Sophie's rigorous preparations for the 2020 Tokyo Paralympic Games by offering her a flexible work schedule. Sophie has proven herself as both a top athlete and a model working professional. She finished fourth in her breaststroke final at the Games and was hired as a full-time staff with Toyota after she graduated from the Polytechnic.
Besides Sophie, other athletes who have benefited from the spexBusiness scheme include badminton player Jaslyn Hooi, taekwondo exponent Chelsea Sim, wushu exponent Ho Lin Ying and synchronised swimmer Miya Yong. These programmes help them to train and balance the commitments of working professional life, allowing them to do both meaningfully.
Next, the spex framework also offers direct monetary grants. These include spexGLOW, or Grant for Loss of Wages, which offsets any lost wages sustained from missing work either through preparation or competition at the Major Games. There is also spexTAG, or Training Assistance Grant, which helps to defray athletes' training costs. In the last five years, some 4,000 athletes have used these grants to pursue their sporting ambitions.
Apart from the spex schemes which I have just outlined, the SSI and NYSI commit time, effort and attention to promote the well-being of each athlete through his or her own sporting journey. Under the Athlete Life Management framework, the SSI and NYSI focus on integrating sports performance with interventions to promote mental well-being and stress management.
Since 2020, Sport Singapore has also engaged athletes to identify possible symptoms of psychological and mental distress, including eating and sleeping disorders. The HPS system recognises that athletic performance at the elite level can experience unpredictable peaks and troughs, and progression is rarely linear or predictable. The competitive sport environment is one that can exert and can impart tremendous, immense stress and pressure on even the most resilient of our athletes.
Mr Speaker, beyond just having the best training methods, employing cutting edge technology and sport science and giving financial support, the one other key success factor for us has been our talent, our people talent. The team behind Team Singapore. We have officers at the SSI and NYSI who are prepared to and often go beyond the call of duty and they become friends, counsellors, mentors and a source of personal support to our athletes. This personal, dedicated approach is a key feature of the care given to each athlete in the HPS system.
And one excellent example of this is Muhammad Hidayat Osman, a strength and conditioning specialist at NYSI. Hidayat works with our young wrestlers on areas such as their strength, explosiveness and flexibility. Hidayat was a former wrestler himself and he noticed that there were limited wrestling opportunities for athletes to improve their skills. He therefore volunteered his own time to be a sparring partner for young wrestlers so that they would have more avenues and opportunities to train.
He also embarked on a coaching course in wrestling, so that he can better understand the needs of wrestlers through the combined lenses of sport science, strength development and skills training, to do more, further and wider to help the athletes under his care.
Sir, the Government's support for our national athletes is therefore holistic and comprehensive, rendered in an all-round approach. We invest in the system and we also invest in our individual athletes. Additionally, we directly support athletes from the moment they are identified as a budding talent, through their development and growth as an elite athlete and in many cases, even as they transition away from active competition.
We also work with key stakeholders in the sporting ecosystem. For instance, the National Sports Associations (NSAs) play a key role in this environment. They not only help to identify future champions, but also support and coordinate their training and competition schedules. Some actively seek sponsorships and endorsements to finance the career and aspirations of their athletes. Others provide performance-based incentives to them. The Government enjoys a collaborative and constructive relationship with many of the associations and we will continue to work with them and support them as they seek to achieve the best outcomes for our athletes.
There is also the Singapore Sports School (SSP), which I would like to mention. This was established in 2004. It offers an integrated sports and academic programme for Secondary and post-Secondary students. The Sports School offers its students comprehensive training in a variety of sports in an environment that also allows them to excel in their academic pursuits. The school has produced Team Singapore Olympians like Kean Yew, sprinter Calvin Kang and swimmer Tao Li.
Earlier this month, the school announced its students' results in last year's \"O\" and \"N\" levels and International Baccalaureate (IB) examinations. I was pleased to learn that the students did very well and congratulated the school for its fine work in nurturing student-athletes. It shows that we have a system that can deliver outstanding athletes with a fine academic record as well.
An example of a sportsman who has benefited from this multi-stakeholder, multi-faceted approach to supporting and developing athletes is Izaac Quek. He is currently one of the world's top-ranked youth table-tennis players. Izaac was first identified by the Singapore Table Tennis Association (STTA) at age seven when he was in STTA's Bishan Zone Training Centre. He then enrolled at the Sports School and joined the national Junior Development Squad and Youth Training Squad, training under head coach Jing Junhong. Today, Izaac competes regularly on the world stage whilst at the same time, pursuing his Sports School studies and achieving excellent results in both of them.
Apart from these organisations, corporates and fellow Singaporeans can also play a role in supporting our national athletes. In 2017, the Government recognised this and launched the One Team Singapore Fund, which is a matching grant framework, to catalyse and encourage the support of private organisations and corporations and members of the public for our national athletes.
Donations to the One Team Singapore Fund are directed towards supporting athletes in areas such as enhancing their training environment and increasing their own competition opportunities. They benefit all athletes regardless of whether they win at competitions or not. So, the support is consistent and the framework ensures this. This provides athletes with certainty that they will be given support to achieve their best, regardless of the outcomes and not just have to rely on prize money.
To date, the Government has matched more than $15 million of donations from the public since 2017, of which in half that period, as Members would know, is the COVID-19 pandemic period. All of these funds go directly to benefiting the sporting infrastructure and to our athletes.
Mr Speaker, as I conclude, we know that Singaporeans cheer and celebrate our athletes achievements as a community of enthusiastic spectators, passionate sports fans and proud Singaporeans. There are very few things that can motivate, galvanise and inspire in the way sports can. Singaporeans were top of the podium on the world stage several times last year. Each occasion was an inspiration, bringing our community together, fostering a deep sense of national pride. By the same token, even in defeat, as our football Lions have shown us at the recent Suzuki Cup, sports can also inspire. We all rallied behind our team who fought hard, played with pride and even though they lost that match, they won our hearts. And this is what sports can do. Each moment of sporting success is special, uplifting and uniting us all.
The Government will therefore remain committed to sports in Singapore. We will keep our sports facilities, programmes and activities open and accessible to every Singaporean to promote a strong sporting culture and develop a pipeline of strong sporting talent. We will support every one of our national athletes with the assistance and resources they need to excel at the elite level and emerge as national champions and world-beaters on the best arenas and the world stages.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.
\tMr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for laying out in his response, the really comprehensive framework of support and the system that we have in place to support our national athletes. And I just like to acknowledge that this system has been built up and put in place over many years. And indeed, looking at the recent news coming out from a neighbouring country where the funding for their national sporting council was severely cut because of COVID-19 and with severe and direct impact to many of their national athletes, I think it lends perspective to the framework of support that we have in place for our athletes.
Nonetheless, I think there is always room to do more and in that respect, I have two supplementary questions for the Minister.
The first one, of course, inspired by Loh Kean Yew's historic win recently. I would like to ask if the Minister could share more information on how the Government plans to continue supporting world champions like Kean Yew to continue performing and excelling and winning at the highest levels.
The second question; more directly, I understand that Kean Yew did not win any prize money from his recent championship. But in the case of athletes who do win prize money, are they allowed to keep this money or are they expected to contribute some part of it to the Government?
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I thank Mr Xie for the questions. I will deal with both. On the first question, I would have two or three points to make. First, it is imperative on us to continue to invest in the whole system. Because by doing so, providing holistic support and ensuring that the base is grown, then the possibility of more \"Kean Yews\", more \"Shaynas\", more \"Aloysiuses\", who all became world number one last year, will continue to be not just an aspiration, but a reality.
So, we have to expand our base. Build up better sporting infrastructure, talent spotting, talent development, nurturing, bringing them through the system and ensuring that these trailblazers, that Mr Xie has mentioned, will continue to inspire future generations of sportsmen for Singapore.
Our HPS famework, which I have taken some pains to lay out in some detail, allows us to insulate our athletes from the vicissitudes of reliance on just prize money – some high, some low, some competitions do not provide prize money – but provides a constant stream of support and ensures that is both targeted, focused as well as personalised for each individual athlete.
On the prize money, which Mr Xie has mentioned, this is up to the organisers of each competition. Some provide prize money. Others, like the recent World Championships, you play for prestige and of course, ranking points. Ranking points allow you to rise up in world rankings and allow you to be seeded subsequent competitions, thereby improving, enhancing chances of progressing further in the competition. All of these, whether prize money, or otherwise, the amount is determined by organisers. But I want to assure Mr Xie that the Government retains no part of this prize money. It is between the athlete and the relevant NSA. They deal with the prize money, they decide how that is best applied and the Government does not retain any portion of this.
On the contrary, regardless of whether they succeed at a competition or otherwise, as I have mentioned, the Government continues to support the athletes on his or her own journey, and also continues to support private donations, private sponsorships through the One Team Singapore Fund, which I mentioned earlier.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.
\tMs Poh Li San (Sembawang): I thank the Minister. I have a supplementary question on safety net for the athletes. To compete at the top class, international level, our athletes will have to give their best in training and in competitions. They have to make many sacrifices including taking time-off from work and from their studies. And in many cases, it will come to \"make it\" or \"break it\" point as they go full-time for many years.
So, what are the safety nets arrangements that our country can offer after they retired from competitive sports? These national athletes would have taken personal sacrifices to pursue excellence in their sport and that will assure athletes and their parents if they decide to go full-time to pursue sporting excellence.
\t \tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I thank Ms Poh. I agree with the sentiment that the Member has expressed. We do need to ensure that our athletes are single-minded, focused and put all their energies and devote their time and mental focus on training and eventually, also on competition.
And so, the spex programme that I have mentioned – from scholarship, to education, to business, to GLOW and TAG – they provide a range of support and ensure that it is curated. As I said earlier, each athlete is at a different station of his or her own life. Some are students and studying, some are trying to ensure that they get a place in the workforce, some came out of school and yet others want to retain an interest in the sport that they so deeply and passionately care about.
So, we do want to try and ensure that through all of these spex programmes, at different parts of the athletes' life, they are supported in a way which allows them to focus on their training.
\t
For the safety net that Ms Poh mentioned, it is also important. So, to that extent, in some cases, athletes transition from a playing career, a competition career to a coaching career. I mentioned coach Kelvin and coach Henry Koh earlier. Those are two examples. They were top tier athletes in their time and they transitioned, and we allow them to transition into coaching. SportSG plays a role in this.
Broadly speaking, we also want to ensure that we take advantage of and leverage the expertise of these athletes. So, they can find a post-competition career in sports science, in nutrition, in training, in physiotherapy, in physiology. All of these are adjunct to the sporting career and we will take opportunities as much as we can to continue to develop these adjunct areas, so that the sportsmen, the athletes themselves, can continue to serve in that capacity and, at the same time, still find a career after their playing days are over.
We agree with Ms Poh that we have come quite far on the HPS framework. We have also looked at the environment and working with private stakeholders like in spexBusiness. But we agree that more can be done and we will certainly press on with ensuring that athletes remain single-minded, focused on training and ensuring that they devote as much of their time and energy possible to achieving their best outcome and not have to worry about ancillary matters. We will continue to work with all our stakeholders on this.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Redacted Version of Banned Book \"Red Lines: Political Cartoons and the Struggle Against Censorship\" to be Considered for Publication","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Communications and Information in view of IMDA’s assessment of the book \"Red Lines: Political Cartoons and the Struggle Against Censorship\" to be objectionable under the Undesirable Publications Act (UPA) (a) whether a redacted version of the book with the objectionable offensive images removed, will be considered by IMDA for the publication of the book in Singapore; and (b) how does the classification of the book compare with other publications previously deemed objectionable under the UPA.
4 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Communications and Information arising from IMDA’s assessment of the book \"Red Lines: Political Cartoons and the Struggle Against Censorship” to be objectionable under the Undesirable Publications Act (UPA), whether a redacted version of the book can be considered for publication.
\tThe Minister for Communications and Information (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek your permission to address Question Nos 3 and 4 and for Minister Masagos to address Question No 5, and for all related supplementary questions to be taken thereafter?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Thank you. The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) has assessed the publication \"Red Lines: Political Cartoons and the Struggle Against Censorship\" to be objectionable under the Undesirable Publications Act (UPA) as the book contains images that denigrate religions, including the reproduction of Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons of Prophet Muhammad.
The Government has made very clear its views on the Charlie Hebdo cartoons and on offensive images which denigrate religions and religious figures. We do not allow any religious group to be insulted or attacked, because hate speech and offensive content can easily be normalised and lead to deep social divides if left unchecked. To preserve racial and religious harmony in Singapore, we take a firm stance on such content regardless of their purpose of publication.
In the last five years, IMDA has assessed six other publications, besides \"Red Lines\", to be objectionable for denigrating various religious communities. These publications were assessed to be likely to cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different racial or religious groups and are thus not allowed for distribution in Singapore. For example, in 2020, IMDA deemed the book \"Understanding the Evil of Innovation\" objectionable as the book contained strong denigratory references towards Judaism and Christianity. Removal of the offensive content will not automatically lead to these publications being allowed for distribution. Revised versions would have to be re-assessed holistically and none of the publishers have sought to do so.
\"Red Lines\" was launched in the United States of America on 31 August 2021, before IMDA took a decision on its suitability for distribution in Singapore. There are multiple objectionable images throughout the book which are racially and religiously offensive. Singapore’s position on such content is well-known. The Singapore distributor of \"Red Lines\" itself, Alkem Company, had concerns about some of the book’s images being objectionable when they first approached IMDA.
In response to IMDA’s public explanation of its reasons for assessing \"Red Lines\" to be objectionable and unsuitable for distribution in Singapore, the authors Dr Cherian George and Mr Sonny Liew issued a public statement in which they expressed the view that \"the regulator has opted for additional caution\". Those were their words: \"the regulator has opted for additional caution\". It should be noted, however, that even with such caution, our society is not free from the frictions that strain racial and religious harmony.
At this point, Alkem and the authors have not confirmed their specific plans on the treatment of the offensive content. If and when they do so, they can approach IMDA to assess the suitability of a revised version of \"Red Lines\" for distribution in Singapore.
To ensure that publications which have been deemed objectionable are not distributed in Singapore, IMDA maintains a database of these publications which importers and book distributors can refer to. It is an offence for any person to import, sell, distribute, make or reproduce an objectionable publication. The penalty is a fine not exceeding $5,000 or jail not exceeding 12 months or both.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Considerations for Classifying \"Red Lines: Political Cartoons and the Struggle Against Censorship\" as Objectionable under Undesirable Publications Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs what are the considerations and significance of IMDA classifying the book \"Red Lines: Political Cartoons and the Struggle Against Censorship” as objectionable under the Undesirable Publications Act (UPA) to the Muslim community.
\tThe Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Speaker, the book titled \"Red Lines: Political Cartoons and the Struggle Against Censorship\" was classified by IMDA as objectionable under the Undesirable Publications Act. It contained material that denigrated several religions and religious figures. These included caricatures from the Charlie Hebdo magazine of the Prophet Muhammad, which demean the Prophet and are extremely offensive to Muslims.
We found it shocking that demeaning and insulting images of the Prophet should be published anywhere. These images had led to rioting and deaths in parts of the world, including in France, United Kingdom, Middle East, Africa and Indonesia. Major media publications including in western countries have refrained from publishing the offensive caricatures.
MUIS reviewed the \"Red Lines\" book and found it contained several caricatures of the Prophet, as well as others that incited discrimination against Muslims, mocked the Holy Quran and the Prophet, and demeaned Islam. MUIS determined that these images are offensive to Muslims. MUIS also said that such content that negatively depicts Islam and Muslims, or any religion for that matter, are not acceptable, and even more so in a multi-religious society such as Singapore. Hence, MUIS supports IMDA’s classification of this book. I am certain the Muslim community also supports this move.
Beside the caricatures of the Prophet and Islam, the book also included images insulting to other religions. The authors may say that they do not intend for the publication to be insulting or demeaning, and their intention is to educate, but the Government rejects that. It is unacceptable to publish such caricatures and insulting images of the Prophet in the name of free speech, academia or otherwise. Let me reiterate that MUIS determined that the images are indeed offensive to Muslims. I can only imagine the feelings of our people, Muslims and non-Muslims, if such images are allowed to be published in Singapore.
In our multiracial and multi-religious society, it is vital that we treat every religion with respect and not denigrate religious communities. Instead, we should encourage dialogue and greater understanding among different religious communities, so that we strengthen our social fabric.
The harmonious race and religious relations that we enjoy in Singapore today require constant care and attention of the Government and the society at large. We do not want to risk anything that will begin unravelling the peace and harmony we enjoy from the due respect and consideration that everyone gives to each other. We remain committed to working closely with all our religious communities to preserve and strengthen our racial and religious harmony, which is a bedrock of our cohesive society. Mr Speaker, in Malay please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, the book titled \"Red Lines: Political Cartoons and the Struggle Against Censorship\" was classified by IMDA as objectionable under the Undesirable Publications Act (UPA) because it contained material that denigrated several religions and religious figures. The Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) reviewed the book and found that it contained several caricatures Prophet Muhammad, as well as other important figures that will incite discrimination against Muslims, mocked the Holy Quran and our Prophet, and demeaned Islam. MUIS determined that these images are offensive to many Muslims. MUIS also said that such content that negatively depicts Islam and Muslims, or any other religions for that matter, are not acceptable, and even more so in a multireligious society such as Singapore. Hence, MUIS supports IMDA's classification for this book. I am certain the Muslim community also supports this move.
Aside from caricatures of the Prophet and Islam, the book also contained images that denigrated other religions. The authors may say that the book is not intended to insult or demean anyone, and instead, their intention is to educate. The Government rejects this justification. Publishing such caricatures and images that insult the Prophet or other religions is unacceptable, even when it is in the name of free speech, academia and so on.
The harmonious race and religious relations that we enjoy in Singapore today can easily unravel and we must give it constant care and attention together.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Tin.
\tMs Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): I thank the Ministers for the reply. I fully agree that any insult to religions, especially in Singapore, is unacceptable. I would just like to ask whether the political nature of the cartoons in the publication has got any part to play in the decision.
\tThe Minister for Communications and Information (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, I thank Ms Tin for her supplementary question. Political cartoons are not, in themselves, the problem. Some are already in circulation. It is very clear that \"Red Lines\" was disallowed for its offensive religious content. I have spoken about it, Minister Masagos has further elaborated on why these are of great concern in our multicultural, multi-religious context.
\t In my earlier reply, I have also said that IMDA had, in the last five years, deemed six other publications to be objectionable, for denigrating various religious communities. None of them were about politics either. They either contained offensive and prejudicial comments about other religions or espoused polemical religious teachings which were likely to cause ill will and hatred amongst the different religious groups in Singapore. \"Red Lines\" is objectionable for similar reasons. [Please refer to “Clarification by Minister for Communications and Information”, Official Report, 12 January 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 46, Correction by Written Statement section.]
\tMr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain.
\tMr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, I thank both the Ministers for the clarifications. I think any words or images that are offensive to any religion is hurtful and the hurt remains. I have two supplementary questions for Minister Masagos. Given that the content in such publications can be replicated or duplicated and made viral in today's context, what can any members of the public – whether Muslim or otherwise – do to report or express their concerns to MUIS, especially if they feel that certain publications or images would be offensive to any particular group.
My second question is on the Undesirable Publications Act. The definition of a publication as \"objectionable\" is within the context of enmity or hatred between different races or difference religions. The question is, what about publications that may create hostility within the Muslim community itself? Would MUIS play a role in the determination of such publications being offensive? I would be grateful for such clarifications.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I apologise for keeping my mask on earlier, I have obviously become so used to it. Mr Zhulkarnain's questions are very important and let me address the first part of it first and I think Minister Masagos would probably like to supplement.
Social media platforms have terms of service, community standards as well as feedback mechanisms for users to flag or report inappropriate content. IMDA certainly expects them to adhere to their very own standards strictly. But in addition, when IMDA is alerted to the existence of websites that glorify, insight or endorse ethnic, racial or religious hatred, strife or intolerance, it may deem such content as prohibited material under the Broadcasting Act's Internet Code of Practice. Local content providers can be required to take down the content. IMDA can also direct Internet service providers in Singapore to block access to such websites.
In 2020, not so long ago, there was in fact a Facebook post by the NUS Atheist Society that was highly offensive to both Muslims and Christians. IMDA assessed that the post contains prohibited content on the grounds of national harmony and is in the clear breach of the Internet Code of Practice. IMDA issued a request to Facebook to remove the post and Facebook subsequently blocked it from access by users in Singapore. And so, that stand is very clear and also very consistent.
To Mr Zhulkarnain's other question regarding the role of MUIS. IMDA seeks the views of relevant agencies before making its decision on content that could affect religious harmony, and this is inclusive of content that may compare different religions or within the same religion, have different views. In the case of \"Red Lines\" and other content related to Islam, IMDA did and continues to seek the views of MUIS.
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Mr Speaker, Islam puts the love of our Prophet at the highest plane among men. So you would expect Muslims to react when the Prophet's dignity is conned or when he is really ridiculed. Now, when Muslims are rightfully indignant at any derogatory remarks or insults made of the Prophet, but we must nonetheless, be guided by our prophetic principles of compassion, graciousness and magnanimity.
I say this because the Prophet himself, faced this when he was alive. In fact, once, when a group of men prayed publicly for death and calamity to befall him, A'ishah, his wife, wanted to do the same thing, to pray for death and calamity for the same people who prayed that on the Prophet. The Prophet stopped her and counselled her that, \"Allah, our God, is gentle and he loves gentleness.\" So, I call upon fellow Muslims to follow what our religion teaches us: To conduct ourselves in the most exemplary way, even when we are rightfully hurt and indignant by the act put against our religion or our Prophet. Let us live by our laws because we can and where they are such literature that incite or endorse ethnic, racial or religious hatred, strife or intolerance, we will prevent them from happening and from such literatures from being published and distributed in Singapore.
As mentioned by my colleague, Minister Josephine Teo, members of the public who have concerns on a particular content in publications should inform IMDA, whether it is of one religion to another; persons against another religion; or even within the religion or their community. IMDA will always seek input from the relevant agency before it makes its decision on content regulation. In this example, IMDA had consulted MCCY and MUIS if the Islamic content involved was indeed derogatory, insulting and hurtful and they were so.
So, we hope that while we are indignant, we know the the content yet to be distributed are hurtful and derogatory to our religion, to our Prophet, I counsel ourselves, my fellow Muslims in my community, to behave and conduct in the most exemplary way.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Promote Flexible Work Arrangements for Work-life Harmony and to Facilitate Caregivers and Women Returning to Workforce","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether there have been studies done by the Ministry to understand the issues faced by women who are not in formal employment which prevent them from joining the workforce; and (b) what are the recent measures that the Ministry has put in place to encourage (i) employers to employ these individuals and (ii) these individuals to return to work after time away from the workforce.
7 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in the past year, what are the common issues brought up to the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) in relation to mediation cases on flexible work arrangements (FWAs); and (b) whether there have been any studies conducted on the impact of FWAs on work-life harmony and performance appraisals.
8 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry is studying the impact of caregiving on a caregiver's career, finances and retirement adequacy; (b) in the last three years, how many caregivers have to (i) give up their jobs and (ii) switch to part-time jobs in order to provide care for an elderly family member, respectively; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider some financial support for such caregivers.
9 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry has conducted any survey to assess if caregivers find the support schemes for returning to the workforce sufficient; and (b) what other support measures are needed to help caregivers acquire relevant industry skills and prepare them for their return to the workforce, whilst looking after their loved ones.
\tThe Minister of State for Manpower (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, may I take Parliamentary Question Nos 6 to 9 by Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Ms Joan Pereira together as a combined response.
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: The Government provides support for caregivers in several ways. These include supporting their caregiving needs directly, enabling working caregivers to better manage both work and their caregiving responsibilities through flexible work arrangements, aiding their re-entry into the workforce through employment facilitation and training support, and strengthening their retirement adequacy.
The Government provides support for families with caregiving needs through subsidised care services and grants. For instance, all families with Singaporean children enrolled in ECDA-licensed childcare centres receive a universal basic subsidy, and some families receive additional means-tested subsidies. Eligible Singaporeans receive subsidies of up to 80% for non-residential eldercare services, such as day care and day rehabilitation services. We also provide financial assistance, such as through Home Caregiving Grant and Pioneer Generation Disability Assistance Scheme, to those with moderate to severe disability, to defray the cost of caregiving. Eligible caregivers of young children, elderly persons and persons with disabilities can also apply for the Migrant Domestic Worker Levy Concession if they need more help to look after their loved ones. Altogether, these allow caregivers to go back to work with peace of mind.
To further help working caregivers, the Government and tripartite partners are strengthening efforts to encourage the adoption of flexible work arrangements (FWAs). We have developed resources such as implementation guides and FWA policy templates, and conducted workshops to guide employers in implementing FWAs. Other than the Tripartite Standard and Tripartite Advisory on FWAs, MOM and tripartite partners had formed the Alliance for Action on Work-Life Harmony last year to facilitate the exchange of best practices, including in sectors that face greater challenges implementing FWAs. We are further sustaining this momentum by growing and equipping a community of Work-Life Ambassadors to support these efforts in the workplaces. Employers and employees who require advice or assistance on FWAs may also approach the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) for advice and assistance. In 2021, TAFEP did not receive any cases relating to disputes on FWAs.
One positive trend is that Singapore’s full-time female employment rate has been rising steadily over the last 10 years. However, there is still a small proportion of women who have not been able to participate in the workforce due to caregiving responsibilities. In 2020, 15% of women cited family-related responsibilities as the main reason for being outside the labour force, while 6% were working part-time due to family or personal commitments. When they are ready to work or to participate more fully in the workforce, women can tap on Workforce Singapore (WSG)'s employment facilitation programmes and services, as well as SkillsFuture Singapore's training programmes. For example, the Career Trial programme provides a trial period of up to three months, for the employer and jobseeker to assess their mutual job fit, with an allowance provided by the Government during the trial. Career Conversion Programmes provide training and salary support to employers who hire and reskill mid-career jobseekers for new occupations. Eligible working caregivers receive Workfare Income Supplement, which provides up to $4,000 in cash and CPF top-ups annually for those earning lower wages.
Let me share an example of how WSG's efforts have helped full-time caregivers get back to work. Ms Audrey Ong, currently in her 40s, quit her corporate job as a regional marketing manager in 2017 to spend more time with her son who was taking his Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) that year. When she was ready to return to the workforce in 2019, after her son became older and was a teenager, she wanted a second career that was both meaningful and manageable. Audrey came across testimonials on WSG's webpage of mid-career professionals who completed the two-year Career Conversion Programme for Registered Nurses (Degree) and she signed up for it. Her family was very supportive of her new endeavour. Audrey has since completed her two-year training stint and started her new job as a Staff Nurse with SingHealth Community Hospitals last year.
Staying employed is key to financial resilience and retirement adequacy. With increasing participation in the workforce and higher wages, successive cohorts of Singaporeans have been able to accumulate more CPF savings for retirement today compared to a decade ago.
\t
Aside from helping caregivers accumulate more CPF savings through better employment outcomes, we have also introduced and enhanced measures in recent years to help all Singaporeans, including caregivers, build sufficient savings for retirement. For caregivers who had lower incomes during their working years and now have less to retire on, the Silver Support Scheme, which was enhanced in 2021, provides quarterly payouts of up to $900. About two-thirds of the Silver Support recipients are women, including many caregivers.
Incentives are also provided for caregivers and their loved ones to top-up their CPF in cash. For example, the Government enhanced the tax incentives for retirement, some topping up scheme from 1 January 2022. Eligible members can also benefit from matching contributions from the Government for CPF cash top-ups under the Matched Retirement Savings Scheme, which was launched in 2021.
Finally, older caregivers can tap on housing monetisation schemes such as Lease Buyback Scheme and Silver Housing Bonus to unlock their housing equity to supplement their retirement needs. The Government will continue to review our multi-pronged efforts to ensure that caregivers are well supported. Feedback from the conversations on Singapore Women's Development on greater support for caregivers will also be considered for the upcoming White Paper on Singapore Women's Development.
Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
\tMs Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): I thank the Minister of State for her answer. Many of my female constituents have come to me citing that they have difficulties looking for a job due to the following reasons: not being able to fit into a typical 9-to-5 job due to caregiving responsibilities at home and also not being confident due to the lack of formal work skills while being away from the workforce for quite a number of years.
I would like to ask the Minister of State if there will be plans to put into place a database, perhaps for easier access to employers, who have FWA roles available and if there would be support from the Ministry to set up localised mentorship programmes across the island to help ease women into the workplace.
Further, as the dust settles on the effects of COVID-19 in the workplace, many companies are grappling with new HR standards, brought up by COVID-19 accelerated workplace matters. One big area, of course, is in particular, work-from-home. Our constituents have brought up to us that there seems yet to be best practices to measure and appraise the work of individuals in similar roles, but one having to work at home and one having to work in the office. Employees who have also joined the company during COVID-19 are understandably also experiencing steeper learning curves.
And so with this, will the Ministry, perhaps with HR thought leaders, be looking to support our employers, in particular our local SMEs, to set up better and clearer HR policies pertaining to these very new circumstances at the workplace brought up by COVID-19?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: I thank the hon Member Ms Yeo Wan Ling for the two supplementary questions, very valid questions. Today, we have the Tripartite Standard on Flexible Work Arrangements (FWA), which provides recognition to companies that offer flexible work arrangements to their employees and put in place recommended practices, including informing employees on the flexible work arrangements available and the process to evaluate requests from their employees.
Adopters of the tripartite standard are provided with a Tripartite Standard (TS) mark on FWA that they can display on their recruitment materials to distinguish themselves as progressive employers who support the work-life needs of their employees. They are also identified as TS adopters on MyCareersFuture job portal and TAFEP's website. We encourage progressive companies who already offer FWAs or are considering doing so to adopt the Tripartite Standard on FWAs to distinguish themselves to jobseekers and employees.
On availability of mentorship programmes, Workforce Singapore's broad-based employment facilitation programmes and services provide support to all jobseekers, including to caregivers. Customised career coaching services have also been found to be very useful to jobseekers and caregivers alike who have individual and personal aspirations and skill gaps that need to be addressed. Mentoring is actually part of career coaching. I understand that NTUC's Women and Family unit is also starting a pilot programme to mentor women who want to get back to work. This programme, very interestingly involves women union leaders, as well as grassroots leaders coming together to support women in our community who want to return to work. I think this is an excellent Community Programme and I would encourage more community groups to introduce and to support women who want to come back to work in different ways.
As I said earlier, MOM and WSG will continue to review our employment facilitation programmes and services to ensure they remain accessible to jobseekers, including caregivers to help them return to the workforce.
On the second supplementary question, support for SMEs to implement work-from-home and also HR standards to help companies implement work-from-home for their employees, I would say MOM and the tripartite partners do provide resources on how employers, supervisors and HR can implement flexible work arrangements in a way that is fair, sustainable and effective. For example, the Tripartite Advisory on Flexible Work Arrangements sets out that supervisors should communicate expectations clearly upfront, manage and appraise fairly based on work outcomes instead of face time and also have to conduct regular check-ins with staff who are on flexible work arrangements.
At the same time, the advisory highlights the role that employees play in making flexible work arrangements work. Employees should utilise flexible work arrangements responsibly, including being accountable for work deliverables and remaining contactable and responsive while on flexible work arrangements, such as working from home.
Amidst COVID-19, the Institute of HR Professionals has set up a COVID-19 task force to curate resources to help employers and the HR community navigate the new challenges posed by the pandemic. These complementary resources include Institute for Human Resource Professionals' (IHRP) guidance on government advisories and HR tool kits to guide people in business strategies through this challenging period. In particular, the talent development and talent retention tool kits provide reference approaches and recommended practices on Virtual Learning (VL). HR leaders through the IHRP also came together to develop a playbook on hybrid workplaces to guide companies in planning and implementing hybrid work; I mentioned that yesterday.
I encourage companies and HR professionals who may need further support to tap on the wealth of resources and workshops offered by TAFEP and IHRP or join the Work-Life Ambassador and IHRP community.
Beyond resources provided, it will be critical for everyone involved – employers, supervisors, HR professionals and employees, of course – to shift our mindsets and adjust the way we work, so that we can collectively redefine workplace expectations and management processes to achieve more effective work outcomes.
Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister of State. I have one supplementary question. I am glad to note and hear that caregivers have successfully tapped on the various schemes of the Career Conversion Programme offered by Workforce Singapore. However, I have met many constituents who are elderly caregivers, who do not know where to turn to, how to navigate the websites. I was just wondering whether MOM is able to provide greater awareness publicity on the schemes in the Career Conversion Programme for these caregivers, especially the elderly ones returning to the workforce.
\t\tMs Gan Siow Huang: I thank the hon Member, Ms Joan Pereira, for the supplementary question. Indeed, one of MOM's focus in the last two years has been reaching out to elderly jobseekers, caregivers included, to make sure that they are able to navigate the wide spectrum of resources available. We have also set up 24 SGUnited Jobs and Skills Centres in HDB estates and these actually have been tremendously helpful, as senior jobseekers, caregivers included, are able to walk in and have face-to-face type of consultation sessions with the career advisers on the spot. Caregivers can also tap on the MrCareersFuture portal to search for jobs that best suit their skill sets and I think this is widely available and known to all.
I think we recognise that it is actually challenging for caregivers, especially those who have not been at work for a long time, to look for jobs. I fully support additional help and support to be made available to them, so that they can get back to work and be able to fulfil their career aspirations, regardless of their age.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Female Workforce Participation in Emerging Industries and Sectors with Dearth of Women Talents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling –
10 To ask the Minister for Manpower what are the Ministry’s observations of the job market in terms of emerging trends or developments where female professionals are coming forward to apply their skill sets in emerging industries like digitalisation and sustainability.
11 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Manpower (a) which growth sectors currently see the largest dearth of women talents and leaders; and (b) what are the factors that could have contributed to this gender imbalance.
\t
\t
\tMr Speaker: Someone pose the question, please.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Question No 10.
The Minister of State for Manpower (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, may I take Question Nos 10 and 11 by Miss Cheryl Chan and Ms Tin Pei Ling together?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: Singapore's female employment rate has increased over the past decade from 54% in 2010 to 57.7% in 2020. And this ranks well, compared to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries.
Women's share amongst Professional Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMETs) has also increased over the decade, from 41.1% to 45.6%. We are observing more women joining growth sectors such as in information and communication, financial services and health and social services. Altogether, women make up 52.8% in these three sectors.
The share of women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) jobs, while lower, has also increased from 29.9% in 2015, to 32.4% in 2020. In 2019, MOM conducted a joint study on Singapore's suggested gender pay gap with Assoc Prof Jessica Pan from NUS and the study found that the differences in gender ratios across occupations could be due to gender differences in terms of personality and psychological traits, skills, different values placed on workplace flexibility, as well as social norms.
We will continue to work with our tripartite partners and community stakeholders to support women's participation in the workforce and help them enter and remain in occupations of their choice, including in emerging sectors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Five-year Child and Maternal Health and Well-being Strategy and Action Plan","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health whether he can provide an update on the development and implementation of the five-year Child and Maternal Health and Well-being Strategy and Action Plan.
\t
The Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, the Taskforce on Child and Maternal Health and Well-being was set up by MOH early last year to oversee the development and implementation of a five-year Strategy and Action Plan. The strategy will focus on supporting women and their children to attain good health and well-being, leading to a healthier next generation.
The efforts of the Taskforce are organised along three main thrusts. First, we are focusing on translating evidence-based findings into policies and programmes to address health risks. We will also go further upstream, as early as the pre-conception phase, in implementing preventive health efforts for women and children. Second, we are reviewing service delivery for children and their families to minimise the number of touch points that our citizens need to navigate across services. And third, we are reviewing our approaches to engage stakeholders and the public and to hear what matters most to them and to ensure that our messages and support to them stay relevant.
Over the past year, the Taskforce, comprising members from the public, private and academic sectors, has conducted focus group discussions with parents, parents-to-be and caregivers. We have also conducted some 20 site visits and engagement sessions with frontline officers from across the health, social and education domains to better understand what matters most to children and their families.
The Taskforce is reviewing and finalising its recommendations for the Strategy and we will be announcing more details soon.
\t
Mr Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.
Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State Janil for sharing with us the plans for this. One of my supplementary questions will be the involvement of the paternal part in this programme. We do understand that although this programme looks into child and maternal health, we do see the importance of others in this role. I hope that we can see more inclusion of fathers in the programme and in other programmes; and also, including the grandparents.
My second supplementary question is on screening as part of this programme. With more screening, inevitably, we will have more interventions, most probably. When we talk about intervention, I would think that there is a need for the task force to engage the workplaces. Are these in place? These will help the provision of workplace support for mothers in the future.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Dr Wan Rizal for his questions. For the first question which is paternal and grandparent involvement, the answer is yes. We are looking at this from a mother and child view, with respect to the science, because that is really where we have the research in terms of pre-conception, what happens in pregnancy, early neo-natal period. But getting things done, the service delivery kind of programmes and activities are really from a family-centric point of view. And so, the whole family is indeed encouraged to join in, to be part of this and to come along the journey.
I hope that the fathers out there do not need a special invitation with their name. We are asking the whole family to turn up. So, as the father, he is part of the family, please come and get involved in looking after the young child and the young child's mother, and helping to support them through the journey. The grandparents are naturally involved in very much part of the caregiving in our society. So, we take a family-centric view to involve the whole family.
For the actual strategies around screening and interventions, these are still being studied and we have to look to see where we will implement programmes and activities. We will make the announcement in due course. But indeed, getting the right tools to make sure the interventions are effective are going to be important. We will be studying this.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improving Support for Survivors of Domestic and Sexual Violence","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what are the types of cases which the Family Violence Specialist Centres (FVSCs) handle; and (b) whether the FVSCs render any assistance towards victims of non-domestic sexual assault or harassment in the workplace cases.
14 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what is the current strategy or practice in the social work and social services sector on the provision of therapy or support for families that have gone through family violence to aid in their psychological and emotional recovery from the trauma.
15 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the current capability and capacity of the social services system in providing support to survivors of sexual violence in their mental, psychological and emotional recovery; and (b) whether the Ministry is currently working or plans to work with educational institutions to ensure a trauma-informed and survivor-centric approach to post-violence care and support for youths.
16 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry will consider, on its own or in partnership with other organisations, implementing programmes to encourage a more proactive approach towards preventing family violence which goes beyond contacting the Ministry’s family violence hotline to also include bystander intervention training and strategies to empower all members of the public.
17 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development with regard to male survivors of family or sexual violence, particularly those who have experienced such violence when they are young, what are the avenues of help available to these survivors in terms of counselling and support, awareness of legal rights and access to peer support groups.
\tThe Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 13 to 17 together, as they are related to family violence and sexual violence?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMs Sun Xueling: MSF works closely with the community-based Family Violence Specialist Centres (FVSCs) and PAVE’s Integrated Services for Individual and Family Protection Specialist Centre (ISIFPSC) to provide support to all persons, regardless of gender, who experience any form of violence.
The support provided includes safety planning to reduce the risk of violence recurring, facilitating alternative safe accommodation for survivors away from perpetrators, supporting survivors through the Personal Protection Order (PPO) application process, referring them to legal aid where necessary, making Police reports of violent or sexual offences committed against them, and working with them and their families, where applicable, on their longer-term needs.
Beyond addressing immediate safety risks, FVSCs and PAVE also provide counselling to survivors to address their psycho-social needs such as trauma arising from the violence. There are also various support and therapeutic groups run by the community, including FVSCs and PAVE, for survivors of family or sexual violence to speak about their experiences in a safe and supportive environment. Survivors who have mental health or trauma needs are also able to seek services from mental health professionals of restructured hospitals, including those with specialised trauma clinics.
MSF will continue strengthening interventions for families who have experienced trauma due to family violence. As recommended by the multi-stakeholder Taskforce on Family Violence, we will cater for a forensic-trained psychologist at each of the FVSCs and PAVE, to enable them to work more effectively with survivors and perpetrators. This includes addressing trauma and mental health concerns, providing assessment and intervention to identify and address risk factors and needs relevant to the perpetrators’ abusive behaviour and working with the social workers to engage in safety planning for survivors.
Taken together, the assessment, intervention and safety planning can help to reduce the risk of repeated violence.
MSF is also working with social service agencies to develop and implement a common assessment and intervention framework. This framework will enable frontline professionals to better identify family violence cases, make timely referrals and facilitate discussion of cases across agencies where relevant and support the agencies in managing the risks and addressing needs of both survivors and perpetrators.
There are currently three FVSCs, namely Care Corner Project StART FVSC, TRANS SAFE FVSC and PAVE ISIFPSC. Two of these – Care Corner Project StART and PAVE – are already able to provide comprehensive social and emotional support, including counselling and other interventions, for survivors of all forms of intra- and extra-familial violence, including sexual violence. These two centres also have the capability and capacity to provide social and emotional support to persons who experience sexual violence or harassment in their workplace. [Please refer to “Clarification by Minister of State for Social and Family Development”, Official Report, 12 January 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 46, Correction by Written Statement section.]
This support complements the efforts by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP), which provides advice to persons who experience harassment at work, such as how to tap on workplaces’ internal grievance handling and workplace harassment management procedures. TAFEP will also require employers to provide an investigation report of the workplace harassment complaint in accordance with the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment and take clear steps to prevent and manage workplace harassment in future.
Care Corner Project StART and PAVE are the only two agencies in Singapore with the capability and capacity to provide comprehensive support for survivors of sexual violence. MSF is working with the third FVSC, TRANS SAFE, to enhance its capability and capacity to provide similar comprehensive support to survivors of sexual harassment and violence in the second half of the year.
Children and young persons who experience family or sexual violence are supported by MSF’s Child Protective Service (CPS) or the community-based Child Protection Specialist Centres (CPSCs), depending on the severity of the presenting risks. Management and staff at the various touch points like preschools, schools, healthcare institutions and social service agencies are also trained to identify and report child abuse to CPS.
As part of the intervention, CPS and the CPSCs work with families to put in place safety plans to minimise the recurrence of harm. MSF and the CPSCs also have psychologists who are trained to provide evidence-based trauma interventions for children and their caregivers to treat their trauma and abuse-related psychological issues. Where relevant, MSF and our community partners may work with the schools and educational institutions, including their counsellors and student welfare officers, to ensure that school-going children receive the post-violence care and support that they need. MSF also works with community agencies that provide psychological services, including training for the agencies’ staff, to identify trauma needs in order to help the children and families heal from the trauma caused by abuse.
While post-violence support is important for survivors to heal and recover, MSF recognises that upstream, preventive efforts are equally important.
MSF has invested in public education efforts for many years. The Break the Silence public education campaign was launched in 2016 and was just refreshed in November last year to increase awareness of the different types of abuse, such as sexual abuse, psychological and emotional abuse, and to encourage bystanders, survivors and perpetrators to seek help. This is in line with the recommendations of the Taskforce on Family Violence. MSF has also started promoting the use of the “Signal for Help”, which is a hand signal that can be used by survivors to discreetly indicate that they need help. To further amplify this signal, MSF has incorporated it into its Break the Silence campaign logo.
On working with community partners to detect violence, MSF actively seeks out and collaborates with community partners and organisations to strengthen community detection of violence and refer persons experiencing violence to available support. In 2021, MSF worked with 16 organisations across the people, public and private sectors, including educational institutions, grassroots and religious organisations to provide Family Violence Awareness Training to over 1,100 staff and volunteers. MSF will continue expanding our outreach to more organisations, particularly partners that are likely to have direct contact with survivors of family violence or with groups that are at a higher risk of family and sexual violence. We welcome more organisations to step forward and partner us.
On preventive efforts, MSF works closely with our partners on various fronts. For instance, MSF has enhanced the marriage preparation programme to include topics such as adverse childhood experiences and its impact on relationships, with the aim of increasing couples’ awareness of family violence and building healthy relationship skills. Additionally, MSF has developed a set of respectful relationship narratives, which is aligned with ongoing efforts by the Government and community partners to educate youths on healthy and respectful relationships, with the aim of inculcating positive behaviours from a young age.
MSF is currently working with partners to align and incorporate these narratives into programmes. These will complement ongoing efforts by MOE to equip students with age-appropriate knowledge and skills to maintain healthy and respectful relationships, including through the Character and Citizenship Education curriculum.
Mr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.
\tMs Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): I thank the Minister of State for her response. I am very heartened to know of the various efforts to increase capacity. What I would like to understand is, does MSF currently know what is the practitioner-to-survivor ratio in terms of the capacity for rehabilitative and therapeutic care?
And is there a concrete manpower plan to enhance the sector? The Minister of State and I have been doing our own engagements with social workers, and we are familiar that they are already using trauma-informed approaches but I think the practical consideration is that when social workers are overwhelmed, counsellors are overwhelmed, therapists are overwhelmed, they are not in the best space to hold space for their clients. So, we need to ensure that there is adequate resourcing and adequate manpower. So, is there any commitment that within the next three to five years, what numbers would we be training and putting in additional capacity in the system for the therapeutic care for survivors of violence?
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for her supplementary question. MSF regularly and closely monitors the capacity of our FVSCs as well as PAVE to ensure that they are adequately resourced to be able to provide effective support to clients who need their help.
The FVSCs regularly report case numbers to MSF. We monitor to ensure that they are able to manage their case load and when necessary, MSF is prepared to increase the capacity of the FVSCs as a whole, to be able to effectively help survivors and perpetrators of family violence.
We had also recently announced that MSF will cater for a forensic-trained psychologist at each of the FVSCs to enable them to work more effectively with survivors and perpetrators.
I also want to add that there are, apart from the FVSCs, other social service agencies who also form their own therapeutic groups and support groups. And these support groups complement very well the Government's efforts to ensure that there is support for survivors and perpetrators alike.
If the Member would like further clarifications around the ratios, I would be happy to share them with her offline or to present them at the next available Sitting.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the day.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Intellectual Property (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Sir, it is a truism today that economic growth is increasingly driven by innovation and the intangible assets (IA) and intellectual property (IP) that innovation itself generates.
Today's businesses compete with and differentiate themselves from their competitors through innovation. Those who innovate and make good use of their IA and IP have prospered and grown. In fact, 90% of the value of S&P 500 companies today lies in their IA.
Today, IA accounts for more than half of the global value of assets. This is significant, as it means that intangible assets are worth more than physical assets. In other words, ideas and innovations are more valuable than the physical assets that they animate.
Sir, we recognise this and announced the Singapore IP Strategy 2030 in April 2021. This is to strengthen Singapore's position as a global IA and IP hub, attract and grow innovative enterprises using IA and IP, and develop good jobs and valuable skills in IA and IP.
As our businesses generate more IA and IP, the IP registration operations of our IP office become increasingly important. An efficient and business-friendly IP office makes it easier for our companies to protect their IA and IP and enhance their value propositions.
Singapore has been consistently recognised for our IP regime. The World Economic Forum ranks us first in Asia and second globally for IP protection. The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) is constantly striving to improve its services. Last year, it was recognised as the third most innovative IP office in the world.
In our region, over 80% of all requests under the ASEAN Patent Examination Cooperation programme relied on IPOS reports, which is to say, applicants rely on the speed and quality of our patent examination work to speed up their corresponding applications in other ASEAN countries.
But the world does not stand still and neither can we. IPOS regularly reviews its operations and processes to be more efficient and more importantly, to be business friendly. This Bill is the result and product of such a review. And based on the responses we have received to our public consultation exercises; our stakeholders are generally supportive of the changes we have tabled today.
Today's Intellectual Property (Amendment) Bill makes changes to many of the IP statutes, specifically, the Patents Act, the Trade Marks Act, the Registered Designs Act, the Plant Varieties Protection Act and the Geographical Indications Act 2014. These changes will result in improvements across three broad categories: first, to ensure enhanced business-friendliness; second, on operational efficiency; and third, to enhance legislative and procedural clarity.
Let me now take Members through the changes in the Bill.
To improve IPOS' business-friendliness, the Bill introduces four major changes to improve the experience for applicants seeking to register their IP with IPOS.
The first change will streamline the administrative process for international patent applications which are not in English.
The Patents Act currently ties certain rights of a patent-holder to the date when the patent application is published, for instance, when determining damages for infringement. However, for the 15% or so of the international patent applications that enter Singapore which are not in English, these rights are only conferred if IPOS publishes the English translation of the applications upon the payment of a fee.
Clause 15 removes the requirement for a fee. Instead, as part of its routine process, IPOS will see to the publication of the English translation received from the applicant. This will reduce time, effort and cost for applicants.
Next, we will permit partial acceptance for national trade mark applications. This is already a common practice in other major jurisdictions, and IPOS already has this practice for international trade mark applications.
Currently, for national trademark applications, applicants may apply to protect a trademark across multiple types of goods and services. If a trademark examiner has objections to the application in respect of only some of the goods or services listed by the applicant, these objections might hold up the entire application.
Clauses 43, 44, 46, 47, 52 and 53 of the Bill will amend the Trade Marks Act to allow IPOS to partially accept an application, allowing the trademark to be registered for those goods and services for which there were no objections in such cases.
We expect that the change to permit partial acceptance for national applications will benefit up to about 13% of these domestic applications. That is approximately 2,100 applications annually, saving applicants time, effort and costs.
Third, clause 51(b) changes the post-deadline relief measure for trademark applications.
Under the Trade Marks Act and Rules, trademark applications are treated as withdrawn if certain deadlines are missed.
In the six months after the deadline, applicants can request reinstatement of their applications.
This six-month window affects third parties who wish to apply for marks that are identical or similar to the applicant's, as they need to wait for the six-month period to lapse to have greater clarity about the outcome of their own application. And so, in that period, face uncertainty as to how to proceed in the meantime.
To address this situation, applicants will henceforth have two months to request for the continued processing of their lapsed applications, instead of six months to request for reinstatement. Continued processing preserves the application and should the applicant wish to continue with his application, expedites the processing of the application compared to the current approach of seeking reinstatement.
The shortened period after the missed deadline will incentivise applicants to quickly put their application in order. The shortened period will also reduce uncertainty for third parties who wish to apply for identical or similar marks. The US and New Zealand similarly provide for a period of two months for applicants to file such a request. These changes will not affect the majority of applicants who actively monitor applicable deadlines and act in a timely manner.
The final change in this category introduces an opposition mechanism to facilitate the correction of errors in IP applications or registrations, where the correction may affect the interests of third parties.
This change pertains to the Geographical Indications Act 2014, the Plant Varieties Protection Act, the Registered Designs Act and the Trade Marks Act.
Examples of corrections that can affect third parties include those relating to the particulars of the applicant or rights-holder, or that affect the priority details of an application or registration. IPOS receives about 40 such requests for corrections per year on average.
The Bill will amend the relevant Acts to give IPOS the discretion to publish requests for corrections, so that third parties are made aware of such correction requests and can assess whether they wish to oppose the corrections. Resolving such disputes between the applicant or rights-holder and third parties before accepting the corrections enhances the certainty of the information on the Registers.
Next, Members will recall I mentioned changes across three broad categories. The second category of changes seeks to improve operational efficiency.
Let me highlight four key amendments to IPOS' internal processes.
To begin with, we will improve the patent examination process. At present, if a patent examiner assesses that a patent application does not satisfy one or more of the requirements to be eligible for the grant of a patent, he or she must issue a written opinion setting out the objections.
Clause 10 changes this so that if an examiner's objections can be overcome with minor amendments to the specification of the patent application, examiners can then simply invite applicants to make those amendments within a shorter period of time. This will obviate the need to issue a written opinion, thereby reducing turnaround and processing times for part of the 5,000 substantive examination requests that IPOS expects to receive annually.
We will also streamline the patent examination review process to remove unnecessary work.
Currently, once a patent examiner has issued a report objecting to the grant of a patent, the applicant can request that the examiner's report be reviewed by filing written submissions and/or amendments to overcome the objections. Another examiner will then review both the original report and the applicant's responses. However, if the applicant files amendments to overcome all unresolved objections mentioned in the original report, that report is no longer relevant.
Clause 11 of the Bill therefore changes this so that if the applicant files such amendments, the original report need not be reviewed, and the reviewing examiner can then focus on the proposed amendments. This is more direct; it gets to the point. This will save time and effort for up to 800 patent applications per year.
Next, clauses 22 and 23 introduce a new cooperative mode of examination for applications for the protection of new plant varieties. At present, during the course of examination, IPOS may appoint external experts to conduct the relevant tests and examination or rely on existing examination reports issued by foreign examiners from approved countries. However, the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, of which Singapore is a party, also allows for examiners to rely on relevant tests conducted and submitted by the breeder or another person, organisation or entity acceptable to IPOS.
We will therefore introduce this option to provide applicants with more flexibility and to reduce turnaround and processing time for such applications.
The last change in this category lays the groundwork for future improvements to operational efficiency by shifting technical and operational provisions from primary to subsidiary legislation. Such provisions are common throughout several of our IP statutes, for example, the Plant Varieties Protection Act goes into detail on related information that IPOS must regularly publish, while the Patents Act goes into detail on the amount of time a patent grantee has to renew their patent after expiry.
Moving such technical and operational provisions to subsidiary legislation will allow IPOS to adjust and adapt to changing needs more quickly, more nimbly, since amendments to subsidiary legislation can be made more speedily.
The third broad category of changes that the Bill seeks to introduce are those that seek to clarify the law and to smoothen IPOS' administration of the IP prosecution process. There are three such changes in the Bill today and let me take Members through.
First, clause 17 of the Bill seeks to improve the public's access to patent documents.
IPOS had launched the Patents Open Dossier in 2017 to provide easier access to a wider range of patent documents. This allows other inventors and the public to better understand inventions for which patent protection is sought or had been granted in Singapore. The change introduced in clause 17 clarifies IPOS' ability to make such documents available to the public, even in the absence of any request for the documents.
Next, clause 7 amends the Patents Act to empower the Registrar to issue practice directions on the manner of the filing of a patent application, in addition to the manner prescribed in the subsidiary legislation.
Moving forward, IPOS intends to amend the rules made under the Patents Act to require sequence listings to be filed with patent applications, where applicable. The amendment in clause 7 would allow the Registrar to issue practice directions setting out the format in which these sequence listings are to be filed.
Sequence listings are listings of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences, which provide additional detail in patent applications, for instance, in biomedical or biotechnological inventions. Such detail can be useful for examiners and subsequent searchers alike. The law currently has no requirement for patent applications to include such sequence listings even when they might be relevant. Imposing this requirement in the rules and practice directions will strengthen the completeness of patent disclosures and make patent searches easier, more thorough, both for patent examiners and for the public.
Third, clause 41 will provide clarity on the period that an expired trademark will continue to be regarded as an \"earlier trade mark\".
Expired trademarks are currently regarded as earlier trademarks for a year after their expiry and also remain eligible for renewal or restoration during this period. Such expired trademarks continue to retain priority, potentially preventing the registration of other similar marks. However, trademark proprietors may have more than a year to renew or restore their expired marks in certain circumstances. For instance, when IPOS granted an extension of time as part of its COVID-19 relief measures.
The law is currently unclear as to whether such marks, which are still eligible for restoration or renewal after a year, will still continue to be regarded as \"earlier trade marks\".
Clause 41 will therefore amend the Trade Marks Act to clarify that expired trademarks will be considered \"earlier trade marks\" for as long as they remain eligible for renewal or restoration. This will ensure that trademark proprietors who are entitled to renew or restore their marks continue to enjoy the benefits of their registrations against later applications.
Sir, I have covered the three main categories of amendments to the Bill. Let me add that clause 55 also makes an administrative change to the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore Act to provide that any revenue from legislated financial penalties – namely, any fines or composition fines paid to IPOS – will go to the Consolidated Fund. This change will bring IPOS'. management of such monies in accordance with the best practices across the rest of the Government.
Mr Speaker Sir, Members will see that the Bill contains many different amendments across a variety of different IP related statutes. These reflect the continued and ongoing efforts of MinLaw and IPOS to review, to refresh and update, and improve the IP registration process in Singapore. This will support our businesses as they move towards the greater use of IA and IP both locally and globally.
If passed, we intend to implement the majority of the Bill by May 2022. The new cooperative mode of examination for plant variety protection applications, on the other hand, will be implemented later, after IPOS has finalised the procedural details. With that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. This Bill amends how intellectual property rights are registered in Singapore. This strengthens our position as a global IP hub and brings us closer to Singapore's IP Strategy 2030.
I am sure Minister Edwin Tong will be glad to know I have three quick fire points of clarification.
First, can Minister clarify when a Breeder’s test should be submitted when registering a new plant variety? The new section 18A of the Plant Varieties Protection Act phrases this as a voluntary option for applicants. This could create uncertainty whether or not to expend resources on the test. This is especially relevant as Breeder’s tests may sometimes take several planting seasons. Clarity will save applicants time and resources.
Second, will the Ministry clarify the principles for interpreting a disclaimer under the Registered Designs Act? The new section 30A only states that the rights are \"restricted accordingly\". This does not appear to consider that disclaimers may also expand the rights of a registered design. For example, can a disclaimer as to colour expand the protection to all designs of that type regardless of colour?
Lastly, our IP Strategy 2030 can play an important role in protecting the environment and fighting climate change. Innovation and technology has the potential to help us lead more sustainable lives and adapt to a changing world. I would like to ask the Minister to consider updating our IP strategy to include a focus on promoting sustainability innovation in Singapore.
Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Sir, the proposed changes to the Bill will codify simplifications and streamline processes associated with intellectual property procedures. These changes relate to a wide range of IP classes, including patents, registered designs, trade marks, geographical indications and plant varieties protection.
While I support the Bill, I will offer some additional points for consideration. My remarks pertain to three areas, just like the other Member, but unfortunately for Minister Edwin Tong, I am both more verbose and more detailed.
I will talk about drawing a distinction, first, between protection afforded to trade marks and geographical indications vis a vis other classes of intellectual property. Second, I will talk about the application of information technology and digitalisation to IP processes and third, I will discuss a notion of a unified act for all IP classes.
In my prior speech on how intellectual property confers monopoly rights on ideas during the debate on the Copyright Act of 2021, I had spoken about the tradeoffs between granting IP protection and innovative activity and concluded that we should be sensitive to inherent tradeoffs between our pursuit of pre-eminence as a global IP hub and sanctioning potential abuse and overreach via rent seeking behaviour.
The moral of that argument applies with special force for the case of trade marks along with – to a lesser degree – geographical indications. Legally enforceable trade marks do not generally promote competitive innovative activity, unlike copyrights or patents. They do not generally enrich the public domain, serving as the germ of subsequent research ideas. Their function is largely market oriented to grant its owners a right to preclude others from the use of a particular established brand or symbol. More fundamentally, trade marks have a tendency to favour the business interests of incumbents against those of new entrants and challengers to the status quo. The public policy premise for their existence is therefore correspondingly weaker, and we should, in my view, be more guarded in our treatment of trade marks in our corpus of IP law.
The amendments in part 5 of the Bill on trade marks should therefore be scrutinised in this light. In particular, while the partial refusal mechanism is certainly more efficient from the perspective of expediting legal processes involved, institutional frictions may yet serve a purpose to inhibit excessively frivolous trade mark applications. The analogy here is how a small transactions tax, financial transactions tax, could throw \"sand in the wheels\" and discourage excesses from speculative trading in financial markets.
Sir, I understand that this approach is already in place in international jurisdictions and is consistent with the designations in the Madrid Protocol. Still, I think it is fair to ask whether as a small open economy with a strong interest in promoting indigenous innovative capacity, whether we should be granting IP rights that could be counterproductive to advancing that endeavour. More pointedly, are we approving trade marks on a partial basis? Excuse me – are we approving trade marks? Are we granting the registrar the right to approve trade marks on a partial basis instead of the existing default of requiring, a full resubmission, which may well be favourable for fostering a less inhibitive innovation climate? Put another way, do we wish to make it easier for applicants to quickly secure IP rights that could then be turned around and used toward profiteering. One only need to look at trade mark trolls worldwide such as Paris Hilton attempting to trade mark \"That's hot!\", or Donald Trump seeking to trade mark \"You're fired!\". Thankfully, they were not successful in these applications.
While not explicit in the Bill, there are also two aspects of information technology and digitisation that I believe merits some additional comment. In the initial public consultation document issued in August last year, IPOS explained that they have begun the deployment of artificial intelligence technologies for IP administration. In particular and relevant to this Bill, one use of AI was in assessing extension of time requests in response to correspondence from the registrar. The Bill itself proposes that the stipulated time periods be shifted from the Act to the rules across multiple IP classes as captured in amendments to section 35, excuse me, 36 of the Patents Act, section 19 of the Trade Marks Act, section 21 of the Registered Designs Act and section 51 of the Geographical Indications Act.
For instance, the two-month period for filing notices of opposition to propose corrections for patent applications would now apply. Presumably, this was inspired as Minister Edwin Tong discussed earlier on by the application of AI to ascertain whether such a two-month duration is reasonable, or at least consistent with the historical data with which IPOS has available.
Mr Speaker, it is worth noting that this power and promise of AI is an enticing one, but the strength of the technology should not be overwrought. The strength of big data rests on, well, access to data that are genuinely large. Some rules of thumb are data in excess of one terabyte or training data for machine learning that is in the order of millions of observations. While I do not have the visibility on the number of IP applications IPOS has in its internal databases, I would venture that these fall far short of typical applications of machine learning.
A perhaps more pernicious concern is that unsurprisingly, AI technology is only as intelligent as the historical data on which it trains. This has led to arguments by some data scientists who point out that callous applications of AI could exacerbate existing societal fault lines and entrench persistent inequalities. At the very least, AI prediction should be subject to scrutiny, not just by standards of fairness and transparency, but also whether historical decisions are being fed into the algorithm are actually truly just or optimal.
Amendments to section 108 of the Patents Act also touch on another element of information technology, namely, the requirement that published patents be made available to public. I believe that these amendments supplement existing open data practices, notably, the launch of the Patents Open Dossier (POD) database in June 2017, something that Minister Edwin Tong also spoke on earlier.
Mr Speaker, to this end, I went ahead and explored the e-Services portal myself. While such data access is surely welcome, I will only note that the existing design of the POD requires that the user know the parameters for a given IP such as the filing date, applicant name or application number. These are certainly useful for reverse lookups but is nevertheless relatively constrained, especially when engaged in the free form searches one typically performs in exploratory research. To this end, I wonder if the Minister will be willing to share their efforts by IPOS to further develop the database to allow for, say keyword or categorical searches so as to make it more useful.
I shall close with a metapoint. The substantial amendments tabled in this Bill span five existing Acts and exclude the Copyright Act, which was debated last year. Such multiple sources could lead to a proliferation of related laws that run the risk of potential conflict or making searches for IP relevant legislation comparatively less user-friendly. May I ask whether the Ministry has considered consolidating the various IP related laws into a single omnibus Act? The only justification I can think of for not doing so is the need to remain faithful to various international treaties to which we are party. Such consolidation, however, would not only make it easier for IP and legal professionals to reference laws related to IP while also remaining consistent with the ethos and body in the Statute Law Reform Act, which was passed last year in this House.
Mr Speaker: Minister Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Speaker, I thank both Mr Ng as well Assoc Prof Jamus for their support of the Bill.
Let me try and deal with it, in Mr Ng's words \"quick fire fashion\" response. Mr Ng asked about a breeder's test and also about the principles that will apply for interpreting a disclaimer. I will deal with these two points first and touch on sustainability issue later on.
The new section 18A of the Plant Varieties Protection Act introduces an additional mode of examination. This involves the breeder or another person, organisation or entity acceptable to the Registrar of Plant Varieties in IPOS, or the Examiner. This is known as the breeder’s test which Mr Ng referred to a moment ago. Mr Ng asked when a breeder’s test should be done, so that applicants would be clear when it would be necessary for them to expend the time and resources to do the test.
Sir, to qualify for plant variety protection, a candidate plant variety must, among other criteria, be: (a) distinct; (b) uniform; and (c) stable. These are known as the \"DUS criteria\". Whether a candidate plant variety meets the DUS criteria is established at examination.
Currently, the Registrar may either appoint external experts, as I mentioned earlier, as examiners to conduct examination, including the tests for the DUS criteria, or utilise an existing examination report with results on the DUS criteria, issued by a foreign examiner from an approved country.
The new breeder’s test mode will give the applicant another manner in which the application can proceed. So, breeders can now opt to perform the required tests by themselves, or to directly engage someone else recognised by the Registrar or the appointed Examiner to do so, before submitting the results to IPOS. IPOS will conduct further consultations with stakeholders on procedural details before implementing the new breeder’s test.
The second item for clarification by Mr Ng relates to the new section 30A of the Registered Designs Act (RDA). This relates to the disclaiming of rights in relation to a specified feature of a design. Mr Ng sought clarification on the principles for interpreting a disclaimer under the RDA.
IPOS’ approach to disclaimers under the RDA takes reference from our trade marks regime, and adopts the same intent and understanding as to the effect of disclaimers.
When applying for registered design protection, an applicant may identify what they wish to protect by providing a representation and description of their design, and if necessary, by clarifying which parts of that design they are not seeking protection for.
The intent in providing applicants with the option to make disclaimers is so that applicants can specify which features of a design they do not wish to protect.
So, the protection conferred on a registered design will include the features that have been described and represented, whilst excluding any features that have been disclaimed. Therefore, a disclaimer should only reduce the features that are protected under the registered design.
Next, let me turn to Mr Ng's third point on Singapore’s IP strategy and how it can support sustainability innovation and contribute to our fight against climate change.
Sir, climate change is not only an urgent global issue. It is an existential challenge for us in Singapore as a small island. We must get creative and pioneer technological and policy solutions for sustainable development.
Intellectual property (IP) is a useful tool to drive and support innovation, including innovation in clean technologies.
What we can do, and have done, is to help accelerate the pace of innovation by facilitating: (a) better support from our IP regime for the development and use of emerging technologies; (b) technology transfer from the public sector to the private sector to expedite the introduction of new innovations to the market; and finally, (c) faster protection to benefit innovators working in fields with short technology life cycles.
In my opening speech, I mentioned the Singapore IP Strategy 2030, or SIPS 2030. Part of our commitment under SIPS is to support technological advances through policy reviews. So, for instance, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim mentioned the new rules that were introduced last November as part of the Copyright Act 2021 to clearly permit computational data analysis. Future reviews will continue to take into account emerging clean technologies and, certainly, future reviews on a broader point will also take into account what Assoc Prof Jamus Lim said about AI and machine learning. All of these are developments that continue, they evolve and, over time, new changes will mean that we might need new rules. So, we are committed to ensuring that our regime, as a whole, given that we are dealing with a high technology, cutting edge space, we will have to continue to evolve to meet these changes.
Another commitment under SIPS is to increase enterprise access to publicly funded IP, including for innovations that can benefit our healthcare and sustainability efforts.
Unlocking the fruits of public sector research will benefit our businesses, even as their work in bringing research to the market helps realise the potential of these innovations.
And, finally, the Singapore IP Fast Track programme, introduced in 2020, expedites the processing of IP applications – whether they are patents, trade marks and registered designs, they can move from application to protection in as fast as six, three and one month respectively. That is very quick by international standards. And the sooner and quicker we are able to do this, the more confidence an innovator will have in the system that it will be able to register and protect its inventions.
This reduction in the time needed to acquire protection benefits innovation in fields with short product life cycles in particular and facilitates the rapid commercialisation and proliferation of new technologies which may include green technologies.
Sir, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also spoke about how we might look at and review the IP regime and how we might want to be more circumscribed and, as I heard him say, reduce the scope and breadth of trade mark applications and recognition because of the need to ensure that there will be more competition for the incumbent's space.
Sir, the point really is quite the converse. A strong IP system that recognises invention, protects innovation is one that will promote innovation and promote this space. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim spoke about having more competition for the incumbents, but I will venture to suggest that if we had no IP protection or less IP protection, then in fact the space for the incumbents to be in Singapore will be far less ideal. And you will find that incumbents will take their innovations and inventions elsewhere where they can apply for and obtain trade mark protection.
In terms of competition, I would say that competing goods can actually be sold. There is no bar to that. It is just that you cannot misrepresent the basis or the source of your product. So, competition is not stifled but innovation is protected under our current regime.
Sir, having said all that, the point I made earlier about constantly evolving, constantly having to adapt and react to changes in this space remains true. We will not rest on our laurels. We will continue to ensure that our IP system fosters innovation, promotes commercialisation – and that includes in spaces like in green technologies – and helps new ideas, new innovators realise their potential.
Once again, I thank Members who have spoken – both Mr Ng and Prof Jamus – and support the Bill.
In summary, this Bill is part of our process, our continual process and efforts to ensure that our IP office and our regime and system that we use, and very often it is not just about the laws but about how they are implemented in practice, what is the procedure like, how quick can we do it, how fast is the turnaround time and how efficient can we deal with applications. All of this is part of our efforts to ensure an efficient and a business-friendly environment. This in turn helps our companies, innovators and inventors protect their IP and turn their innovations into a competitive edge and advantage.
MinLaw and IPOS will continue to work to review, update and improve Singapore’s IP regime. Mr Speaker, with that, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Mr Speaker, just a very quick point of clarification in what I said about intellectual property with respect to trade marks. I wish to clarify that, in fact, I feel that there is a distinction between trade marks as a class versus other classes of intellectual property for the purposes of promoting innovations. So, here my question is more whether Minister Tong feels that trade marks should be treated somewhat differently, given that it tends to be conferred more for existing incumbents, as opposed to other classes of intellectual property that is often conferred to new entrants?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I had understood Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's point. There are different classes and that is precisely why we have dealt with it in different pieces of legislation, recognising that there are different intrinsic qualities that go behind each of these classes.
For trade marks, in particular, the point is a broader one. If we try to reduce the space or the recognition of trade marks or curtail them or compromise them, then the knock-on impact on innovators and inventors wanting to bring their products into Singapore to obtain that protection will be in turn affected. And that was the broader point that I made – about sounding a caution about trying to restrict the application of trade marks for these innovations.
[(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 Edwin Tong Chun Fai]. (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":"Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time.”
Sir, over the years, MinLaw has dedicated much effort to strengthening Singapore’s position as an international dispute resolution hub. We continually look for opportunities to drive work to Singapore and Singaporeans, keep abreast of developments in other jurisdictions and also update our regime so that we can continue to remain an attractive place for businesses to want to be at and to deal with and address their legal needs.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
These efforts have yielded results. Singapore is recognised as a premier legal services hub, in Asia and also the rest of the world. In 2020, Singapore’s exports of legal services exceeded $0.9 billion, which is more than 40% of the value-added (VA) of Singapore’s legal services. In 2021, Singapore was, for the first time, selected as the most preferred seat of arbitration in the world, alongside London, in the Queen Mary University of London and White and Case International Arbitration Survey. This is a fine achievement, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has itself presented new challenges.
Even so, Sir, we cannot afford to rest on our laurels. It is imperative for us to continually review, strengthen and update our framework, in order to stay competitive and meet the needs of businesses and users alike.
The proposed amendments in this Bill are part of these ongoing efforts to further buttress and enhance our offering and our position as a legal hub.
There are two key sets of amendments in this Bill: first, to introduce a framework for allowing a conditional fee agreement (CFA) in prescribed categories of proceedings; and second, to refine the scope of representation of foreign lawyers in the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC).
The Bill also makes a miscellaneous amendment to clarify the date certain provisions relating to the regulation of foreign lawyers and foreign law practice entities were operationalised following the transfer of relevant regulatory functions from the Attorney-General to the Director of Legal Services on 18 November 2015.
Sir, let me now speak on the first set of amendments relating to CFAs.
The introduction of a CFA framework builds on our reforms in the litigation funding space, to enhance our offerings as a dispute resolution hub. To set the context, I will provide some background on litigation funding in Singapore, before going into the proposed legislative framework for CFAs.
Broadly, litigation funding refers to methods of funding legal proceedings. In Singapore, lawyers’ costs are typically paid by the client, as we have, historically, been more conservative about litigation funding. This is due to traditional prohibitions against maintenance and champerty, concepts which we have ourselves inherited from the English common law system. These rules were originally developed to guard against officious intermeddling in litigation and potential conflicts of interest, which lawyers providing financial assistance may face vis-à-vis their duty to their own clients, who may be vulnerable litigants, and also to the Court.
However, we have been taking incremental steps and looking at the landscape holistically. As legal costs can be substantial, we have observed a growing trend of alternative funding methods internationally. We have, therefore, been studying how to better meet the needs of businesses and individuals and also enhance access to justice. We have taken into account what has been done elsewhere in other jurisdictions – the safeguards that have been implemented, some of the learned experiences that they have since implementing and working out how we can better contextualise them for use in Singapore.
One area of reform we have introduced is in third-party funding (TPF), where a party unconnected to the dispute funds the claim, usually in exchange for a share of the damages awarded if the claim succeeds. In 2017, we introduced a legislative framework to allow TPF in international arbitration proceedings. Since then, funders have reported an upturn in requests for funding in Singapore, with funding provided in some cases. The legal and funding communities also shared that the reforms have been useful and beneficial. We have, therefore, extended the framework in June 2021 to domestic arbitration, certain proceedings in the SICC and also related Court and mediation proceedings.
Apart from the above, we also observed interest and needs for TPF in certain insolvency-related matters before the Courts and various reforms were worked into our insolvency legislation. Given the positive feedback received from the TPF reforms, with few risks and downsides observed, we have continued to study other potential reforms in the litigation funding space. This includes CFAs, which are the focus of this Bill.
CFAs are arrangements where a lawyer receives payment of a part, or all, of his or her legal fees only in specified agreed circumstances, such as when the client’s claim is successful. CFAs may take the form of a “no win, no fee”, or “no win, less fee” agreement, depending on how the fees are to be paid to the lawyer if the claim is unsuccessful. CFAs and contingency fees are, currently, prohibited and unenforceable in Singapore, under the rules against maintenance and champerty, which I referred to earlier. However, allowing CFAs can bring several advantages. Let me outline them.
First, it updates our litigation funding framework and aligns it with developments and practices on the international front. This helps to enhance the competitiveness and vibrancy of our legal industry and landscape. While Singapore lawyers are currently not allowed to offer CFAs, other common law jurisdictions have already moved away from these traditional prohibitions. For instance, England and Wales abolished the prohibitions in the 1990s and, together with the United States, Australia and Canada, allow CFAs in various forms today. The proposed framework for CFAs in this Bill, therefore, helps to level the playing field for our Singapore lawyers in certain practice areas vis-à-vis foreign lawyers in these other jurisdictions. Oftentimes, our lawyers compete on an international front internationally with foreign lawyers. In other jurisdictions, they can offer CFAs whilst our lawyers are not able to offer CFAs as part of their engagement with their clients.
Second, allowing CFAs can also enhance access to justice. This is particularly pertinent with current business interruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Businesses with legitimate claims, but themselves facing cash flow problems, may not be able to put out full legal fees at the outset. CFAs will help provide such claimants with an alternative method of funding meritorious claims, which they may otherwise not be able to pursue.
In jurisdictions that allow CFAs, other advantages have also been observed. As lawyers are typically better placed to evaluate the legal risks of a claim, compared to clients, sharing of financial risks of litigation between client and lawyer can also be beneficial. Just as CFAs can enable pursuit of meritorious cases, they can also discourage the pursuit of weak cases and frivolous claims, as lawyers’ fees are contingent on the outcome of the claim
Sir, we studied the approaches taken in other jurisdictions and sought feedback from stakeholders via a public and closed consultations. Having carefully reviewed all the feedback received and looked at the landscape and studied the outcomes in various other jurisdictions, we have designed a framework for CFAs in Singapore as set out in this Bill which, we believe, best allows us to make an initial move on CFAs whilst, at the same time, studying the impact it may have on a broader litigation funding landscape.
Let me now take you through the key features of the framework, as well as the safeguards that we have built into this framework.
Clauses 3 to 6 of the Bill set out the overarching framework for CFAs, while further details and safeguards will be prescribed in subsidiary legislation. Broadly, Sir, clause 3 states that lawyers will not be prevented from entering into a CFA that complies with the new Part 8A in the Legal Profession Act (LPA), where the CFA framework will be housed.
Clause 4 amends existing section 111 in Part 8 of the LPA, to clarify that Part 8 of the LPA does not apply to an agreement which is a CFA that complies with the new Part 8A.
Clause 6 sets out the proposed Part 8A of the LPA, which will provide the main framework for CFAs in Singapore. The proposed Part 8A will have six new sections, sections 115A to 115F.
Section 115A defines key terms in the CFA framework and sets out the scope of Part 8A. In that regard, similar to Part 8 of the LPA, Part 8A will apply to Singapore law practices and certain registered foreign lawyers and foreign law practices.
Section 115B creates a statutory exception for CFAs that comply with prescribed requirements. To be clear, Sir, the statutory framework for CFAs is not intended to override existing common law principles on CFAs relating to impecunious clients, which can continue to provide access to justice for such litigants.
CFAs will be enforceable only in prescribed proceedings. As a start, we intend to prescribe the following proceedings by way of subsidiary legislation.
First, international and domestic arbitration proceedings; second, certain proceedings in the SICC; and third, related Court and mediation proceedings. These will be, as Members may recall, the same categories as the extended TPF framework that we have put in place.
As CFAs are a new development in Singapore, we are taking an incremental and measured approach, more cautious at the start, starting with proceedings where litigants tend to be more commercially sophisticated. We are concurrently studying the feasibility of allowing CFAs in other categories of proceedings, such as domestic proceedings. The rationale for an extension of the framework would be aimed at uplifting the legal profession to further enhance and pursue access to justice for more litigants, who may otherwise not have such access.
But as these proceedings may involve more vulnerable litigants, we will study it more carefully. We intend to closely consult all relevant stakeholders in the legal industry and other interested parties before making a move on this.
Section 115B(6) provides that the range of work that can be covered by a CFA include (a) work done for the purposes of, and before, contemplated proceedings, such as preliminary advice, negotiations or the settlement of disputes. Oftentimes, these are matters which are a precursor to the substantive work, and the framework provides that the CFA can cover this kind of work as well. This is even if those proceedings are not eventually commenced, or if the claim or dispute in those proceedings is settled. But, obviously, in those cases, the terms of the CFA must appropriately reflect the specific conditions on which the uplift or the additional fee structure can then be triggered.
Another key feature of the CFA framework is that “uplift fees” may be provided.
Section 115A(1) provides for a definition for this “uplift fee”, which are the fees payable to the lawyer in specified circumstances, that are higher than what would have otherwise been payable if there were no CFA. The lawyer and client may and should agree on the specific circumstances under which the uplift fee should be paid. These circumstances can be amended as the case progresses, if agreed, because basically, the CFA is an agreement between the parties – the lawyer and his client – and these agreements can be varied or altered from time to time, subject to there being consensus by the parties. As I have said, because the CFA is, in essence, a contract between a lawyer and his client, parties would be free to determine a mutually agreeable arrangement for the payment of fees, subject to the prescribed requirements in our framework. As in any contract, the parties should ensure that the terms are sufficiently clear, which may include scenarios for when such a contract might be terminated.
I also wish to make clear that the CFAs are not intended to replace traditional fee structures but, instead, provide an additional funding option between a lawyer and his client. Lawyers and clients can agree on a traditional fee structure in one area of work, and a CFA in another. So, it can be a combination of both free structures, or it might also seek to convert one to the other – either way, depending on the circumstances.
There is no impediment to usual payment practices, such as collecting deposits for fees, except that no deposit should be collected for the uplifted portion, which depends on the triggering of a condition which will take place on a subsequent occasion. Parties may agree to include or exclude the payment of disbursements from the CFA. So, that is entirely up to the parties' choice and the terms they seek to write into the CFA. Lawyers and clients should also discuss and provide for how and when a CFA may be terminated and the fees to be paid should the CFA be terminated prematurely. This is for obvious reasons so that you have clarity upfront because, sometimes, the client may decide to choose a different lawyer halfway through the proceedings and you do not want the fact that there is a CFA cloud the question as to what the appropriate amount of fees is to be paid at that juncture.
The Bill and subsidiary legislation will introduce safeguards to mitigate the risk of any potential abuse of the CFAs by lawyers. So, under section 115B, a CFA must meet certain requirements for it to be valid. First, the CFA must be in writing and signed by the client. Second, it must not provide for the remuneration and costs to be payable as a proportion of the amount recovered by the client. Let me just be clear about this. It should not provide for remuneration and costs to be a proportion of the amount recovered by the client in the litigation. So, for example, it cannot be a proportion of the damages that a client might recover. Such arrangements, which are often known as contingency fee agreements, will continue to be prohibited in Singapore. The reason for this is because the payment received by lawyers in such agreements has no direct correlation with the work done. The amount of damages that the client may recover is dependent on the client's particular circumstances and the damage and injuries that may be suffered. If you allow such proportions to be part of the CFA, this may give rise to added risks of conflicts of interests for the lawyer. We will continue to study developments in this area.
Third, the CFA must comply with the regulations that will be made under section 115B(7). These include: (a) information that the lawyer must provide to the client, for instance, how the CFA operates and how uplift fees are calculated in a particular case; (b) terms and conditions that must be included in the CFA, such as a “cooling-off” period after the CFA is entered into, during which the client or lawyer may terminate the CFA by giving written notice.
Sir, we emphasise that CFAs do not change existing obligations of solicitors under statute or common law, unless expressly stated. Lawyers will continue to be subject to the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (PCR), including obligations to: (a) act in the best interests of their clients; (b) evaluate whether any consequence of a matter involving the client justifies the expense or the risk of pursuing the matter; (c) withdraw from representing a client in certain circumstances due to, say, ethical reasons – these are obligations and responsibilities which a lawyer will be very familiar with; and, finally, of course, (d) an obligation not to overcharge. This will be clarified in amendments to the PCR.
MinLaw will also be working with the Law Society to develop a Guidance Note on CFAs, with the aim of guiding the profession through these new developments. MinLaw will also continue to review the landscape and the use of CFAs in practice and may also develop additional and different safeguards for different categories of proceedings as may be appropriate.
Finally, Sir, apart from the features mentioned above, the proposed sections 115C to F provide for ancillary matters relating to the CFAs. They are adapted from the current Part 8 of the LPA but with modifications, and cover matters, such as: (a) the effect of the CFA on legal costs, (b) how the validity or effect of a CFA is to be assessed, and (c) the consequences of a change in, the death, incapacity or winding up of, a solicitor or law practice.
Let me highlight two points from this range of amendments.
First, section 115C provides that uplift fees will not be recoverable as part of legal costs from the opposing party, that means the uplifted fees that are triggered or payable as a result of a fulfilment of the condition in the CFA will not be recoverable as part of party-and-party costs, should the client be successful in the proceedings.
This seeks to avoid the issues of satellite litigation faced by other jurisdictions, where it has been noted that CFAs were challenged by the unsuccessful party, to avoid paying uplift fees to a successful party as part of legal costs. So, in other jurisdictions, if the uplifted fees are payable as part of party-and-party costs, it provides an opportunity for there to be additional litigation for the losing party to challenge the validity and application of the CFA. We want to avoid this.
Second, section 115D concerns questions on the validity and enforceability of a CFA.
In determining such questions, the Court will examine whether the requirements of a CFA as set out in section 115B have been met, and whether the CFA is void or voidable based on usual contractual principles, such as incapacity, mistake, misrepresentation and so on.
The Court will also have regard to the circumstances in which the agreement was made and the interests of all parties to the agreement, that is, the client and the lawyer, taken as a whole.
The Court should also consider the purpose and context of a CFA when determining its enforceability. As an example, the mere fact of an uplift should not call the CFA into question, although the amount of uplift should be commensurate with the risk undertaken by the lawyer.
As the CFA is a contract between the client and the lawyer, such an approach is based on well-established contractual principles and provides certainty to parties.
Sir, let me now move on to the next set of amendments.
Clause 2 seeks to refine the scope of representation of a foreign lawyer in certain proceedings in the SICC, particularly international corporate debt restructuring and insolvency cases.
In the last five years, we have made tremendous progress to our corporate debt restructuring and insolvency regime. Our laws have remained progressive, open and modern, whilst balancing the interests of creditors, debtors and other stakeholders, all of whom have an interest in particularly large, cross-border, complex insolvencies. As an indicator, Sir, in 2020 alone, there were more than 100 restructuring–related applications.
The proposed amendment seeks to build on this momentum and enhance Singapore as a premier centre for debt restructuring and insolvency matters both regionally, as well as globally, internationally. Such matters typically involve a multi-jurisdiction dimension and significant foreign elements, including proceedings in foreign courts, which may otherwise not be heard in Singapore.
The SICC was identified by the Committee to Strengthen Singapore as an International Centre for Debt Restructuring in 2016, as a conducive forum to hear insolvency matters with international elements and multi-jurisdictional issues.
The SICC was established in 2015 to hear transnational and commercial disputes. It broadens and complements existing dispute resolution options.
The proposed refinements leverage on SICC's strengths and attractive infrastructure and seeks to facilitate the efficient and effective presentation of arguments and resolution of debt restructuring and insolvency proceedings in the SICC.
First, the SICC's jurisdiction over international restructuring and insolvency cases was clarified by the Courts (Civil and Criminal Justice) Reform Act 2021. And in connection with that, clause 2 of this Bill proposes to refine the scope of a foreign lawyer's representation.
Corporate debt restructuring and insolvency work can be complex, and proceedings will often involve transnational and interconnected issues, with mixed issues of foreign and local law, along with mixed issues of law and fact.
The proposed refinements here seek to facilitate collaboration between local and foreign lawyers for the efficient and fair resolution of such cases before the SICC. In turn, it will benefit litigants and other stakeholders and support the growth of international cases being heard in Singapore.
Let me just briefly take Members through the proposed amendment.
First, a foreign lawyer with full registration may submit on matters in the prescribed proceedings, subject to the following restrictions: one, the foreign lawyer will only be allowed to submit on matters with permission granted by the Court; and two, the foreign lawyer will not be permitted to make a submission on a matter of Singapore law.
Second, subsidiary legislation may provide for the various categories of specified proceedings that these refinements will apply to; factors that the Court may consider in deciding whether to grant permission to the foreign lawyer; and exceptions to any of these restrictions. So, these are the points that will be dealt with in subsidiary legislation.
At this juncture, I would like to highlight that I am also moving an amendment to the Bill, at the Committee stage, to clarify that a foreign lawyer with full registration will be able to appear and plead, subject to the restrictions proposed by clause 2 of this Bill, in proceedings preliminary to the prescribed relevant proceedings and relevant appeals.
This will align this Bill with the Courts (Civil and Criminal Justice) Reform Act 2021 that I mentioned earlier, which introduced a further category of \"preliminary proceedings\" in section 36P(1) of the Legal Profession Act, in which a foreign lawyer with full registration may appear and plead in.
Sir, with the introduction of the refinements above, the Bill will further MinLaw's efforts to enhance Singapore's attractiveness as a dispute resolution hub. With that, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a lawyer in private practice.
Today, Singapore has established itself as a premier international dispute resolution hub in the region. This has a direct positive repercussion on our economy. Using the words of the hon Minister, \"it drives work to Singapore and for Singaporeans\".
But this position is hard-won and one which we must not take for granted. Adjustments must be made regularly to ensure that our country remains a trusted dispute resolution hub of choice, business-friendly and thick with legal talent and expertise. It is in this context that I welcome and support the proposed amendments to the Bill to allow lawyers to charge their fees on the basis of whether they have secured a good outcome for their clients.
These agreements, known as conditional fee agreements (CFAs) will have the effect of providing a litigation funding arrangement for businesses and individuals who may otherwise be unable to commence action owing to lack of funds. This in turn can have the effect of enhancing access to justice in Singapore and also level the playing field vis-a-vis other dispute resolution hubs, and this is also the point that the hon Minister made.
It is noteworthy that MinLaw had consulted extensively with various stakeholders since 2019 before introducing this Bill in Parliament in November 2021. The effort put in by the Ministry is commendable.
I have three clarifications to seek from the hon Minister.
First, I seek clarification on the scope of the Minister's power in clause 6 of the Bill that introduces the proposed section 115(B)(7) of the Act. This clause gives the Minister the power to prescribe proceedings to which lawyers may charge their fees pursuant to the CFA.
For a start, it is proposed that domestic and international arbitration, certain SICC proceedings as well as its related Court proceedings and mediation proceedings be prescribed. This is precisely the same grounds upon which third-party funding is available under Civil Law (Third-Party) Funding Regulations 2017. I do not have an issue with the proposed prescribed proceedings.
My question relates to how the Minister intends to exercise his power in the future to extend the use of CFA in other proceedings. The hon Minister, in his speech, mentioned that he is seriously considering extending CFA to domestic litigation. My question is: what would be the principal considerations? And he mentioned access to justice is one of them. What are the other considerations?
I also welcome the hon Minister's point raised in his speech just now that he would be consulting stakeholders. And if he could elaborate on exactly how he proposes to consult the stakeholders, that will be most welcome.
My next question relates to how concerns expressed by the Government previously, when this issue had been mooted in the past, have been dealt with.
When Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah, as she then was, was asked in 2017 about the Government's position on event-triggered fee arrangements, she stated that the Government was looking into the matter but was concerned about two specific issues.
The first concern was how to deal with the potential conflict of interest that may arise on the part of the lawyer since he has a direct financial interest in the outcome of the litigation. Take, for instance, the case of a lawyer who has cashflow issues. As a result, he may decide to negotiate a settlement with a counterparty for a lower amount than what he would reasonably get for his client through a Court judgment if the matter was litigated to the end. In this case, the case would have been closed earlier, and he will get paid with an uplift under the CFA earlier too.
The second concern she expressed was the prospect of increased frivolous litigation and raised litigation costs. On this point, I agree with the hon Minister Mr Edwin Tong, that the no-win-no-fee structure should already make the lawyers think twice. But I believe that there could be situations where lawyers may engage in some form of sabre-rattling to deal with acts or maybe leverage of extra legal factors, for example, the concern on the part of counterparties to stay out of courts. These factors are obviously frivolous on their own because we are talking about legal merits of the case. How do we deal with such prospects? I would be grateful if the hon Minister could please outline steps to address the concerns.
Finally, I have a query in relation to what constitutes a reasonable uplift under the CFA without attracting allegations of overcharging.
Currently, a lawyer owes a duty not to overcharge his client. If he does so, he would be liable for misconduct and may be hauled up for disciplinary action. This is provided specifically under Rule 17 (7) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, which the hon Minister referred to as well.
Under this provision, the legal practitioner must not charge any fee or disbursements, or render a bill, for an amount, which constitutes overcharging even if there is a fee agreement that permits the charging of the fee, disbursements or the amount.
I understand from the hon Minister that it is proposed the overcharging regime should also apply to a CFA. Under the CFA, a lawyer may charge an uplift should there be a favourable outcome. The question arises as to what will constitute a fair amount for the lawyers to charge as an uplift that will not be viewed as a case of overcharging.
Let me provide an example. Let us consider a case where a lawyer would have ordinarily charged $X for a case. Under the CFA with his client, it is provided that, if the lawyer loses, he gets zero. Should he win, how much can he charge as an uplift without being accused of overcharging? $2X? $3X? Would it make a difference if it is stated in the CFA that, if the lawyer loses, he may charge $0.5X instead of zero? And it seems to me that the hon Minister, by mentioning that the risk that the lawyer assumes, can go into the issue of the reasonableness of what he can charge, that seems to be the case.
We need to guard against creating perverse incentives with price signals that do not reflect the true value of services. In these kinds of cases, it is not just a simple matter of \"willing buyer, willing seller\". There must be a principled approach to determining the line between the uplift being viewed as a fair reward or unbridled profiteering that brings the profession to disrepute.
I also note that under the proposed section 115D(4) of the Act, the High Court is given the power to enforce a CFA in any manner that the Court thinks fit, even if the technical requirements of the CFA are met.
Under the proposed section 115D(7) of the Act, the High Court has the power to reopen the CFA and even order repayment of fees within a 12-month period after payment has been made under the CFA.
May I ask the hon Minister what are the circumstances in which the Court is permitted not to enforce the CFA on its plain words, even though all the technical requirements as set out in the Bill have been met and there are no vitiating factors, such as misrepresentation, duress and so on? Notwithstanding my queries, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Mr Deputy Speaker, like Mr Murali who spoke earlier before me, I declare my interest as a practising lawyer.
For many years, lawyers in Singapore are guided by the laws against maintenance and champerty. Section 107 of the Legal Profession Act provides for an express prohibition against a lawyer having an interest in the lawsuit of his client.
Section 107 says a solicitor must not (a) purchase or agree to purchase the interest or any part of the interest of his client or of any party in any suit, action or other contentious proceeding brought or to be brought or maintained; or (b) enter into any agreement by which he is retained or employed to prosecute any suit or action or other contentious proceeding which stipulates for or contemplates payment only in the event of success in that suit, action or proceeding.
Section 107(3) provides that \"A solicitor is subject to the laws of maintenance and champerty like any other person.\"
In Rule 18 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules, it was stressed that \"A legal practitioner or law practice must not enter into any negotiations with a client (a) for an interest in the subject matter of litigation; or (b) for remuneration proportionate to the amount which may be recovered by the client in the proceedings.\"
Sir, the rationale of these rules is based on the conventional wisdom that the “Advocate and solicitor must maintain his independent and professional standing (unaffected by any personal interest in the outcome of a matter) in order to act effectively in representing his client’s interests.”
As recent as in 2013, the Court of three Judges suspended a lawyer, Mr Kurubalan s/o Manickam Rengaraju, for six months for breaching section 107 of the Legal Profession Act and, at that time, Rule 37 of the Professional Conduct Rules because he entered into a champertous agreement with his client.
In the decision by the Court of three Judges, the Court went through the reasons for the law against champerty. At paragraph 40, the Court said:
\"Maintenance is defined as officious intermeddling in litigation (see Hill v Archbold [1968] 1 QB 686 at 693) and champerty is a particular form of maintenance where one party agrees to aid another to bring a claim on the basis that the person who gives the aid shall receive a share of what may be recovered in the action\".
Sir, I acknowledge that quite a few countries have abolished the law against champerty, for example, the UK, Australia and Canada. I also acknowledge the explanations given by MinLaw in its media release on 1 November 2021 explaining the Government’s rationale for amending the Legal Profession Act to allow for the Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA). One of the key principles which I agree with is that CFAs help enhance access to justice by providing business or individuals with additional funding to pursue meritorious claims, which they may otherwise not pursue. Another advantage is that it levels the playing field for Singapore lawyers in areas, such as international arbitration or SICC proceedings, where the counterparts in the other countries may have access to such types of funding.
Nevertheless, I also wish to express my concern that the rationale for the rule against champerty and maintenance are still very applicable today, even if some countries have already abolished the law.
One of the rules, as stated in Rule 4 of the Professional Conduct Rules, is the lawyer's paramount duty to the Court as an officer of the Court and this duty takes precedence over the legal practitioner’s duty to the legal practitioner’s client. Let me say that again. A lawyer as a paramount duty to the Court as an officer of the Court and this duty takes precedence over the lawyer's duty to his client.
So, may I ask the Minister, what are the safeguards to prevent a lawyer from subverting the course of justice if he has a vested interest in the outcome of the legal proceedings? As Lord Denning observed in a 1962 judgment “in Re Trepca Mines (No 2): \"The common law fears that the champertous maintainer might be tempted, for his own personal gain, to inflame the damages, to suppress evidence, or even to suborn witnesses.\"
Sir, currently, the amendment defines \"prescribed proceedings\" to mean proceedings as prescribed in the regulations. However, later, if \"prescribed proceedings\" is extended to other forms of litigation in the future, will it result in more litigation suits because of the personal stake of the lawyers in the outcome of the lawsuits? In 2008, 21 people were arrested in Hong Kong for champerty, maintenance and conspiracy. These people were recovery agents \"helping\" accident victims on a \"no win, no fee\" basis. One of the people arrested in Hong Kong was a lawyer.
How would the Police deal with an unscrupulous lawyer or his agents in Singapore who may decide to stake out hospitals to look out for victims injured in road accidents or industrial accidents? I believe there are complaints by insurance companies against lawyers or sometimes their agents who are seen as what we call “ambulance chasers”. These people are quick to ask the victims to sue in order to claim for more damages and legal costs. Would this group of people be able to circumvent the law by asking the accident victims to sign the CFA?
Third, who will protect the interest of the vulnerable clients if the lawyer has an interest in the outcome of the suit? For example, if a lawyer wishes to settle the case because his legal costs are protected, then that lawyer may then insist on a settlement even though the client may disagree to the terms of settlement. In such a case, the interest of the client and the interest of the lawyer may no longer be the same.
Finally, like Mr Murali Pillai who spoke before me, I am concerned about the uplift fees. For uplift fees, will there be a prescribed range of uplift fees allowed? Under what circumstances would the uplift fee be subject to a charge for overcharging made against the lawyer? I hope that the Minister can clarify my concerns because the Court does sometimes look to the debates in Parliament to understand the intent of the law.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill will take a landmark step in providing CFAs between lawyers and clients in certain cases. This will help level the playing field for Singapore lawyers in international dispute resolution and also increase access to justice. I have three points of clarification.
My first point is about the coverage of the Bill’s CFA framework. This Bill will establish a single framework for CFAs. For a start, it appears that CFAs will be permitted for international and domestic arbitration proceedings, proceedings before the Singapore International Commercial Court, and related Court and mediation proceedings. These are likely to be transnational, high-value commercial disputes.
The Ministry has indicated that it will continue to study whether CFAs can promote access to justice in other categories of proceedings, including domestic proceedings.
But the consideration for cases on the other end of the spectrum – domestic cases involving indigent litigants, will be different. In cases involving indigent litigants, there may be a greater need to be more protective of the interests of the litigant, as compared to those of parties in high-value commercial disputes who will likely be well-advised.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
In establishing the overarching framework under the Bill, can the Minister share what steps the Ministry has taken to ensure that the framework is sufficiently flexible to extend to all categories of disputes? The lessons learnt from initial applications of the CFA framework to high-value commercial disputes may have limited application to cases involving indigent litigants. How will the Ministry study the suitability of CFAs for enhancing access to justice for indigent litigants?
My second point is about plans for allowing CFAs to act in international mediation proceedings.
Singapore has taken steps to position itself as a global mediation hub. The passing of the Mediation Act in 2017 provided a framework for international mediation in Singapore. The Ministry has indicated that CFAs will be allowed, as a start, to international and domestic arbitration, certain proceedings in SICC, and related Court and mediation proceedings. Can the Minister clarify whether CFAs will be allowed to act in international mediation proceedings that do not arise from permitted categories of arbitration or litigation?
My third point is about the classification of cases that are transmitted to other forums. It is not unusual for cases to be transmitted for hearing before different forums. For instance, the current Rules of Court contemplate the transfer of proceedings from the General Division of the High Court to the SICC, and vice versa.
Given that CFAs will only apply to certain categories of cases for a start, can the Minister clarify how the CFA framework will take into account cases that are commenced in one forum, then transmitted to another forum? Is there a possibility under the proposed CFA framework that a case may be commenced in a forum where CFAs are permitted then transmitted to another where CFAs are not permitted? Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this amendment Bill. At the outset, I declare my interest as an international commercial disputes lawyer.
Singapore is a leading international dispute resolution hub because our legal profession, judiciary and laws are not only leading the cutting edge on the forefront of legal development, but they have also adapted to keep us ahead of the curve to meet the ever-changing needs of global legal demands.
I welcome this Bill which seeks to continue to firmly strengthen Singapore’s position as an international legal and dispute resolution hub.
I will be focusing my speech on CFAs. CFAs will increase access to justice for litigants. Since 2017, the law has already provided availability of Third Party Funding as an option in limited circumstances, for example, in international and, subsequently, domestic arbitrations.
There is already a growing trend of alternative funding methods for litigation and arbitration globally. This is especially important given the economic downturn and conservative outlook faced by many corporate clients all over the world.
On contingency fees, Prof Patricia Danzon, an American economist stated: \"The common allegation that the contingent fees induces attorneys to bring claims with little legal merit has no basis in logic. The fact that the fee depends on winning provides an incentive to screen out issues with little legal merit. An incentive that is lacking with an hourly fee.\" Further, various studies have shown that CFAs or similar arrangements discourage lawyers to take on unmeritorious cases. The CFAs provide a financial disincentive not to commence frivolous suits or claims.
However, I do have five clarifications for the Minister.
Firstly, with parties left on their own to decide on the uplift or finer details of the CFA, will there be some practice guidelines on the quantum of the uplift within the CFA? The Bill itself seeks to address this by placing a restriction that the uplift or contingent fee cannot be a percentage of the claim or damages to be recovered. However, should there perhaps be a mandated cap on the uplift in certain circumstances? This is to prevent the uplift from being too disproportionate to what would have been reasonable standard of costs?
I appreciate and welcome the fact that lawyers may still be held liable for overcharging under the CFAs, pursuant to amendments under the Legal Professional Conduct Rules. However, as alluded to by Members Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Lim Biow Chuan, guidance as to how much of an uplift can also provide helpful guidance as to what is excessive or overcharging in a CFA. In the UK, contingency fees, or damages-based agreements (DBAs), have been permitted for contentious work in litigation or arbitration proceedings in England and Wales. This means that lawyers can conduct litigation and arbitration in this jurisdiction in return for a share of any damages.
Depending on the type of cases, there are differences in the limit of cap for such a contingency fee. In this regard, would the Ministry also consider in the future to finetune the cap in the principles of proportionality, for example, a 50% maximum cap of uplift from the agreed fee. If the CFAs are extended to other categories of disputes, then this cap can be adjusted downwards to reflect the greater consumer or client protection required or vulnerability of certain groups of clients in the future. A cap may also help offer the best balance to prevent legal costs from spiraling upwards and, at the same time, attract the optimal amount of disputes to Singapore.
My second clarification is in relation to the resolution of disputes in CFAs. The new section 115C states that the uplift fees will not be recoverable from the losing party in respect of party-and-party costs. Thus, the uplift fees will have to be paid from the pocket of the client to the lawyer. I welcome this amendment as it means that there is a lesser risk that CFAs may impact party-and-party costs and costs of litigation all around.
The Bill also allows that such uplift in CFAs can also be based on reduced hourly rates, instead of a lump sum uplift. This is very progressive and much welcomed.
In the UK, the permissibility of such \"hybrid\" arrangements was not clear within its legislation and was the subject of an English Court of Appeal case which only recently clarified the position.
Given the possibility of disputes arising out of the CFAs, can I confirm if lawyers and clients can still refer their solicitor-and-client fees in the CFAs for taxation in the case of a dispute? This will be more straightforward and cost-effective than filing a separate claim in Court or arbitration for a dispute under the CFA.
My third clarification is in relation to protection of lawyers entering into CFAs. May I ask and confirm that lawyers agreeing to CFAs would not be held personally liable for adverse party-and-party costs when acting under such CFAs unless, of course, if there are circumstances of personal or professional misconduct in which case that attracts personal liability for costs.
My fourth clarification is on the duty of disclosure. To what extent should such CFAs be disclosed by way of statutory or regulatory obligations, for example, through SGX announcements or audited yearly financial statements? This is because in an ongoing litigation or arbitration proceeding, such disclosures may cause a certain perception of pressure to succeed on the part of both the client and the party to that CFA. This may impact the dynamics between the two competing parties or conflicting parties in the dispute, for instance.
My last clarification is centered on the protection for the client. I understand from MinLaw's press release that safeguards will be implemented in the subsidiary legislation. What are these safeguards to protect a client entering into CFAs and how long, perhaps, would be the cooling-off period for a client in the CFAs? After a CFA has been entered into and, for instance, a client changes lawyers, or the lawyer withdraws from the case, what are the safeguards or guidelines to prevent a client being left in the lurch after having already entered into the CFA.
Perhaps the Ministry can consider a public awareness campaign to assist potential clients on the pitfalls of a CFA and what can be done in the event of a withdrawal or termination of the same.
Sir, CFAs may inadvertently evoke a diverse set of views and responses among lawyers and users of our legal system. Some view such arrangements as the salvation for the impecunious. Others fear that they open the floodgates of litigation of frivolous claims. However, one thing for certain, the calibrated approach towards CFAs as taken by the Ministry in this Bill will help cement Singapore as a leading dispute resolution hub in the world.
Notwithstanding my clarifications and comments, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.
Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): Sir, I declare my interest as a practising litigation lawyer. And as a litigation lawyer, I have, from time to time, come across a situation in which a client with a genuine and reasonable commercial claim shies away from pursuing their claim due to the potential legal costs they could face if they were not successful in their action. Of course, all cases, regardless of the merit of the claim, have the potential of not succeeding due to various factors like the performance of witnesses or the introduction of new evidence or counterclaims. So, there is always a risk that a litigant could ultimately lose and be saddled with the costs of both its own lawyers and that of the other parties.
In this regard, conditional fee arrangements, or CFAs, will provide some comfort to potential litigants to pursue their claims as their lawyers fees will be contingent on them winning their case. A typical CFA in the UK, for example, stipulates that a lawyer acts on the basis that he will be paid nothing in fees if his client loses his case. In the event that the client succeeds, he would be paid his normal fees, and may also earn an uplift agreed in advance, over and above the normal fees. Importantly, the fee uplift must be based on lawyer’s normal fees, not the quantum of damages awarded. This same type of arrangement will now be allowed by the amendments to the LPA.
I support the amendment of the Act to allow for CFAs. As stated by the Minister, the amendments will help enhance access to justice, level the playing field for Singapore lawyers vis-à-vis other jurisdictions that already allow such arrangements and discourage lawyers from pursuing weak and frivolous claims, as they run the risk of not being paid in the event they do not win.
Aside from these, there are ancillary dimensions that the relevant authorities and lawyers should consider once CFAs are allowed. I will cover three areas. First, the ethical considerations in structuring and offering CFAs; second, After-the-Event Insurance; and third, ensuring that lawyers retain reasonable latitude to determine the terms of their CFAs.
As regards ethical considerations, lawyers are bound by duties owed to their client. These duties may sometimes create tension with the financial pressures of running the business of a law firm. CFAs may exacerbate these tensions as they give the lawyer a more pronounced financial interest in the outcome of the matter underlying the CFA. For example, depending on the terms of the CFA, a lawyer may find himself in a situation where although it may be in the client’s interests to accept a settlement offer, it may not be in his, because he may not get paid anything. The converse could also be true if a particular CFA treats a settlement essentially as a win – it may lead to the lawyer advising the client to take the settlement and to forego proceedings because there is a guaranteed fee to be earned as compared to going to trial or the arbitration hearing, which would still bear some risk. This could lead to undersettling, which is an issue that has been identified in the UK’s implementation of CFAs.
Ultimately, these approaches may lead to outcomes that are not the most advantageous to clients. Practice guidelines could be introduced to guide lawyers, for example, to reduce to writing their advice to clients as regards any settlement under a CFA, so that it is unambiguous as to what exactly was the advice provided by the lawyer in the event of a possible future lawyer-client dispute.
Another area of concern would be how the concept of CFAs are communicated by law firms to clients, including on their websites and advertisements. The use of the term \"no win, no fee\" may technically be correct as regards fees, but it obfuscates the fact that there would still be some cost incurred by the client, for example, filing fees and other disbursements. For arbitration, there would also be the costs of the tribunal.
In this regard, lawyers must be careful not to inadvertently mislead members of the public or clients that there is absolutely nothing to be paid if the litigant is not successful. Guidelines could be drawn up by the Ministry in this regard.
Clients are also unlikely to fully understand how a CFA works, especially the terms and conditions of what constitutes a \"success\" and when an uplift would apply. It is, therefore, essential that the Ministry sets out clearly the information that a lawyer would need to furnish its client when it is considering to engage a lawyer under the terms of a CFA.
The Ministry could, therefore, consider drawing up pro forma documents or templates in a form that would be easily understood by members of the public, that could be mandated for use by lawyers when they discuss CFAs with clients.
The hon Minister mentioned earlier that MinLaw will be drawing up guidance together with the Law Society and I hope that my suggestions above can be taken into consideration when drafting this guide.
Another area is the risk assessment that lawyers will themselves have to do when considering whether to offer a CFA to clients and on what terms. In this regard, I would also like to suggest that some training be provided, including in the Continuous Professional Development programme, for lawyers to pick up the knowledge required to undertake this type of risk assessment and how this risk will be translated into the terms of the CFA they offer including the quantum of uplift.
CFAs have been allowed in the United Kingdom since 1998, and I am moving on now to my next point on After-the-Event insurance. One feature that has emerged is the dependence of the CFA market on the existence of After-the-Event insurance or AEIs. AEIs are designed to assist litigants by allowing them to offset some of their legal costs in litigation, in particular, the costs of the other party’s lawyers if they lose their case. AEIs also allow a litigant who may have a perfectly viable case but limited financial means to obtain access to justice. Several insurers in Singapore already offer AEIs, not only for arbitration but for civil and commercial litigation as well. I am, however, unable to find statistics on how prevalent the use of AEIs are.
Nonetheless, AEIs are a useful feature for litigants to consider, as CFAs only ameliorate the risk of bearing their own lawyer’s fees if they lose their case, but not the opposing party’s costs. This will further the objective of access to justice, and the Ministry and the Law Society may wish to consider increasing public knowledge and understanding of this insurance. In this regard, the use of AEIs may increase with the introduction of CFAs. As such, it would also be important for the Ministry and MAS to monitor how AEIs are being offered, and whether it is necessary to introduce regulations on such insurance schemes to ensure that insurance companies do not occupy a gatekeeping position in the civil justice system.
Finally , Sir, the new section 115B(7) will empower the Minister to make regulations on CFAs. These include that the Minister may prescribe, amongst other things, the form, the terms and conditions of CFAs, the maximum limits on remuneration or costs including the uplift fee, information a solicitor must provide to a client before a CFA is entered into, and requirements as regards parties to a CFA. I would urge the Ministry to regulate the market with a light touch to allow lawyers to negotiate terms appropriate to the complexion of each case, for example, providing for the payment of basic or interim fees, or fees arising from ancillary proceedings that were not originally envisioned when the CFA was entered into.
Sir, on the whole, CFAs will support the development of the legal sector in Singapore and provide an avenue for litigants with limited means, as long as the ethical and commercial implications are addressed, through regulation where necessary. Provisions to make these regulations are also included in the amendments and will be rolled out by the Ministry accordingly. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications and suggestions, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank all the Members who have spoken in support of the Bill.
Before I go into addressing the specific queries raised by Members, let me just make three broad points.
The first is, we appreciate that in introducing the CFA Framework, we have moved away from some of the traditional structures that lawyers are used to – maintenance, champerty – Mr Lim spoke about it; Mr Murali Pillai as well. Which is why we have chosen to do this incrementally, cautiously. We set up a framework to deal with prescribed proceedings first, dealing with the scenario where in most, if not all, of those circumstances, the clients involved are likely to be sophisticated clients, understanding the commercial context and appreciating the need for this. And at the same time, putting our lawyers who compete with foreign lawyers for international work, on the same platform, so that they can also, like their foreign counterparts, go in to make a bid for work on the basis of using CFAs.
So, we start with that principle and to take up Mr Murali Pillai's point, as we study, and we have not completed our study – to extend this to other proceedings, we will carefully decide, we will consult widely – and in the same way as Mr Pillai has said we have done leading up to this Bill, we will continue to do so – all stakeholders.
We will decide at that stage whether an extension is appropriate and if so, with what kind of additional criteria as safeguards. As Members would know, even with this framework that we have put in a cautious manner for sophisticated clients, we are already putting in safeguards here. So, that is the first point that I would make about the framework.
The second point is that I have heard several comments about the agreement: should we regulate the agreement, should we put this in pro forma or should we put in some standard terms?
I also heard Mr Raj Joshua Thomas said earlier that we should also have a fee structure that allows lawyers to negotiate and that, in his words, is best \"appropriate to the complexion of the case\". This, really, is the raison d'etre behind the CFA – to let the parties decide what are the triggering requirements to allow a party to decide when an uplift would be appropriate, depending on the context of the particular case. And it is in this context that the interest of the lawyer and the client can best be aligned – not separated, but best be aligned.
Despite that, we continue to have oversight over the agreement because, just as we have done in Part 8 of the LPA for agreed fees, not CFAs but agreed fees, the Court continues to retain a discretion to have an inquiry into, and oversight of, these agreements. Likewise, in the context of the CFA, that remains the same. So, the Courts will still have oversight of the uplift, and in Mr Murali Pillai's words: \"to determinate based on the reasonableness of the case, the context of the circumstances, the relevant weightage of the risks taken, the complexity of the case, the length of the case. All of these are factors which the Court takes into account. Which is why it would not be possible upfront to state, you can only uplift by X, or 2X, or 3X\", because it may be appropriate in some cases, it may not be appropriate in other cases. So, that is the second point I will make.
The third point I will make is that throughout Members' speeches, I have heard that because this is a new development in our framework, we should be giving guidance. Certainly, we have committed to doing so upfront. That is the reason why we have consulted extensively, both open as well as closed, and we will continue to do so and work with Law Society to ensure that lawyers and users alike, clients, are familiar with the framework and, as far as we can, provide guidance which does not tie the hands of solicitors as they negotiate these CFAs but, at the same time, give guidance as to what the framework requires of the CFAs.
Sir, with that, let me now address the specific queries raised by Members.
Mr Louis Ng asked if CFAs would be allowed to act in international mediation proceedings that do not arise from permitted categories of arbitration or litigation. My Ministry is currently assessing standalone international and domestic mediation proceedings holistically, as part of a separate ongoing study of the CFAs. The potential benefits that CFAs can offer in the use of mediation have to be viewed against the interplay between international mediation proceedings and domestic mediation and litigation proceedings. So, for instance, at present, there is no clear delineation in existing legislation between mediation proceedings that are \"international\" and those that are \"domestic\". If parties to an \"international\" mediation do not reach a settlement, the dispute may proceed to be heard in the SICC or the High Court. As CFAs will presently not be permitted in the High Court, this may then create an ambiguity for lawyers and litigants, given that proceedings on one stream in the High Court will not be allowed for CFAs and those at the SICC will be allowed for CFAs.
Further, mediation proceedings that are more domestic in nature may involve litigants of a wide range of profiles that need differentiated treatment and protection, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. And so, this requires some further study and consideration.
For these reasons, to answer Mr Louis Ng's point, my Ministry has assessed that it would be prudent to consider standalone international and domestic mediation proceedings holistically, as part of an ongoing study of CFAs.
Second, Mr Louis Ng asked how the CFA framework will take into account cases that are commenced in one forum and transferred to another, and whether it is possible that a case may be commenced in a forum where CFAs are permitted and then transferred to another forum where CFAs are not permitted. The answer to this is as follows.
Where proceedings are transferred between two fora in which CFAs are allowed – for instance, from arbitration to related Court or mediation proceedings – then, obviously, the CFAs will continue in the case of the solicitor and the client. So, CFAs will be allowed in those circumstances.
Generally, otherwise, CFAs are not permitted in cases which are transferred from or to a forum where CFAs are not permitted.
So, in the particular example that Mr Louis Ng highlighted about the High Court and the SICC, for the time being, CFAs will not be permitted for proceedings that are transferred from the High Court to the SICC and vice versa. We will study this further and consider whether we should change this, but as a starting point, under this framework, as long as one of the proceedings, either from which it is transferred or to which it is transferred, does not allow the CFA, then the CFA will not be allowed.
This approach towards CFAs and the transfer of forums will avoid any unintended consequences and risks to litigants arising from CFAs, and we will make clear the position in subsidiary legislation.
Mr Murali Pillai asked about the circumstances of enforcement by the Court, with reference to the proposed section 115D(4) and (7) of the Bill he mentioned. The sections referenced by Mr Murali Pillai are aligned with the current 113(3) and 113(7) of the current LPA, in terms of the Court’s powers to deal with contentious cost agreements.
The CFA is, in essence, a contract. And I made the point earlier that parties should have freedom of contract to negotiate the terms of the CFA – and it should be enforced by the Court like any contract if the requirements in the proposed 115B of this Bill, which sets out the regulatory framework and the requirements of the CFAs in this case, have been complied with; and also, of course, if the CFA is not found to be void or voidable for one of the grounds listed in 115D.
On taxation of solicitor-and-client costs under the CFA, Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked whether the taxation process in Court will still be applicable in respect of solicitor-and-client costs under a CFA. He also asked if disputes regarding the validity of CFAs would fall under the scrutiny of taxation proceedings, or if they should be subject to separate Court or arbitration proceedings.
Generally, Sir, solicitor-and-client costs under a CFA are not subject to a taxation. This is provided under section 115C(5) of the Bill and it is similar to the position for contentious business agreements under the current section 112(4) of the LPA. If there are questions, however, on the validity or the effect of a CFA, parties should bring an application to Court under section 115D(2) of the Bill.
Under section 115D(5) of the Bill, if the Court finds that the CFA either does not satisfy the statutory requirements or is found to be void or voidable, then the costs under the CFA can then be assessed in accordance with the rules applicable to taxation.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim also sought confirmation that lawyers agreeing to CFAs would not be held personally liable for adverse party-and-party costs under a CFA, unless there are circumstances of personal or professional conduct that attracts personal liability for costs. That is correct. Under a CFA, a client will continue to be liable for any cost orders that may be made against the client. This will also be clarified in subsidiary legislation.
On Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim’s query about the disclosure of CFAs vis-à-vis regulatory obligations, such as SGX announcements or audited financial statements, let me reiterate again a point I made at the start of the reply speech, that CFAs really are an additional fee structure. It is an agreement that allows lawyers and their clients to work out a fee structure. CFAs are not intended to change, nor do they change, any existing statutory or regulatory obligations relating to disclosure, from what is expected if normal fee agreements are entered into by companies. So, in assessing whether you need to make an announcement, the usual criteria will apply, whether it is material in the particular context of the circumstances of that particular announcement. Companies and lawyers will still have to make an assessment and assess the extent to which a CFA will need to be disclosed, in the context of existing guidelines and the regulations governing disclosures.
Mr Murali Pillai asked how concerns relating to CFAs that had been highlighted in the past – I think Mr Murali Pillai cited some past speeches and examples – had been addressed.
First, dealing with potential conflicts of interest, I had again mentioned how, in the context of a proper CFA, in this case at least, the sense is that the interest between a solicitor and his client in the CFA can be aligned. But to Mr Murali Pillai's point about a potential conflict arising because of a direct financial interest in the outcome of the litigation, Mr Murali Pillai also asked whether the lawyer may advise on a settlement instead of litigation in order to settle the matter earlier and receive payment. This is notwithstanding that the client will receive a lower amount than what he may reasonably expect if the matter proceeds to litigation.
Mr Raj Joshua Thomas also highlighted a similar scenario. He used the phrase \"under-settling\". If parties have an agreement and you choose to decide that there will be a payment based on a settlement, then, obviously, if you define the terms of the settlement not below a certain amount, or at least containing these terms, that will protect the client's interest, to ensure that there is no under-settling in this case; not just any settlement, but a settlement that comports with the client's interest in the outcome.
Under a CFA, the standard expected of a lawyer in advising how a case should be conducted or proceeded on remains the same as that of a normal fee agreement. So, what I said earlier in my opening speech about the relevance of the legal professional (PCR) rules, they continue to apply.
Among others, Rule 17 of the PCR requires lawyers to explain a proposal of settlement clearly and properly to the client; or any other offer or position taken by another party, which affects the client. At the same time, the lawyer must also evaluate, together with the client, whether any consequence of a matter justifies the expense or the risk to be undertaken. So, if you choose to proceed with the case, there must be an assessment by the lawyer that this would be in the best interest of the client, bearing in mind, obviously, that, in litigation, there are various vicissitudes that you cannot control – points which Mr Raj Joshua Thomas and several other Members highlighted.
If there is a reasonable prospect of the client recovering a higher sum of money in litigation, as compared to settling the matter, such that pursuing litigation would justify the expense of doing so, the lawyer would be obliged to advise his client of the same. These are principles which many of the lawyers who have spoken would be familiar with.
Second, the prospect of increased frivolous litigation and raised litigation costs from CFAs – several Members have touched upon this. We expect that the introduction of CFAs would, on its own, per se, be unlikely to lead to an increase in frivolous litigation. In CFAs, the remuneration of lawyers depends on the successful outcome of the cases. Generally, lawyers are also rational economic actors and they would likely have little commercial reason to support frivolous or weak litigation. The risk of little or no likelihood of monetary return for their efforts would not be commercially justifiable.
Further, as the lawyers may have to fund the litigation until its conclusion, or at least a portion of it, there is likely to be less tendency to pursue all possible avenues at any cost and a greater tendency to be more cost-conscious on the contrary and cost-effective.
At the same time, to assuage Members, the experiences of other jurisdictions also lend support to this. Members might recall that I said earlier that we took a cautious approach. We studied the approach in other jurisdictions and learned from their experiences. For instance, in England and Wales, data suggests that CFAs have not caused an increase in unmeritorious cases. A study on the impact of CFAs in clinical negligence cases over a period of 10 years showed that there has been an increase in cases. But, over a period of 10 years from 2006 to 2017, even in Singapore, we saw an increase in cases. So, it is not because of the CFAs. But what is important is that the proportion of successful claims in this period did not change. In fact, there were more successful claims funded by CFAs.
This underscores the role of the CFAs in enabling the pursuit of meritorious claims. Studies in Australia have also showed that there had not been a significant uptick in unmeritorious suits since the introduction in their jurisdiction of the CFAs. And we believe that Singapore’s experience is not likely to be different. As mentioned in my earlier speech, we will also be implementing rules and safeguards to minimise the abuse of CFAs.
On whether litigation costs will be raised, let me reiterate that existing professional obligations continue to apply, and this includes the rules against overcharging. Even if the CFA provides for the payment of an agreed fees, the PCR prohibits overcharging – a point I made earlier – even in a context of today's rules on agreed fee without the uplift.
If the lawyer cannot in good faith charge the fee, taking into account factors, such as the nature of the work done or legal work concerned and the time necessary to undertake the legal work – points which Mr Murali Pillai made – then, these are factors which will be taken into account by the Court when assessing the veracity of the agreed fee.
We believe that legal costs will continue to be moderated and also adjusted by the market itself. If a client finds that a lawyer’s fees are too high, they are free to engage another lawyer who may offer a different range of fees and different uplift formula. Lawyers are also free to adjust their fee arrangements to better place themselves in competition. And Mr Raj Joshua Thomas had himself alluded to this, in urging for lawyers to be allowed to negotiate terms appropriate to the complexion of the particular case concerned.
Mr Murali Pillai asked what would constitute a fair amount for lawyers to charge as an uplift, so that this will not be viewed as a case of overcharging. I think I covered this in my initial remarks. And I think what we want to do is to say that we do not proscribe how parties may choose to structure the fee arrangement, their CFAs, but at the same time, have oversight by reasons set out in the framework, with requirements that they must fulfil, including the \"cooling off\" period, including the fact that it must be in writing, and also ensuring that parties do not agree a fee that is based on a proportion of the returns from damages or otherwise, in the case itself, which would then has no co-relation to the effort by lawyers.
But save for that, I think as Mr Pillai says, look at the reasonableness in the context of each case. I would say that the mere fact that there is an uplift is not a reason for setting aside the agreement. That is the whole raison d'etre behind the CFA.
I would add a further point that when you have limits on uplift fees in other jurisdictions, they are typically legislated because the fee arrangement in those jurisdictions extend to access to justice type of litigants. They help access to justice indigent litigants to access the courts. And in those cases, you will more likely find a cap on the amount to which you can uplift.
In this case, at least at the start of our framework, we do not apply the framework to those types of cases and those types of litigants. And so, in our case here, we do not need to put a limit on the fee arrangements and the uplift amounts. But as I mentioned earlier, if we extend our framework into other types of cases, this will be a fresh consideration that we will review at the appropriate time.
Mr Zhulkarnain asked about other protection mechanisms for litigants and what safeguards are available for a litigant who had entered into a CFA with a lawyer and thereafter changes lawyers; or whose lawyer decides to withdraw from the case.
My first response really is to ensure that, as you prepare the CFA, structure the terms which will cater for these eventualities. Sometimes, parties change lawyers; sometimes, there might be changes in the way in which the case proceeds. It is best to ensure that, as far as possible, in terms of an agreement, you cater for these scenarios upfront. So, lawyers and their clients should discuss and provide for how and when the CFA may be terminated, and if it is terminated before the conclusion of the case, how would the remuneration structure and what triggering conditions will apply in those cases. And this, I would say, is no different from current traditional fee agreement that is based on either time cost or conclusion of some milestones and so on. So, parties should deal with this as a matter of agreement.
Where a client changes lawyers after a CFA is entered into with the first lawyer, section 115F of the Bill contemplates this scenario and provides for the consequences of such change.
Either party can apply to the Court and the Court will have the same power to enforce or set aside the agreement as if the change had not occurred, having regard to the relevant terms of the CFA.
With regard to fees payable to the first lawyer, the Court may order the amount due in respect of anything done by the lawyer under the CFA to be assessed. So, there could be a scenario where, before the conclusion of the case, a lawyer is discharged but a substantial amount of work is done. The Court can then make an assessment as to what amount will be appropriate under the assessment, to be paid under the CFA for this lawyer.
The principles are largely similar to existing principles relating to contentious business agreements, as set out in section 115 of the Legal Profession Act.
Where a lawyer withdraws from representing a client under a CFA, existing rules under the PCR will also continue to apply. This includes obligations on the lawyer to take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable harm to the client, such as giving reasonable notice and cooperating with the client's new lawyers. None of these will change with the CFA.
Mr Thomas asked about the importance of guidelines and possibly training for lawyers. I think I had covered that. We will do so and we will ensure that there is sufficient guidance for the market once this is in place.
We will take into account the topics highlighted by Mr Thomas. Some of them will be addressed in subsidiary legislation. Others we can put up guidance together with Law Society, to ensure that lawyers and their clients will be aware of this.
Finally, as I mentioned at the outset, the Bill envisages the possibility of an extension of the framework, a point that I had also covered. But specifically, Mr Louis Ng asked how the framework will be flexible in catering to different categories of disputes. I think Mr Pillai asked how and what are the considerations we have as we consider the extensions of this framework to other types of cases.
Sir, the overarching CFA framework has been designed with the flexibility to enable the framework to be expanded incrementally, step-by-step, after we study and we take into account views by stakeholders.
The main tenets of the CFA framework will be set out and had been set out in the Bill, supplemented by safeguards to be prescribed under subsidiary legislation. The categories of proceedings permitted by the CFA framework will also be set out in the subsidiary legislation. And we took this approach as we anticipated that the profile of litigants would be different for different categories of proceedings and different types of cases. And hence, differentiated and targeted safeguards will be required. There will be flexibility to appropriately adjust the safeguards, as we continue to monitor and refine the framework.
To Mr Murali Pillai's point about the principal considerations, and whether the same level of public consultation will be undertaken, the answer is yes, there will be. The difference in terms of where we are now today on the current framework and where we may expand it to, for lawyers, obviously, when you deal with and compete on the international fora with other foreign lawyers, we want to put our lawyers on the same footing. That may not apply in the context of domestic proceedings.
For domestic proceedings, the main consideration now would be whether we can allow this so that there will be an enhancement to access to justice. Those are the principal considerations. There may be more as we consult but these are the driving considerations. And we will consult with key stakeholders as we look at the landscape and determine whether it would be appropriate to extend this framework to also other types of cases, to promote access to justice. In doing so, we will study also the profile of the likely litigants who will avail themselves of any such expansion and determine in those cases whether some additional form of protection might be necessary for the framework. And if so, we will also prescribe them.
Finally, let me address Mr Thomas' observations on After-the-Event Insurance and its correlation to CFAs, particularly in other jurisdictions. Let me thank Mr Thomas for his views and interest on the subject.
My Ministry is aware of the developments outlined by Mr Thomas and we will review these developments as part of a holistic study of the litigation funding landscape. I would add that After-the-Event insurance is not peculiar and not relevant only to CFAs. They are relevant across the board and generally, supplement and support the litigation funding landscape. So, we will study the After-the-Event insurance in that context and look at whether or not any moves need to be made on that front.
Sir, I believe I have covered all the queries raised by Members, both general as well as specific. My Ministry, as I have said, will continue to review the reforms proposed in this Bill for future expansion and what other safeguards will be necessary. But we believe that the introduction of a CFA framework in this form has the potential to bring multi-faceted benefits. It provides a further avenue for litigants to pursue meritorious claims and levels the playing field for our lawyers, particularly on the international setting.
It will also signal Singapore's progressiveness and our responsiveness to the needs and realities of the industry and further enhance Singapore's status as a premier, first-class dispute resolution hub. We will, at the same time, continue to monitor the impact of the various reforms, keeping our finger on the pulse of developments and lessons learnt in other jurisdictions and apply them contextually to Singapore.
I assure Members that we will continue to stay responsive and engage in active dialogue amongst all stakeholders as we study the progress of our initial framework and look at the extent to which this might be extended to our proceedings. Sir, with that, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Any clarifications?
[(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 Edwin Tong Chun Fai]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)]
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Clause 1 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clause 2 – (proc text)]
The Chairman: Clause 2. Minister for Law.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Speaker, I beg to move the amendment* standing in the name of the Minister for Law, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. I had earlier in my speech explained the reasons and the rational for making this amendment.
[(proc text) *The amendment reads as follows: (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"In page 2, line 13: after \"relevant appeal\", to insert \", or any proceedings that are preliminary to any relevant proceedings or relevant appeal,\" (proc text)]
[(proc text) Amendment agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clauses 3 to 7 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill reported with 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":"Towards a Low-carbon Society","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Sustainability and the Environment, I beg to move*, \"That this House calls on the Government to enhance green financing, create more green jobs and strengthen corporate accountability, in partnership with the private sector, civil society and community, to advance Singapore's inclusive transition towards a low-carbon society.\"
[(proc text) *The Motion also stood in the name of Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin, Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang, Ms Hany Soh and Mr Don Wee. (proc text)]
This Motion builds on an earlier one which the GPC moved a year ago, on measures to accelerate efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change. The House had a wide-ranging discussion on climate issues, viable policy changes and proposals and the trade-offs for our economy and jobs, among other concerns.
Since that debate, the Government had released the Singapore Green Plan 2030, launched new initiatives by the Green Finance Industry Taskforce (GFIT) and completed a study on establishing Singapore as a carbon services hub. Last month, in the inaugural Skills Demand for the Future Economy report, SkillsFuture Singapore identified job roles requiring green skills and curated the corresponding training courses.
Despite the enormous strain on our national resources to battle the COVID-19 pandemic, our Ministries and Government agencies have been pressing ahead to make the transition to a low-carbon society a reality. And I wish to take this opportunity to express our appreciation to the Ministries and agencies for their hard work during this very difficult period.
I am heartened by my fellow Members' support for mitigation measures and their commitment to sustainability. The green sector is developing rapidly in response to the climate emergency. Indeed, there are many new and exciting opportunities in the green economy, particularly in green financing and many new job roles in the sustainability sector.
On the other hand, the GPC is also concerned about the lack of standardisation in accounting standards and the problem of greenwashing. Hence, we are appealing for the firm hand of the Government to strengthen corporate accountability.
And central to our transition to a green economy, our priority is to ensure Singaporeans are not left behind as the world progresses towards a sustainable future and economy. We need to create fulfilling opportunities in a region with a growing sustainability sector and equip Singaporeans with the relevant skillsets and experience. We need to help our businesses get ahead of the curve in sustainability.
For today's debate, I would like to share some general observations on Singapore's green efforts and my views on green jobs. My fellow colleagues in the Sustainability and Environment Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) will also share their concerns and recommendations in the three areas of green financing, green jobs and corporate accountability. Ms Hany Soh will join me in speaking about jobs in the green economy. Mr Don Wee and Mr Gan Thiam Poh will share their views on green finance and carbon trading. Ms Nadia Samdin will address the issues of green finance and challenges in Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) auditing. Finally, Mr Louis Ng, will share his views on the carbon tax and the carbon net zero goal.
In addition, several members of the GPC for Trade and Industry will also be joining this debate. They will share the green aspirations, as well as the concerns from the business community. They will discuss how Singaporeans can seize opportunities in this new pillar of growth, the trade-offs between environment sustainability and economic sustainability, as well as the importance of upgrading skills and transforming jobs for inclusive transition to the green economy. Environmental scientist, Nominated Member of Parliament Prof Koh Lian Pin will also be speaking about the importance of carbon offsets.
Last Friday, the Young PAP (YP), published its second paper on climate change, entitled \"Developing a Green Ecosystem\". Many of us share deep concerns for our environment and for Singapore’s future. We hope to have the support of the whole House on this critical topic.
Before we all dive into today's debate, let us recap some facts to better appreciate the scale of this climate crisis. Let us reflect and take stock of the measures that have already been implemented, to set the context for a productive discourse.
Firstly, Singapore contributes about 0.1% of global emissions. Therefore, it may appear that any impact from reducing our carbon emissions is correspondingly limited. Notwithstanding, fighting climate change is a global effort and we should all continue to do our utmost to reduce our carbon footprint, as a nation, as organisations and as individuals.
The question here is whether we can make a bigger impact in the global community. How can we contribute more to the global efforts to reduce carbon emissions? And the answer lies in our role as an enabler, intermediary and facilitator. We can build on our existing infrastructure as a global financial hub, to serve the region as a green finance hub and carbon trading centre.
As a green finance hub, we will be able to bridge international capital with green solutions and innovations from different parts of the world, facilitating efforts to reduce carbon emissions far beyond our shores and in magnitudes way beyond our own. This is how we can punch above our weight and continue to contribute much more significantly to global carbon emissions reduction efforts.
Secondly, our two main greenhouse gas (GHG) contributors are from the industry and power generation, at 46.7% and 38.9% respectively. Manufacturing contributes 21% to our GDP, the largest sector by share and employs almost half a million workers. We are also the world's fourth largest global exporter of high-tech goods, producing five of the world's top ten drugs. Despite our size, Singapore is actually one of the world's leading energy hub and chemicals hub.
To cut industry emissions, the Government and the private sector will need to work together to help industries transition into the green economy, with customised solutions to address specific industry needs. For instance, Jurong Island oil hub will be transformed into an energy and chemicals park that operates sustainably.
Green technology will be vital in the transition to manufacture more sustainable products that are also produced with better energy efficiency. Green finance will be essential to fund these new technologies and businesses. With these new economic activities, there will be creation of new green jobs.
However, going green will impose additional costs to businesses. To sustain this green journey for the long haul, we need to strike a fine balance between environmental sustainability and economic sustainability. Different types of businesses will need different timeframes to transit and transform. Some businesses will need more time to deal with stranded assets as a result of the green transition. We need viable and progressive transition timeframes for businesses. Otherwise, if we set too onerous targets, certain industry players may actually relocate to other jurisdictions. Instead of creating more green jobs in these businesses, we may inadvertently shift existing jobs along with their carbon emissions to somewhere else.
We must also be mindful that for reasons of national strategic interests, we may need to continue certain critical activities which generate a substantial carbon footprint. One example is desalination which is rather energy-intensive. Unfortunately, we may have to make some painful trade-offs and sacrifices in order to meet our national carbon emissions commitment.
Thirdly, more than 95% of our power generation is from natural gas, which is still a form of fossil fuel. The reality is that Singapore faces severe constraints on the production of renewable energy. We have neither hydropower nor geothermal energy. Our wind speeds are not fast enough for wind turbines. We do not even have enough space to mount more solar panels. Even as we step up the installation of solar panels on rooftops and over water reservoirs, the solar energy we make will only meet about 3% of our total electricity demand in 2030.
In contrast, our neighbouring countries have abundant renewable energy resources. The Government is already working to import renewable energy from Malaysia, Indonesia and, further afield, Australia. If all goes well, we will get around 30% of our electricity from low-carbon sources by 2035. Indonesia, for example, will be a very valuable collaborative partner. It has already committed to making sustainable development a key focus.
Presently, renewables still comprise a small part of its energy sources at 11% and there is much room for its geothermal, hydropower, solar, wind, biofuel and biogas energy supplies to grow. It has set for itself the goal of almost doubling renewables in its energy composition to reach 23%.
Similarly, Malaysia plans to increase the share of renewable energy in its installed capacity to 31% in 2025 and 40% in 2035 under its power generation plan. Renewables now contribute 18% to Malaysia's energy mix, with hydropower accounting for 86% of its renewable capacity.
The Philippines has abundant clean and renewable energy sources, such as geothermal, hydro, wind and solar. Its National Renewable Energy Program (NREP) 2020-2040 has set a target of 35% share of renewable energy in the power generation mix by 2030 and 50% share by 2040.
There is much scope for our ASEAN neighbours to work together, pooling financing and engineering expertise to mitigate climate change. With our complementary strengths, we can work together to achieve our carbon commitments.
A few months ago, at the United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP26, consensus was finally reached on the set up of the international carbon market. The resolution of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement was critical. Countries will be allowed to trade emissions reductions as well as assist other nations in reducing emissions without trading. Private enterprises can invest in projects to sell green energy credits.
The resolution of Article 6 is extremely important to Singapore. This gives us a way out of our severe constraints in alternative energy. It means that we can use the international carbon trading framework as agreed at COP26, to purchase and offset our emissions, and tap into renewable energy positive resources in our neighbouring countries to meet our global carbon commitment. This will be a win-win strategy for alternative energy negative countries like Singapore and for developing countries requiring funds for renewable energy projects and for environment conservation.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I will deliver the next segment in Malay language.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] At the recent United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP26, countries agreed that trading emissions reductions and providing assistance to other nations to reduce emissions, can count towards their carbon reduction pledges.
This framework will provide us with valuable opportunities to collaborate with our neighbouring countries to work on emissions reduction and building infrastructure for renewable energy. In doing so, Singapore will be able to fulfil our climate change obligations and help this region reduce its carbon emissions.
For these projects, very importantly, we need Singaporeans with the specific deep cultural and linguistic understanding of our regional partners to ensure the success and longevity of our transnational collaborations.
Hence, our national representatives working at every segment and level – project management, engineering, human resources, legal, and more – need to have the language skills and contextual understanding of how things are done in our neighbouring countries. Many new jobs will be created, not just high-tech green jobs, but also green collar jobs. So, there will be a strong demand for those who are willing to pick up the necessary skills for these positions.
(In English): I will now talk about green jobs and equipping Singaporeans to take advantage of opportunities in the sustainability sector. As we make the transition to a low-carbon society, almost all sectors will be affected and new green jobs will be created in finance, trading, technology and innovation, legal, engineering, governance, education and more.
The inaugural Skills Demand for the Future Economy report has identified more than 450 green job roles across 17 sectors, ranging from manufacturing and trade and connectivity, to financial services and the built environment.
Our education system will need to prepare and train Singaporeans and residents of all ages willing to learn in these areas. It is challenging, in this fast-evolving landscape, to draw up new and updated syllabuses, recruit and prepare the trainers and roll out high quality courses in a timely manner to meet industry needs.
Major updates and changes to course modules at our ITEs, Polytechnics, and Institutes of Higher Learning will be required. Green activities and projects should be integrated into all disciplines. Institutions can consider integrating modules that expose and equip students from different disciplines with skills sets relevant in the sustainability sectors. Arrangements for internships and apprenticeships in these sectors will have to be made, and these would require the support of both MOE and MTI.
The YP paper has proposed a Green Space Academy to groom local experts in research and development and technical experts, to sustain a pipeline of well-trained and specialised talents. This academy will take time to develop. In the short- to medium-term, the fastest way to roll out the training courses is to piggyback on our current education institutions. Modular courses will allow students of all ages to enrol and accumulate credits towards certification. This is flexible and inclusive, especially for workers looking to switch to careers to join the green economy.
We should consider borrowing from the German model, which is also being adopted by the Chinese government. Young Germans split their time between classrooms at a vocational school and on-the-job training at a company as apprentices. The participation by German companies is high – about 80% of Germany’s large enterprises. In October last year, China’s State Council issued a new guideline to have a similar arrangement to build a world-class vocational education system by 2035. For Singapore, we can implement a similar system, by creating very tight and dynamic relationships between education and training institutions, research and industry stakeholders.
We should also watch out for the workers, especially the older workers, who risk unemployment if they are unable to adapt to new positions or pick up new skills during the green transition. Many green positions, even green collar ones, may require IT skills which may be more challenging for our senior workers with lower levels of education. So, I urge Enterprise Singapore and SkillsFuture Singapore to work closely with the labour unions to equip senior workers with relevant skill sets for the green jobs, so as to minimise job displacements as companies transit into the green economy. Mr Speaker, I would like to address the next segment in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Motion calls for an inclusive transition to a low-carbon society and this must naturally include our SMEs – the backbone of our economy.
The Government launched the Enterprise Sustainability Programme (ESP) to support Singapore businesses on sustainability initiatives, and to capture new opportunities in the green economy. The S$180 million set aside for the programme aims to support at least 6,000 companies for training workshops, capability and product development projects, and key enablers such as certification and financing. My concern is whether this amount will be enough and whether our SMEs will be guided as to how to apply for and utilise this programme.
It was announced that the support will come on three levels - developing enterprises' capabilities in sustainability, strengthening sector-specific capabilities, and fostering a vibrant and conducive sustainability ecosystem. Many SMEs are struggling with day-to-day operations and trying to stay afloat. How will they know how ESP will be relevant to them? The Sustainability Experience Centre for SMEs sited at Nanyang Polytechnic is a good example of measures to reach out to SMEs and guide them with the green transformation of their operations. I hope more of such initiatives can be implemented.
I would also like to request that Government agencies be more open and allow SMEs to try out innovative solutions that can help reduce carbon emissions. For example, a network of shared and swappable batteries for electric bikes distributed across the island can be a convenient and efficient option vis-à-vis EV chargers solution. Such swappable batteries solutions such as Gogoro are already implemented in Taiwan and Israel and will be rolled out in Chinese and Indian cities this year. Such innovative and green solutions can help companies with a big fleet of motorbikes and self-employed delivery riders go green, without massive investments in motorbike charging infrastructure by the Government. We ought to be responsive and learn from the best green practices in other cities similar to Singapore.
Sir, in our journey to go green, we should be open and willing to give new solutions a chance. After all, acceptance of different ways to solving problems is necessary for innovation, which will drive our tech and development sector.
(in English): Mr Speaker, Sir, the transition to the Green Economy is like a fast-paced mass marathon. On one hand, we are racing against time to mitigate this climate emergency. On the other, we also need to sustain this transition over the long term. Most importantly, we must work together as a closely coordinated team, comprising the Government, civil society groups and the community, to develop a low-carbon and green ecosystem.
We hope to have the support of this House and Singaporeans to press ahead on this green journey together, to build a better Singapore for our future generations. Mr Speaker Sir, I beg to move. [Applause.]
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, it is too hot and too wet! If you recall, this was what I said one year ago, when this House came together to declare climate change a global emergency. Yet, somehow, the world has become even hotter and even wetter. July 2021 was the world’s hottest month. Regions, from sunny California to snowy Siberia, faced their largest wildfires in history. The Arctic hit a record high of 38 degree Celsius. Catastrophic floods struck India, Europe, Malaysia, Australia and China. In China’s Henan province, a year’s worth of rain fell in a single day.
And it is not just heat and rain either. Extreme winter weather left nearly 10 million people in the US without power and water. It killed 318 people and caused nearly US$200 billion of damage, making it the deadliest and costliest natural disaster in US history.
The science is clear: climate change will increasingly usher in extreme weather and throw lives and livelihoods into disarray. As an open country, Singapore will undoubtedly be hit hard. This is a grim picture, and we are running out of time.
This is why my fellow GPC Members and I have returned to this House just one year later to call again for the Government to take further steps to tackle climate change, to sharply reduce Singapore’s carbon emissions and urgently move towards an inclusive low-carbon society. We are not alone in this fight.
As the climate crisis worsens, the people of Singapore have taken up the fight in their personal and professional lives. I shared the stories of some of these inspiring individuals in this House last year, including Esther, Lastrina, Xiang Tian and Wei Shan. I am happy today to share more about what they have done to further the fight against climate change, and I am happy they are up in the gallery, joining us in Parliament for this important debate.
Let me start with an update on Esther, the Chief Sustainability Officer of City Developments Limited. Last year, I shared how it really is not common to see a business leader advocate about climate change like she does and how despite all her time working with titans of the industry, her inspiration comes from youths. She continues to walk the talk. This past year, she attended COP26 in Glasgow as a private sector representative with our activists. At COP26, Esther proudly flew Singapore’s flag and spoke at the Built Environment Leaders Panel, a main stage event.
But it is not just at COP26 where Singapore’s activists and businesspeople stand together. Back home, Esther led CDL’s partnership with young activists from the Singapore Youth for Climate Action, or SYCA. Together, CDL and SYCA launched a campaign called \"Keep Calm and Love Our Planet\". Climate change can feel too big, too difficult a problem for the youths of the world. The campaign aims to dispel the sense of paralysis and instead motivate youths to take action against climate change. If you have not spoken to Esther before, I strongly encourage you to do so. She is a breath of fresh air, overloaded with enthusiasm and passionate about working together with our youths to save this planet we call home.
And this brings me to the young leaders at SYCA – Lastrina, Cheryl, and Swati, who Esther works closely with. Last year, I shared how Lastrina co-founded SYCA in 2015 to shine a light on what young people can do for the environment. Her message is one of empowerment. I am happy to share that SYCA celebrated their sixth birthday in November last year. With this milestone, other leaders have stepped up. Lastrina has empowered and inspired many others and this movement has grown.
Two of the leaders at SYCA are Cheryl and Swati. Passionate about fighting climate change, they attended COP26 as youth representatives. But their journey to COP26 was full of challenges, involving complicated logistics and fund-raising. Yet, their go-getter attitude exemplifies exactly what we want to see from our youths today. They shared with me that, to quote: \"We are cautiously hopeful because we are see changing mindsets and positive actions all around us. We have seen our peers push for change and encourage positive impact through conscious food choices, recycling and sustainable energy use. There are students, entrepreneurs, teachers, artists and individuals in various professions among us who work tirelessly to achieve this. They inspire us to keep going and empower other individuals who have this shared vision of this world.\"
Last year, I also shared the story of Xiang Tian, a young man who leads LepakInSG, a youth initiative that circulates environmental events to motivate others to get involved. One year on, Xiang Tian remains optimistic about what we can achieve through collective action. He told me: \"One thing that makes me hopeful is the increasing number of people who are learning more about the climate crisis and other environmental issues and taking actions to push for change.\"
In the past year, LepakInSG has been active on social media, explaining the important environmental impact studies and baseline studies we have done. Importantly, Xiang Tian is still doing this infamously in his slippers, although I am aware he is finally not wearing his slippers today. He sacrificed them to be able to enter Parliament.
Sir, Xiang Tian's work makes these complex but important topics more accessible to the public and makes it easier for the public to get involved, such as in consultations on land use and development plans. Xiang Tian tells me that LepakInSG has exciting plans coming up to facilitate discussions between green groups in Singapore. I cannot wait.
We are also very fortunate that at the PAP Youth Wing, we also have young activists working tirelessly on climate change issues. Wei-Shan is one such activist, leading a team of volunteers who are passionate about making a serious difference. We have been on many late-night calls with the YP team led by Wei-Shan. Last year I talked about the familiar sight of her two young children on our many Zoom calls. Like my daughters, they remain a regular and welcomed presence on our calls over the past year. Welcomed in most cases, except when my daughter Katie appeared completely naked when I was on a Zoom call listening to the Prime Minister’s National Day Rally live. I was horrified and I sure hope that no one, including the Prime Minister, saw.
Sir, Esther, Lastrina, Cheryl, Swati, Xiang Tian and Wei-Shan inspired us. Along them are countless other activists and citizens who have fought so hard against climate change in their own ways. Their call for action is loud and clear. I hope we can heed their call. In this spirit, I come to this House with three proposals: first, we should commit to achieving net zero emissions by 2050; second, we should increase the carbon tax to a price necessary to achieve net zero emissions by 2050; and third, we should expand coverage of the carbon tax to include all reportable facilities.
Let me start with my first ask. The Government should commit to achieving net zero emissions by 2050. I have pushed for this many times in this House now. Sir, 2050 is not just a random year. It is based on science; global emissions must be net zero by 2050 if we want to have any hope of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Singapore’s current commitment is to reach net zero as soon as possible after 2050. This runs not just against what science say is needed, it runs against what many other countries are doing. Already, 136 countries have set concrete target years for carbon neutrality. This is 70% of all the countries. It includes nearly every developed nation in the world. Last year, the US, Australia and Israel also committed to reach net zero by 2050. What is stopping us?
I understand that the Government may want to focus on actions, not targets. And I do thank the Government for taking the right actions: releasing the Green Plan and for sharing how it will transform Jurong Island into a sustainable chemical and energy hub. But actions are motivated by targets. It will be harder to get to net zero by 2050 if we are not actually intending for that to happen.
In addition, setting a target in line with scientific and international standards set a strong message to Singaporeans. This would help the Government achieve what it says is needed: a whole-of-nation approach to climate change.
Last October, Minister Grace Fu said, “We will continually review and enhance our climate targets.” I thank the Government for its openness to revising its targets. Given the increasing severity of the climate crisis and the potential for sparking a whole-of-nation response, will the Government commit to reaching net zero emissions by 2050?
My second proposal today is that we increase the carbon tax significantly. There is no question that the carbon tax is the most powerful tool we have to slash emissions. Everything else – from green jobs to green financing that we are debating is important, very important. But the carbon tax has the highest potential to reshape incentives and motivate action. But our current rate is $5 per tonne. Finance Minister Lawrence Wong said last October that this is too low. I agree with him.
How high should it be to sufficiently slash emissions? One range from the High Commission on Carbon Prices, which is supported by the World Bank, proposed that US$50 to US$100 is needed by 2030. The IMF similarly recommends a rate of U$100 by 2030. Even higher prices have been suggested by LSE’s Grantham Institute, which proposes US$145 and the OECD, which provides a central estimate of U$147
My ask is that we look at the studies that have been done by these institutions and the principles for how they arrived at these prices. I hope we can adopt the principles and approaches to derive a price that Singapore needs to reach net zero emissions by 2050. An increase in the carbon tax will also mean an increase in tax revenue. I hope the Government will use this to help subsidise decarbonisation projects in the private sectors as well as limit the impact on lower-income Singaporeans by issuing more U-Save rebates or vouchers under the Climate Friendly Households Programme. Let us make this transition an inclusive one.
My third and final ask is that we expand the coverage of the carbon tax. Currently, carbon tax applies only to facilities emitting at least 25 kilotonnes of CO2-equivalent in a year. This covers around 50 facilities that contribute about 80% of our total carbon emissions.
We should be aiming for a higher coverage. I understand that the Government set a high threshold to limit compliance costs by smaller emitters. But smaller emitters, those emitting at least two kilotonnes of CO2equivalent, are already “reportable facilities” and have to pay the costs of monitoring and measuring their emissions.
Given that any additional compliance costs would likely be minimal, it would make sense for the carbon tax to cover all reportable facilities. This would, after all, be in the spirit of a whole-of-nation fight against climate change. Emitters, small and large, have a role to play.
In conclusion, let me summarise my proposals: first, the Government should pledge to achieve net zero emissions by 2050; second, it should increase the carbon tax rate significantly; and third, it should expand coverage of the carbon tax to include all reportable facilities.
The fight against climate change must involve decisive action. On the matters of net zero targets and carbon taxes, we need to move much faster. I thank the Ministries and agencies for their hard work so far in helping Singapore play its part in the global fight against an existential crisis.
Sir, during last year's climate change Motion, I spoke extensively about how Captain Planet, that children's cartoon, motivated me to care more for the environment. Through that sharing, I learnt that many people did not know who on earth Captain Planet is and that I really am getting old. But I am glad many went to find out about Captain Planet and the important message of protecting our planet.
Sir, let me end with a quote from Gaia, the spirit of Earth in Captain Planet, and I quote, \"The feeling that one person can't make a difference is the greatest obstacle of all.\" Small as Singapore may be, I hope we can all believe in her ability to make a difference in the global fight against climate change.
Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to declare that I am working with a Singapore bank, but I am not involved in the issuance of green bonds nor green equities. I am also a council member of the Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants (ISCA) on a pro bono basis.
Every region of the world has been hit by extreme weather events that are growing more frequent and more powerful. Our neighbouring countries have been impacted as well. These occurrences are the result of climate change from cumulative human-induced factors. And some of these changes – like the continuing rise in sea levels – are irreversible. Left unchecked, the interconnected crises of climate, pollution and biodiversity loss will rapidly erode the very foundations of our existence.
Since human activities have resulted in these changes, human activities can also slow down, halt or even, if we may dare hope, recede them. By reducing activities with heavy carbon emissions and through investments in green projects, we can strive to make changes for the better.
Green financing is an important enabler to catalyse the evolvement of our region's green economy. As one of the key financial centres in the world, Singapore has a strong responsibility to communities most vulnerable and existentially threatened by climate change.
Singapore can catalyse the flow of capital towards sustainable development in the region. We should continue to take the lead in mobilising climate finance from a wide variety of sources, instruments and channels, including instruments to unlock the huge potential of private finance through the targeted use of public climate finance.
Our financial services industry, which includes banks, insurers and asset management firms, can play a useful role in promoting sustainable and green finance in Asia, if not the world. Green finance, as one of the key programmes of the Singapore Green Plan 2030, can boost sustainability efforts in Singapore companies and compel companies to consider green projects more seriously.
MAS adopts an active approach in promoting sustainable financing in our financial services sector, including engaging financial institutions to consider environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) criteria in decision making processes, supporting the adoption of industry standards and guidelines, encouraging industry-led capacity-building efforts and developing the green bond market in Singapore.
The Government can lead the way to promote sustainable financing by mandating its statutory boards, like MAS, LTA, HDB and NEA, to issue green bonds and laying the framework and rules for green financing. This is on top of the S$19 billion worth of selected public infrastructure projects identified to be financed by green bonds.
I hope our government can commit to a minimum number of green bond issuances every year, including a standalone retail green bond product which can be tied to the country's sovereign rating, so as to broaden the pool of Singaporean green investors. We should also tap into the growing investor demand across the globe for green financing products and projects with clearly defined environmental benefits.
The Government may consider reporting on the social benefits of expenditures financed by green bonds financing, such as job creation, access to affordable infrastructure and socio-economic advancement.
We can build on MAS’ Greenprint initiative and formulate a Singapore Green Financing framework which sets out the Government’s environmental agenda and its vision for enhancing Singapore’s leadership as the Asia’s green financial centre. The framework should detail how the proceeds from the green bonds will finance expenditures to help tackle climate change, biodiversity loss and other environmental challenges, while creating green jobs in Singapore. The sectors where we can make a difference include clean transportation, renewable energy, energy efficiency, pollution prevention and control, living and natural resources and climate change adaptation.
The Government should also perform annual allocation reporting and periodic reporting of metrics on environmental impacts and social benefits and ensure transparency for retail and institutional investors and other interested stakeholders.
Singapore is elevating the standards of emissions monitoring and reporting in Southeast Asia so as to help the large emitters in the region to curb their carbon footprint and increase their access to green financing schemes.
Singapore can take the lead to devise ASEAN’s version of the Action Plan on Financing Sustainable Growth and follow-up with a Strategy for Financing the Transition to a Sustainable Economy. Other areas we should look into include an ASEAN taxonomy for environmentally sustainable economic activities, sustainability-related disclosures for issuers and for financial market participants, the ASIAN green bond standard and corporate sustainability reporting which may also include carbon tax accounting especially when carbon tax is likely to rise in the near future.
To create a sustainable future for Singapore, we need all hands on deck. Every sector, business and individual need to play their part. In promoting the adoption of sustainable business practices and reporting, the trade associations and chambers, or TACs in short, can play a key role as enablers and strategic partners of the Government. TACs or professional bodies can partner the Government to support the sustainability agenda by providing resources to drive adoption of sustainability reporting and green finance.
Sustainability reporting is an emerging area, and companies will need references to guide them in their disclosures. With the introduction of the Singapore Exchange Regulation’s roadmap for mandatory climate-related disclosures, ISCA is also developing a series of guides to share best practices and guidance publications on green and sustainable finance. These publications include a roadmap to guide professional accountants on obtaining green and sustainable finance for their organisations if they assess that such financing fits into their corporate business strategy, and a best practice guidance on how businesses can disclose their green finance policies and initiatives. With such assessment, this will allow companies to better approach banks for the financing of their sustainability projects. It leads to a virtuous cycle of sustainability.
This is just one example of how a TAC can contribute to the sustainability agenda. Sustainability issues are inter-connected and multifaceted. I urge the TACs to collaborate and work together to impact all sectors of society as we progress in the Singapore Green Plan 2030.
To support Singapore's move towards a green economy, there is a need to equip the workforce with the skills and knowledge to participate in the sustainability sector. Citing the accountancy profession as an example, being stewards of capital and corporate reporting, accountants play a crucial role in accelerating business practices in sustainability. Therefore, increased participation by the accounting and business fraternities is key in Singapore’s bid to become a leading centre for green and sustainable finance in Asia and globally. Climate-related risk management is also an important skill to possess.
Accountants must be equipped to prepare sustainability reporting as more stakeholders and investors adopt environmental, social and financial performance metrics. Likewise, auditors need to get themselves ready to verify such information. Both accountants and auditors must step up to meet the market demands for sustainability reporting and the assurance of sustainability reporting. Beyond collecting, analysing and reporting sustainability-related information, accountants and auditors can be strategic advisors to help embed sustainability into a company’s strategy, decision making and reporting processes.
There is therefore a need for accountancy professionals to upskill so that they can fully inhabit their role in driving sustainability and meeting the rising expectations of businesses, economies and societies in this area. To engage the accountancy professionals, this is where we can involve professional bodies like ISCA. ISCA is the national accountancy body which has more than 33,000 professional accountants as its members. I understand ISCA has developed a sustainability reporting strategy which aims to raise the capabilities of the accountancy profession in driving sustainability. As part of its sustainability reporting strategy, ISCA will focus its efforts on capabilities development and career opportunities for the accountancy profession in Singapore. Given that sustainability is a new growth area and to equip Singapore Chartered Accountants with the necessary skill sets to flourish in this area, ISCA will be rolling out courses and certification programmes. This will include sustainability reporting and external assurance on sustainability reporting.
In development of such upskilling programmes, there will be significant content development involved. And to encourage more professional accountants to upskill and perform higher value roles, training grants can be made available to encourage employers to send their staff for training.
In this area, Government agencies such as Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority, Singapore Accountancy Commission and SkillsFuture can provide funding and grants to ease development costs and offset training expenses. This will greatly enhance the career prospects of accountants and contribute to Singapore becoming a sustainability accounting hub in Asia.
The Singapore Green Plan 2030 is expected to bring new career opportunities and economic growth. This has created vast job opportunities and new roles for Singaporeans, especially the accountancy and finance professionals.
To encourage accountants and aspiring accountants to take up sustainability-related roles, there can be greater efforts to raise awareness of the diverse roles in this aspect and to brand sustainability jobs as attractive career choices. For instance, ISCA also shared with me that they plan to profile their members who have taken on sustainability-related roles to showcase the emerging demand for such talents. They will also connect employers in need of sustainability-related talent with their members who wish to embark on this track.
Sir, the steps we need to take to transition to a green, low-carbon society may seem overwhelming as there are so many problems we need to solve along the way, but these challenges also present enormous opportunities and chances to make breakthroughs. I call upon all Singaporeans to work with us as we progress towards a greener, more sustainable future.
Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] We do not want Singaporeans to be left behind as the world progresses towards a sustainable future and economy. We also realised that the Government needs to provide some help to local our businesses because this is a relatively new area, and the size of the start-up fund is not small. We hope to create fulfilling opportunities for Singaporean of all backgrounds in this new sector. Singaporeans should be brave and stand at the forefront, seizing these opportunities presented to them.
(In English): I support the Motion. Thank you.
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Member Ms Poh Li San and the Members for tabling this Motion to debate on our actions towards a low-carbon society. I would also like to thank the activists from the Young PAP for their detailed and passionate proposal to mitigate climate change.
Sir, the Motion statement has thoughtfully captured the key thrust of efforts to transit towards a low-carbon society, focusing on creating green jobs, corporate accountability, partnership with the stakeholders and importantly, that this transition must be an inclusive one.
We are all aligned in recognising the severity of the climate change threat that is upon us and are mindful of the urgency of actions. Doing nothing or status quo is not an option.
As a responsible global citizen, we take our climate change commitments very seriously. But we also know that transiting to a low-carbon society is a mammoth undertaking, especially for a small, alternative energy-disadvantaged country with resource constraints like Singapore.
While we hope to get to the promised land in double-quick time, we have to also ensure that the stakeholders are all able to keep up with the pace, achieve the outcomes we set out to do and importantly, sustain high level of public support throughout this sustainability journey.
There will be pain-points and trade-offs that we will need to be addressed and for us as a nation to make, as a society as well and as individuals.
The obvious immediate concern of many businesses is the transition cost towards more sustainable and low-carbon business practices. This takes place against the backdrop of other worrying global trends, such as supply chain disruptions, protectionism and slower global growth.
As businesses look to lower their carbon footprint to meet the demands of their customers, or business partners or even their bankers, they may also experience higher capital outlay and operating costs, such as the need for mandated sustainability reporting, the requirements to adopt of low-carbon technology, or the use of greener but potentially more expensive raw materials.
Domestically, the source of higher cost pressures could also come from Government regulations, such as energy efficiency requirements and the carbon tax as Singapore strives towards more sustainable growth. Externally, as the world decarbonises, it can also lead to rising energy costs.
In the case of carbon tax, it is estimated that every $5 per tonne of carbon tax could lead to approximately 1% increase in electricity prices for households and businesses in Singapore. Businesses now need to ready for the next round of carbon tax increases, with the likely announcement at next month's Budget Statement by the Finance Minister.
Sir, while increased costs would be a concern, we cannot allow that to be the reason to slow our decarbonisation efforts. The higher near-term business costs may well be the necessary nudge needed for businesses to pivot, and when overcome, can enable these sustainable businesses to reap good returns and capture new and greater market share in the longer-term. Hence, it is pivotal that we closely support our businesses as they overcome the initial steep challenges in their transition journey to low-carbon practices.
Singapore has no domestic hinterland and we compete with the rest of the world to sustain our livelihoods.
In some markets and industries, we may also face competitive comparisons as a place to invest and conduct business, with competing economies who have fewer sustainability requirements or are less strict in their implementation.
The carbon tax is a case in point. We recognise that having carbon tax sends a clear signal that we are serious about decarbonising our industries and to become more energy efficient, and therefore spur the necessary industry transformation.
But on the other hand, the impact to our businesses would be that companies may be disadvantaged when competing with jurisdictions that do not impose such taxes, or provide exemptions for some carbon-intensive export-oriented sectors.
For example, some of these sectors in the EU, China and South Korea do receive free allowances under their emissions trading systems. And closer to home, in South East Asia, there are still economies who compete with us that levy no or lower carbon tax.
The short-term impact on business competitiveness and compressed margins may be inevitable. Businesses would need to rely on or strengthen their other competitive propositions such as quality and reliability to defend or grow their market share. But, in the longer term, sustainable businesses may have a competitive advantage as consumers increasingly demand sustainable products and services.
Sir, I support the imposition of carbon tax and to progressively increase over time to disincentivise the high carbon emission business practices. But we have to pace out the incremental increases so that our industries would not be dislocated and businesses can carry out the transition while staying as a going concern. It is also important for Government to be open about the timeline to increase the carbon tax so as to give businesses time to adjust. Inevitably, there will be businesses that may not be able to break even or cope with the carbon tax increases and may exit. We have to minimise such casualties and help as many businesses as possible to transit.
While the healthy tension by way of carbon tax is necessary to nudge practices, it must be complemented by support measures from the Government.
MSE Minister Grace Fu has indicated in an answer to a recent Parliamentary Question that the Government is prepared to spend more than it collects from carbon taxes on worthwhile projects that reduce carbon emissions. In the same reply, the Minister also mentioned about increasing funding support to assist industries in improving energy and carbon efficiency by way of the Resource Efficiency Grant and the Energy Efficiency Fund (E2F).
The Government is also working with companies based on Jurong Island to transform the island into a sustainable energy and chemicals park, and to develop and export the low-carbon solutions globally. For SMEs, they can tap on the Enterprise Sustainability programme to build capabilities for the green transition. These support measures and plans are useful. I urge the Government to continue reviewing these measures, taking in feedback from businesses and consumers, and enhancing the support where necessary.
Sir, the accelerating global momentum and traction on climate action creates new opportunities. A 2020 report by Bain and Company has estimated that ASEAN's green economy could be worth up to US$1 trillion in annual economic benefits by 2030.
There is an emergence of green growth areas, such as in electric vehicles, green financing and research and development (R&D) of the low-carbon technologies and solutions. Some of these areas are more developed, while others are more nascent. But these are all exciting areas.
Singapore needs to ride on this green wave to seize the economic opportunities and not be left out. As a country with limited resources, we need to identify the key strategic growth areas for Singapore that builds on existing strengths such as our position as a business and a financial hub.
There are also newer sectors that we can go into by leveraging our strengths in R&D. For example, R&D presents a pathway for Singapore companies to develop new capabilities, technologies, and innovative products and services in the green economy. Such solutions are particularly sought after in carbon-intensive sectors such as power generation, industrial processes, transportation and construction.
To seize green growth opportunities, it is important for the Government to support and partner the industries and businesses. We have done it before to grow globally competitive industries. We should and can do it again to grow a thriving Green Economy in Singapore.
Sir, as our economy shifts towards a greener one, new employment opportunities in the green economy will arise. We need to develop the talent pool for Singapore to remain as an attractive destination for businesses, especially for those who place a premium on sustainability.
The green economy was identified as a key growth area in the recent SkillsFuture inaugural report. It highlighted that today, there are more than 450 job roles in 17 sectors that require green skills, including manufacturing, financial services, trade and connectivity, hospitality, and the built environment. We can expect more jobs to be greener.
It is therefore important for the Government and businesses to help workers to equip themselves to take on these green jobs, whether within existing sectors or in new sectors. Time and opportunity cost on the part of the workers must be factored in to allow them to acquire the new skills and adapt to a greener business environment.
Mr Speaker, Sir, we need to press on with our efforts to transition into a greener Singapore that contributes meaningfully to the global efforts to combat climate change. There are pain-points we will need to address to ensure a smooth transition for businesses and people.
To do so, we need to pace out our green transformation and support businesses in their journey, seize the green economy opportunities, and equip our workforce with the skills to take on the jobs in the green economy.
Sir, with that, I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, the process of moving from a carbon-based \"brown\" economy to a renewables-based \"green\" economy is one of the major challenges of our time, not just for us, but for our children and their children.
I agree that corporations have a crucial role to play in this transition and that the state and civil society, must be partners in the process. I believe, however, that the state must play a substantive leadership role and my remarks will address the various manner by which I believe it can do so as it guides the private sector.
Before I proceed, I declared that I am both a professor at a business school as well as the Chief Economist (Emeritus) of a wealth management advisory outfit, and occasionally speak on the topic of sustainable financing to audiences comprised of industry professionals and potential investors.
Sir, the celebrated management theorist, Peter Drucker, once famously quipped: \"what gets measured, gets managed\", or perhaps more pointedly in this case, \"what gets measured, gets treasured\". Now, even if one disagrees with the sweeping premises of either claims, it is probably fair to acknowledge that objectives that are subject to measurement, are more amenable to being targeted, whether in a practical or aspirational manner.
It makes inherent sense therefore for us to take more seriously the need to incorporate the core and the concept of natural capital into our national income accounts. Lest I be accused of introducing yet another annoying definition of capital to this House, I will start by emphasising that this concept is neither particularly novel – the term was introduced by German British statistician, E.F. Schumacher, in 1973 – nor especially controversial.
Simply put, natural capital refers to the stock of ecological assets such as fertile soil, forested land and coastal mangroves from which we receive essential services such as good harvests, clean air and water, and healthy fisheries. The term is now widely used across a number of disciplines, including anthropology, architecture, biology, geography, environmental science, economics, psychology and sociology; and the Prime Minister's Office – under the auspices of the National Research Foundation – has even supported an international collaborative project, entitled \"Natural Capital Singapore\".
While the measurement of a concept that encompasses typically non-market ecosystem services, such as the richness of subsoil from which crops may be grown, the natural resources from which so much of modern communications technology is reliant on or the potential pharmaceutical innovations that could be discovered in a biodiverse forest, or even the cultural heritage that we receive from our understanding of our embeddedness in our terrestrial, coastal and marine ecosystems. While this is challenging, such quantification is, in fact, not impossible, and the past decades have seen enormous advances in our ability to value natural capital.
In 2006, the World Bank launched the first of its reports aimed at measuring this natural wealth of nations. And just last year, the institution released its latest report.
Unsurprisingly, Singapore reports extremely low levels of natural capital. Of the $817,846 in per capita wealth, a miserly $62 was attributable to natural sources, both renewable and non-renewable.
While this should, perhaps, be unsurprising, given our surfeit of natural endowments, importantly, all of this accrues to renewable sources, which suggests that such capital can be protected, and perhaps even expanded, should we choose to do so. The vital need for us to preserve the little that remains of our forests, offshore fisheries, coastal mangroves, and protected land, rather than raze it all on the altar of urban development, is underscored by the recognition that we receive enormous benefits from natural capital, because properly accounting for natural capital alongside reproducible capital makes it clear that the former is a non-trivial contributor to the observed differences in the economic performance of rich relative to poor countries.
All nascent financial markets, and especially those in fixed income, benefit from the presence of a clear and trustworthy benchmark. This benchmark, more often than not, comes in the form of a government issuance. Here, it is worth thinking more carefully, therefore, about developing green financing. Of course, the Government has been proactive in its efforts to encourage the development of green bonds. The MOF established a Green Bonds Programme Office in September last year. A month prior, NEA became the first statutory board to issue medium-term notes under its Green Bond Framework.
These initiatives are important, and I hope that the Government will continue to look for opportunities to further catalyse sustainable investment efforts. In particular, I am hopeful that all Government agencies will look for opportunities to weave in green financing elements into their capital expenditure projects and to fund these green components proportionately. This will ensure that administrators have strong incentives to conceptualise projects with sustainability considerations in mind – the stated goal of the 2030 Green Plan – since additional financing pools may, in fact, avail themselves when they do so.
Moreover, I hope that the public-private partnerships (PPP) in green bond issuance goes beyond the current co-investment in debt financing platforms to entail actual green development projects, especially in infrastructure, as well as equity contributions and loan guarantees issued by Government developmental financing vehicles. This is truly where, in my view, the strength of PPPs comes into play.
To this end, I wonder if existing SINGA bonds will enfold green elements as well, and if so, whether this may mean a further expansion of the SINGA-related debt ceiling, and if there are plans for MAS’ Green Investments Programme to also include credit guarantees. Perhaps, more fundamentally, we must not expect sustainable financing to be a silver bullet that will, in and of itself, be sufficient for our efforts to resolve climate change. The estimated $500 billion in green bonds issued worldwide in 2021 is only a miniscule 0.4% of the $119 trillion global fixed income market. Our focus must remain on resolving environmental and climate change issues by dedicating real Government resources toward the emergency, rather than expecting financial markets to ride to the rescue.
Through all this, we should avoid the temptation to satisfy ourselves with feel-good actions that amount to little, insofar as their genuine environmental impact is concerned. The current affinity, and some would call obsession, for environmental, social and governance – commonly referred to as ESG – investments is a case in point.
The most common refrain seen in marketing materials for ESG is that by investing according to such criteria, one could \"do well while doing good\". This siren call is especially attractive to younger generations of investors, who both understand the critical import of long-term environmental sustainability, while simultaneously holding a deeply-felt desire to grow their money in a manner consistent with their conscience.
Yet the promise of many ESG funds may well be a Chimera. Not only do most ESG funds currently underperform a more mainstream index, many are expected to do so in future. Scepticism about the asset class is building, with at least one former ESG evangelist calling it a \"dangerous placebo\", while other observers fear that climate finance is now a financial bubble. Perhaps more critically, the underperformance of ESG relative to non-ESG investments is precisely the point. The converse of lower expected returns to green corporations is that brown corporations face higher costs of capital. And when capital is more expensive, these firms are likely to grow slower and, by extension, pollute less.
On the corporate front, we should likewise guard against claims by firms that proclaim environmental objectives but are only doing so for the veneer of sustainability. While it is impossible to perfectly police these so-called \"greenwashing\" attempts, Government should not be complicit in lending a stamp of approval to firms that are simply pronouncing adherence to such standards for the purposes of going through the motions or, worse, marketing reasons.
As an example, consider one of the more egregious examples of greenwashing, involving carbon offsets. In 2019, a ProPublica report examined the market for carbon offset credit – the idea this House will recall – that firms would purchase carbon sinks such as trees to counter the pollution they would be creating – and concluded that most programmes, while not always blatantly fraudulent in that they would actually set aside forest land, nevertheless contravened the ultimate purpose of the scheme, since a large majority of projects involved forests that were either already protected or would never have been cleared anyhow. The report concludes that, and I quote, our \"hunger for these offsets is blinding us to the mounting pile of evidence that they haven't – and won't – deliver the climate benefit they promise\" and that \"carbon credits for forest preservation may be worse than nothing.\"
As an example, consider our current, single-stream recycling programme. While this approach surely encourages many to adopt a recycling habit, reports suggest that awareness of our recycling best practices remain low. The routine disposal of non-recyclable materials in our blue bins – such as styrofoam or plastic bags – is, I am certain, commonly observed by Members of this House during their estate walks. At best, this creates additional work for the conservancy contractors and at the sorting center; at worst, the contamination by food and liquid waste renders an estimated 40% of recyclables unusable. Further downstream, the practice of exporting recyclable waste runs the risk – as demonstrated by the Chinese treatment of most imported recyclables – of simply being redirected to foreign landfills. As of 2019, we continue to export a third of our recyclables, to an uncertain consummation.
As a third example, consider the booming market for sustainability bonds worldwide. Even as we enter into this market in earnest with our proposed exchanges, we need to guard against whether the ESG criteria are overly flexible, and, in particular, whether the ultimate rating ends up privileging the \"social\" or \"governance\" – the \"S\" and \"G\", respectively – rather than the environmental – the \"E\". This has resulted in dubious players issuing bonds under the rubric of sustainability, including a number of clean coal projects in China that were sold by Spanish oil company Repsol. The result is a loss of credibility and efficacy that could undermine the entire purpose of the exercise.
Mr Speaker, the purpose of these examples, which are just a few of many, is not so much to point to the possibility that green projects, operated in conjunction with the private sector, may turn out to be a marketing tool, without delivering on the intended environmental objectives. After all, corporations are primarily in the business of making profit, and market their goods and services in a way that enhances said profit as much as possible.
But just as Government plays a role in regulating false claims of efficacy in pharmaceutical products or imposes conditions to ensure product safety in food and children’s toys, it should also play a role in ensuring that claims on green practices are broadly justifiable, rather than claiming caveat emptor and placing the entire burden of verification on the shoulders of the busy and often underinformed consumer.
Alternatively, Government can operate in closer collaboration with non-profit efforts – such as the Green Label scheme under the National Environmental Council – to ensure that such labels do not become an unwitting tool of unscrupulous greenwashing attempts.
Regulation over misleading environmental claims is currently practised in Australia, Canada, the European Union, Norway and United States, to varying degrees. It is worth exploring if such regulatory moves are warranted here.
To this end, I wonder if the Minister will be willing to elaborate on regulation specifically targeted at greenwashing and whether there are such existing collaborative efforts with NGOs to account for greenwashing risks in environmental labeling.
Simultaneously, we could promote and develop a private sector that undertakes environmental audits, perhaps by requiring that listed firms, or firms that are among the major emitters, regardless of size, routinely report such audits, much like how we require routine financial statement reporting, albeit in this case, perhaps, with lower frequency. This would have the added benefit of creating green jobs for our next-generation economy. Having said my piece, I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me declare my interest. I work in a financial institution.
We have all heard this phrase about the importance of finance – money makes the world go round. The Chinese has an even more imaginative phrase: 钱能使鬼推磨. Meaning that with the right amount of money, one can even get ghosts to work for you.
For the climate change crisis, we need to use all the tools at our disposal and, perhaps, the most powerful tool is the financial tool.
Appropriately structured financing can direct resources and efforts towards green projects and endeavours to mitigate climate change. As an international financial hub, Singapore will play a crucial role in ensuring financial flows from the public, private and not-for-profit sectors to our sustainable development priorities.
MAS launched the Green Finance Action Plan in 2019. The actions for six identified areas include setting Environmental Risk Management Guidelines for banking, insurance and asset management, grants for green loans through grants, committing US$2 billion to a Green Investments Programme, promoting fintech innovation, and supporting climate research and training.
MAS followed up with Project Greenprint in December 2020 to promote a green finance ecosystem by using technology to mobilise capital, monitor sustainability commitments and measure impact. Five months later, the Green Finance Industry Taskforce (GFIT) was set up to accelerate green finance by improving disclosures and fostering green solutions.
So, what more can be done?
Transparency in green finance reporting is vital. Corporates listed on the Singapore Exchange (SGX) are already required to disclose their environmental information through sustainability reporting, although as Singapore Exchange Regulation (SGX RegCo) and the Centre for Governance and Sustainability (CGS) noted, there is \"ample room for improvement in the quality and depth of disclosures on quantifiable sustainability targets\".
Indeed, such disclosures should not be marketing-style narratives of their green philosophy and policy statements. Outcomes and evidence of Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) impact, in addition to financial performance, consistency between policies and practices and supported analyses of asset-specific ESG risks should be quantifiable, verifiable and clearly presented in plain English.
All companies, not all listed ones, should have ownership of environmental management in their businesses and integrate sustainability into their business models. Would the Government consider standardised green certification for all companies?
The public will be able to view which product or service providers are awarded Green Certificates. This will be helpful information for consumers and motivate other companies to reach their desired green labels or targets.
Eventually, more and more enterprises will make sustainability an integral part of their businesses. Can the Government more organisational guidance and other forms of support to transition to green businesses, with courses for their staff to enrol in and linking them to relevant course enrolment websites, funding schemes and programmes?
It would be good to have a standardised nationwide ESG Rating Index and methodology for companies' green evaluation.
Financial institutions (FIs) can integrate sustainability into their business by making financing dependent on the implementation of social and environmental sustainability guidelines. This means that the banks will take economic, social and environmental issues equally into account. They should avoid financing projects that are harmful for the climate on the one hand and invest in climate change mitigation and adaptation on the other hand.
The Government can consider providing green finance participants with more incentives, such as tax exemption for qualified green deposits, bonds and funds. As green finance becomes increasingly mainstream, there will be a growing demand for retail products, such as green mortgages. Improved consumer awareness will give individuals greater agency in choosing these financial products. This will help stimulate demand for sustainable products.
The Ministry can also establish national or industry awards for corporate sustainability evaluations to provide awareness and recognition for green companies.
Lastly, regarding carbon tax. MOF had announced that they will be reviewing the carbon tax rate for 2024 which is expected to be higher than the $10-$15 range previously announced for 2030.
I hope more investment be made into technology with the use of the carbon tax to reduce, eliminate, capture and convert the carbon emission to improve the environment for us and the world and such technology shall be shared with all businesses, big and small, that produces carbon and operating in Singapore. The businesses shall be encouraged to continually look into sustainable and substantive solutions to the carbon elimination or conversion from bad to good and be rewarded for their effort and positive outcome.
The Government is still studying the use of high-quality international carbon offsets but to me, it is more important to reduce the emissions in the first place. I hope the Ministry can look into a system limiting the amount of offsets and providing incentives for the affected companies to adopt green transition processes and technology where available.
Sir, I will suggest that the Government could consider allowing the businesses to use carbon credit earned to offset the carbon tax imposed. With that, I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Speaker, nearly a year ago, this House acknowledged that climate change is a global emergency and a threat to mankind and called the Government, in partnership with the private sector, civil society and the people of Singapore, to deepen and accelerate efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change and to embrace sustainability in the development of Singapore.
It could not have been timelier was we have seen more effects of climate change materialised over the last year. At home, intense rainfall events in 2021 led to heavy flash floods. In the region, the floods in Malaysia and Typhoon Rai have led to hardship and suffering to the affected communities. The events remind us that climate change is at our doorstep.
This year, in this Motion \"Towards a Low-carbon Society\", Members of Parliament on the other side of the aisle is calling on the Government to advance Singapore's inclusive transition towards a low-carbon society. This builds upon last year's Motion as there were measures discussed, such as enhancing green financing, creating green jobs and strengthening corporate accountability. We, the Workers' Party, do not object to these measures. However, I would like to push further.
Our inclusive transition also need to be just to address the unequal impact of climate change. I will ask that this Government throws its support behind a just transition, not just in words, but also in deeds.
What is a just transition? This idea is advanced by the International Labour Organization (ILO) as a process towards an environmentally sustainable economy which needs to be well-managed and contribute to the goals of decent work for all, social inclusion and eradication of poverty. To put this simply, it aims to address inequalities, such that no Singaporeans will be left behind and all can aim for a better future in the transition towards the green economy.
Lest some in this House think a just transition is mere window dressing and holds no direct relevance to us, this very term can be found in the preamble of the 2015 Paris Agreement, of which we are a party to. The relevant paragraph notes, and I quote, \"Taking into account the imperatives of a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs in accordance with nationally defined development priorities.\"
If nothing else, our manpower and development policy should adhere to the spirit of the Paris Agreement by trying to stay in line with its goal of keeping global warming or limiting temperature rises to 1.5 degrees Celsius as we reaffirm by COP26 in Glasgow, last November. This means that we need to ensure that green financing is not just catered towards greening the sources of energy. It needs to create value for our labour force. We need to ensure that we can prepare those working in our high carbon intensive industries, particularly those in the the fossil fuel related sectors for new green jobs. We need to ensure that corporate accountability is not just about reporting their greening efforts, but how they are ensuring their own green transition includes bringing the many workers within and not lead to mass retrenchments.
A just transition also means that green finance should not solely be about capturing profitable opportunities in the green economy. It should also be offering those that are left behind by a green transition, the funding opportunities to adapt. They should concern those whose existing jobs and livelihoods are affected by transition, away from polluting industries, as well as those at risk of the direct impacts of climate change.
How do we achieve a just transition for all Singaporeans? This must be done in both words and deeds.
Here, I have a few suggestions for the Government to consider.
On words, I ask that the Government review the COP26 just transition declaration and consider supporting the said pledge and efforts, putting social dialogue as well as rights at work at the centre of policies for strong sustainable and inclusive growth and development for our workforce. And a commitment to this will give impetus to focus societal efforts on combating the global emergency, that is, climate change.
This pledge also looks at supply chain development. Singapore, as a shipping and logistics hub and a commercial centre, can and should play an important part in the global supply chain screen. transition.
Second, on deeds. The average Singaporean worker must not only hear that we are doing the right thing but also sees the concrete benefits from this move towards a low-carbon sustainable economy.
Clause 29(b) of the ILO's just transition guidelines also ask that governments, in consultation with social partners, and I quote, \"Give particular attention to unemployed workers and workers at risk of unemployment in communities and industries affected by climate change, resource degradation or structural change, including those in the informal economy.\"
We need to help Singaporean workers in sectors who are being affected or will soon be affected by developments in the green economy. We need to look at how to prepare Singaporean workers to go into jobs, which will be created in the green economy.
Therefore, I ask that the relevant Ministries and Statutory Boards work on a just transition roadmap for Singaporean workers which can be at risk of displacement as the green economy develops. We should prioritise a roadmap for carbon intensive industries, such as petrochemicals and power generation. We can also look at ensuring a just transition for the labour force. For secondary industry, they are carbon intensive but are already taking active and laudable steps to adopt less polluting technologies, such as transport, shipping, logistics in the supply chain. Mr Speaker, I declare my interest as a shipping lawyer.
We should also consider a just transition roadmap to get our financial professionals to take on nascent green financing roles where there are growing opportunities. Such a just transition roadmap must be a key complement to the Singapore Green Plan 2030 on the green economy and be executed upon. This will ensure that value is not just accrued within businesses only but an equitable share of the value created will directly benefit Singaporean workers.
We can also kickstart stronger efforts on green upskilling. My Parliamentary colleague, Mr Gerald Giam, has previously called for extending the Special Employment Credit scheme to provide time-limited wage support to all Singaporeans workers while taking up their first job in the green economy. I wish to reiterate this call. In the vein of ensuring our talent pipeline remains robust, I also ask that all our agencies ensure their future upskilling programmes and career conversion programmes are created for and geared towards the green economy we aspire to, so that the value of the green economy can be directly captured by Singaporeans, both present and future.
All these may require funding of course and the Workers' Party has welcomed carbon taxes. However, we will need to consider funding mechanism to properly channel carbon taxes towards a just transition measures. Here, the Government can take reference from the EU's just transition mechanism, which includes a just transition fund offering financial supporting and technical assistance for most affected communities, such as low-income communities.
Mr Speaker, let me conclude. We, in this House, have seen robust exchanges on Motions surrounding climate change and jobs. We have the opportunity here to hit two birds with one stone. Let us not waste it and seek a just transition for all Singaporeans workers in the greater future we seek to achieve. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har.
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mr Speaker, before I start, I would like to declare my interest as council member of the Singapore Business Federation.
Sir, businesses have both a responsibility and an opportunity to proactively commit to decarbonise. The impact of climate change and the opportunities presented for a green and sustainable economy have never been more urgent. Whilst sustainability efforts amongst companies in Singapore have gathered pace, the lack of understanding of sustainability and related concepts has been a barrier to galvanising strong action.
During the recent Ecosperity Week held in September last year, it was revealed that some 250 chief executives of firms who have made net-zero commitments are unsure of how to reach their goals. From inconclusive measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) standards to a lack of agreement in defining sustainability performance, business leaders urgently need a framework to navigate their firms through these challenges.
There remain many companies, especially our SMEs, who have yet to come on the green economy bandwagon. Many consider \"sustainable\" practices as \"regulatory\" requirements. They lack the understanding of its impact on their business and how to make the green transition; yet this is one of the most significant business opportunities that they can tap for business growth.
Certain industries may need additional support to spur decarbonisation ahead of others, in anticipation of carbon border taxes such as the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism which puts carbon prices on imports into EU.
Given SMEs’ critical role in supply chains, we can boost their transition on three fronts: first, we can promote sector-based sustainability road maps with industry-aligned principles, frameworks and uniform standards; second, we need to support SMEs with pre-identified sector-based green solutions to fast-track adoption; third, we can leverage the ecosystem to build scalable green capabilities and collaborations.
Sir, to catalyse transition, SMEs should be supported by Government grants designed specifically for a range of industries, taking into consideration the limited scale and resources firms have in making the transition viable.
Speaker, a carbon tax assigns costs to planet-warming emissions and forces companies to consider the cost of pollution and environmental harm. Finance Minister Lawrence Wong has indicated that Singapore’s carbon price is too low and will be up for review. I wholeheartedly agree. Our current carbon pricing at the rate of S$5 per tonne of emissions pales in comparison to other jurisdictions, falling far short of the recent IMF’s guidance of US$75 or S$100 per tonne of emissions for advanced economies. This is about 20 times our current rate.
Whilst the plan to increase carbon tax is imminent, we need to carefully calibrate the increase and consider the trade-offs. Too low, we fall short of our commitments in making a viable impact to nudge firms in the right direction. Too high, we risk firms passing on cost increases to consumers and end users, or worse still, moving business activities to countries with lower sustainability requirements and carbon pricing.
Speaker, Sir, the carbon tax in Singapore applies to approximately 30 to 40 companies. These high emission firms such as power generation and petrochemicals directly employ over 27,000 workers and constitute 3% of Singapore’s GDP while providing business activities for a host of other sectors.
While these firms need to pay their fair share, there are some who are already pivoting their business activities towards low-carbon solutions in Singapore. For example, in 2020, Shell Singapore announced a 10-year plan to cut down local emissions by a third by the next decade. Similarly, ExxonMobil collaborated with local Universities in launching the Singapore Energy Centre, forming centres of excellence in research and innovation to solve technological gaps amongst industry players. There is opportunity to work closely with such firms to co-create a sustainable future, helping transition high emitters of yesterday into green industry leaders of tomorrow, here in Singapore.
Whilst Singapore’s headline amount of S$5 per tonne of emissions is low – it is low – but it covers 80% of local emissions with no offset provision. In Southeast Asia, Indonesia is the only country other than Singapore which has announced concrete plans to introduce a carbon tax, at a minimum rate of US$2 per tonne of emissions only from 2022. Trade-exposed sectors in the EU, China and South Korea receive free allowances under their emissions trading systems.
Speaker, Sir, whilst reviewing Singapore's model, we should note that there are more than 60 different carbon pricing initiatives worldwide. Each regime adapts to different strategies based on its own goals and constraints. Whilst Singapore can learn valuable lessons from other jurisdictions, we need to develop our own unique playbook for carbon pricing and ensure any change is set and paced carefully to avoid dislocating our industries or losing our attractiveness as an investment location.
Sir, we must recognise that any increase in carbon tax will result in an increase in operating cost, directly impacting the largest upstream emitters as well as indirectly impacting downstream users such as increases in electricity production costs, that will likely be passed on. For instance, the Singapore Business Federation expects that carbon tax increases will impact the manufacturing sector hard, as utilities can comprise up to 9% to 10% of operating cost. Given the rising cost of labour, freight and raw materials, any further increase in operating cost in the near term will adversely impact many companies already struggling in the current economic conditions.
Currently, Singapore’s carbon tax does not apply to imports. This puts local SMEs in a disadvantaged position as Singapore embraces more advanced integration of sustainable practices at increased costs, affecting these companies' cost competitiveness relative to peers in the region. To cushion the impact, the Government should consider channelling part of the carbon tax revenue to subsidise the increase in cost for a specific transition period, as well as provide subsidies to adopt green technologies to spur companies towards green practices and reduce use of energy.
Finally, I call on the Government to ensure that the businesses are provided ample lead time on the implementation of any new carbon tax rates, giving them time to adjust, whilst sending a strong but positive signal for companies to adapt and pivot. One good example is Sweden, which oversaw three decades of phased implementations before reaching its current pricings, without hemorrhaging economic developments. So, Sir, a clear long-term trajectory of the expected changes to carbon tax will be key to Singapore, to help companies make the business case to adopt new green technologies and make the necessary investment. With that, I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Prof Koh Lian Pin.
Prof Koh Lian Pin (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to declare my professional interest as Director of the Centre for Nature-based Climate Solutions at the National University of Singapore, and a member of the International Advisory Council of Climate Impact X.
Many businesses have shown increasing interest in improving their environmental, social and governance performance. In particular, they want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in their value chain, to meet carbon neutral or net-zero emission goals.
However, many businesses are also finding it difficult and challenging to completely transition away from fossil fuels by mid-century. Mr Sunny Verghese, the CEO of Olam, made a telling remark during Temasek’s Ecosperity Week in October last year. After speaking to over 200 fellow chief executives who have made net-zero commitments, Mr Verghese realised that most of them may not know how to get there.
So, while it is important to set ambitious targets for a low-carbon society, it may be even more important to develop and execute the strategies, policies and actions for us to achieve these goals. That is what this Motion is calling for and why I fully support it.
Sir, we need to take concrete steps to decarbonise. This will include putting an appropriate price on carbon to internalise the social, economic, environmental and climate costs of carbon emissions, as my fellow Members have highlighted. At the same time, there is growing recognition that carbon offsetting may need to be part of our immediate strategy as we transition to a low-carbon society.
What is carbon offsetting? In a nutshell, it is a way for companies or individuals to invest in value-adding environmental projects to balance out their own carbon footprint.
Carbon offsetting as a concept may present various technological, political and ethical conundrums. But insofar as decarbonisation remains the top priority and effective guardrails for carbon offsetting are in place, certain types of carbon offsets are not only viable, but may be indispensable, for us to meet our climate goals.
A carbon offset credit is a tradable certificate or permit that represents the allowance to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide, or equivalent greenhouse gas. These carbon credits can be produced from different types of clean technology projects, emissions reduction projects or carbon capture projects, including both technology-based and nature-based solutions.
Nature-based carbon projects are important because they represent low-hanging fruits for us to immediately turn off one tap of our carbon emissions by ending deforestation and start to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through reforestation.
And that is not all. Nature-based carbon projects, such as mangrove conservation and restoration, can also deliver many other benefits for local communities and biodiversity that are well-aligned with the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals.
Sir, as a city-state, Singapore faces the geographical constraint of limited land and coastlines for implementing nature-based projects at scale. But by the same token, we have the good fortune of being geographically situated in a region with bountiful opportunities to work with nature in our fight against climate change.
In fact, there are at least 160 million hectares of investible, carbon-rich forests across Southeast Asia that could provide an annual supply of some 400 million tonnes of nature-based carbon credits, if they came under protection as carbon projects.
I believe we have the ability and responsibility to work across sectors, nations and generations, to realise these opportunities and to help us transition to a low-carbon society.
Perhaps a more pertinent issue is to ensure that carbon offsetting will actually deliver the benefits it promises.
Indeed, there are concerns about the lack of transparency in the global carbon marketplace today, in terms of the quality and pricing of carbon credits. This has posed a deterrent to both buyers and producers, and created a bottleneck to both the demand and supply of nature-based carbon credits.
More importantly, we need to ensure that carbon offsets are not being used for greenwashing to create a veneer of sustainability, as fellow Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim pointed out. There is always the risk that some companies or individuals might buy up carbon credits for environmental claims, without actually making any effort to reduce their carbon footprint. Therefore, we need to hold to high standards of accountability, both the buyers and producers of carbon credits.
On the supply side, we need to ensure that carbon projects deliver real, additional and permanent benefits, not just for climate change mitigation, but also for communities and biodiversity on the ground. On the demand side, we need to ensure that users of carbon credits have in place, concrete policies, plans and actions to transition to a lower carbon economy, and are not relying solely on offsetting to reduce their net carbon emissions.
In May 2020, Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat set up the Emerging Stronger Taskforce (EST), led by Minister Desmond Lee and Mr Tan Chong Meng. The EST convened several Alliances for Action (AfA), which represent a new form of private-public partnership with a strong bias towards action in capturing new opportunities. And capture new opportunities the EST did indeed. The AfA on Sustainability was prescient, in anticipating the need for a trusted platform, that would provide transparency in carbon trading for businesses to support nature-based carbon projects. This led to the establishment of Climate Impact X, a global exchange and marketplace for high-quality carbon credits, through a partnership between DBS, SGX, Standard Chartered and Temasek.
Who would have thought that one day, Singapore’s most important financial institutions – the engines of our economy – will play such an important role in the conservation and restoration of our natural environment? So, we are capable of thinking beyond the dichotomy of economic development versus environmental protection. The tension between these and other societal priorities will likely remain. But this constant tension can be helpful in reminding us, that in our transition towards a low-carbon society, no one succeeds until everyone succeeds. Sir, I stand in support of this Motion.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.25 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.02 pm until 4.25 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.25 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Derrick Goh.
Mr Derrick Goh (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, experts noted that the recent COP26 Climate Conference to secure a net-zero carbon footprint fell short of actions but help move the world forward. In Singapore, a Clean and Green Global City has always been a national focus since our founding as a nation. We have been doing our part such as setting up a Climate Action Package in 2018 and more recently, putting forward the Singapore Green Plan 2030 which we discussed in this House.
In joining the debate on this Motion, there are two key areas I would like to touch on: one, factors to consider in our Green transition plans; and two, seizing opportunities in the Green economy. These are areas that will pave a clear glide path in our journey towards achieving our net-zero ambitions and eventually set a time-bound commitment, along with strengthening our position on climate leadership.
Key to an effective green transition is about having a good implementation plan. This requires a clear-headed recognition that a greener world and Singapore will come at a cost. Therefore, we need to navigate this well. It was apparent at COP26 that such trade-offs are not easy to make and Singapore will face similar challenges in our transition journey.
A good implementation is about our Government leading these efforts which are effective in reducing real carbon footprint and done smoothly, so that the unintended effects on our society are mitigated. A holistic plan would entail: one, a balanced approach in carbon pricing; two, eliminating the regressive effects; and three, accelerating efforts on identifying enablers, which is about stepping up awareness and education on carbon emissions and greener alternatives.
As we transition towards a green economy, the immediate concern of many households and businesses is about having to bear higher costs to adopt more sustainable and low-carbon practices. This will be taking place against the backdrop of other forms of global trends that is driving cost increases, such as supply chain disruptions, a topic we debated passionately about.
As businesses look to lower their carbon footprint to meet expectations of stakeholders, they will experience higher operating costs and capital outlay. Domestically, higher costs can also arise from changes in regulations, such as energy efficiency requirements and the Carbon tax. Externally, as the world decarbonises, energy costs will rise.
Given this, the implication is not to stop or slow down our decarbonisation efforts but to ensure that we provide support to households and businesses in their journey to become more sustainable. As such, with the impending revision of Singapore’s carbon tax regime, the Government should adopt a balanced approach to carbon pricing with subsequent increases paced.
While a higher carbon tax can drive reductions in carbon emitting activities, it is important that Carbon pricing be tiered to match against the greener alternatives available or abatement efforts. This is to allow households and businesses in particular SMEs, to make rational transitions. Higher businesses costs could be temporary during transition and eventually make our businesses fitter in the longer term. But transitions do take time, and our Government could consider adding \"carrots\" as part of a total package over and above the tax regime, such as Green rewards or financing incentives for households and businesses to accelerate behavioural changes.
As carbon taxes can have regressive effects on the vulnerable segments of our society who spend a higher proportion of their income on basic services such as electricity bills, such negative effects need to be addressed. I hope that as a higher carbon tax is being contemplated, the Government can provide some assurance that relief will be granted in the same way we cushion for GST increases.
Singapore’s transition plan towards a low-carbon society should be an inclusive one. If we are to achieve a greener way of life, it is important to scale up awareness and educational programmes for households and businesses. This enabler is key to move from rhetoric of mere targets to real actions.
Many initiatives we do today, such as our Smart Nation or Zero-Waste Nation programmes, fits nicely into our green movement. Such programs reinforce our green efforts, such as accelerating digitalisation, will lead to a paperless society and reduced waste will help go towards reducing carbon footprint.
There is scope to create more awareness on enablers as well as actionable steps to galvanise actions. Shopkeepers and residents in our neighbourhood want to be green and want to know how much carbon they produce. This is where Government can help facilitate through sharper awareness programmes, through providing carbon footprint calculators and alternatives to facilitate individual action.
Given the global urgency to act quickly for a net zero carbon future, Singapore can and should seize the exciting opportunities that exist before us. We can improve the lives of our citizens and contribute to the global good along with creating new business opportunities.
As an international services hub for finance, consulting, accounting, trading and legal amongst others, we are well-positioned to help the region and the world. This will also create many exciting green business opportunities.
It is often said in business, what you want to manage, you first need to measure. While this is a critical step, the task of any company to determine its baseline carbon footprint or emission is not easy, even for a sophisticated corporate. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol requires the measurement of not just this but also the indirect emissions from a company’s activities known as Scope 2 and from the value chain known as Scope 3, which is even more complex to measure. What I am saying is that measurement is not easy and companies here and the region will need expertise to get this done.
Financial services is also an area where Singapore can make an impact. Investors globally have demonstrated willingness to offer loans at favourable rates while demand is also set to increase as organisations look to also finance decarbonisation efforts and projects. This demand will spur the supply and diversity of products in the international financial marketplace, such as sustainability linked loans, green bonds, green investment funds, as well as transition financing to support decarbonisation plans.
Another key opportunity will be for Singapore to position itself as a carbon services hub. Even though carbon credits are recognised as part of the climate solution in the Kyoto Protocol since 1997, in reality, the Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM) is still at a nascent stage. Today the carbon markets globally remain illiquid and fragmented as they face challenges such as the lack of strong governance, differing standards and grey areas such as the verifiability of projects. These impact market confidence. Market participants wonder if the carbon credits purchased really deliver carbon reductions.
As such, the opportunities before us are real given the pent-up demand. I believe this is where Singapore can play a distinctive leadership role as a trusted global financial and services hub with strong regulatory regime, market infrastructure and services sector expertise. Our brand name for excellence will provide us the platform to create a carbon services hub where participants can buy and sell carbon credits that are of integrity. This would mean the need for an ecosystem such as carbon accounting and Monitoring, Reporting and Verification Services (MRV) here and in the region.
In Singapore, there will be a need for more professionals in a carbon services hub ecosystem. This will spur our services sector to leverage existing skillsets in areas such as trading, product structuring, measurement and certification to apply in the carbon space to support clients in their decarbonisation efforts. All these will lead to the creation of new jobs in Singapore and in the region.
As such, I am glad that the Government is exploring the use of carbon schemes such as the enablement of large carbon emitters in Singapore to purchase high quality international carbon credits to offset their liabilities. With innovative solutions, Singapore-based international carbon exchanges can also participate in this transition which has other spin-off benefits like spurring greener projects such as R&D in clean hydrogen, developing carbon sinks and clean energy farms in the region.
Mr Speaker, Sir, in summary, Singapore is well-positioned to contribute towards a greener future to help achieve our net zero ambitions on carbon. We can achieve this by implementing measures in a balanced approach. Transitions will require sacrifices and trade-offs by individuals and businesses, but the positive impacts created and the opportunities that can be seized will be bountiful. In addition, the future is an exciting one as there are many green growth opportunities for Singapore to scale while at the same time riding this wave to drive economic growth.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, combating climate change is the challenge of our generation and quite possibly, the next two generations. If our generation does not set in motion sufficient changes to mitigate climate change, our grandchildren will pay a painful price for our lack of resolve and action. It will be infinitely harder for successive generations to reverse the impact of global warming, even if they try their best to. It is therefore incumbent upon our nation and the world to rise to meet this challenge.
Singapore has in the past approached climate action as a small nation which is unable to make much impact on the vast world. This approach has thankfully evolved in recent years. Nevertheless, a greater resolve in our outlook towards this challenge is needed. We are still constantly reminding ourselves that we are a small country with inherent limitations as to what we can do to reduce emissions. We wave the flag that our alternative energy disadvantage status is officially recognised by the United Nations' Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Certainly, these are realities that we cannot run away from. However, we must not, in our attempts to temper expectations, allow these mantras to limit our imagination and innovation.
Decarbonisation within Singapore's boundaries is important. However, carbon dioxide does not respect national boundaries. Arguably, the biggest impact that Singapore can have on averting climate change, and hence saving ourselves from the harm that global warming will do to us, will come from test bedding and developing new green technologies and sharing these discoveries with the rest of the world.
Making low-carbon technology widely available at a reasonable cost will be critical to spurring industry adoption and helping the world to achieve net zero carbon emissions. We may be small, but that does not prevent us from working around our constraints of a small land area, high urban density, hot tropical weather to innovate solutions that could mitigate climate change in an increasingly urbanised world. Our constraints can actually be our comparative advantage over other nations.
Our green inventions could spread far and wide beyond our shores to benefit the rest of the world. Climate change is global. We should therefore aim to make a global impact in our climate change efforts. We should be prepared to make big investments in emerging green technologies and in doing so, take decisive steps towards wielding the mantle of climate leadership.
In my speech today, I wish to focus on a few of these green technologies and how the Government can play a bigger part to drive their adoption.
First, the transport sector, which is one of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases in Singapore. Singapore plans to phase out internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles by 2040 and replace them with electric vehicles. Almost all the current plans for the rollout of EVs focus on battery electric vehicles (BEVs). However, it may be risky to place all our bets on BEVs.
For starters, it is still unclear whether we will have the infrastructure to handle an all-BEV fleet of vehicles once ICE vehicles are fully phased out. A study by KBR, commissioned by the National Climate Change Secretariat, estimated that approximately 164,000 publicly available BEV chargers will be required for a 100% BEV scenario. Singapore plans to roll out just 60,000 BEV charging points by 2030. This will equip only about 6% of public carpark lots and 3% of private carpark lots with charging stations. Given that it takes anywhere from 30 minutes to six hours to recharge a car, and assuming people charge their cars only once every five days, my calculations indicate that the infrastructure will support only about 30% of cars in HDB estates and 15% of cars in private estates each night.
I am, in fact, making optimistic assumptions about driver behaviour. In reality, range anxiety will dictate that drivers will avoid waiting for their batteries to run flat before recharging them, just like we do not wait for our mobile phones to go flat before plugging them in. To avoid hogging the charging stations, one driver will have to hurry down to the carpark at 12.00 midnight to unplug her car and find another parking spot, while another will need to come down at the same time and plug his car into that same charging station. Imagine the disruption to everyone's sleep rest cycle and the number of neighbour disputes that this would spark.
One possible solution to this problem would be for charging stations to serve multiple car lots at once, with an automated system that recharges the cars on a rotational basis. This will spare drivers the need to unplug and re-park at night. The technology for this already exists, but it is unclear if these types of chargers will be deployed in Singapore car parks.
The batteries in BEVs are heavily dependent on two metals: lithium and cobalt. According to a study by Deloitte, BEVs account for about 27% of global lithium demand, while lithium-ion batteries account for about 59% of cobalt demand. More than half of the world's cobalt comes from mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo and there are ongoing concerns about the health, human rights and geopolitical risks of mining this mineral. Any disruption in supply of materials for BEVs might affect their production and raise their prices in future. The price of cobalt rose by 90% between January and December 2021. Economists have warned against the possibility of \"green-flation\" caused by supply chain shortages, leading to higher prices for metals and minerals that are essential to EVs and other renewable technologies.
We have to keep this in mind that the mining of lithium and cobalt and the manufacture of lithium-ion batteries also produce large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. This could negate some of the green benefits across the full cycle of BEVs.
A large number of BEVs will also place a heavy load on the electricity grid. Will the grid be strong enough to support so many vehicles being charged at the same time, including many using fast chargers, which will drastically increase peak power demand? The cost and carbon output of grid upgrades will need to be considered if you want to fully electrify our transport using BEVs.
Fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) are another major type of EVs which are much less discussed than BEVs. They run on hydrogen, the most abundant gas in the universe. They are more energy efficient than ICE vehicles and produce no harmful tailpipe emissions, only water vapour and warm air. They are powered by electricity generated by fuel cells through an electrochemical reaction between the hydrogen fuel and the oxygen in the air, facilitated by a fuel cell catalyst.
Some might have safety concerns about the FCEVs becoming Hindenbergs on wheels. In terms of vehicle fires, leaks and explosions, FCEVs are measurably safer than ICE vehicles. Hydrogen is much lighter than petrol vapours and dissipates much faster if there is a leak, reducing the potential for explosions. In any case, safety regulations will dictate that hydrogen fuel stations must store gas above the ground in well-ventilated areas.
FCEVs bring with them some advantages over BEVs.
First, they can be refuelled much faster that BEVs are recharged. Each BEV will require at least 90 minutes to fully charged using a fast charger and up to six hours using other types of chargers. In contrast, FCEV buses can refuel their hydrogen tanks in as fast as 10 minutes.
Second, with improvements in technology for the production and distribution of hydrogen, FCEVs could eventually have a lower carbon footprint than ICE vehicles and possibly even BEVs.
Third, a study by Deloitte forecasted that the total cost of ownership of FCEVs will be less than BEVs by 2026. Currently, the cost of production and distribution of hydrogen is much higher than diesel or petrol. However, many countries are devoting significant efforts to developing sustainable hydrogen production technologies. With improvements in technology, hydrogen prices are expected to decline over 40% in the next 10 years.
With the benefits that FCEVs bring and some of the risks and disadvantages of BEVs, it would be prudent for Singapore to include FCEVs in our local mix of EVs. The KBR hydrogen study commissioned by the National Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS) found that taxis, buses and heavy goods vehicles are well-suited for hydrogen fuel, given the high daily distances they travel. What are the steps that the Government is taking to transition our public transport and goods transport systems to use green hydrogen?
Hydrogen is not just useful as a source of clean energy for vehicles. It also has multiple other industrial applications, including in clean power generation. About 30 other countries, including New Zealand, the Netherlands, Belgium and South Korea, have already rolled out hydrogen roadmaps. Singapore should do the same.
This national renewable hydrogen strategy will spur the creation of a hydrogen economy in Singapore. It should map out our plans to invest in the development of hydrogen technologies, propose new legislation, set national targets for low-carbon hydrogen and develop a pipeline of local talent to take advantage of careers in this emerging sector. This will set Singapore on a path towards being a global player in the hydrogen industry and benefit Singaporean workers.
The Government is targeting a two gigawatt peak of solar energy by 2030. Yet, even if this target is met, solar energy will still supply only about 4% of our total electricity demand. Given that solar energy is one of Singapore's most promising renewable energy sources, we have to make a much bigger push to develop it and set bolder targets for solar energy in our electricity mix.
Rooftops present one of the most promising platforms to deploy solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, given are highly urbanised landscape. The Government's SolarNova programme is looking to install solar PV systems on the rooftops of public sector buildings, including HDB flats.
I asked the Minister for National Development on 10 January whether HDB intends to install solar PV panels on all HDB block rooftops where feasible. I am glad to note the Minister has replied in the affirmative.
We should make a stronger push to install solar panels on all rooftops, both public and private, that do not have physical encumbrances. This is similar to a call made by my hon friend, Mr Leon Perera back in 2017. This would greatly increase our solar energy capture. Currently, EMA allows consumers to be paid for channelling the excess solar electricity back to the grid and BCA has a green mark scheme for solar panel adopters.
However, from a reply by the Minister for Trade and Industry to the Member of Sengkang Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, I note that the Government does not provide grants or subsidies to further incentivise the adoption of solar energy. The Minister also stated in his reply to Assoc Prof Lim that the cost of solar energy is now generally cheaper than the retail electricity price and regulated tariff. It would therefore make economic sense to encourage widespread installation of solar PV panels among private property owners and purchase electricity from them.
This rings especially true in view of the current high electricity prices caused by supply, shortages of natural gas, which we are currently over depended on for power generation. This is a subject which I elaborate during the debate, on the Energy Resilience Bill last November.
The Government should rethink its current approach and provide more incentives for solar adoption in the private sector. Landed properties, condominiums and commercial buildings provide a significant amount of rooftop space for solar panel deployment. Incentivising all of them to install solar panels could greatly improve our solar panel coverage. It could help Singapore derive more than the projected 4% of our electricity from solar energy.
To clear, I am not suggesting that the Government should unconditionally subsidise landed property owners or companies to install solar panels, which they can later profit from by selling electricity back to the grid. They should be required to transfer excess electricity back to the grid without receiving any payments until their installation subsidy is fully covered. At the end of the day, this will still be a win-win for property owners and the nation,
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Singapore needs to be bolder and braver in setting green goals to secure our future. Some of these may be stretched goals today but we have to trust that future generations will discover breakthrough technologies to overcome our disadvantages. Technology is improving all the time and more so when huge resources of governance are being poured into research and development into low-carbon alternatives.
We need to ride the technology wave; not fall behind it. If we take a wait-and-see approach to hydrogen and other technologies, we might start seeing even our neighbours overtake us. Let us push harder on the adoption of FCEVs, come up with a bold hydrogen roadmap and incentivise the installation of solar PV panels in Singapore. This will move the needle significantly to advance Singapore's transition towards a low-carbon society. I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): During last year's Motion to accelerate efforts to address climate change and its impact on Singapore, I spoke about the importance of involving our community in our efforts to greenify the environment, raising greater awareness and encouraging more to shift towards an eco-friendly lifestyle.
Since then, the community has made good progress in embracing green living. As part of the contributions made towards Singapore's goals under the Green Plan, 15 PAP Town Councils launched the Action for Green Towns (AGT) initiative in May last year to level up our sustainability practices within the communities.
The AGT initiative affirms the importance of combating climate change in creating a better home for every Singaporean, aiming to do so by achieving zero waste, energy-efficient and greener towns by 2025.
The actions in support of this mission are coordinated across the 15 Town Councils by an AGT taskforce and are driven within each PAP Town Council by a dedicated Sustainability Committee consisting of residents, Young PAP activists and an elected Member of Parliament responsible for championing sustainability efforts.
The AGT taskforce is headed by Chairperson, Dr Wan Rizal and I am humbled to be appointed as the Sustainability Champion for Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC as well as the Vice-Chairperson of the AGT taskforce.
To achieve zero waste, the AGT taskforce is partnering up with SGRecycle to deploy at least 78 paper recycling machines in HDB estates. Marsiling-Yew Tee Town Council is one of the Town Councils taking part in this initiative and has since launched five machines across four divisions. We hope that this will improve recycling rates up to an estimated one to 1.5 tonnes of paper per machine per month, which is equivalent to saving 17 trees. As incentive, residents can earn cash each time they drop in their waste paper to such machines for recycling.
I have shared with this House before that in Woodgrove division, we have a \"G.E.L\" mission, where \"G\" pertains to \"Green-Living\" initiatives. In addition to the efforts which were rolled out through the AGT taskforce, over the past one year, we have also conducted two sustainability dialogue sessions and organised 10 upcycling-related workshops and activities which have been participated by over 700 residents across all ages, all of these were made possible through collaborations and supports by our grassroots leaders and community partners, such as Tzu Chi Foundation.
Through these initiatives, we hope to grow more interest in our Woodgrove residents to embrace a greener living lifestyle. One of my residents, Ernest Yen, is one of the active participants of our Sustainability dialogue sessions. As a Year 1 Mass Communication student in Ngee Ann Polytechnic, he recently approached me to conduct an interview for his school project, during which he shared with me that he has decided to focus on \"Green Sustainability Efforts in the Community\" as the theme of his project, as he wishes to pick up new skills and play a part in the community effort towards going green.
Moving forward in Woodgrove division, we intend to continue inculcating more youths like Ernest to become our green champions, through gamification along with increasing community engagements geared towards working adults and seniors, including those with mobility issues or other special needs. One example would be our plan to collaborate with Northwest CDC to conduct a series of SkillsFuture workshops on sustainability to enhance green knowledge among the residents. These workshops will encourage residents to identify their interests, upgrade their skills and thereby create opportunities for them to explore green career options. The increased exposure will hopefully lead to more supply of green talents to support sustainability in Singapore.
As Minister Grace Fu has shared in the MSE's addendum to the President’s Address last year, 55,000 jobs are expected to be created in the sustainability sector over the next 10 years. Some green jobs which will potentially be in great demand in the near future include built environment designers and engineers, sustainability consultants and green finance and investment managers.
The built environment provides many opportunities for a career in sustainability, as each phase of a building or facility's life cycle, from development feasibility studies, design and construction, to maintenance, operations and demolition stages can be improved with sustainable strategies.
Education and upskilling via SkillsFuture courses will also be helpful in transforming many of these existing jobs in the built environment, with an added focus on being green and sustainable.
During the Edusave Bursary Awards last year, I had the chance to interact with many of our youths who have completed their \"O\" levels and are now pursuing a Diploma in the Polytechnics. Some of the courses they are in fascinate me, one of them being the Diploma in Sustainable Built Environment offered by Republic Polytechnic, which aims to prepare students to take up roles as Energy and Sustainability Consultants.
Like Li San, I believe we can develop more essential knowledge and skills modules focusing on sustainability in our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) and accredited SkillsFuture courses, such as the Specialist Diploma in Environment and Water Technology, being a one-year course offered by Temasek Polytechnic, so that Singaporeans, both young and old, can increase their employability with regard to green industries. In addition, we can also provide more internship opportunities for IHL students to learn sustainability practices in various industries.
Aside from helping our workforce to learn the relevant skills for green jobs, we should also empower and encourage more Singaporeans to pursue their dreams and become green entrepreneurs. Aspiring entrepreneurs who wish to do so can tap on platforms, such as Feed9B, an open innovation platform that aims to bring start-ups, small medium enterprises (SMEs), large corporations, institutions and Government agencies together to promote food sustainability and innovation.
[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]
John Cheng, Chairman of Feed9B, has shared with me that he hopes to build a food ecosystem that will not only provide a platform for collaboration but also to act as a resource and research centre ultimately championing Singapore's \"30 by 30\" goal and position Singapore as a global leader in food sustainability and innovation. Feed9B has also launched a Good Food Startup Manual, a free resource that helps entrepreneurs navigate the food landscape. This initiative involved agencies from various Ministries, including MTI's Pro-Enterprise Panel (PEP), Enterprise Singapore (ESG) and Singapore Food Agency (SFA).
John is also the founder of Innovate 360, Singapore’s first food accelerator with shared facilities that assists startups in scaling and going to market. They provide co-working spaces, test kitchens, shared laboratories and manufacturing facilities as well as opportunities for mentorship, funding, networking, distribution and collaboration with other firms.
One example of a recent collaboration was An Artisan’s Christmas SG Bazaar which showcased more than 30 Singapore brands that place an emphasis on sustainable materials and processes, innovative designs or a key part of our local heritage. It was where I became acquainted with C2+, a local disinfectant manufacturer. Their range of food-grade, alcohol-free disinfectant products are made with ingredients that are 98% edible and are derived from food waste, such as cashew and soybean extracts, which is a shining example of what our local startups are capable of in terms of promoting sustainability and green living. These companies see themselves as a meaningful part of our nation’s journey towards reaching the goals set in our Singapore Green Plan 2030. I do not think they deserve to be unjustly criticised by skeptics as “merely going through the green motion for publicity sake to generate profit” without first understanding how much effort these companies have actually put in towards steering their R&D and business operations towards being eco-friendly and sustainable. In Mandarin please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Last year, the Government announced the Singapore Green Plan 2030, setting out clear goals for urban afforestation, sustainable living and a green economy. It is inspiring to see that, as we head towards these goals, we are also creating many new job opportunities in sustainable development sector. I suggest that the 5 CDCs organise more of these SkillsFuture workshops so that Singaporeans, regardless of age, including those vulnerable groups who are still seeking employment, can develop an interest in and understand job opportunities in the green sector and be trained with relevant skills.
(In English): Mdm Deputy Speaker, many businesses and jobs in Singapore can be transformed with green knowledge and skills through education and upskilling, aspiring to leave no one behind. Concurrently, this, in turn will contribute towards making our Singapore a greener and more sustainable living environment for all in the long run. I support the Motion.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, today's Motion is about how we can move towards a low-carbon society. It rightly points out that in order to do so, there is much more to be done through the partnerships we built between the business, Government and people sectors in order to move Singapore's transition towards a low-carbon society. Indeed, many advanced economies, like Japan, are setting bold targets of being carbon-neutral or even carbon-negative. This is, no doubt, even more important because of the pressing climate and resource crisis faced by everyone on Earth. And we, in Singapore, must do our fair share to bring about a green and sustainable future for our planet.
The Workers' Party supports this and I would like to note now that, while important, moving towards being low-carbon and going green is only part of the wider picture of how our economy and society should look like in the future. Changes need to be systemic and sustainable in the long run. And being sustainable goes beyond just the environmental impact. It also includes the sustainability of the social, economic and cultural impacts that our industries and businesses have on our communities and these aspects are intertwined with and often inseparable from environmental matters.
So, while it is the case that we must urgently take bold and swift action to move towards a low-carbon society, it will be a massive missed opportunity if we deal with these issues in silos and our efforts to reduce our carbon emissions are taken in isolation from the social, economic and cultural aspects of sustainability.
To achieve these aims, our businesses could take inspiration anew from John Elkington's original idea about the 3Ps – people, planet, profit – which he has since adapted to refer to people, planet and prosperity. Specifically, he has called for our industries to look to minimise negative impacts and to maximise our positive impacts on all three aspects. And I believe that there is much wisdom in this approach.
Singapore, our businesses and industries are irreversibly plugged into the global trade and supply chain ecosystem. Even trends of glocalisation, exacerbated by the shocks brought about by the pandemic, have not reduced the complexity of our global supply chains. Our position at the crossroads of many networks, whether they relate to physical trade, such as our importance as a trading port, or services, such as data centres, financial and fintech systems, means that we continue to be in a position to exert influence far beyond our shores. Corporate responsibility cannot remain focused only on issues within our borders, but must consider the external impact that our industries' actions have beyond Singaporean shores.
We, therefore, must build credible, accountable and sustainable ecosystems for our businesses to thrive in beyond our borders where necessary. To do so, we must not only, as the Motion states, seek greater Government intervention to enhance corporate accountability, but we must also create the right set of incentives and regulations to build genuine, thoughtful corporate practices to maximise positive impact on our people, planet and prosperity.
We must also be aware of cheap marketing gimmicks which serve the purpose of winning short-term customer favour. Instead, we should work together with our industries to rewrite the playbook to create genuine sustainable change.
A few years ago, I was fortunate enough to, as part of my job, we are going to campaign within what was seen as a sunset industry to lead the charge to drive consumer and industry change. We created a campaign backed by the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals to set out clear direct steps for consumers and industry players alike to advocate in order to banish antiquated and unsustainable practices. While tackling planet, the environmental and ecological impact of operations, we quickly realised that we also needed to address the people and prosperity elements in tandem to effect meaningful change for the industry. This was no less because ensuring that smallholders were able to earn a living wage, in turn, reduced the likelihood that they would, as a matter of necessity, sacrifice long-term goals for short-term gains, which were often environmentally harmful in order to feed their families.
We thus worked with global and local NGOs to develop best practices and educational materials for workers to understand what they needed to do in order to keep safe while minimising the impact that they had on the environment. These practices would maximise the long-term sustainability of the land and their livelihoods by adopting new technologies, such as adopting better ways of ensuring robust traceability in the supply chain for customers, be it B2B or end-users. Education also had to be done to explain why the current pricing mechanism was lacking and also why they should demand sustainability when making their consumption choices.
While working on agricultural sustainability practices in rural settings may seem a long way from best practices in our local urban context, the principle of ensuring genuine sustainability and environmental practices applies equally to us, as well as in our cross-border investments. For example, Singapore-based Olam has found itself in hot water in Brazil recently. This issue was brought up by my Aljunied colleague Mr Leon Perera as allegations were made by the Brazil Federal Labour Prosecution Office and the International Labour Organization (ILO) that the company participated in the widespread use of child and slave labour in Brazil's cocoa industry. In filings last year, Olam admitted that they could not trace the origin of all their cocoa beans. This is despite marketing messages on its website that promised customers that they will know that the chocolate has been produced in a way that supports the most vulnerable people and environments in the supply chain.
While environmental and social issues as a corporation become increasingly critical, the Government plays a key role in holding corporations accountable. These examples illustrate the importance of a holistic approach to ensuring our planet and people continue to thrive and how we need to build the right corporate culture in Singapore across these various spheres of sustainability. It is also insufficient to allow companies to be mindful only of direct actions performed within our shores when they have wide impact abroad.
As mentioned, the intricate and complicated nature of the global supply chain makes traceability and accountability even more important than ever. Only then can we be certain that corporations and the products we buy and also what our Government buys, not only do not harm the environment and have minimal footprint but also do not participate in the exploitation of vulnerable peoples. It is not always straightforward for companies to audit the practices of their suppliers or even going further upstream to ensure compliance up and down the entire supply chain, but we must not let perfection be the enemy of the good. Working with the Government to make best efforts to build more robust measures to place greater accountability across the system will make significant headway towards guarding against Singapore consumers being unknowingly complicit in some of the ails we read about, such as poor labour practices or the disregard of the environmental impact of practices up and down the entire supply chain.
With this in mind, I have three suggestions to set us on this path.
First, companies operating in Singapore should perform diligence on their supply chains and we need to proactively mitigate against any risks along the supply chain. In 2017, France passed a law that required companies above a certain size to establish a plan of vigilance for identifying risks of human rights, health and safety or environmental violations within their global supply chains. This required companies to proactively build a view of the risks within their supply chain and to put in place procedures to mitigate these risks. This allowed companies to better evaluate potential partners and subsidiaries and also requires mechanisms to be put in place for workers and organisations to flag violations.
This approach is especially relevant in the post-pandemic era where businesses everywhere are re-examining the sustainability of their supply chains and looking into whether they can be rationalised or even shortened. This is thus a perfect opportunity to weave in such considerations as part of the economy-wide rethinking. Instead of viewing this just as a cost, we can recognise the competitive advantage this could bring us. As a high-income country, we should be ensuring our own suppliers are environmentally and socially sensitive to offer a competitive edge to those who source from other high-income countries who care about these considerations. It would thus be prudent for our Government to carefully assess whether similar requirements can be placed on companies that operate in Singapore, perhaps beginning with companies exceeding a certain size. Whether or not strong incentives rather than legislation would be sufficient to encourage enough adoption of this, remains to be seen.
Second, we must play our part on the global stage to strengthen the global regime for regulation around supply chains and to be an active player to support wider adoption of such practices internationally. This will ensure that the majority of competitors on the global stage invest in similar practices and will also ensure a level playing field. While it may take a while to get there, we should take heart from the recent adoption of the global minimum tax rate of 15% by 136 countries. I know that, with the right effort, it can be done.
Third, we should continue to support industries that harness latest innovations from fields, such as artificial intelligence (AI) and sensor tracking, to allow companies and governments to exercise greater vigilance of supply chains. For manufacturing companies, introducing technology from the Internet of Things allows managers to seamlessly monitor performance of their production lines in real time and also enables accurate information about matrices, such as energy consumption and the carbon footprint of their processes.
Blockchain technology tools should be looked into for traceability. It might seem gimmicky to see lobsters in the jumbo seafood tanks wearing tags with QR codes that tell you exactly where they were caught and by which fishermen. But the technology actually holds huge potential. It allows the capture of information to allow for more efficient fleet planning and can raise an alert if overfishing is occurring. It also plays a role in consumer education, providing information such as the carbon footprint of their food and gives confidence that the food is traceable to its source and the technology is there to track and ensure that good sustainable practices are adhered to.
These issues and ambitions may sound remote, especially in a world where many are struggling to put food on the table. But the reality is that we are facing a resource-scarce future. In the long run, our local businesses would benefit from being encouraged to start building a sensitivity towards supply chain vigilance and can use this to set themselves apart from our competitors, especially in Asia, to lead the way in markets that put a premium on goods and services that are accountable and sustainable, this will give a big leg-up in the internationalisation efforts of these companies.
That said, I want to bring this spotlight back to the importance of citizen awareness and activism, to amplify the effectiveness of any Government regulation or policy in this space. When consumers are more aware and demand sustainable and green practices and have a mindfulness over the carbon footprint, the greater the incentive will be on companies to be aware of the risks within their supply chain and to adopt greener practices.
To be blunt, if investing in greener practices has no impact on how consumers buy, companies may then shrug and continue the business as usual. To address this, we can take a few steps.
First, awareness of our sustainability effort has to be built into our education system at all levels. Our students should leave the educations system with a solid foundation in the importance of sustainability and also with a vernacular to understand and analyse the information that they receive in the media and from other companies of the efforts that have been undertaken. This vaccination against greenwashing, a topic which has raised by some of my colleagues, would enable consumers to be critical recipients and build a disincentive towards any greenwashing efforts.
Second, we must strengthen protection granted to whistleblowers to ensure that any violations have a higher chance of being found out and that a culture of corporate responsibility is better protected by workers and employers alike. Frameworks or regulations that tackle false and misleading practices, including greenwashing, should also be considered to protect or empower consumers to flag out instances of greenwashing.
Finally, we must work with independent activists in the sustainability space and work collaboratively with them to build a strong ecosystem. This can identify blind spots and encourage innovative solutions and approaches that businesses may not have thought of. We need to leverage the passion that these activists have to nudge our industries to do better.
All these taken together will enhance the literacy and fluency of citizens in sustainability-related issues, enabling a more analytical and sceptical population who are willing to question and call out abuses of false marketing from companies. These citizens will be inoculated against marketing gimmicks by both industries and governments that might disingenuously suggest sustainability conscious practices and instead generate an imperative on them to be truthful and transparent with citizens. For after all, our society and economy would be nothing in a world facing climate meltdown brought about by shortsighted, unsustainable practices that fail to account for people, planet and prosperity.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Deputy Speaker, the winds of sustainability are shifting. Spurred by pledges at COP26, we look to the future growth of green finance with cautious optimism. Today, climate finance, green bonds and loans are firmly on the agenda of governments and central banks. For the financial industry, increasing scrutiny and sectoral demand for ESG financing are pushing banks to green portfolios. Greening will eventually take place across all industries. Our green financing capabilities and frameworks need to be robust and ready to support these transitions.
Singapore’s financial landscape is notably shifting in tandem with these winds. Both the private and public sector have rolled out laudable initiatives to support this transition. Some of these include the formation of the Green Finance Industry Taskforce, the MOF Green Bonds Programme Office and initiatives like the NEA Green Bond Framework, the recent SGX enhancements on sustainability reporting and climate-related disclosures, as well as the issuance of green loans by multiple financial institutions.
It is encouraging that we see more initiatives to enhance our green financing capacity, with the MAS acknowledging it as a powerful enabler to achieve an effective yet inclusive transition to net zero in the region.
However, the transition to a greener financing ecosystem is a challenging and complex one. Some businesses and operations might be ill-equipped to ride on and benefit from these winds. The central focus of my speech today is to highlight more ways we can support local businesses and the local ecosystem in green financing and accountability.
Today, there is a myriad of attempts to develop universal green loan and green bond standards. Global funds that are linked to ESG-related standards more than doubled in 2020, compared to 2019. More than ever, we need quality frameworks and regulatory support to empower financial institutions and businesses with the know-how of going green.
On an international level, the Green Loan Principles developed by the International Capital Market Association provides a framework for green financing. Regionally, we also see how ASEAN is participating in this effort with the ASEAN Green Bond Standards.
On a local level, schemes such as the MAS Green and Sustainability-Linked Loan Grant are useful in defraying the cost of accessing green finance. And for businesses which find it challenging to retrofit their operations to fulfil sustainability metrics, the Enterprise Sustainability Programme launched last year supports Singaporean companies, including SMEs, to build capabilities. I look forward to more details on the training workshops and resources which will be available.
While opportunities exist, what is the take-up rate and how can we best support our local businesses, especially SMEs, in understanding and seizing them? One possibility is encouraging financial institutions to increase the accessibility of green loans, especially for smaller firms, while providing the capacity building to do so.
Some corporates have been trailblazers in the past few years, publishing green bond frameworks and corporate governance strategies at a company level for going green. But it would be better if we also make it accessible for small players to participate in this process to ensure that compliance costs do not bog them down.
Some specific measures could include greater clarity on what are green and sustainability-linked loans especially for SMEs, its benefits, criteria for businesses to access them and what exactly about their businesses and supply chains would need to change. Most importantly, it should be clear to our businesses what specific impact-metrics need to be tracked, and how they can track them, perhaps leveraging on technology where possible.
The benefit of enhancing clarity is two-fold. Businesses are empowered to assess their own eligibility for these loans when they have access to information and such tools. And second, it provides greater transparency and accountability, to manage greenwashing.
It is in our interest to make green financing more accessible for all players, to allow as many actors as possible to participate and transform.
Additionally, the creation of an MSE- or MAS-endorsed Green Loan and Bond Catalogue could be helpful in supporting businesses moving in the right direction. Ultimately, we should try to acknowledge businesses for transitioning to more sustainable business models. The catalogue could formally recognise businesses that undertook or are undertaking significant and genuine sustainability efforts. This would increase their visibility and encourage consumers to support them. Entities interested in procuring goods and services from sustainable sources could refer to such catalogue.
Including specific measures which businesses have undertaken to go green in the catalogue would also be helpful to other local businesses who are interested in pivoting to more sustainable endeavours, as they would have a better understanding of best practices and how they can participate.
Second, it would do well for us to have a national sustainability accounting strategy. Given Singapore’s status as a financial hub, and increasingly, a green financing hub, we should continue to finetune our green financing and sustainable accounting standards. While Singapore has stringent financial auditing frameworks, sustainability accounting is still a fairly nascent concept worldwide, and there is a high reliance on accuracy, transparency and reliability of disclosures that form the basis of such sustainability assessments.
There is greater recognition among stakeholders that ESG disclosures are necessary and not just a good to have. SGX recently mandated issuers to provide climate-related disclosures by FY23 or FY24, depending on industry.
When shifting winds are difficult to navigate, businesses are increasingly choosing to have third party auditors or second opinions to verify ESG disclosures. However, such ESG assurance frameworks tend to be decentralised and varied. The variety of frameworks could potentially create an obstacle to the consistency of the reporting, and comparison, of ESG performance across entities. There have been some efforts to somewhat synthesise these frameworks, such as MAS’ Project Greenprint providing a common portal to examine ESG disclosures across different international reporting frameworks. But it would be of greater clarity to work towards a strong, Singaporean standard, compatible with global standards for our businesses to aspire towards to reduce compliance costs.
Internationally, various institutions have started moving. The International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation announced the creation of the International Sustainability Standards Board during COP26. It is imperative that Singapore stands in lockstep with international standards for sustainability reporting.
I hope that more guidelines and resources can be given to the relevant institutions and partners to understand and reconcile the myriad of reporting and assurance frameworks currently available. Additionally, I hope that there will be further guidelines developed that are ASEAN-centric and Singapore-centric, to better cater to our local SMEs and smaller companies own auditing standards. With stronger support and partnerships, the quality of our chartered accountants and auditing companies will remain first class as we further develop the sustainable accounting ecosystem at home.
While we want to achieve regulatory clarity, it may be difficult to do when the green financing and sustainably accounting sectors are still rather new and it is unclear what the best standards are. However, this challenge comes with an opportunity to position Singapore as a global leader in the green regulatory space, while enhancing our status as a green financial hub.
One of the ways we can do this is through the creation of an autonomous Sustainability Administration policy-oriented think tank, as a Centre of Excellence for Sustainability Administration. Given that regulations are complex and still emerging, there is room for policy and regulatory research to harmonise and raise the standards of sustainability. Singapore has a golden opportunity to become a regional and even global thought leader in these spaces. The demand for sustainability auditing and green financing will certainly increase in the coming years. Not only can we ride on the winds of sustainability, but we can also redirect it.
To become a leader in this space is not only for our own position as a nation. All countries will in time transition to green energy, transport and manufacturing systems, yet green technology, infrastructure and finance are not equitably distributed. In the region, Singapore can play a critical role in the sharing of knowledge and collation of best practices, so that as a region we can tap on the opportunities in the green transition.
To further ride on these winds, we could also leverage upon Singapore’s (MICE) industry to host regular sustainability conventions and workshops to connect locals with top global talents. This would spearhead regular sustainability-related MICE events to shape industrial innovation, attracting regional and international experts in the process. It would aid in attracting established global partners and budding brands in ASEAN to further the sustainability agenda.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, while climate change is a crisis, Singapore can leverage on the opportunities that it brings for our people and economy. This Motion seeks good, inclusive environmental and economic outcomes for Singapore and Singaporeans. And I thank the young PAP for their continued dedication to the cause and publishing the Climate Action Strategy Position Paper.
New methods of financing would, indeed, invite exciting opportunities for our businesses to grow and contribute to a greener economy. However, I would like to reiterate that the greening process is not just about swapping out for new systems. Businesses and consumers must realise and be prepared that this is ultimately a transition and it would also involve the process of unlearning, and shifting away from old operations, financing and activities that are unsustainable.
This is why we must continue to be bold, demonstrate our national commitment to support businesses and our people in the green and blue economies and to hold ourselves to high standards, so that together, our collective actions are impact-oriented.
Our systems have started shifting in recent years to embrace these changes, but other than ensuring that systems are strong, they must also be accessible to our local businesses and people. Systems change works alongside individual action and there are many in the private sector and civil society who are tackling climate change. Every action and every champion counts. Underscoring the transitions in our systems is the opportunity for our people from all walks of life to be front and centre in this green economy, including taking advantage of the new jobs and career options.
Let us keep up the momentum and take concerted, sustainable action, as we build capabilities to transform and quite literally, try to save the world.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Henry Kwek.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Kebun Baru): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of today’s Motion.
\"Trade-offs\" and \"sacrifices\". These are terms that are frequently associated with efforts to fight climate change. But for the Singapore, beyond sacrifices, there are also opportunities.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
I see great opportunity for Singapore to create numerous green collared jobs, not just for future graduates, but also matured PMETs, which is a rare opportunity that we can and must seize now.
I see opportunities for Singapore, as the finance, governance and connectivity hub of the region, to transform and influence industries way beyond our shores, thereby cementing our regional hub status for one more generation.
I see opportunities for Singapore to strengthen climate justice by becoming the trusted carbon trading hub of Asia, by facilitating resource transfers from rich countries and consumers, to help those with less become more sustainable, thereby empowering all of us to save the world together.
Before I share the reasons for optimism, let us do a quick stock-take of where the world is, after COP26 and after two years of pandemic.
We all read the disappointing recent headlines on coal power plants that were not categorially phased out, or how there was a lack of new ambitious commitments and how a lone US senator torpedoed America’s ambitions to go even greener.
But beneath these headlines is a tsunami of real change driven by at least two forces.
One, the financial and business sector has finally woken up to their responsibility to Earth. Yes, I fully expect the governments, to fall short in make the necessary $2.4 trillion annual zero-carbon investments. But at the same time, the global financial asset management sector, with $100 trillion of assets, under the leadership of BlackRock, have starting making substantial progress towards ESG investments.
And major businesses are beginning to commit. More than 5,000 corporations have joined the Race to Zero; 1,000 have pledged to Science Based Targets, and I see major private-public partnerships formed to tackle heavy emitting industries, spur new green technologies and drive green procurement.
There is an emerging consensus that being green is not just the cost of doing business, but also the basic moral standard that consumers expect from businesses.
Two, there is at least a global consensus that climate justice is important, and the well-off must transfer resources to the less well-off. In fact, the concept of the “loss and damage fund” is now clearly in the agenda for COP27 in Egypt this year.
Driven by changing consumer expectations and guided by green finance and accounting standards, the private sector can shift towards sustainable production and compensate the affected communities. This can be a huge shift, given that private enterprises, and not governments, are responsible for most production in the world.
And when there is so much money, so much resources, being directed towards sustainability, towards climate justice, you can imagine that accountability and trust will become absolutely paramount.
But while there are some reasons for being optimistic, there are also hurdles that must be overcome.
For example, because there are many emerging sustainable finance, accounting and carbon trading standards that are western-centric, there is also an urgent need for them to factor in international, especially Asian perspectives.
Another hurdle is that, in this age of stiffening geopolitical competition, there is a risk that sustainability may get weaponised by selected countries or trading blocs to create non-tariff barriers.
Here lies the opportunity of Singapore to play a decisive role in the region, and even in the world, to shape the rules, to connect different trading blocks and competing powers. And by doing so, we can transform Singapore into the Sustainable Finance, Business and Trusted Carbon Trading Hub of Asia.
How can we do this, to capture the possibilities?
One, actively contribute to the adaption of frameworks and standards for Asia. Currently, there are many standards and frameworks by key organisations. Just to name a few organizations, they include the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, Climate Disclosure Standards Board, Global Reporting Initiative, Task Force for Climate Related Climate Disclosure. UN, EU, UK have their own standards. Indeed, there is a lot of work to ensure that what we do here in Asia is compatible and interoperable with the rest of the world, and to ensure that standards are compatible between industries.
Specifically, this means that Singapore must anchor the Asian chapters of these key international frameworks and standard setting bodies in Singapore to encourage them to work together.
We should also actively steer Singapore professional leaders who are in our accounting, auditing and management consulting firms to get involved in these bodies, so that they can build up expertise not just for themselves, but also for younger Singapore-based professionals entering the workforce.
Doing this first task will ensure that the global sustainability framework and standards make sense for Asia and Singapore and that the global standards are of sufficiently high standards.
Two, get our sovereign wealth funds, especially Temasek, to spur Singapore companies to embrace and pilot these new green finance and accounting standards. While standards for businesses have begun to emerge in London and EU, there is insufficient in-depth corporate adoption. The adoption efforts of our Temasek-linked companies who are in Asia will go far to ensure that our standards are meaningful and relevant beyond the west.
Three, through MAS and SGX, push for financial institutes and asset management companies to adhere to these new regulations for both the debt market as well as the equity market. I also hope that in the process of the Government issuing Government bonds, we can also shape our Government’s approaches in evaluating green investments, so as to shape the Asian norms in green infrastructure financing.
Four, build a comprehensive green economy eco-system. We must actively anchor emerging ESG fintech, ESG data vendors and depository, and ESG procurement platforms such as G-17 and Matcha Initiative in Singapore. We must also encourage existing companies in Singapore in the credit-rating, asset management space to create ESG solutions. We can also get our largest accounting, auditing, management consulting and legal firms to partner with international standards bodies, as well as to establish centres of excellence in Singapore.
Five, we can encourage Singapore-based companies to use the new Climate Impact X, the new global carbon exchange launched by Singapore. Climate Impact X enables the purchases of high-quality carbon credits directly from specific projects, including re-forestation efforts in the region. When consumers see companies buy high quality carbon credits, their trust in the companies’ action are strengthened, and this sparks a virtuous cycle in spurring companies to do more for the environment.
Six, we can put together a national utility for business sustainability, like how our TradeNet serves the import and export business. By national utility, I mean that getting our sustainable ecosystem players and our Government agencies to provide cloud-based services, to enable Singapore-based companies to report emissions, purchase green products, and buy carbon credits.
Seven, create a Singapore industry association or alliance specific for sustainable finance, business and carbon trading. These areas are very regulatory-driven and are distinct from businesses focused on environment technology or clean energy. This alliance can then help the Government to develop the industry.
And finally, eight, create a solid SkillsFuture roadmap and position many Singaporeans for these green collar jobs.
At the start of my speech, I specifically mentioned creating green collar jobs for mature PMETs. This should not be a surprise to Members in this House given my involvement with the PAP Senior Group.
We all know that ageism exists in certain globally competitive industries, such as international finance. It is very hard for mature PMETs to stay in these same industries over the years. They usually then switch over to work for local companies in our domestic sectors, or work in our growing social work or healthcare sectors.
But we have a new, emergent area where opportunities are plentiful for our mature PMETs. If they receive the appropriate skills training on sustainable standards, their experience in governance, accounting, finance and cross-border business will be immensely beneficial to the green economy.
And because this is an emerging area, and one that Singapore can play a role in shaping, I am optimistic that Singapore can shape the industry norm so that ageism does not take root.
To conclude, in my previous speech on climate change, I mentioned that it is difficult for Singapore to achieve net zero emission in the coming decade or two, given the constraints of current technology, given the fact that Singapore serves the world by exporting goods and services, and given that we are resource-poor in terms of renewable energy.
But our same status as a manufacturing and services hub of Asia also gives us opportunity to shape the region beyond our shores. We do so by helping them go green. We do so by helping channel resources to the less developed parts of our region in an accountable manner, so that all of us, whether we live in a developed or developing country, can fight climate change together.
And at the same time, we must recognise that the greening of the economy is an irreversible tide. Sustainability is now enshrined into the core of what corporate governance is. If we help our economies and our companies embrace sustainability, we can strengthen our global standing for yet another generation and make Singapore the global-Asia hub of trust, knowledge and connectivity.
I will like to end by thanking PAP's youth wing, as well as the many climate change activists and passionate business professionals whom I met, for shaping my views in this rapidly changing field. With that, I stand in support of the Motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.
Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I must first declare my interest as Managing Director and Partner of a management consulting firm that does work in climate and sustainability.
In previous speeches, I have spoken about how climate change, one of the biggest risks facing the world today, can be one of the biggest opportunities for Singapore to lead.
One of these big opportunities is green finance. How big? According to a Global Financial Markets Association (GFMA) report, the development of which I must say my firm was involved, some $100-150 trillion US dollars in investments is needed over the next three decades to transition to a low carbon economy. This translates to at least $3-5 trillion in investments per year – an increase of five to eight times from current levels. And $66 trillion of these investments will be needed right here in Asia.
Today, Singapore is already ASEAN’s largest green finance market, constituting nearly half of green and sustainability-linked bond and loan issuances. There are ongoing initiatives and partnerships between the Government and industry, such as the Green Finance Industry Taskforce (GFIT) to accelerate green finance in Singapore. And there is so much potential to do more.
Green bonds and green loans are now established products. They need to be scaled up and the known gaps and frictions need to be addressed, as many of my colleagues have discussed today. But to meet the needs of companies and investors in the region and globally, as well as to push for more aggressive, more ambitious targets and hence, higher risk projects, a wider range of products and instruments are needed, including equity, structured products, derivatives, project finance and securities financing in order to provide companies and investors different ways to get financing, invest and manage risk or liquidity.
A particularly interesting investment space is climate innovation. Venture capital and private equity investments in climate innovation have grown 14% a year since 2016 to reach $37 billion in 2020, with most funding going into mobility, renewables and waste. But many more times is needed.
The GFMA report estimates that today, the world is between $90 billion and $210 billion short of the yearly investments in new climate technologies needed to achieve net zero. There is a need to bring in high risk and patient capital to fund investments in early stage technologies, start-ups and emerging market firms.
The first generation of “green champion” companies – like Enel Group, NextEra Energy, Orsted – they are generating shareholder returns at Big Tech levels, think about the Facebooks and Amazons. And the second generation, including companies like Beyond Meat and Tesla, are generating returns twice this. The rewards are great. But so are the risks, and the time frames for payback long. Hence, the funding gap.
So, to unlock and catalyse private capital in transition finance and climate innovation, the government and the financial markets should promote the development of blended finance structures, combining public and private capital, in collaboration with national or multilateral development banks, foundations and philanthropic organisations, such as the Gates' Foundation. This must be coupled with Government investment in R&D, including basic research, infrastructure and standards, and smart money from venture capital and private equity.
Innovation is critical in green finance – innovation in terms of the the financial products themselves, but also innovation across the green finance ecosystem. Just to cite a few examples, leveraging geospatial data for climate risk assessment, AI and Natural Language Processing (NLP) to facilitate reporting and disclosures, sophisticated scenario analysis and risk modelling, standardisation of legal contract language, as well as tools and platforms for green finance literacy and risk awareness, for corporate boards and executives down to retail investors. These all represent opportunities for Singapore to boost economic growth and create high paying new jobs as we enhance the green finance ecosystem and build green finance capabilities. We have built a vibrant financial sector and grown new segments within the sector most recently in fintech. We can do it again.
But a key risk to the efficient scaling of the green finance globally is the absence of, or too low carbon pricing and a lack of viable transition pathways for companies to begin. In Singapore, we know that the current $5 per ton carbon tax is not enough to shift behaviour but it has served to signal intent. If we are to achieve the objective of making it less expensive for companies to invest in decarbonising and low carbon technologies than to continue emitting carbon, the carbon tax needs to go up, no question. The question is how we ratchet it up and covering what scope. Too fast and we risk disadvantaging our companies economically or passing on the cost to end customers; too slow and we risk not achieving our climate KPIs or hurting the companies' own long term resilience and missing the opportunity to create business advantage and value. Each sector has a different emissions profile, transition readiness, industry structure, willingness of the end customer to pay.
I echo the views of the Member, like Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Ms Foo Mee Har, that the increase in carbon tax must be phased, I think with the highest emitting sectors first, with explicit forward direction on price levels and ample time for companies to prepare and adjust. And they must be implemented in a way that is a \"just transition\", minimising social and economic costs for those least able to bear them.
At the same time, we cannot afford to lapse into naval gazing. This space is rapidly evolving, The carbon border tax has arrived and the impact will be felt through global value chains, and could redefine the competitive balance between nations in many industries. And, in the words of Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, there is already a tectonic shift in capital as asset managers are moving billions and billions of dollars into sustainable strategies. Companies that do not act, may well soon see capital outflows to companies that do.
So, I repeat the call I made in my Budget speech: Singapore should be bold and lead the way. The Government must move on the carbon tax, albeit with a phased implementation. The Government, the financial sector and the scientific community must help companies and industry associations to design sector specific transition pathways as part of their industry transformation maps and manage their transitions; not just give companies time to adjust but help them move faster and with higher productivity. Singapore companies must change their mindset and see climate and the green economy as a big opportunity. Businesses, investors and the Government must invest behind climate innovation and new technologies. And they must build the capabilities, people and skills needed to do this.
Finally it is not all down to companies and production, but consumers and consumption and lifestyles. We must all understand the climate risk and opportunity and make informed choices on what we are willing to pay for, if we want to leave a better world for our children. Learn from our youth, many are already making these choices. If we do not fully embrace the new green economy, we might fall behind. But if we do, then imagine this: Singapore could be, for climate and sustainability, what the Silicon Valley is, for technology. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Rachel Ong.
Miss Rachel Ong (West Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, my speech will centre on how our Government can better collaborate with the private sector, academia and community in preparing our workforce for the low-carbon economy, via our pre-employment training (PET) as well as continuing education and training (CET) efforts.
Under pre-employment training efforts, also known as PET, may I share the following four points.
First, closing current employability gaps of our undergraduates. Over the last decade, our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHL) have also introduced and strengthened curriculum that supports growth in the green sectors though the full-time graduate employment rates in these courses have not been too encouraging. In the 2020 Graduate Employment Survey, two of our largest IHLs, NUS and NTU, saw full-time employment rates of 63.2% and 58.5% respectively, for environmental engineering, one of the lowest rates amongst engineering graduates. This lower employment rate of environmental engineers amongst engineering graduates is fairly consistent also in the years 2019 and 2018.
While environmental engineering is not the only sustainability-linked course, it is one of the core offerings. This posits the need for us to work with the private sector and our IHLs, to better understand the possible causes behind the lagging employment rates of our students in a course directly linked to the green sector. Whether it is a skills gap, mismatch of skills or a lack of job opportunities for environmental engineers in Singapore, the employability gaps of our current undergraduates need to be studied so that corrective interventions can be made to boost employment rates of our graduates committed to the green sector.
Second, enhanced course offerings in PETs. Looking forward, curriculum for up and coming green sectors can be further enhanced in our IHLs with consultation of industry players. These sectors include environmental logistics, environmental health, architecture and sustainable design, environmental economics amongst others. Some of them are presently offered as electives or post-graduate courses but need to be integrated into the core curriculum of their respective undergraduate schools.
The greening of jobs also means that sustainability-related topics should be extended to many more course offerings in our IHLs. University of California (UC), Berkeley's sustainability-focused or related course offerings make up almost 50% of all undergraduate courses, with 20% fully focused on sustainability. They come from 115 different departments out of 129, ranging from ecologically conscious art, architecture, film, design and urban planning. Our IHLs can do more to integrate sustainability-focused or related courses across schools. After all, the work of stewarding our climate in the present goes beyond conservation, but requires challenging our current attitudes, lifestyles and livelihoods.
On that note, I would like to suggest for our business schools' adoption, the study of the Economics of Mutuality, also known as EoM. EoM is a new business innovation model founded by Bruno Roche, the former Chief Economist of Mars Inc. This concept advocates that business can deliver superior financial performance precisely because it mobilises and generates human, social and natural capital along with financial capital. This provides a new lens through which companies look at their business model for a low-carbon economy. Since 2014, the Oxford University Business School and Rotterdam School of Management have collaborated with Roche separately to set up research and education centres of EoM. These centres uncover best practices and case studies for businesses and SMEs, and develop teaching curricula.
As we transit into a low-carbon economy, a business model of sustainability like the EoM could be taught at both PET and CET levels. Growing collaborations with industry partners in developing new PET programmes ensure relevance to our markets and workforce. Two examples of such public-private sector collaborations are the ITE-Sembcorp Centre for Sustainable Solutions and the Singapore Green Finance Centre. I look forward to more such industry collaborations supporting green jobs in our PET centres.
Third, complement PET curricula with CET sustainability modules. As new skills and technology in sustainability are still evolving and being identified, it may be challenging for IHLs to react fast enough to meet the current and evolving needs of companies. IHLs could consider supplementing curricula with updated modules offered in our CET institutions. This allows our fresh graduates to also be equipped with current and up to date skills. These CET modules can continually be updated with industry consultation and be the agile portion of the curricula for our students.
Fourth, supporting green technology innovations. The partnership with the private sector in building green skill sets should extend beyond established firms, to include cutting-edge green startups with new green tech innovations in Europe, UK and the US. This allows for better understanding of trends, evolving skills and technology. I have three suggestions on how we can support these green tech innovations amongst our fresh graduates.
Suggestion one is the Green Immersion Programmes. Green Immersion Programmes, a concept similar to the NUS Overseas College internship programmes, will place our undergraduates with specific firms and countries that excel in the green space. Sending our students from multi-disciplinary backgrounds to be immersed in cultures supporting entrepreneurial spirit in green spaces, will not only support the growth of green startups, but also the greening of our jobs in various sectors.
Suggestion two: green start-up and innovation accelerators. The Innovation Centre for Applied Sustainable Technologies also known as iCAST in the UK, is a research centre birthed from the collaboration of university researchers, the government, investors and local enterprises. iCAST provides industry accessibility to R&D and investors, and helps players expedite the product to market process. Industry players may include MNCs who are exploring new product offerings or new startups.
With the concentration of academia in research and real-time input from industry on challenges faced, as well as funding from private investors, iCAST serves as a perfect incubator for accelerated growth in sustainable technologies. Aligning to our local context, iCAST is the expanded version of NTU and Enterprise Singapore's EcoLabs Centre of Innovation for Energy, but includes sectors beyond energy. An expanded Singapore version of such a centre, which I will coin as Centre of Innovation for Green Technologies for now, could be formed in partnership with other nations with advanced green technology, with Singapore’s value-add in contextualising application of GreenTech with and for our regional counterparts.
We can imagine that Singapore could one day set up an Institute of Sustainability Leadership for Asia. This institute will house the above Centre of Innovation for Green Technologies, the Singapore Green Finance Centre and other green centres for logistics, buildings and corporate governance in Asia.
Suggestion three: complement private-sector efforts in supporting green innovations. It is extremely heartening to see how the private sector had stepped in to support green innovations in recent years. The Liveability Challenge by Temasek Foundation and CapitaLand Sustainability X Challenge are annual global competitions that encourage sustainability innovations and support them in another stage of new product development. The Government could perhaps find ways to complement such private sector initiatives through providing business infrastructure support for winning firms, while also exploring traineeship programmes for our workforce. It is a win-win for the firms and our people.
Moving to CET, also known as Continuing Education and Training efforts, amongst the non-traditional green sectors in Singapore, we see finance, transport and building sectors hiring sustainability-related positions, with the rest catching up. The greening of sectors will take place only as each gainfully considers incorporating sustainability concepts in their processes.
The Government could further enable through studies on how local companies here as well as overseas have incorporated green processes to their work. These practices and related competencies can be incorporated into our SkillsFuture Industry Skills Frameworks.
At the leadership level, green competencies, such as Sustainable Corporate Leadership Programmes that incorporate ESG factors, should be integrated into the \"Leadership and People Management Framework\".
May I close with the following thought, that consumer education is key. In order to create green jobs, there must first be a demand and a market value for such work, and ultimately, for companies, especially for our SMEs. This will be derived from consumer demand. In overseas markets with high green consciousness, consumers proactively look to support firms that have a green agenda when they make purchases or investment decisions. This becomes a strong motivator for companies to include green competencies in their job pool and hence, generate green jobs.
Greater engagement with our community groups, grassroots and schools to uncover and overcome obstacles in mindset change, will work well to complement the ongoing good work of Government agencies like NEA. With this, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. We all have a responsibility to current and future generations to do our best to mitigate the negative impacts of climate change, while there is still hope.
I would like to focus on two key words in the Motion: an \"inclusive transition\". This means our transition to a low-carbon society must benefit not just Singapore, but Singaporeans as a whole. To me, this also means our strategy cannot be \"go green\" at any and all costs. This is why the Singapore Green Plan 2030, launched in February last year, is a comprehensive strategy, which includes a green economy as one of its five key pillars. I aim to speak quickly on the green economy in three areas: transitioning to a world with carbon tax, carbon trading and green financing employment opportunities.
First, moving to a carbon tax world. This year's review of the carbon tax level and its forward trajectory will be an opportune time to further elaborate on plans for our carbon taxation system. In doing so, perhaps, the Government can consider the following few points.
One, to be effective in guiding behaviour, taxes must offer a certain and transparent price pattern so that businesses can project their potential expenses and plan accordingly. Instead of reviewing our carbon tax rate every three to four years, can we establish a fixed formula for the carbon tax rate to evolve over a longer period of time?
Two, given that different countries may have different climate change standards and measures, Singapore may wish to eventually explore a carbon border adjustment mechanism to equalise the carbon prices of Singapore products and imported products from outside Singapore. Like a similar mechanism introduced in the EU, this aims to prevent carbon leakage, that is, companies transferring production to countries where climate change measures are looser than in Singapore and are \"cheaper\" to comply with. At the same time, this measure can help to promote greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction efforts in countries outside Singapore and to spur others to take climate change measures seriously.
Three, as we increase carbon taxes and if we do so in various ways and various levels, I ask for carbon pricing to be part of a comprehensive mitigation strategy. It should contain support measures to enhance the effectiveness and adaptability. I think the Member, Mr Dennis Tan mentioned about just transition measures. And I would like to add on that just transition measures are indeed needed to assist low-income households and vulnerable workers when it is introduced.
Four, while IMF economists have suggested that high-income economies should aim for a carbon price of US$50 to US$75 per tonne of carbon dioxide emissions (tCO2e) by 2030, we must be careful to pace any increase in our carbon tax so that businesses can adapt and not be forced to leave Singapore. One possibility is to first set the carbon tax level at least around US$8 to US$9 tCO2e, using S&P Platts CEC as a spot reference, or slightly higher to inject some urgency for emitters to accelerate their decarbonising plans. That floor is where the voluntary market is valuing and trading carbon \"credits\", a concept that I will turn to now.
The other main way countries use to bring down carbon emissions is to establish a cap-and-trade system which caps the total level of greenhouse gas emissions and allow companies with low emissions to sell their extra carbon \"credits\" or \"offsets\" to larger emitters. There is also the voluntary carbon markets for companies and individuals, which can co-exist with compliance markets created and driven by regulation, essentially for companies or individuals to buy carbon credits voluntarily to offset their unavoidable emissions. Carbon markets allow for companies to buy and sell these tradable carbon credits that represent reduction, avoidance or removal of a certain amount of emissions from the atmosphere.
According to estimates from McKinsey, the annual global demand for carbon credits could reach up to 1.5 to 2.0 gigatons of carbon dioxide (GtCO2) by 2030 and up to seven to 13 GtCO2 by 2050. Depending on different price scenarios and their underlying drivers, the market size in 2030 could be between $5 billion and $30 billion at the low end and more than $50 billion at the high end.
The race to decarbonise in Asia is picking up pace with China introducing its national carbon market in third quarter last year, while other ASEAN nations, including Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand and Philippines, have taken steps towards establishing their own frameworks to trade carbon credits. Singapore has also pledged to reduce carbon emission intensity by 36% from 2005 levels by 2030.
It is therefore unsurprising that Singapore already plans to become a carbon services and trading hub. This is among the various recommendations of the Future Economy Council's Emerging Strong Taskforce (EST) in May 2021. We need to do this fast as part of our green growth plans as other countries in the region are also looking into it.
Despite the opportunities, the carbon trading market has long been plagued by low liquidity, poor risk-management, limited data availability and inadequate financing. While the establishment of Climate Impact X, a new global carbon exchange established in Singapore to facilitate the sale of large-scale, high-quality carbon credits, is undoubtedly a promising development, it will be useful if the Government can share on how the carbon trading value chain is progressing.
It would also be good to know our plans to further tap on Singapore's reputation for integrity and strength in professional and financial services, such as to establish a carbon credit registry to serve Asia, much like the Verra Registry and the Gold Standard Impact Registry in the US. There is a need to build or enhance the ecosystem which needs to link up the four types of key players: the upstream project developers, NGOs that certify the projects, brokers and traders to facilitate the access to carbon credits and end users, such as companies or individuals committing to offset part or all of their GHG emissions.
Another aspect is we can also enhance the existing exchanges here as it develops standardised contracts for carbon credits and set a benchmark price.
In addition, from an infrastructure perspective, the Government can and must eventually work on the regulatory oversight of carbon markets. This would enhance the integrity and standards of carbon credits traded here, making us more attractive as a hub. In addition, there may be a need to have plans to roll our developmental courses that we can upskill Singaporeans to take advantage of these new economic trends, especially those in the banking and financial services sector. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Finally, on the prospects for green financing employment growth. As our economy shifts towards a greener one, new employment opportunities in the green economy will emerge. The \"Skills Demand for the Future Economy” Report released last year by SkillsFuture Singapore identified the green economy as a key job growth area for Singapore. The report highlighted that today, there are more than 450 job roles in 17 sectors that require green skills – including financial services, manufacturing, trade and connectivity, hospitality, and the built environment. We can expect more jobs to be greener.
Take the UK for example. There are now almost half a million jobs in low-carbon businesses and their supply chains across the UK. Of which, it was estimated that there were about 6,500 employment in the sub-sectors of low carbon financial and advisory services (as of 2018). The low-carbon and renewable-energy economy in the UK was worth £46.7 billion in 2018, up 15% on 2015 levels.
Hence, we need to find ways to develop a pool of talent to help Singapore remain as an attractive destination for businesses, especially those who place a premium on sustainability. It is important for the Government and businesses to help workers to equip themselves to take on these green jobs – whether within existing sectors or in new sectors. Time and opportunity cost on the part of the workers must also be factored in to allow them to acquire the new skills and to adapt to a greener business environment.
One sector is the financial sector which will play an important role to provide the investment for sustainability projects and in turn, help to shape a low-carbon economy. But we must build and maintain the pipeline of green workers. As the green financing sector grows, we will need to groom human capital early with the know-how to align investments with sustainability and green finance principles. The Green Finance Industry Taskforce announced plans to launch workshops for financial institutions and corporates to build capacity in green finance from May 2021 to April 2022. It is hoped, therefore, that more people will attend these workshops. I hope that the Government will do more. Will this be an ongoing educational programme?
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, but beyond all these domestic efforts, our greening of the financial sector allows for a more effective way for Singapore to engage regional partners to accelerate regional climate sustainability projects. Our approach has been one of not curbing directly the financing of brown activity, such as palm oil or coal-related activity, but one that is to wait for greener alternatives to replace it. But what more can be done to engage and work with regional partners to accelerate regional climate sustainability which will be more effective in the long run?
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with strong support from the Government and our stellar reputation as a global financial hub, with a high level of integrity, we are in a good position to fortify this green economy pillar of our Green Plan. It is a fine balance to ensure that we achieve an \"inclusive transition\" to a low-carbon economy, with the participation of companies, financial institutions and other stakeholders in Singapore. In doing so, we must train to capitalise on new opportunities, strike the right balance to manage the trade-offs, and do more to raise awareness of our efforts to build a green economy. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Deputy Speaker Sir, I rise in support of the Motion.
Sustainable development requires the committed pursuit of a triple \"P\" bottom line of profit, people, and the planet.
This framework advances the goal of sustainability in business practices, in which enterprises look beyond profits and incorporate social and environmental issues to measure their overall business performance. To achieve a triple \"P\" bottom line, enterprises re-direct profits towards green technology and reskilling of workers for the green economy.
A green economy does not necessarily equate to higher business costs and unemployment rates. With the right strategies and good execution, businesses can reduce costs, improve productivity rates and ensure that more workers enjoy purposeful employment. More importantly, this leads to a net positive outcome for our planet.
As seen in many parts of the world, carbon tax regimes have been put in place to send an economic signal to move people towards a low-carbon future. While I agree in principle that a carbon tax is necessary to measure the costs of carbon emissions and trigger positive changes, this must be coupled with transformational support and plans for industries and workers to further equip to go green. We need to calibrate the tax amount and couple this with a higher magnitude of transformation support.
This is because a levy of a tax without actual transformation would simply lead to a pass through of cost and eventually lead to a rise in cost of living. This could deepen societal fault lines between those who have the resources to go green and those who do not. We must not allow the transition towards a greener economy to be a source of division in our society.
I believe an example of an industry that is poised to achieve a triple \"P\" bottom line is the built industry. Current Building Management Software (BMS) can analyse for actionable insights to ensure that energy usage commensurate with the level of occupancy and activities. BMS can also proactively support predictive maintenance which improves plant resiliency. Based on current industry advancements, there have been proven cases that such software driven approaches have saved between 20% and 40% of energy consumption at a building or plant level.
The adoption of BMS presents an opportunity for enterprises to align themselves to the triple \"P\" bottom line. BMS lowers energy consumption, thereby helping businesses reduce energy related costs. These cost savings would be further welcomed given our current elevated energy price levels.
Preventive maintenance reduces downtimes caused by faulty equipment. Predictive maintenance reduces over-maintenance of equipment that are in good conditions. This reduces time and trips leading to an increase in labour productivity. The combined reduction of energy consumption, longer equipment lifespan caused by preventive maintenance and optimisation of trips reduces carbon footprint and move our enterprises towards all triple P bottom lines.
To support the transformation of industries like that of smart building management, there is a need to aid companies in upskilling their employees so that they are empowered to achieve a sustainable green outcome.
However, upskilling programmes cannot be pursued in silo. They need to be integrated in two broad ways. Firstly, upskilling programmes should strengthen the nexus between digital skillsets and more traditional engineering skillsets. Digital solutions are necessary to monitor, track and report various parameters. Beyond reporting, industries will need to know how to leverage the data and translate into tangible actions. Singapore is starting from a good base as we have invested heavily in empowering our workforce and industries to be digitally ready.
Secondly, upskilling programmes should promote opportunities for deeper collaborations between the Government and the private sector. The Government can scale up programmes that tap on the vast range of skillsets possessed by our private sector partners. The Government should continue to seek out pathfinders and interlocutors to ensure job opportunities for our workers and a ready pool of businesses who can embark on green transformation programmes.
Recently, I had the opportunity to speak with Johnson Controls, who is a global provider in smart building management solutions. Johnson Controls partnered SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) and Ngee Ann Polytechnic in rolling out a SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways Programme. Besides equipping participants with domain knowledge such as building services management and green building management, the course also imparts foundational digital skills. Learning is further enriched by on-job training within various departments at Johnson Controls.
Upon graduation from the course, Johnson Controls supports and play a role in linking the participants to the network of building clients who are in need to hire digital facility managers. It is also worthy to note that three quarter of the course participants are above the age of 45 who are mid-career professionals seeking new meaningful opportunities in the green economy. Adopting an integrated approach towards upskilling programmes will ensure better alignment between new skills, new purposeful jobs and the expertise industries need to go green.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we are living in exciting times where digital empowers sustainability and where economic and environmental outcomes are aligned. The crucial challenge before us is to provide industries and Singaporean workers the tools, resources and skills to capitalise on the confluence of these various elements. Enforcing a carbon tax regime is not a silver bullet that can guarantee our transition to a greener economy. Alongside such tax reforms, we need to: one, strengthen the nexus between digital and more traditional engineering skillsets; and two, strengthen and scale private sector partnerships in aligning new skills, new purposeful jobs and the expertise industries need to go green. These measures enable businesses to adopt the triple \"P\" bottom line framework.
As more businesses succeed in going green, this will create a butterfly effect on the whole of society and lend a boost of faith to those who are hesitant towards green transformation. I believe we can make going green a sooner and more viable option for our businesses and create new and purposeful jobs for Singaporeans.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"\t[(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":"Towards a Low-carbon Society","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Gan Kim Yong.
The Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for tabling today's Motion. Climate change is an urgent global concern and would require collective and coordinated global action to address, as the scale of effort needed to make a meaningful impact far exceeds what individual countries can achieve.
As a small island state, we are particularly susceptible to even small changes in global temperature, which will affect anything from sea level to weather patterns to food production and even supply of fresh water.
In fact, our journey towards sustainability started decades ago. Given our limited natural resources and the lack of a hinterland, we have been pushing the envelope to conserve and maximise critical resources such as land and water, and green our island even as we embark on industrialisation and urbanisation.
As a responsible global citizen, Singapore must also play our part in making our world sustainable. We launched a whole-of-nation movement, the Singapore Green Plan 2030 last year, outlining our plans towards a more sustainable Singapore.
However, as we make the transition towards a greener future, we will need to make trade-offs and accept changes to the way we live and work. For example, as businesses introduce greener methods of production, production costs may go up because of the use of greener materials or greener ways of disposing waste. Some may require significant investments in new and greener equipment or need technologies that are yet to be available. This may eventually translate to higher costs for consumers.
But as Prof Koh Lian Pin pointed out, we will be doing ourselves a disservice if we focus only on the higher costs in the short-to-medium term and lose sight of the larger and longer-term opportunities that sustainability movement brings.
We must continue to act decisively to prepare ourselves for these opportunities, while pacing our transition in a calibrated manner and managing the trade-offs and cost impact carefully, as Ms Poh Li San, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Derrick Goh pointed out.
Minister Grace Fu will speak about Singapore's planning ahead and acting decisively on green transition, including the ambitious steps that we are taking. I will elaborate on what we intend to do on the economic front.
Under the green economy pillar of the Singapore Green Plan 2030, we aim to do three things; first, capture green growth opportunities; second, transform our existing businesses and industries to integrate sustainability into their business models; and third, equip our workers with relevant skills so that they can benefit from green growth.
There are a number of exciting economic opportunities arising from the global movement towards sustainability that play to Singapore's strengths as a transport, advanced manufacturing, trading and financial hub. Several Members, including Mr Don Wee, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Ms Nadia Samdin and Mr Henry Kwek, as well as Ms Mariam Jafaar and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim mentioned green financing; and Mr Saktiandi Supaat too.
As countries step up their efforts towards their climate change commitments, there will be growing demand for green financing, as well as investments into green technologies, infrastructure and businesses. Singapore has established itself as a trusted financial and business hub. We are well placed to capture emerging opportunities in green financing. In fact, we are already a market leader in Southeast Asia for sustainable debt. The sector is still evolving and there is great potential as demand for green finance continues to grow in the region.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has developed a holistic green finance action plan to support sustainable finance market development, strengthen the financial sector's resilience to environmental risks and standardise and enhance climate-related disclosures.
Mr Don Wee also asked the Government to consider issuing more green bonds. Yes, we are exploring opportunities to do so under MOF's Green Bonds Programme Office.
Carbon services and carbon credits will play an increasingly important role to help businesses and governments meet regulatory or voluntary climate goals. As Prof Koh Lian Pin, Mr Henry Kwek and Mr Saktiandi Supaat mentioned, we can build on Singapore's foundation as a trusted and deep commodities trading hub as well as the vast potential for the creation of nature-based credits in our region to become a carbon services and trading hub. In 2021, 13 international firms anchored and expanded their carbon services offerings in Singapore.
We are also working with like-minded partners to standardise the rules on cross-border transactions of credits and to build the infrastructure and processes to facilitate this. For example, arising from the efforts of the Singapore Emerging Stronger Taskforce's Alliance for Action on Sustainability, DBS, SGX, Standard Chartered and Temasek have set up the Climate Impact Exchange or CIX. CIX provides a carbon exchange and marketplace for companies to access high quality carbon credits. This exchange will have high standards of disclosure and emphasis on high quality carbon credits. This is how we can differentiate ourselves and avoid greenwashing problems mentioned by Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Over a longer timeframe, there are also opportunities in low-carbon technologies such as hydrogen, sustainable aviation and maritime fuels, smart electricity grids and sustainable foods. We are investing research and development resources into these areas which we would need for ourselves and we hope to build new economic engines in the process.
These new green activities are exciting, but they will take time to grow and mature. On the other hand, most of our existing enterprises will be affected by the green wave. This is because investors, lenders, customers and regulatory agencies will increasingly impose environmental requirements on these enterprises.
The impact will differ for different sectors and enterprises, depending on the nature of their businesses and operations. The impact is most significant for the largest emitting sectors such as the petrochemical industry.
We have been working with businesses in the sector to help them decarboniese. Last November, we released the Sustainable Jurong Island report, which outlines our plan to transform Jurong Island into a sustainable energy and chemicals park that operates sustainably and exports sustainable products globally.
Our aspiration is for the energy and chemicals sector to increase its output of sustainable products by four times from 2019 levels and achieve more than six million tonnes of carbon abatement per annum from low-carbon solutions by 2050.
The journey is a challenging one but we are determined to get there.
Our power sector, which provides electricity for both businesses and households is also a major emitter. MTI and the Energy Market Authority (EMA) are therefore embarking on energy transition plans to decarbonise electricity production.
We are accelerating solar deployment and plan to import up to four gigawatts of electricity by 2035.
Mr Gerald Giam asked about the subsidies for solar deployment, especially for the private property. We do not have subsidies for solar deployment as solar is already cheaper than our retail electricity and there is already incentive for them to do so. However, EMA has schemes to facilitate the sale of excess electricity to the grid and we will continue to help and support them.
We will also develop and tap on low-carbon solutions, such as hydrogen and carbon capture utilisation and storage (CCUS), when these become more viable. In addition, we will work with generation companies to enhance the efficiency of our power generation systems. But lower emitting businesses will also need to incorporate sustainability as an integral part of their business and embrace sustainability as a competitive advantage.
For example, more tourists and international conferences now require that countries and hotels they are visiting to have met certain sustainability standards. I am encouraged that a recent survey by the Sustainable Living Lab with Singapore Business Federation and other partners found that our SMEs recognise additional market opportunities, reputation improvements and cost reductions as the top three motivations for them to consider becoming more sustainable. I will explain later how we can provide a conducive environment to help our SMEs.
Our third aim is to equip our workers with relevant skills so that they can benefit from the green economy, as Ms Hany Soh, Ms Rachel Ong, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Edward Chia highlighted. As the green economy develops, many green jobs will be created that will require new green skills. For example, a traditional car mechanic will need now to learn how to repair an electric vehicle. An internal combustion engine is very different from an electric motor. A power engineer will now need to learn about hydrogen, solar and other renewable forms of energies. An investment manager will need to learn about sustainability standards and green financing.
SkillsFuture Singapore identified the green economy as a growth area in their inaugural report on skills demand for the future economy. There are green job opportunities in many sectors, such as financial services, energy and power, built environment and manufacturing. There are also skills that are transferable across sectors, such as carbon footprint management and sustainability management. These skills can equip our existing workforce to take on new jobs or new roles in existing jobs in the new green economy.
Workforce Singapore (WSG) is working with partners to explore a broad-based career conversion programme (CCP) for sustainability professionals. This CCP will not only help companies nurture \"sustainability champions\" to kickstart their journey, but also support the transition of affected workers due to the greening of their jobs.
At the sectoral level, efforts are underway to build our talent pipeline.
WSG and Singapore Polytechnic have rolled out a new CCP for clean and renewable energy professionals in September 2021. Over the next two years, the new CCP will support the transition of up to 150 existing employees that are impacted and mid-careerists from other sectors into the clean and renewable energy-related jobs.
Separately, MAS is setting up centres of excellence for training and research in green financing. We have three such centres in Singapore – the Singapore Green Finance Centre by SMU and Imperial College Business School, the Sustainable and Green Finance Institute established by NUS and the Sustainable Finance Institute Asia. MAS will also be launching a new Sustainable Finance Technical Skills and Competency category in the Skills Framework for Financial Services. These efforts support our workers in building the relevant knowledge and skills which can, in turn, help anchor Singapore as a leading centre for green finance.
To achieve these ambitions, I agree with many Members that the Government needs to work in partnership with the private sector and the community. The Government's role is to provide an enabling environment to help businesses and workers take advantage of these opportunities. Our approach rests on five key pillars.
First, we will need to right-price resources through the carbon tax, which Minister Grace Fu will speak on later and which Mr Louis Ng also mentioned. The correct pricing will guide investment decisions and spur companies to decarbonise. But it will also come with higher costs for businesses and consumers. We should calibrate and pace the adjustment carefully to give companies sufficient time to adapt, put in place decarbonisation measures and stay competitive, as Members, including Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Derrick Goh, mentioned.
A higher carbon tax will also have an indirect impact on households. The Government will consider how we can help ease the cost increase, especially for the lower-income households. For instance, when the carbon tax was first introduced in 2019, the Government provided additional U-Save rebates for three years to cover the expected average increase in electricity and gas bills from the carbon tax. We also subsequently introduced the Climate Friendly Households Programme to provide eligible households with vouchers to offset the cost of energy-efficient appliances.
Second, we will complement the carbon tax with financial support to help companies adapt. Last October, I announced the Enterprise Sustainability Programme (ESP) to help local businesses build capabilities in sustainability and capture opportunities in a green economy. The ESP is expected to benefit at least 6,000 enterprises over the next four years. It will support training workshops, capability and product development projects and key enablers, such as certification and financing. Several of these efforts will involve partnerships with the trade associations and chambers.
We will also leverage the green finance drive to provide another incentive for companies to become more sustainable. The Green and Sustainability Loan Grant Scheme (GSLS) that MAS rolled out in November 2020 encourages banks to develop green and sustainability-linked loan frameworks to make such financing more accessible to small and medium-sized enterprises to better support their transition to greener business models. The GSLS helps defray qualifying expenses incurred by businesses and banks.
Third, we are developing standards and accreditation to help companies assess and demonstrate their sustainability credentials.
To date, the Singapore Standards Council and the Singapore Accreditation Council have developed more than 50 national standards and 13 accreditation programmes supporting the green economy. Examples include standards in renewable energy, electric vehicles and food sustainability and resilience. We developed these standards in consultation with industry associations, professional bodies, Institutes of Higher Learning, research institutes and companies to ensure they are relevant and robust.
Singapore is also an active member of the two international standards setting bodies, the ISO as well as the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), at the technical and governance levels. For example, Singapore is involved in the development of new ISO and IEC standards in the areas of water efficiency management, waste terminology, solar, photovoltaic and circular economy.
At the governance level, Singapore also chairs the ISO technical management board that oversees some 300 technical committees, including in sustainability, such as for sustainable finance, circular economy and environmental management.
Fourth, we are helping our companies access green opportunities abroad through the Green Economy Agreements (GEA). The GEA comprises two key aspects. First, the GEA would set common rules and standards that would promote trade and investment in environmental goods and services. Second, the GEA would facilitate cooperation in areas, such as the scaling of low-carbon technology and pilot projects.
Negotiations with Australia are underway for the first of these GEAs. GEAs will build on and enhance Singapore's economic connectivity established through our extensive network of trade agreements. They will also strengthen international governance on trade and environmental sustainability and put us in good stead to contribute to international discourse on rules writing and standards setting in the global response to climate change.
Finally, we will partner companies to do research and development and testbed new green technologies and solutions, a point Mr Gerald Giam mentioned. This will help us build knowledge and develop capabilities and place us in a stronger position to capture green opportunities in the long run. For example, last year, we awarded $55 million to 12 projects under the Low-Carbon Energy Research Funding Initiative, which will see collaboration between research institutes and industry to develop low-carbon technologies, such as hydrogen and CCUS.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the sustainability movement is gaining momentum. There are challenges for our businesses in transiting to a more sustainable business model. There are also immense opportunities for our enterprises and workers in the rapidly growing green economy. The Government will help foster the right environment for businesses and workers to adapt to and take advantage of these opportunities.
As Ms Mariam Jaafar and Ms He Ting Ru mentioned, every one of us has a role to play to support the sustainability movement, do our part to conserve resources, minimise waste and opt for greener products and services. Sir, we look forward to continue working with the industry, businesses, workers and everyone on this exciting journey. On this note, Sir, I support the Motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Grace Fu.
The Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank you for allowing me to join in today's debate on this Motion. I would also like to thank Members, Ms Poh Li San, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Ms Nadia Samdin, Mr Louis Ng, Ms Hany Soh and Mr Don Wee for sponsoring today’s Motion.
This Motion draws attention to the importance of developing Singapore’s green economy and ensuring an inclusive transition towards a low-carbon society. On behalf of my colleagues at MSE and across the Government, allow me to express our deep appreciation for the many good and fresh perspectives and constructive suggestions that Members have put forth, including those submitted by the Young PAP.
A year ago, this House passed a Motion declaring climate change a global emergency and a threat to mankind. The latest science has given even stronger evidence on the urgency for action. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report published last August, human influence has unequivocally warmed the climate.
Without strong and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, global temperature rise will exceed 2°C within this century, increasing the intensity and propensity of extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts and wildfires and accelerating biodiversity loss in every part of the world.
Some of these harsh realities are already being felt today, as seen by recent record-breaking floods in Southeast Asia, prolonged drought in South America, high temperatures and raging wildfires in North America, followed by extraordinary snowfall.
As a small, low-lying island in the tropics, Singapore is particularly vulnerable to sea level rise. Climate change is an existential threat to us.
One year on, our efforts to accelerate climate action and embrace sustainable development have grown stronger. Since the Singapore Green Plan 2030 was launched last February, agencies have made considerable headway. In the coming weeks, the five leading Ministries for the Green Plan will deliver updates on the progress of key initiatives and share their outlook and focus areas for the year ahead.
A similar \"green awakening\" is rapidly spreading across the globe. At the start of 2020, there were only 18 countries with net zero aspirations. Today, the number has grown to 84, including the world’s five largest emitters, accounting for almost 90% of global emissions and over 90% of global GDP. Despite the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, countries have sought to incorporate sustainability and climate action in their recovery plans, laying groundwork for the transition to a low-carbon future.
Last November, I had the privilege of leading the Singapore delegation at the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26). As the first conference of such a scale and scope since the pandemic, COP26 was a landmark opportunity to rally the world around the climate action clarion call. World leaders, businesses and civil society organisations came out in full force, emphasising the need to raise our collective mitigation ambition significantly in this critical decade.
COP26 had laid a firm foundation and accelerated the momentum for global climate action. A substantive and balanced package of decisions, known as the Glasgow Climate Pact, was forged through hard-earned consensus and compromise. Parties agreed to revisit their 2030 climate pledges, or Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) and communicate Long-term Low Emissions Development Strategies (LEDS) towards net zero emissions, to align with the Paris Agreement temperature goal.
The Pact will scale up climate action and drive capability- and capacity-building efforts to keep a 1.5-degree climate change within reach. Singapore will do our part to meet our international obligations. We will review our policies and actions under the Green Plan, while managing our inherent constraints and trade-offs. We will also expand our options for reducing emissions through international partnerships and in step with global advancements in low-carbon technologies. We will review our targets and raise our climate ambition, and as Prof Koh Lian Pin highlighted, ensure that our targets are backed by the right strategies, policies and actions.
As a responsible member of the international community, Singapore has been working hard to support a multilateral rules-based approach to address climate change. Singapore, together with Norway, co-facilitated negotiations that brought the Article 6 rulebook across the finishing line, after six years of protracted talks. Article 6, which governs market and non-market cooperative mechanisms towards emission reduction, was the sole outstanding issue under the Paris Agreement Work Programme. The agreement on Article 6 clears the path for the establishment of mechanisms that facilitate the transfer of emission reductions, or carbon credits, we call it, between countries to meet their climate targets, while ensuring high standards of environmental integrity. For countries with limited domestic abatement potential such as Singapore, these mechanisms will present new pathways to raise ambition, as Ms Poh Li San mentioned.
At COP26, we also supported various global partnerships and initiatives aimed at raising global climate action. Singapore became the first country in Asia to join the Powering Past Coal Alliance to progressively phase out the use of unabated coal in our electricity mix by 2050. We endorsed the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use to affirm our collective commitment to sustainable land use. We joined various other voluntary coalitions, pledging to reduce global methane emissions, green government operations and cultivate climate-smart agriculture. Our membership in these coalitions will facilitate the sharing of best practices and collaboration with like-minded countries.
Singapore will continue playing a constructive role to sustain the momentum for global climate action and support fellow small states and developing countries to build capacity and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.
Corporates are playing a critical role in driving the global transition. They are increasingly focused on Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) issues, striving to do well and do good at the same time.
With greater demand from investors, activists and consumers, more businesses are paying attention to their triple bottom lines of Profit, People and the Planet, as Mr Edward Chia noted. The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) has gathered more than 450 financial institutions with assets in excess of US$130 trillion, in the common pursuit of aligning their investment portfolios with credible net zero pathways. More than 5,000 companies worldwide have now joined the UN Race To Zero campaign, pledging to take immediate action towards achieving net zero by mid-century, publish clear action plans and submit regular progress reports. Among them are Singapore companies such as City Developments Limited (CDL), Olam International, Singtel and the Singapore Exchange (SGX). Greater private sector involvement will be a multiplier, bolstering our collective response.
Civil society and community organisations also play an instrumental role. As advocates, they raise awareness on the importance of climate action, and organise ground-up initiatives to rally the community for climate action and environmental sustainability. At COP26, I was glad to meet Singaporean representatives from a diverse range of backgrounds: academia, youth groups, businesses, NGOs. Like Mr Louis Ng, I was inspired by their passion and aspirations for a greener Singapore and the various projects and platforms they have mounted to make a difference. Esther, Cheryl, Swati, Xiang Tian, Wei Shan – these are all representatives of how much energy we have found in our corporate as well as our NGO people sector. Ms Hany Soh said many residents also take pride in championing sustainability initiatives through the Action for Green Towns initiatives.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the low-carbon transition is well underway. Going green is no longer an option, but a strategic transition we must undertake to thrive in a carbon- and resource-constrained future. The transition will have far-ranging implications on every facet of society, including our lifestyle and livelihoods.
This Motion is therefore timely, as we are building the necessary foundations for Singapore’s transition to a low-carbon society. The Government has every intent, as this Motion states, to partner the private sector, civil society and the community in turning our collective goals in the Green Plan into reality.
If we work together and make the right choices, the low-carbon transition can yield significant opportunities and rewards. It is in Singapore’s interest to secure an early foothold in emerging growth areas so as to reap valuable dividends and future-proof our economy. As Mr Liang Eng Hwa mentioned, the latent economic opportunities in Southeast Asia are immense, if the region maximises its potential to export innovative products and expands its green service offerings. Miss Rachel Ong also described vivid examples of innovation opportunities created by the global sustainability wave, which our youths and workers can participate in.
As with all transitions, there will invariably be disruptions and trade-offs. The Minister for Trade and Industry Mr Gan Kim Yong and several Members spoke about some of the structural challenges for large emitters in the hard-to-abate sectors, such as the petrochemical and electricity generation industries. Some businesses and households may have to brace themselves for temporary cost increases. Transition costs can also manifest in intangible ways, such as the inconvenience from changing our habits and the way we live, work and play.
Yet we must press on, for inaction will cost us even more dearly.
Without prompt and effective mitigation, the detrimental effects of climate change will be exacerbated. The IPCC reports that global mean sea level rise could reach up to one metre by 2100, if the world pursues a high emissions scenario pathway. While the direct impacts may be clear, the indirect costs, while less immediately apparent, can be even more significant, as Prof Euston Quah and Tan Jun Rui have argued in a recent Straits Times article. For example, floods can claim lives and damage infrastructure, but also displace local communities, raise food prices and disrupt critical supply chains.
With the accelerated global shift towards a low-carbon future, businesses which do not adjust face the risk of shrinking demand, stranded assets and becoming obsolete. A recent study by Standard Chartered Bank showed that eight in 10 multinationals plan to work exclusively with suppliers that are aligned with their low-carbon transition plans by 2025. It is, therefore, in the best interests of businesses, the economy and the nation at large to make this crucial transition.
Deputy Speaker, the transition to a low-carbon society will not be straightforward or a quick fix. To engender an effective and inclusive transition, we have our work cut out.
Mr Gan has spoken about the concrete steps we are taking to capture green growth opportunities, transform businesses and industries, and equip our workers.
Allow me to elaborate on a few other key areas raised by Members. First, raising carbon pricing; second, leveraging carbon markets; and third, strengthening corporate accountability.
First, carbon pricing. I note that Members from both sides of the aisle have spoken in support of the need for a carbon tax and for a higher carbon tax, either at this debate or at the debate last year. I am not sure if this assumption is correct; I tried to listen very carefully, I have not heard anyone asking to remove a carbon tax or asking for it to be lowered. So, I take it the assumption that the rationale for a carbon tax is supported by Members of the House on both sides of the aisle, and also the call for a higher carbon tax is an equally shared view by both sides of the House. So, if this assumption is wrong, please correct me.
We have heard a wide spectrum of views and proposals on this matter. Members such as Mr Louis Ng have spoken on the need for an appropriate carbon pricing policy that drives emissions reduction effectively. While others such as Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Ms Foo Mee Har argued for the need to preserve our competitiveness, to pace our increases, given the weakness of a post-COVID-19 recovery. This speaks to the complex and difficult considerations that influence our approach to carbon pricing. And let me explain our considerations.
The carbon tax is central to our climate mitigation strategy and complements our suite of abatement efforts across all sectors. By pricing the cost of CO2 emissions, the carbon tax enhances the business case to implement energy efficiency improvements and other emission reduction solutions. These shifts in decisions are vital to ensuring the long-term viability of business investments and activities in a carbon-constrained world.
Indeed, we observe that carbon-tax liable companies have accelerated the implementation of decarbonisation projects. The impact of a carbon price goes beyond current industries. It also ensures that Singapore attracts the right kinds of future investments that are aligned with our low-carbon vision.
Over time, a stronger price signal is needed to steer our economy towards a low-carbon future. This will tilt the scales further in favour of more innovative low-carbon technologies, driving companies to take bolder steps towards decarbonisation. This will also keep Singapore’s carbon tax trajectory in line with the broader international momentum on climate action and support the review of our climate targets.
As many Members have noted, the carbon tax should provide a broad-based pricing signal across the economy. That is indeed the approach we have taken, as Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean had explained at last year's Motion on Climate Change.
Our carbon tax covers about 80% of our total emissions. If we include the excise duties on vehicular fuel, more than 90% of our emissions are subject to a carbon price. This coverage is one of the highest in the world. But we must also balance the need to extend coverage against the potential administrative costs on businesses. Hence, we have taken the practical approach of setting the existing carbon tax threshold at 25,000 tonnes, which ensures that the carbon tax is applied at key nodes and then flows through to the rest of the economy. This reduces the administrative load on small emitters, especially SMEs, to measure, report and verify their emissions. We will, however, continue to encourage small emitters to track their carbon footprint on a voluntary basis and indeed, a growing number has begun to do so.
We agree with Mr Derrick Goh and Ms Foo Mee Har on the need to support companies along their decarbonisation journey with revenue from the carbon tax. In fact, for the first five years, we are prepared to spend more than we collect, to incentivise the adoption of energy-efficient processes and other worthwhile abatement projects, such as through the enhanced Resource Efficiency Grant for Energy (REG(E)) and Energy Efficiency Fund (E2F). Some of the carbon tax revenue is also used to manage the impact of the carbon tax on households.
Under the Research, Innovation and Enterprise (RIE) 2025 plan, we have channelled additional funds towards the research, development and demonstration of low-carbon technologies, such as hydrogen and carbon capture utilisation and storage though initiatives such as the Low-Carbon Energy Research Funding Initiative (LCER FI).
More broadly, we have also increased investments in the urban solutions and sustainability research domain to help us better understand the impact of climate change on Singapore and develop novel solutions for sustainability, such as protecting our coastline, finding cheaper ways of reducing emissions and keeping our homes and offices cool. And this is one point that Ms Mariam Jaafar has raised, about patient capital and investments in the long run, and the Government has been investing significantly in new technologies in the sustainability arena.
Over the past months, the Government has consulted businesses and engaged the public on the need for and the potential impact of a higher carbon tax, as part of our review of the post-2023 carbon tax level and trajectory. The Minister for Finance will announce the outcome of our review at Budget 2022.
Second, leveraging carbon markets to raise our climate ambition and to give our low-carbon transition an added boost.
Companies, especially those in hard-to-abate sectors, are keenly exploring market-based mechanisms where carbon credits are traded. Some may tap on voluntary markets to offset their carbon footprint out of their own volition, while others participate in compliance markets to meet their regulatory mandate imposed by the jurisdictions they operate in. For these companies, the ability to tap on carbon credits from emission reduction projects elsewhere provides a complementary pathway to deliver greater abatement in the near term, while long-term fixes, such as changes to business models, production processes, are being developed and implemented.
Likewise, nations are looking to carbon markets, empowered by Article 6 of the Paris Agreement to raise climate ambition. We agree with Mr Gan Thiam Poh that domestic abatement should remain our priority and continue to take bold steps to decarbonise, including advanced low carbon technologies like hydrogen and carbon capture, utilisation and storage. However, there is significant uncertainty associated with these options at the moment, given that their commercial success hinges on factors such as technological maturity and transboundary cooperation, which are not entirely within our control. Therefore, access to well-functioning carbon markets serves as a complementary option in our toolkit to meet our climate commitments, especially in the event that domestic abatement options do not materialise.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Derrick Goh spoke about doing more to build confidence in carbon markets. Indeed, for a long time, carbon markets have been held back by concerns of environmental integrity, exacerbated by a fragmentation in rules and standards and a proliferation of low-quality carbon credits that did not represent real, measurable and additional emissions reductions.
To address this trust deficit, we must first establish robust rules and clear guidelines centred on environmental integrity, ensuring that the generation of carbon credits from emissions reductions projects achieves the desired outcomes of reducing overall global emissions. This is why Singapore agreed to co-facilitate discussions on Article 6 – to provide a common rules-based, global framework and a foundation to safeguard environmental integrity and avoid double-counting.
Concurrently, we are actively participating in various international platforms to promote greater environmental integrity and forge partnerships in carbon markets, as Mr Henry Kwek has alluded to. Singapore recently joined the Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative (VCMI) as part of their Country Contact Group (CCG). The CCG seeks to align voluntary carbon markets with international architecture, such as the Paris Agreement and set out pathways for use of voluntary carbon credits to enhance global ambition. Singapore also supports the Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets (TSVCM) – lots of acronyms here – a private sector-led initiative working group to shape and develop rules and standards for the trading of high-quality credits in voluntary carbon markets.
The third limb, which is to strengthen measures to advance sustainability accounting and procurement practices among our companies. Greening the economy we have today is the first step to growing the green economy of tomorrow.
We agree with Mr Don Wee that sustainability reporting and auditing is a critical aspect of good corporate governance in a low-carbon world.
SGX has published in December 2021, its roadmap for mandatory climate-related financial disclosures for listed entities, starting with listed entities in industries that are most exposed to climatic risks. MAS will be consulting the industry on mandatory climate-related financial disclosures for financial institutions. The Government will consider global developments and the experience of such mandatory disclosures before deciding on the approach for other entities.
We are heartened by the recent acceleration in progress towards a global sustainability standard, founded on the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) framework. With the creation of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), there will be a new global standard setter to guide corporate reporting in the sustainability space. There are a lot of initiatives going on and all groups are trying to get their act together and harmonise across the regions.
As reporting standards evolve, we encourage all companies to begin building capabilities in sustainability reporting and auditing, and as Mr Henry Kwek has said, to understand the key nuances that apply to their sectors and in the international markets that they operate in. This is crucial. It is all coming on us and we need businesses doing international business to understand how these regulations are going to impact us.
As a major buyer of goods and services, the Government is catalysing the change. Under the GreenGov.SG initiative of the Green Plan, the public sector has introduced procurement measures to encourage our service providers and suppliers to be more sustainable. For example, public agencies will purchase products that meet high resource-efficiency or sustainability standards. The Government will also consider suppliers' sustainability-related policies and practices when evaluating tenders. We will continue to explore ways to push the boundary on sustainability.
As individual consumers, our choices can make a difference. By voting with our wallets, we can nudge companies to green their products and supply chains. A recent SEC Newgate report has found that the top ESG concern of Singaporeans is whether or not companies are taking responsibility for their supply chain, 81% of it – which confirms the point that made by Ms He Ting Ru on ensuring that supply chain sustainability is respected; and also ahead of other indicators such as giving back to nature and the communities, 78%; and reporting the positive environmental impact that they deliver, 57%.
We agree with Ms Nadia Samdin and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim that greater recognition of businesses that embrace sustainable practices will allow ordinary consumers and other business customers to make more informed purchasing decisions.
The Minister for Trade and Industry elaborated on our efforts to develop standards and accreditation to help companies assess and demonstrate their sustainability credentials.
Other home-grown efforts include the Singapore Green Labelling Scheme, administered by the Singapore Environment Council, supported by NEA, as well as the Green Mark Certification Scheme by BCA for the built environment. So, we do have several of these schemes to help consumers make up their mind, to help decipher which are the companies that have complied with sustainability requirements. They conduct a holistic assessment of businesses' sustainability efforts and certify environmentally-preferred products that meet eco-standards.
Deputy Speaker, let me conclude. Over the course of our short history, Singapore has been confronted with multiple inflection points that compelled us to rethink and reshape the way forward. We find ourselves at yet another turning point. While the low-carbon transition may seem daunting, it can open up a brighter and greener future for Singapore and generations of Singaporeans.
As Members have rightly noted, it is essential that the fruits from this low-carbon transition can be enjoyed by all. As we put in place the right policy enablers, we must adopt an inclusive approach each step of the way, by consulting widely and providing support to those that need a hand. The thoughtful insights and recommendations shared in this House today have been most encouraging. We will study each idea carefully and incorporate suitable suggestions into our policies and plans.
Just like we have always tackled challenges squarely as a nation, we will continue to apply the same determination to the low-carbon transition, turning adversity, crisis, challenges into opportunity. We will build on our own strengths and continue to advance Singapore's competitive position by: supporting global climate action as a trusted interlocutor at multilateral fora, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the World Bank; advancing research, pioneering innovative solutions, and building new norms and standards for the green economy; promoting green finance, digitalisation, and low-carbon innovation, which are key enablers for the green transition; and investing in our people to thrive in the green economy.
Under the Green Plan, the Government will continue our efforts to spur whole-of-society action and catalyse partnerships across the people, public and private sectors for sustainability. With all parties working hand-in-hand to create new growth sectors, we can forge a brighter future for Singapore.
On this note, I support the Motion and call on the whole of nation – corporates, civil society and the community – to join us as we embark on this exciting transition. [Applause.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.
Ms Poh Li San: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to express my sincere thanks to all the Members who had participated enthusiastically in this debate and to my fellow colleagues who had listened so patiently to all our speeches. I also wish to thank Young PAP's Climate Change Policy Team for putting together the second climate change paper which captured comprehensive views and suggestions from the businesses and civil society groups.
Members of this House have spoken extensively on wide-ranging topics pertaining to green financing, carbon trading and carbon tax, green jobs and corporate accountability. They have shared many valuable viewpoints and practical recommendations. Let me attempt to do a recap here, which can be broadly organised into three main groups of proposals, raised by the 19 Members who spoke in this debate.
Firstly, to develop Singapore as the regional hub for sustainability-related services and products that will also lower our own carbon footprint, Ms Nadia Samdin suggested that publishing a guide on firms that do well in reducing emissions. Prof Koh Lian Pin, Ms He Ting Ru and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim highlighted the concerns of greenwashing and the regulatory role of the Government to protect consumer interests.
Mr Don Wee, Mr Derrick Goh, Ms Mariam Jaafar, Mr Henry Kwek and Mr Gan Thiam Poh proposed to develop Singapore as the carbon exchange marketplace for the region and building on our carbon marketplace ImpactX.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Gan Thiam Poh called for Singapore to be developed as a green finance hub of the region. And to support this goal, more Government green bonds to finance sustainability projects should be issued and tax exemptions for green finance products should be extended to companies.
Mr Don Wee, Ms Nadia Samdin and Ms He Ting Ru highlighted the need to develop international standards for sustainability reporting and accounting and build local capability in these areas by working with associations and companies. There should also be a national accountability strategy and think-tank on sustainability administration.
Ms Foo Mee Har and Ms Nadia Samdin further highlighted the need to support SMEs with more guidance, such as pre-identified green solutions and increased awareness of green loans and grants, especially for small firms. And looking beyond our jurisdiction, Prof Koh Lian Pin and I spoke about how the international carbon trading framework, as agreed at COP26, and carbon offset credits can help us achieve a win-win strategy together with our neighbouring countries to fund renewable energy projects and environment conservation.
Secondly, on the topic of carbon tax, several Members spoke about how we can further balance sustainability and business concerns in levying the carbon tax. Mr Edward Chia, Ms Mariam Jaafar and Mr Louis Ng pushed for more support to transform business practices, so that carbon tax does not end up as a pass-through cost, resulting in higher cost of living.
In addition, Mr Gerald Giam and Ms Mariam Jaafar also called for the Government to invest in sustainability technology innovation to help companies transform their businesses, becoming more sustainable and competitive.
Also, to ensure the lower-income groups are not disadvantaged, Mr Edward Chia and Mr Louis Ng suggested providing rebates to lower-income families to cushion the impact of carbon tax.
Mr Louis Ng, Ms Foo Mee Har, Mr Derrick Goh and Mr Saktiandi Supaat called for an increase in carbon tax so as to nudge firms towards more sustainable practices. They also opined that a tiered carbon tax regime being fairer as companies with lower emissions will pay a lower rate.
Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Saktiandi Supaat also urged the Government to give businesses ample notice on how the carbon tax will change. Also, they emphasised the need to equalise carbon tax treatment for Singapore-based businesses and foreign businesses importing to Singapore.
Third, but perhaps most importantly, to ensure Singaporeans can seize the opportunities of the green economy in an inclusive manner, Members spoke about how we can equip Singaporeans of all backgrounds and ages to take advantage of these opportunities in the new green economy.
Mr Henry Kwek, Ms Rachel Ong and I spoke about the importance of sustainability R&D and training. We also spoke about the close collaboration with industry and SkillsFuture roadmap for sustainability-related sectors and having more internships and on-the-job training in the sustainability sector.
Mr Henry Kwek, Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and I emphasised the importance of inclusiveness, to train Singaporeans of all backgrounds and ages, including mature PMETs, to seize new opportunities in the sustainability sector.
And, finally, Ms Hany Soh and Ms Rachel Ong are also strong proponents of green entrepreneurship and encouraged startups in this sector.
Now, to sum up this debate, I would like to turn the spotlight on two other key phrases in our Motion – \"inclusive transition\" and \"low-carbon society\".
In the course of our discussion, the emphasis so far has very much been on \"what to do\" and \"how to do\". In order for our transition to a low-carbon society to be truly inclusive, we need everyone, from the man-in-the street to the most senior policymaker, to share a common understanding of climate change and sustainability, in particular, how climate change affects our country and what are the trade-offs for us.
Everyone perceives the \"sustainability elephant\" in a different way, somewhat like the situation in the parable where the blind men touched the various parts of an elephant. For mitigation measures to succeed, we should have a clear and holistic understanding of the precarious situation our island state is in. With a full understanding, each of us will have a greater sense of urgency and motivation to do what is needed.
Our people need to understand why we need to take action, why we would need to compromise in specific areas, why certain sacrifices have to be made and what assistance will be provided to those whose livelihoods have been affected. Measures to ensure environmental as well as economic sustainability must be well-thought through, communicated and understood by all quarters of the society. Then, we can all embark on this green journey in a coordinated and collaborative way.
And the key to creating awareness and common understanding is via clear communication and continual engagement, within different quarters in the society and involving all levels. The discourse must not only remain here in Parliament but, more importantly, should continue in business fora, community workshops, in schools, for example. And viewpoints and suggestions from different groups can then be heard and included into Government policies, business practices and community programmes. And I trust that this Private Member’s Motion and the Young PAP paper on climate change would kickstart more public engagement and create greater awareness and understanding in our society.
It has been said that \"justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done\". And similarly, if I may say so, climate mitigation steps must not only be taken, but also must be seen to be taken.
There are quite a number of green initiatives already rolled out by the Government, some corporates and private civil organisations and community groups. But we should ponder, besides our luscious greenery, would Singapore strike you as a particularly green, low-carbon society?
With the COVID-19 pandemic, more single-use disposable plastic is used than ever, as food and drinks containers, in medications and more. We do a lot more food deliveries these days, and travel by private hire cars is growing in popularity. Stuck and unable to travel, people shop a lot more online and many of these items include fast fashion which will still be destined for hours in incinerators and landfills when they are no longer fashionable.
Interestingly, even as we observe the above trends, we also see more people making the effort to be environmentally responsible, such as by reducing the use of plastic bags, repairing, recycling and re-using, and even cutting down on the consumption of meat, another major contributor to carbon and methane emissions.
So, I urge MSE to continue with its public education efforts and collaborations with civil society groups to encourage Singaporeans and residents to make more green choices in their everyday lives. MSE has recently implemented the Green Action Community Plan and the 15 PAP Town Councils have also started the Action for Green Town programme to make our towns greener, zero-waste and energy-efficient. These are excellent programmes to rally communities to take action together, to keep our homes and environment green.
And compared to the potential in decarbonisation in the industry sector, our individual actions may seem small and insignificant. However, such efforts are very important and necessary to nurture a green culture and a green mindset among our people. From the daily green efforts of individuals, these choices will affect bigger ones in an expanding circle of influence. And it is my hope that, over time, being environmentally conscious and responsible will become a signature trait of a Singaporean.
Finally, I would like to address the big question, which is the subtext of all climate-related discussions – will we be okay? Will being a low-carbon society keep Singapore safe from climate change? Looking at the extreme weather patterns and events that have befallen other countries recently, such as the floods in Malaysia, we must ask ourselves: will we be able to avert the climate crisis? These existential concerns bring us back to the fundamental question of why we are doing what we are doing.
The truth is that there is no guarantee because human beings are dependent on one another. We are also affected by the actions taken by other nations. Will they be able to fulfil their pledges and follow up with implementation?
Fortunately, we are not entirely defenceless. We are already proceeding with works, such as the polder construction at Pulau Tekong and looking at other options to protect our coasts. I hope the Ministry is also considering the example of floating neighbourhoods, such as Waterbuurt in Amsterdam. Another example worth monitoring will be the proposed floating city off the coast of Busan in South Korea, a UN-backed project, which is expected to have its first platforms up by 2025 .
Strengthening our climate defence is expensive. A strong economy is the prerequisite to a strong defence. And we need to maintain our lead as a hub, especially as a financial centre, so that we can afford to pay for climate mitigation infrastructure.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I wrap up this Motion, I would like to thank Minister Grace Fu and Minister Gan Kim Yong for listening to our concerns, for responding so positively to our proposals and for their strong commitment in supporting this Motion. And having heard the Ministries' new initiatives and blueprint to enhance green financing and corporate accountability and create green jobs for Singaporeans, I am assured that, so long we stay committed to this green journey, we stand an excellent chance of staying ahead of the competition, as we transition to a low-carbon economy, and we will leave no Singaporeans behind. [Applause.]
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, (proc text)]
[(proc text) That this House calls on the Government to enhance green financing, create more green jobs and strengthen corporate accountability, in partnership with the private sector, civil society and community, to advance Singapore's inclusive transition towards a low-carbon society. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.30 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Help to Malaysians Affected by Recent Floods","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"18 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether there are efforts by the Government to extend any type of support to help Malaysians affected by the current floods in Malaysia.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: In December 2021 and early-January 2022, Malaysia experienced flooding in Kuala Lumpur and nine other states. The floods in Malaysia have resulted in the loss of many lives and widespread destruction of property, causing hardship and suffering to the affected communities.
Singapore stands in solidarity with Malaysia during this difficult time. Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan had written to his counterpart, Dato’ Sri Saifuddin Abdullah, in December 2021 to express condolences and offer Singapore’s assistance. On 22 December 2021, the Singapore Government also contributed US$60,000 as seed money to support the Singapore Red Cross’ public fundraising to aid disaster relief and recovery efforts in Malaysia as well as the Philippines, which had been affected by Typhoon Rai. The Singapore Government’s contribution supplemented the Singapore Red Cross’ pledge of US$50,000 to the Malaysian Red Crescent, which went towards emergency healthcare and the distribution of relief supplies to evacuation centres. The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) has also placed a disaster relief team on standby for deployment, should there be requests for support from our ASEAN counterparts through ASEAN frameworks. We stand ready to provide any further assistance that we can render should Malaysia require it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Health Insurance for Employees Aged 65 and Above, and Heath Checks to Determine Their Ability to Work Beyond Statutory Retirement and Re-employment Ages","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"20 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the typical health insurance coverage or medical benefits that employees aged 65 years old and above receive under their employment terms; (b) whether the Ministry has received feedback from employers on the difficulty they encounter procuring insurance coverage for senior employees; and (c) what is the Ministry doing to make health insurance more accessible for senior employees.
21 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry will consider leveraging on health checks to determine a senior employee’s ability to continue working instead of being guided by fixed retirement and re-employment ages; and (b) whether the retirement age can be prescribed based on the nature of the job rather than applied across the board.
Dr Tan See Leng: MOM does not specifically track the provision of medical benefits for employees aged 65 and above. However, based on a 2019 MOM survey, most employers (~98%) do provide some form of medical benefits for their employees. About half of employers provided inpatient benefits to their resident workforce, via a mix of medical insurance, direct monetary reimbursement, or additional MediSave contribution. The remainder provided outpatient benefits only, or various medical benefits on a case-by-case basis. About 2% did not provide medical benefits.
As our workforce ages, employers’ healthcare costs are expected to increase. Furthermore, with MediShield Life providing lifetime protection against large hospitalisation bills and selected costly outpatient treatments for all Singaporeans, an employee could have duplicate insurance coverage if his employer also provides insurance.
The Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers therefore recommended in 2019 that employers restructure medical benefits from insurance schemes to the Portable Medical Benefits Scheme, or PMBS, where employers provide additional contributions to their employees’ MediSave accounts. These additional contributions can be used by employees to pay for their MediShield Life premiums, or purchase their own insurance plans on top of MediShield Life. This reduces duplication of coverage for employees while making healthcare costs more predictable and sustainable for employers. Most importantly, it safeguards the employability of senior workers. Otherwise, employers would be less amenable to employ senior workers on account of their health.
To support employers to implement PMBS, the Government grants them a higher tax deduction limit for medical expenses incurred for employees.
The Member has also proposed that regular medical check-ups be used to determine if a worker can continue to work. If adopted, his suggestion would again create uncertainty in the employment prospects of senior workers as employers may then terminate their employment due to health reasons.
In fact, the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers was concerned that workers could be unreasonably denied re-employment if medical check-ups are not applied judiciously. Tripartite partners agreed that employers are to presume that their senior workers are medically fit to work, and that there is no need to send a worker for medical check-ups unless he or she shows signs of being medically unfit for the job. This agreement and guidance are documented in the Tripartite Guidelines on the Re-employment of Older Workers.
On the Member’s other query about whether the retirement age can be prescribed based on the nature of the job, this approach is currently adopted in certain situations which has more to do with regulatory requirements. These ages are all lower than the statutory retirement and re-employment ages.
The retirement and re-employment ages is still the most effective way to maintain employment of seniors. This is borne out by facts – Singapore’s average effective retirement age has risen over the past 20 years at a rate faster than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, the employment rate of those aged 55-64 has increased from 67.6% in 2019 to 69% in 2021. The employment rate of those aged 65 and above has also increased from 27.6% in 2019 to 31.7% in 2021.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Number of Personal Protection Orders that are Breached and Remedies to Protect Victims from Such Breaches","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether there is data on how often Personal Protection Order (PPO) breaches go unreported; (b) what is being done to encourage victims of PPO breaches and their family members to report them; and (c) what remedies are available to protect these victims from retaliatory action from the person beaching the PPO.
23 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) on average, how many Personal Protection Orders (PPOs) were issued each year between 2016 and 2021; (b) of these, how many PPO breaches were recorded; and (c) among the cases where the PPOs are breached, how many became an arrestable offence.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Persons who experience family violence may apply to the Family Justice Courts for a PPO under the Women’s Charter. From 2016 to 2020, the Family Justice Courts issued approximately 1,100 PPOs on average each year. From January to November 2021, fewer than 900 PPOs were issued.
Under the Women’s Charter, all PPO breaches are arrestable offences. From 2016 to 2020, there was an average of 60 criminal cases per year with at least one charge convicted under the Women’s Charter for the breach of a PPO, Expedited Order or Domestic Exclusion Order. MSF does not have statistics on unreported PPO breaches.
Any person who is aware of or suspects someone to have breached a PPO should report the incident to the Police. Depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Police may arrest the offender and investigate the case. A breach of a PPO is punishable by a fine of up to $2,000 or by imprisonment of up to six months, or both. A subsequent conviction is punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 or by imprisonment of up to 12 months, or both.
In line with the recommendations by the Taskforce on Family Violence, MSF will be increasing the maximum penalties for the breach of PPOs under the Women’s Charter. To better ensure the safety of survivors, the Courts will also be empowered to make additional types of orders when granting a PPO under the Women’s Charter. These include orders prohibiting the PPO respondent from visiting or communicating with the PPO applicant, or from entering or remaining in an area outside the applicant’s place of residence or any other place frequented by the PPO applicant. Such orders will further enhance the safety of the person who applied for the PPO, as the respondents who breach such orders will be liable for a criminal offence.
Beyond legal protection, social service agencies (SSAs) also provide support to survivors of family violence. For survivors who have experienced breaches of PPOs, SSAs may advise them to lodge a Police report or assist to lodge a report on behalf of their clients. SSAs also work with survivors of family violence on safety plans, to minimise the risk of violence recurring.
As part of MSF’s continued efforts to raise awareness on family violence, the \"Break the Silence\" campaign seeks to educate members of the public on family violence and encourages survivors and those around them to report suspected family violence incidents. MSF also introduced the National Anti-Violence Helpline (NAVH) in February 2021 to make it easier for anyone to seek help or report on violence and abuse concerns. Social service professionals in community agencies including the Family Violence Specialist Centres and Family Service Centres as well as those manning the NAVH can also help guide callers on the PPO process, including breaches of a PPO.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Ban \"OnlyFans\" Website due to Its Distribution of Obscene Material","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether the Ministry will consider banning the OnlyFans website which can be used for the distribution of obscene media.
Mrs Josephine Teo: OnlyFans is a content subscription service based overseas that allows content creators to post content and receive payment directly from their followers. Its terms of service require users to be at least 18 years old and prohibit creators from posting egregious content, such as revenge porn. Members of the public may report suspected violations of the terms of service directly to the platform.
Under Singapore’s Penal Code, it is illegal to transmit any obscene material by electronic means. It is also illegal to participate in or receive profits from any business where obscene materials are transmitted by electronic means or advertise the sale of obscene materials. Following a police report and subsequent investigation by the Singapore Police Force (SPF), a 22-year-old was arrested in December 2021 for transmitting obscene materials via OnlyFans. Members of the public who are aware of persons engaging in such activities can similarly lodge a police report.
Not all content posted on OnlyFans is objectionable, but we must ensure that such content creation platforms do not expose Singaporeans to the risk of exploitation and abuse, especially our youth. The Government closely monitors developments in this regard and will take regulatory action where appropriate.
Realistically, however, it will not be possible to block all objectionable or obscene content on the internet. That is why we must look beyond banning and take a holistic approach to deal with such content.
The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) requires Internet Service Providers to offer optional residential and mobile Internet filtering services to help parents ensure that children have safe access to the Internet. Our schools conduct cyber wellness lessons where students learn to identify and avoid inappropriate online content. Under Digital for Life (DfL), a national movement to help all Singaporeans embrace digitalisation, the Media Literacy Council (MLC) works with partners to promote safe and responsible online behaviour through resources and public education activities. In July 2021, MCI launched the Sunlight Alliance for Action (AfA) to tackle online harms, especially those targeted at women and girls. The AfA brings together partners from the people, public and private (3P) sectors to drive ground-up digital safety initiatives. These collective efforts help to build a well-informed and discerning citizenry that can guard against online harms.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Academic and Other Considerations in Streaming of Primary School Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education (a) whether primary school students are streamed into different classes for the following year based on their academic results; (b) if so, what is the rationale for doing this; and (c) if they are not streamed into different classes based on academic results, what other criteria are used instead.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Primary schools aim to create a rich learning environment for students to learn holistically. Schools strive for diverse form classes, with a good mix of gender, race, nationality and learning ability. Schools also keep these classes together for at least two years. At upper primary levels, because of Subject-Based Banding and students taking different subject combinations, schools may band students in broad teaching groups.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Workers Not Covered by Progressive Wage Models and Local Qualifying Salary Scheme Will Earn Monthly Salary of At Least $1,400","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many workers earning less than $1,400 per month are currently working in firms with over 10 employees and no foreigners; and (b) how will the Ministry ensure that these workers earn at least a minimum wage of $1,400 per month after 1 September 2022, given that the requirement to pay the Local Qualifying Salary does not apply to such firms.
28 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower how will the Ministry ensure that the estimated two in 10 workers not covered by the Progressive Wage Model by 2023 will be able to earn a minimum wage of $1,400 per month.
Dr Tan See Leng: Last year, the Government accepted the recommendations by the Tripartite Workgroup on Lower-Wage Workers to expand Progressive Wages to more sectors and occupations, and to require employers hiring foreign workers to pay all their local workers at least the Local Qualifying Salary (LQS), which is currently $1,400. These measures will start from September 2022 onwards, and will cover 234,000 or eight in 10 full-time lower-wage workers.
Of the remaining 50,000 lower-wage workers not covered by Progressive Wages or LQS, 27,000 of them already earn $1,4001 or more a month. For those who earn less than $1,400 a month, the vast majority are employed in firms with less than 10 employees. These firms include small family operations such as hawker stalls and heartland shops. Only about 2,0002, or less than 1% of all full-time lower-wage workers, earn less than $1,400 a month and are employed in firms with 10 or more employees and do not hire foreign workers.
The Member has asked how the wages of this group of workers would be uplifted. As outlined in the report of the Tripartite Workgroup on Lower-Wage Workers, and reiterated in the Ministry’s parliamentary response in September 2021, this group of workers should nevertheless still see meaningful increases in their wages over time due to market forces, as wages of other lower-wage workers increase. For example, with the recently announced enhancements to the Cleaning and Security PWMs, entry level cleaners will see cumulative wage increases of up to 84% from 2022 to 2028, and receive baseline wages of about $2,400 by then. For entry level security officers, they will see cumulative increases of up to 56% and receive a baseline wage of about $3,500 by 2028. The PWMs will continue to set the pace for many sectors as more PWMs are implemented in 2022 and 2023.
The Government will also be enhancing the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme. Lower-wage workers of all occupations currently receive cash and CPF top-ups of up to $4,000 a year from Workfare. As announced by the Prime Minister at National Day Rally 2021, the Government will be raising Workfare payouts for all recipients from 2023. More details will be announced at Budget this year. In addition, the Progressive Wage Mark would provide an additional incentive for their employers to pay them Progressive Wages where applicable, as employers will be publicly recognised as progressive employers. The Government will also take the lead to require its suppliers to obtain the PW Mark.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Excluding employer CPF. The Local Qualifying Salary requirement of $1,400 also excludes employer CPF.","2 : Data are based on blending Comprehensive Labour Force Survey records with administrative sources."],"footNoteQuestions":["27","28"],"questionNo":"27-28"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Numbers of Graduates from ITE's Full-time Technical Diploma Courses and Their Starting Salaries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Mr Abdul Samad asked the Minister for Education with regard to the three full-time Technical Diploma courses offered by the Institute of Technical Education (a) to date, how many students have graduated from these courses; (b) whether the starting salaries of these graduates are equivalent to that of diploma holders from the local Polytechnics; and (c) if not, what are the latest starting salary ranges in respect of these graduates.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Institute of Technical Education (ITE), in partnership with leading international Vocational and Technical Education providers, offers Technical Diplomas (TDs) to provide students with industry-recognised skills training. ITE currently offers three Technical Diplomas in Machine Technology, Automotive Engineering, and Culinary Arts.
Since the first TD was launched in 2008, ITE has trained around 800 TD graduates. Based on the annual Graduate Employment Survey, the median gross monthly starting salaries of TD graduates in full-time permanent employment are comparable to that of polytechnic diploma graduates in the last five years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Seller’s Stamp Duty to Discourage Short-term Holding of Residential Properties","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Finance whether the Ministry will review the current rate of seller’s stamp duty, with a view to discourage short-term holding of residential properties and to ensure a more stable and sustainable property market.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Government last made changes to the Seller’s Stamp Duty, or SSD, in 2017, when the holding period for which SSD applies was reduced from four years to three years.
Last month, the Government announced a package of measures to cool the private residential and HDB resale markets. As the situation on short-term holding has remained stable, we decided not to make any changes to the SSD regime then.
We will continue to monitor closely the residential property market, and consider the appropriate adjustments needed to promote a stable and sustainable property market.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monetary Awards for Outsourced Workers Performing Essential Services in Healthcare Settings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Mr Abdul Samad asked the Minister for Health whether there are any plans to support publicly funded healthcare organisations to make a monetary award to the estimated 5,000 essential services outsourced workers such as cleaners, housekeepers, porters, technicians and security officers to recognise their contribution and dedication as frontline workers, working alongside our healthcare workers, during this COVID-19 pandemic.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: This question has been addressed by the written reply to Question No. 111 for oral answer on the Order Paper for 10 January 2022. [Please refer to \"Extension of COVID-19 Healthcare Award to Outsourced Workers in Patient Care Areas\", Official Report, 10 January 2022, Vol 95, Issue 44, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans for Increasing HDB BTO Flats Supply","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development what is the number of new BTO flats that can be built to increase supply in order to meet the rising demand due to factors such as more marriages and higher-income ceiling and to lower the application rate from 5.8 applications for each BTO flat in 2020 to two.
33 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for National Development considering the 38,500, 51,400 and 87,800 HDB BTO flat applicants from 2018 to 2020 respectively and in view of the widening supply-demand gap of BTO flats over the past three years, what are the plans to reduce this gap given that HDB will be launching only up to 23,000 BTO flats each year in 2022 and 2023.
34 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for National Development in view of the widening supply-demand gap of HDB BTO flats, whether the Ministry will consider to transition from Build-To-Order housing to providing a ready stock of available housing ahead of demand to reduce the waiting time.
35 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the reasons for the current housing imbalance; (b) whether the current HDB BTO approach has been able to meet the housing needs of first-time home buyers in a timely manner; and (c) whether the longer construction time in building new HDB flats due to the COVID-19 pandemic has reduced the usefulness of the BTO model.
Mr Desmond Lee: Members have asked about the current Build-To-Order (BTO) flat demand-supply situation, what we intend to do to meet the strong housing demand, and whether the BTO model remains relevant in addressing the housing needs of Singaporeans.
The overall number of applications received per BTO flat has increased from 2.6 times in 2018 to 5.8 times in 2020, before tapering slightly to 5.5 times in 2021. Beyond providing an indication of housing demand, the higher flat application rates also reflect the popularity of the location of some of the flats on offer, with higher application rates observed in recent projects with more favorable location and design attributes. In the past two years, application rates varied significantly among BTO projects, with higher application rates observed for BTO projects with favourable locational attributes, such as those in mature estates nearer to the city center, and also those in non-mature estates located near to MRT stations and amenities.
The applications received at different quarterly BTO launches are also not unique. The total annual BTO applications contain a number of repeat applicants. These include applicants who have not been successful in the earlier BTO launches in a year. They also include those who have been successful but are waiting for their flat selection appointments, as we do allow applicants to apply in consecutive BTO launch exercises so that they would not miss out on the next BTO launch, in case they are unable to select a new flat in the earlier BTO exercise. In addition, a sizeable proportion, or 40% of successful applicants between 2018 and 2020 were given a chance to select a flat, but decided not to do so for a variety of reasons. These applicants are likely to add to the number of repeat applications.
Nevertheless, we recognise that there is currently strong demand for public housing. The strong demand is partly driven by marriage and family formation. In the near term, we expect more demand from the larger \"Echo\" Baby Boomers cohorts, or those born in the late 1980s and 1990s, as they reach marriageable age.
In addition, changing social norms and aspirations have resulted in a growing trend of smaller households. This may also be possibly fuelled by COVID-19 and the resultant constraints from the ongoing work-from-home arrangements. Today, more young couples, singles, and parents with adult children choose to have their own flats instead of living together as a larger family unit in the same flat. We see this in the average HDB household size which has fallen from 3.45 in 2010 to 3.13 in 2020.
The raising of the monthly household income ceiling, most recently in 2019, which have allowed more applicants to qualify for BTO flats, and the current low interest rate environment, have also contributed to the increased demand.
To meet the strong demand for public housing, HDB will ramp up the supply of BTO flats over the next two years, by launching up to 23,000 flats per year in 2022 and 2023. This represents a significant increase of 35 per cent from the 17,000 flats launched in 2021. Apart from the BTO exercises, there are two Sales of Balance Flats (SBF) exercises each year, which supplements the total number of new flats on offer. The increased supply of flats will provide more housing options for young couples in their marriage and parenthood journey, as well as for second-timer families, multi-generation families, the seniors, and singles, even as we prioritise to meet the housing needs of the first-timer families.
Looking ahead, we will continue to monitor demand taking into account long-term demographic and population trends, to ensure that the supply of public housing remains responsive to the housing needs of the population. We are prepared to launch up to 100,000 flats in total from 2021 to 2025, if needed, subject to prevailing demand.
Mr Liang asked if the longer construction times arising from the COVID-19 pandemic have reduced the usefulness of the BTO system in meeting the housing needs of first-time home buyers in a timely manner. Mr Sharael suggested that HDB could build ahead of demand. Since May 2011, HDB has called for and awarded the construction tenders for the vast majority of BTO projects ahead of the outcome of the flat selection, which takes place about three to seven months after the launch of the BTO projects. Hence, HDB is already building ahead of demand or actual bookings, where possible. However, how early the construction tenders can be launched depends on a variety of factors, such as readiness of sites, status of the planning approval and design development process, among others.
We recognise that the delays to the completion of BTO flats due to COVID-19 have caused inconvenience to flat buyers and affected their life plans. HDB has leaned forward and rolled out extensive assistance to help contractors complete ongoing projects in a timely manner, to mitigate the pandemic’s impact on our public housing programme. As shared earlier with Members of the House, this has allowed us to keep the waiting times for ongoing BTO projects to between 2.1 to 5.5 years, averaging at around 4.3 years. We have been able to keep the pandemic-induced delays to our BTO projects to a year or less, except for one project which had already experienced project difficulties unrelated to the pandemic. As for newly launched BTO projects, the waiting times have not been significantly affected, and are quite similar to what they were in the past. In fact, the median waiting time of BTO projects launched in 2021 was 3.8 years, which is lower than the 4.5 years for BTO projects launched in 2020. Barring further disruptions caused by the pandemic, and any specific site or contractor’s issues, HDB is working hard with its consultants and contractors to try and shorten the delays for ongoing projects wherever possible.
Nevertheless, we recognise that homebuyers want to move into their new homes and settle down as soon as they can. Since 2018, we have introduced BTO flats with shorter waiting times of around three years or less. This is achieved by bringing construction forward for specific sites that have no existing encumbrances and are ready for development. Where possible, we will continue to launch more of such flats with shorter waiting times, to better meet the needs of home seekers, even as we ramp up the BTO supply.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Educational and Family Backgrounds of PSC Scholars and Steps to Ensure Diversity amongst Them","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Mr Leon Perera asked the Prime Minister (a) in the past 10 years, what is the annual proportion of PSC scholarship recipients from (i) Raffles Institution and Hwa Chong Institution (ii) other junior colleges (iii) polytechnics and (iv) other schools and institutes of higher learning, with a breakdown by housing type; (b) what measures are put in place for the recruitment of PSC scholars from more diverse schools; and (c) what is the assessed effectiveness of these measures.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The Public Service Commission (PSC) awards scholarships based on merit and seeks out suitable candidates regardless of background.
Over the last 10 years, the PSC has deliberately expanded outreach efforts to diversify the scholarship pipeline. There are now partnerships with self-help community groups as well as with all 28 pre-university institutions (i.e. JCs, Polytechnics, Specialised Schools) to proactively identify and encourage outstanding Singaporean students with the suitable traits to apply for a PSC scholarship. Particular attention is paid to engaging students from more humble backgrounds and institutions which traditionally have fewer PSC scholarship recipients. For students who demonstrate potential at a later stage in life, the PSC has also linked up with local universities to encourage Singaporean undergraduates who are already enrolled to consider a career in the Public Service through a Mid-term or Master’s Scholarship.
The PSC scholarship recipients in the last 10 years come from a range of education institutions. In 2012 to 2018, more than 60% of the PSC scholarships were awarded to students from RI/HCI, but this has come down to less than half when we look at the average for the last three years between 2019 and 2021.
Over the same 10-year period, the proportion of PSC scholarships awarded to other JCs and IP/Specialised Schools has gone up from a five-year average of 32% between 2012 and 2016 to 37% in the more recent five years (2017 to 2021). More polytechnic students have been awarded, from 1-5% to 6-10% in recent years. The proportion of recipients from other institutions varies from year to year between 2% and 4%. The proportion of PSC scholarship awardees residing in public housing ranges between 39-54% over the last 10 years.
The PSC will continue to monitor the effectiveness of its strategies to identify and develop a corps of public service leaders and officers from different backgrounds with diverse experiences and a common heart to serve Singapore and Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tenants Buying HDB Rental Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider allowing the tenant of a HDB rental flat to buy over the rental flat that the tenant is living in.
Mr Desmond Lee: MND is committed to enabling public rental tenants to achieve their aspiration of owning a home. Hence, HDB has various measures to support them to buy a new flat from HDB or a resale flat. These include generous subsidies through various housing grants, priority in sales exercises through the Tenants’ Priority Scheme, and personalised guidance from HDB’s Home ownership Support Team.
With these measures in place to help them buy new or resale flats, HDB currently has no plans to allow public rental tenants to buy over their rental flats. In addition, helping tenants to move out from rental housing into their own homes will maintain the rental flat supply for households who have no other housing options.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Compassionate Leave Offered to Social Workers at Family Service Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry is aware if Family Service Centres offer compassionate leave to social workers who have encountered particularly stressful events in the course of their casework; and (b) if so, in each of the past five years, what is the median number of days of compassionate leave taken by social workers.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Social Service Agencies (SSAs), including those that run Family Service Centres (FSCs), determine their own staff welfare and leave policies. While MSF and the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) do not mandate or monitor the leave policies across SSAs, SSAs generally offer compassionate leave as part of their staff benefits. At the same time, NCSS promulgates best practices related to compensation and staff welfare, as well as offer experts as mentors to Human Resource practitioners in SSAs.
We recognise that the nature of work in the social service sector can take its toll and social service professionals may encounter particularly stressful events in the course of their work. To safeguard their mental well-being and to give them an opportunity to recharge, MSF and NCSS has put in place several initiatives, including the National Care Hotline (NCH) and Sabbatical Leave Scheme (SLS). The NCH provides emotional and psychological support to those affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, including professionals working in social services. The SLS is available to individuals with at least five years of direct work experience in their respective professional fields. It offers up to 10 weeks of paid leave so they can recharge themselves, and a Professional Advancement Sponsorship to refresh their professional competencies.
MSF and NCSS have also been engaging SSAs to raise awareness on the importance of organisational support for their employees’ mental well-being and to develop a culture of self-care. We have conferred with social work leaders on balancing staff well-being with maintaining service delivery standards, particularly during this period of high workload and uncertainty brought on by the pandemic. SSAs are mindful of the need to support their employees’ mental well-being and have undertaken various initiatives. For example, during the start of Circuit Breaker, AWWA established a care team of social workers and psychologists, for their staff to dial in to and seek support from. The Dyslexia Association of Singapore (DAS) also conducted mindfulness and counselling programmes for their employees, to provide advice, resources and training to improve their mental well-being.
In addition, social service professionals can access self-care and coping strategies, through subsidised courses offered by the Social Service Institute (SSI) under NCSS. NCSS also offers a range of schemes and initiatives that SSAs can tap on to strengthen their Human Resource practices and capabilities. These include the People Practice Consultancy (PPC), Organisation Development Journey (ODJ), and the Transformation Support Scheme (TSS). Apart from these schemes, SSAs can tap various other grants under the VWOs-Charities Capability Fund (VCF). The Community Capability Trust (CCT) will open for applications from April 2022 and will build upon our existing efforts to further support SSAs to achieve organisational excellence.
Furthermore, to complement the staff welfare benefits offered by SSAs and to emphasise the importance of well-being of our social service practitioners, NCSS launched the Caring for Social Service Professionals Scheme in May 2021. The scheme provides co-funding of up to 90% (capped at $2,000 per SSA) for SSAs to offer professional counselling services to their staff. To date, 63 SSAs which employ over 12,000 professionals, are on-board the scheme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Raising Public's Awareness about Scams Related to Hotel Bookings for Staycations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Home Affairs in view of some $430,000 reportedly lost recently to scams involving hotel room bookings (a) whether any awareness campaign has been conducted to specifically target those planning for staycations; and (b) whether there are efforts to work with local influencers and content creators to join the campaign against such scams.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police received multiple reports in December 2021 regarding two separate series of e-commerce scams involving non-fulfilment of hotel room bookings after payment was made. A 45-year-old man and a 32-year-old woman have been arrested for their suspected involvement in these scams. Investigations are ongoing.
Since 2020, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) has worked with Carousell to combat hotel room reservation scams, specifically by including a scam prevention advisory in Carousell’s in-platform chat function for users, for listings related to hotel room and staycation reservations. In addition, SPF, together with the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC), continue to post and share advisories on Facebook to alert the public to be vigilant of hotel room reservation scams, especially during the school holiday season.
Over the course of 2021, the SPF and the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) have engaged various content creators such as SGAG, King Kong Media, Double Up, and Woke Salaryman to highlight scams of concern such as job scams and loan scams. Most recently, NCPC engaged local filmmaker Royston Tan to produce a television commercial on job scams.
The Police also conduct regular engagement and outreach efforts to share crime prevention tips with members of the public. Through our anti-scam campaign called 'Spot the Signs. Stop the Crimes.', SPF and NCPC issue regular crime alerts and advice on the latest scam trends.
Ultimately, however, the best defence against scams is a vigilant and discerning public. In the context of e-commerce transactions, we urge the public to practise healthy skepticism, and to verify the legitimacy of online sellers, such as by checking the seller’s track record, reliability and reviews, before making payment. If a deal appears too good to be true, it could be a scam.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Subsidise Small Sub-contractors in Built Environment Sector to Bring In Foreign Manpower","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider subsidising small sub-contractors and specialists in the built environment sector to bring in foreign manpower to lower the cost of bringing in workers from non-traditional source countries.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Government has put in place a wide range of support measures to help construction firms cope with the disruptions brought about by COVID-19, particularly those related to manpower shortage. These support measures are available to all construction firms, including sub-contractors and specialist builders.
For instance, the Government recently announced that the $250 Foreign Worker Levy rebate for all Work Permit Holders in the Construction, Marine Shipyard and Process (CMP) sectors will be extended until 31 March 2022. In addition, the waiver of Foreign Worker Levies for all migrant workers during their entry Stay-Home Notice period and the residential onboarding programme at MOM’s Migrant Worker Onboarding Centres will be extended until 31 December 2022.
The Government has also extended the relief period under Part 10A of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act until 31 March 2022. This allows contractors to seek a determination from an Assessor to adjust their contract sums to address the increase in foreign manpower salary costs due to COVID-19.
These support measures are meant to be temporary and will be reviewed as the sector continues to recover and as we shift towards living with COVID-19. In this regard, we are encouraged to see signs of recovery. For instance, BCA has observed that industry-level certified progress payments have almost reached pre-COVID levels. The manpower situation has also been improving. In November and December 2021, a monthly average of about 18,000 S Passes and Work Permit Holders from the CMP sectors entered Singapore, compared to a monthly average of 3,000 CMP workers between May and October 2021 when travel restrictions and tightened entry approvals were in place. We will continue to work with firms to bring in workers safely to meet the needs of the industry in the coming months.
We encourage firms to take this opportunity to transform their businesses and work processes, such as by adopting automation and digitalisation to improve productivity and reduce reliance on labour intensive methods of construction. Firms can tap on available incentives such as BCA’s Construction Productivity and Capability Fund and Productivity Solutions Grant.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extending Relief Framework under COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act to Include Material Costs to Further Support Built Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the relief framework under the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act (COTMA) can be expanded to include material costs to assist built environment sector firms cope with rising material prices; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider establishing a dedicated BCA team to assist these firms in applying for and exercising their rights under COTMA.
Mr Desmond Lee: With the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act, or COTMA, the government has put in place unprecedented legislation that addresses contractual obligations that have been significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. We do not take decisions to intervene in private contracts lightly. Construction material prices fluctuate for a variety of reasons other than COVID-19, such as changes in global demand and export tariffs. In this regard, it is not appropriate to expand COTMA to cover such existing business risks.
Firms should negotiate in good faith and leverage their own contractual mechanisms to manage such material price fluctuations between contract parties. For example, public sector construction contracts include a fluctuation clause that allows contract prices to be adjusted according to the prevailing material price indices of key construction materials.
On assisting firms with issues relating to COTMA, BCA has conducted a series of industry webinars, and published detailed COTMA guides and claim templates since the commencement of COTMA. Firms can direct COTMA-related queries to BCA or trade associations such as the Singapore Contractors Association Ltd and the Specialists Trade Alliance of Singapore. However, BCA would not be able to provide legal advice to firms on their rights under COTMA for specific projects. Firms should seek their own advice from the relevant professionals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Cycling Networks in HDB Towns","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the development of cycling path networks in HDB towns; and (b) when will LTA build the cycling path networks in Nanyang and Gek Poh estates.
Mr S Iswaran: The Government is committed to building around 1300km of cycling paths by 2030 under the Islandwide Cycling Network programme. With this, we will have cycling path networks in all HDB towns to support the uptake of active mobility in a safe and convenient way for all path users.
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has continued to implement new cycling paths despite the delays caused by COVID-19. There is now a total of around 500km of cycling paths across Singapore, and that will be extended to 800km in two to three years’ time. Many Singaporeans have benefitted from the greater connectivity of the cycling path network.
To this end, works are ongoing in the Central Area and towns such as Bukit Panjang, Choa Chu Kang, Toa Payoh, and Woodlands. These will be progressively completed in the next few years. Concurrently, LTA has called tenders for engineering consultancy studies to facilitate the design of cycling paths in other towns, including Gek Poh and Nanyang estates. We will provide an update on the construction timeline when details are available.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Utilisation Rate of Jobseeking Apps amongst Workers Aged 55 and Above","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many seniors aged 55 years old and above are using jobseeking apps and websites like MyCareersFuture and the Silver Jobs Portal; (b) what offline resources can less digital-savvy seniors currently tap on to get help on using online employment platforms; and (c) whether there are plans to raise awareness and uptake rates.
Dr Tan See Leng: Since the launch of the MyCareersFuture (MCF) portal in 2018, the number of active local users has been growing steadily, from 109,000 in 2018 to 288,000 in November 2021. The number of seniors aged 55 and above using MCF is much smaller, but has grown at a quicker pace from 8,000 in 2018 to 24,000 in 2021. Workforce Singapore (WSG) continues with efforts to raise awareness and usage of the MCF job portal among jobseekers. This includes advertising through channels such as Google, Facebook and other social media platforms.
The MCF portal is one of several channels that are available to jobseekers. Jobseekers who require assistance to navigate the MCF portal or prefer to talk to a career ambassador or coach can approach WSG’s Careers Connect and NTUC’s Employment and Employability Institute (e2i). The 24 SGUnited Jobs and Skills Centres located in every HDB town have also brought career matching services closer to senior jobseekers in the heartlands. Nearly one in five jobseekers placed into jobs by WSG and NTUC’s e2i are seniors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on COVID-19 Anti-viral Treatments Being Assessed by Health Authorities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry can provide an update on COVID-19 anti-viral treatments currently under evaluation by HSA, including SaNOtize's nitric oxide nasal spray; and (b) what is the Ministry’s evaluation of the likely impact of the successful registration and dissemination of COVID-19 therapies currently being evaluated on (i) ICU capacity and (ii) post-COVID-19 easing measures.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Singapore has been closely tracking the development of COVID-19 treatments globally and actively engaging pharmaceutical companies to secure supplies of key therapeutics. To date, we have built up a portfolio of COVID-19 therapeutics comprising five classes of drugs – steroids, anti-virals, monoclonal antibodies, IL-6 inhibitors and JAK inhibitors. These are currently in use in our hospitals to treat COVID-19 patients with severe disease.
HSA is currently reviewing the data for recently developed oral anti-virals Molnupiravir and Paxlovid, to ensure that they meet the requirements for quality, safety and efficacy for interim authorisation for use in Singapore. No regulatory filing has been received for SaNOtize’s nitric oxide nasal spray.
The use of therapeutics reduces the risks of developing severe disease in COVID-19 patients, which consequently reduces the need for hospitalisation, oxygen supplementation and intensive care.
Notwithstanding the use of treatments, a large number of COVID-19 cases could still result in a significant number of individuals requiring hospitalisation or intensive care, and place significant pressure on our healthcare system. It is therefore important that we prevent transmission through vaccines and safe management measures.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Freeze on Increases to Fees Imposed by Government Agencies and Statutory Boards","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Finance whether the Government will consider mitigating fee increases by Government agencies and Statutory Boards for lower income households for the next 12 months.
Mr Lawrence Wong: This question has been addressed in MTI and MOF’s combined reply at the 11 January 2022 Parliament Sitting to Question Nos 82 and 83 for oral answer on the Order Paper for 10 January 2022, Question Nos 4 to 7 for oral answer on the Order Paper for 11 January 2022, and Question Nos 9 and 20 for written answer on the Order Paper for 11 January 2022.
[Please refer to \"Reasons for Recent Rise in Costs and Measures to Help Singaporeans Cope \", Official Report, 11 January 2022, Vol 95, Issue 45, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
[Please refer to \"Measures to Help Singaporeans Cope with Rising Inflation and Impact of Government's Fiscal Support for Businesses and Households on Inflation\", Official Report, 11 January 2022, Vol 95, Issue 45, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
[Please refer to \"Emergence of Second-round Effect of Inflation and Main Drivers Contributing to Wage and Services Inflation Outlook in 2022\", Official Report, 11 January 2022, Vol 95, Issue 45, Written Answers to Questions section.]
[Please refer to \"Assessment of Second-round Inflation Effects in 2022 and Additional Fiscal Policy Related Measures to Offset Impact of Non-demand Driven Inflation Effects\", Official Report, 11 January 2022, Vol 95, Issue 45, 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":"Building on Success that Singapore Football Team Achieved at AFF Suzuki Cup 2021","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth how will the Ministry build on the success of the Singapore national football team at the AFF Suzuki Cup 2021 in the near and medium terms.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Our national men’s football team delivered an impressive performance at the ASEAN Football Federation Suzuki Cup, making it to the semi-finals for the first time since 2012. Their determination and fighting spirit delighted and inspired many Singaporeans.
Our Lions’ strong performance is a cause for excitement and celebration. To ensure the future success of Singapore football, we need to build a strong and sustainable pipeline of football players and further raise our standards of play.
One key effort in this regard is Unleash the Roar!, or UTR! for short. This project was launched by the Football Association of Singapore and Sport Singapore in March 2021 to (a) uplift Singapore football, both at the amateur and professional levels, and (b) rally Singaporeans and fans of Singapore football behind a common goal.
A key strategy of UTR! is to strengthen the youth development eco-system for football. First, School Football Academies (or SFAs) will be established in schools to provide high performance training for talented secondary school students. In 2022, we are setting up ten academies, including at the Singapore Sports School, St Patrick’s School and Jurongville Secondary School, with plans for more in the future.
Second, a National Football Curriculum will be introduced to guide the development of training plans. There is also a comprehensive plan to train and mentor coaches to raise their professional competencies, so that they can implement the curriculum effectively. In addition, the UTR! office has formed strategic partnerships with the German professional football club Borussia Dortmund and the Spanish football league La Liga, to accelerate the development of our local football talent, and strengthen our local football ecosystem.
These initiatives will lay strong foundations for us to further raise the standards of football in Singapore, and raise generations of young football talent.
The success of our football programme also requires the support of Singaporeans and those who want to pursue their aspirations in football.
I was in the stands at the Suzuki Cup alongside many fellow Singaporeans, watching our Lions. We wore our hearts on our sleeves. We rued missed scoring chances, but also cheered our team on, celebrating every good pass, every good tackle and every goal. Although we had to be socially distanced, the atmosphere was electric. Singaporeans rallied together to support our team. That is the magic of sport – to evoke strong emotions and bring people together.
It is also clear that Singaporeans are not just looking for their teams to win. We want to see them give their all in the sporting arena, doing their best and striving for Singapore. This is what makes us proud. This is what unites us, and it is what good performances by our Lions can achieve.
I want to thank the many fellow supporters who attended the matches at the National Stadium or followed them from home. I am sure our Lions were inspired and uplifted by the support you showed them. I hope that this encourages more young talent who are passionate about football to pursue their aspirations, and inspire Singaporeans to join us to Unleash the Roar!
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints about Unsuccessful Medical Insurance Claims","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Prime Minister (a) whether MAS monitors the annual number of complaints brought by citizens through the relevant channels regarding unsuccessful claims for medical insurance; (b) if so, what percentage of these complaints arise from claims rejected by insurers citing non-declaration of relevant health information; and (c) whether there are data or studies that show the typical number of such incidents reported and what is the probable number of unreported cases.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): MAS expects insurers to be fair and reasonable to all policyholders, including not rejecting health insurance claims on the basis of undeclared minor and unrelated conditions. MAS closely monitors the trends for complaints lodged with MAS.
In the past three years, about 20% of health-insurance related complaints made to MAS were due to unsuccessful insurance claims. Of these complaints relating to unsuccessful claims, the majority was concerned with treatments not being covered under the insurance contract, claims that exceeded claim limits or were made after the policy had lapsed, or failure to submit supporting documents required by insurers to assess the claim application. Less than 5% of health-insurance related complaints received by MAS over the period pertained to unsuccessful claims due to non-disclosure of health conditions.
To reject a claim on grounds of non-disclosure of health conditions, insurers must demonstrate that the non-disclosure is material to the underwriting outcome and that the applicant could be reasonably expected to have disclosed the information during the application for the policy.
Policyholders who feel their claims have been unfairly rejected and are unable to reach a satisfactory resolution with the insurer may file a claim for mediation or adjudication at the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC). MOH has also established a Clinical Claims Resolution Process (CCRP) for Integrated Shield Plan claim disputes of a clinical nature, such as whether claims were unfairly rejected for medically appropriate treatment or procedures, or whether there was over-charging or over-servicing by medical practitioners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Liability of Owners of Ill-maintained Vehicles That Are Involved in Injury-causing Accidents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether there is any update on the review of whether owners of ill-maintained vehicles should be made criminally liable for the fatal and injury-causing accidents arising from the mechanical failure of their vehicles.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Member had raised this issue last year during the Second Reading of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill. MHA had replied that we would review it with MOT.
Currently, the Penal Code allows us to take vehicle owners to task, if their negligence in maintaining their vehicle led to fatal or injury-causing accidents. For the liability to attach, the negligence must be the proximate or efficient cause of the accident. This means that if the offender’s negligence in vehicle maintenance was a substantial cause of the accident which led to death or injury, he would be liable for an offence.
MHA is of the view that the current threshold is a fair one. We should only attach criminal liability if we can prove that the offender was negligent in maintaining his vehicle, and that this in turn caused the accident.
The Member may also wish to note that the large majority of road traffic accidents involving fatalities or injuries are caused by behavioural factors, such as dangerous driving, careless driving, or driving under the influence of alcohol, rather than poorly maintained vehicles. This is because we have a robust regulatory regime in place to ensure that vehicles are maintained in roadworthy condition. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) requires all vehicles to be regularly inspected at LTA-Authorised Inspection Centres. These inspections are comprehensive, covering key vehicle components and systems including brakes, steering, tyres and exhaust systems.
We thank the Member for raising this suggestion, and will continue to monitor the road traffic situation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Leveraging Latest Technology to Build Lift Access for HDB Blocks that Do Not have Full Direct Lift Access","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for National Development (a) how is HDB harnessing the latest technology to build lift access for HDB blocks that remain without direct lift access; and (b) as at 31 December 2021, how many residents have successfully applied for the Lift Access Housing Grant.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) was launched in 2001 to provide direct lift access to flats and enhance convenience for residents, especially the elderly and less mobile. At the start of the programme, there were more than 5,300 HDB blocks without 100% lift access. Of these, more than 1,000 blocks were initially found to be unfeasible for LUP due to cost or technical constraints.
Over the years, HDB has adopted innovative technical solutions and conducted pilot trials to explore options to bring direct lift access to such blocks. Some examples of solutions that have been successfully implemented include lifts that do not have a machine room at the top of the shafts (i.e. machine room-less elevators) and bubble lifts.
Through these various efforts, the vast majority of the 5,300 blocks have benefitted from LUP. There remain about 150 blocks, with about 2,000 units without direct lift access, where it is not feasible to implement LUP due to high cost, or existing technical and site constraints. For such blocks, HDB will continue to explore new methods to bring down LUP costs and alternatives to improve accessibility for residents living in flats without direct lift access, such as powered stair climbers to enable wheelchair users to move up and down staircases.
Residents living in these blocks who are in urgent need of direct lift access due to medical conditions or mobility reasons are eligible for the Lift access Housing Grant (LHG) of up to $30,000 when they buy another flat with direct lift access.
As of December 2021, HDB received 35 complete applications for the Lift access Housing Grant. Of these, 28 applications were approved, while two are under evaluation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Targets for Installation of Electric Vehicles Charging Points in HDB Carparks and Towns","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Transport for each of the towns which are not specifically identified as electric vehicle (EV)-ready towns by 2025, and specifically in Sengkang, what is the target number and percentage of total HDB carparks within the town that will be fitted with EV chargers by 2025.
Mr S Iswaran: As of December 2021, Sengkang had 28 publicly accessible EV charging points deployed across shopping malls, petrol stations and HDB carparks. This will increase to 45 later this year under the joint LTA-URA pilot tender. We will progressively deploy and increase the number of EV charging points in all HDB carparks in tandem with our EV adoption rates, taking into account available electrical capacity, and upgrading electrical infrastructure where necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Prepayment Practices Given Sudden Business Closures and Financial Impact on Consumers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Ministry will conduct a review of the prepayment landscape across the various commercial and retail sectors to better protect consumers in the event of sudden business closure.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Government empathises with consumers who have lost prepayments due to sudden business closure.
Certain sectors that are susceptible to prepayment losses, like travel agents, private education operators and electricity retailers, are subject to prepayment regulations to provide additional protection to consumers. However, such regulations incur costs to the businesses and consumers. For example, when we require businesses to keep prepayments in an escrow account, they will not be able to use them to pay for their operations and they would require additional working capital and associated costs. These costs are eventually passed on to consumers. Thus, to complement regulations on prepayments, the Government’s broader approach has been to educate consumers to help them make informed decisions and manage prepayment risks. For example, consumers can look out for CASETrust-accredited businesses which have in place measures to safeguard prepayments, such as through the purchase of insurance or insurance bonds. Consumers are also encouraged to opt for progressive payments instead of lump sum payments upfront, especially for large-value purchases such as home renovation. Additionally, consumers who use credit cards to make prepayments may approach their card issuers as soon as possible for information on how to dispute the charge and reverse the transaction. MTI will continue to partner CASE to monitor the prepayments landscape and protect the interests of consumers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Future Prime Location Public Housing Planning Zones","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development with regard to the Prime Location Public Housing (PLH) model (a) which planning areas or subzones are currently recognised for PLH; (b) which planning areas or subzones are expected to be earmarked for PLH by 2030; and (c) whether the Government has plans to impose ownership or sale restrictions on regular HDB flats within a certain vicinity of PLH flats.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Prime Location Public Housing (PLH) model was introduced to ensure that HDB flats, even in prime and central locations, remain affordable and accessible over time. The pilot site was launched at Rochor, located in the Central Area during the November 2021 BTO sales exercise.
The current intent is to apply the new model to selected public housing projects in central locations such as the city centre and surrounding areas, including the Greater Southern Waterfront, that have very high market values and would require significant additional subsidies to keep flats affordable. There is currently no defined boundary as MND and HDB will consider a range of factors, such as the project’s locational attributes and market values, before deciding whether to apply the PLH model to a particular site.
The PLH model is still new. As with all our housing policies, we will monitor and review the parameters of the scheme over time.
I also wish to assure the Member that the restrictions under the PLH model will not be retroactively applied to existing HDB flats, regardless of the proximity to PLH flats.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria for Institutions of a Public Character to be Allowed to Cater to Sectional Interests","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what are the criteria to allow Institutions of a Public Character (IPCs) to cater to sectional interests; (b) to date, many organisations have been granted such an allowance; (c) what are the names of these organisations; and (d) whether the Government can consider the expansion of the IPC qualifying criteria to include groups confined to sectional interests given their fundraising difficulties during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: COVID-19 has posed unprecedented challenges for many sectors, including our charity sector. The Government has put in place initiatives to encourage charitable donations, better support all charities in their fund-raising efforts and help them in their digital transformation efforts.
Efforts to encourage giving
Last year, the Community Chest launched the Change for Charity initiative to partner businesses to incorporate giving mechanisms into their business models. This seeks to encourage their customers to donate to ComChest as they interact and transact with businesses. The Government also matches donations to encourage giving, in schemes like the Community Chest’s SHARE As One programme, the Tote Board’s Enhanced Fund-Raising Programme and MCCY’s Cultural Matching Fund for Arts & Heritage charities.
Digital transformation and fund-raising
The Commissioner of Charities introduced the \"Charities Lean Forward\" series of webinars, the Charities GoDigital Kit, and the enhanced VWOs-Charities Capability Fund to help charities kickstart their digitalisation journey, and better understand how to better fund-raise online. Together with the National Council of Social Service and the Tote Board, the Commissioner also rolled out the enhanced Tech-and-Go!, a first ever tech hub for non-profit organisations to accelerate the sector’s digital transformation.
Institutions of a Public Character (IPCs) can issue tax deduction receipts to donors for qualifying donations made. These tax deductions are only limited to IPCs which are dedicated to serving the needs of the community in Singapore as a whole. The Commissioner of Charities also holds IPCs to a higher standard of regulatory compliance and governance.
If there is an exceptional basis to allow otherwise, the Minister may, on a case-by-case basis, waive the requirement that the IPC’s activities must not be confined to sectional interests. For example, special consideration was given to the four self-help groups, viz. the Chinese Development Assistance Council (CDAC), Yayasan Mendaki, Singapore Indian Development Association (SINDA) and Eurasian Association. This is because they were set up to complement the Government’s efforts to uplift lives by addressing the unique needs of their respective communities through community self-help. That said, the work of the four self-help groups is not confined to serving only the needs of their respective racial communities. They also run programmes that serve all ethnic groups. Should a charity wish to apply for a waiver of the requirement, it may put forth its reasons in its IPC application to the Commissioner of Charities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inclusion of Migrant Domestic Workers and Workers for Construction and Marine Sectors in Latest Vaccinated Travel Lane Revisions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Manpower whether the latest revised Vaccinated Travel Lanes' operation till 21 January 2022 includes the arrival of migrant domestic workers and workers in the construction/marine industry under the initiatives of the respective associations.
Dr Tan See Leng: Migrant domestic workers (MDWs) enter via the Vaccinated Travel Lane (VTL), mainstream lanes with Stay Home Notice (SHN) and industry-led initiative. Construction, Marine-Shipyard and Process (CMP) workers enter primarily through industry-led initiative with tightened end-to-end safe management processes, as well as the mainstream lane with SHN. Once they arrive in Singapore, the CMP workers enter an onboarding program which will incorporate the applicable SHN, medical screening, vaccination verification and settling-in program. The number of CMP workers entering through these two channels are determined in consultation with the lead agencies for these sectors and takes into account the needs of the industry and onboarding capacity. Most CMP workers have ceased entering via VTL after 23 December 2021.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Costs Incurred for Mount Pleasant and Marina South MRT Stations to be Opened in Stage Three","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport with regard to the Mount Pleasant and Marina South MRT stations (a) whether the Ministry has assessed the additional costs that will be incurred annually if these two stations are to be opened in Stage 3 of the Thomson-East Coast Line, instead of being mothballed; (b) if so, what is the assessed figure; and (c) when can the public expect these two stations to be operational.
Mr S Iswaran: For the Thomson-East Coast Line, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has assessed that it will save up to a million dollars per year by not opening these two MRT stations that will be heavily under-utilised.
Mount Pleasant and Marina South MRT stations will open in tandem with the completion of housing developments in the respective areas. LTA will work with land use agencies to closely monitor the pace of development in the areas surrounding the stations, and will update on the opening dates when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monitoring Compliance for Recovery and Recycling of Hydrofluorocarbons during Vehicle Servicing and Disposal","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what measures are put in place to monitor compliance by technicians and mechanics of motor vehicles for the recovery and recycling of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) during vehicle servicing and vehicle disposal; and (b) what enforcement action has been taken against entities or persons flouting these requirements.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are greenhouse gases that are often used as refrigerants in refrigeration and air-conditioning (RAC) equipment. To reduce HFC emissions and support Singapore’s climate action efforts, the National Environment Agency (NEA) mandates the recovery and proper treatment of spent HFC refrigerants in household refrigerators and air-conditioners, and commercial water-cooled chillers. This requirement does not apply to air-conditioners in motor vehicles, as most vehicles are exported at the end-of-life.
NEA is studying the feasibility of extending HFC mitigation measures to other RAC equipment, including those used in motor vehicles. This will be done in close consultation with relevant stakeholders and agencies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for Requirement in Organised Crime Act 2015 for At Least Three Individuals to Form A Group","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs what is the rationale for the requirement of at least three individuals to form a group under section 2 of the Organised Crime Act 2015.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Organised Crime Act (OCA) was enacted to strengthen the ability of our law enforcement agencies to deal with criminal syndicates.
Criminal syndicates often operate across borders. Therefore, our approach towards organised syndicates has also taken into account international practices.
Under the OCA, it is an offence to be a member of an Organised Criminal Group, which is defined as a group that comprises at least three persons, and has as one of its objectives, the obtaining of material financial benefits from the facilitation or commission of any serious offence listed in the Schedule to the OCA. The United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, to which Singapore is a signatory, also defines an organised criminal group as three persons or more. Other jurisdictions, such as Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom also define an organised criminal group as one which comprises three or more persons.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Assist Unvaccinated Employees Who Are Not Able to Return to Workplace","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what percentage of the 52,000 unvaccinated employees are medically ineligible for the vaccination; (b) what is the expected number of employees who are unable to continue with their current employment; and (c) whether there are plans in place to assist those unvaccinated who have lost their jobs to seek new employment opportunities.
Dr Tan See Leng: We continue to see more employees come forward to be vaccinated. As of 2 January 2022, the number of employees who had not taken any vaccine dose has fallen to 48,000 from the 52,000 reported on 19 December 2021. Only a very small number of 140 (~0.3%) were certified to be medically ineligible for COVID-19 vaccination.
The tripartite partners have issued guidance to employers on the possible measures for employees who are affected by the Workforce Vaccination Measures (WVM), such as allowing these employees to work from home or redeploying them to a job that could be performed from home. In particular, tripartite partners agreed that termination of employment should be a last resort. Ground sensing from the tripartite partners indicate that the vast majority of employers will continue to engage their affected employees. This is very much in the spirit of support and care that employers have shown throughout this crisis.
Employees who need assistance to transit to other jobs may tap on the existing career matching services offered by Workforce Singapore (WSG) and NTUC’s Employment and Employability Institute (e2i). However, employment opportunities may be limited for those who are not vaccinated but are medically eligible, as they cannot enter the workplace.
Aside from livelihoods, we are even more concerned about the risks to lives if these employees remain unvaccinated. As mentioned by the Ministry of Health, non-fully vaccinated persons who are infected with COVID-19 are more than seven times more likely to become critically ill in ICU compared to those who are fully vaccinated, and 12 times more likely to die. Therefore, we strongly encourage the medically eligible but unvaccinated employees to make the decision to be vaccinated as soon as possible.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Vaccination Leave for Workers Suffering from or Parents Caring for Children with COVID-19 Vaccination Side Effects","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether vaccination leave in addition to medical leave may be considered for workers with COVID-19 vaccination side effects; and (b) whether leave for child vaccination in addition to medical leave and childcare leave may be considered for parents who send their children for COVID-19 vaccination so as to care for their children experiencing side effects from the vaccination.
Dr Tan See Leng: The tripartite partners strongly support the nation’s effort to vaccinate against COVID-19. In response to the extension of the National Vaccination Programme to children aged five to 11, the tripartite partners have updated their advice to encourage employers to provide paid time-off to employees for their children’s vaccination. This should include any mandatory observation period post vaccination if the vaccinations are done during working hours, as well as looking after their children if they experience some side effects.
This is in addition to flexibilities that employers are already encouraged to offer when their employees take their vaccination against COVID-19. Such moves have contributed to the very high vaccination rate amongst the workforce of 98%.
Throughout this pandemic, employers have been responsible and supportive of their employees, despite COVID-19 measures imposing significant costs and challenges on businesses. The Ministry has in the past responded to calls by Members to create more types of leave for various bespoke needs, by cautioning against adding further burden on businesses. Instead, the tripartite partners support moves towards greater flexibility in working arrangements, which do not compromise the ability of businesses to compete. That employers and workers have come through the last two years of COVID-19 without the need for excessive regulation or litigation, but with a sense of unity, cohesion and focus on the long-term, should give us confidence that our tripartite approach is on the right track.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Time Taken to Roll Out New Government Technology Projects in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the average time taken to roll out new Government technology projects in the past five years; (b) for projects with a long development duration, whether tender specifications accommodate changes arising from the need to update the technology; and (c) how often are third-party technology professionals and users consulted throughout the development phase.
Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): Development times tend to be short for simpler systems, especially those that can reuse existing infrastructure and components from GovTech’s tech stack. For example, SafeEntry was developed within weeks because it was able to tap on components within the National Digital Identity platform. For larger, more complex projects, development times are longer. The average time taken to develop the initial product release for larger projects was between one and two years over the past five years.
For contracts with longer duration, the Government will consider building flexibility into tender specifications to mitigate against technological obsolescence. For example, our website vendors, who are a part of our central bulk tender, are required to notify us when products or services are becoming obsolete and to propose alternatives.
The Government regularly consults industry experts on best practices for project development, such as via the Government’s STACK-X developer conference. Many of our products, such as the SingPass and TraceTogether apps, are developed using the Agile Development Methodology, where we build a Minimum Viable Product and then continually improve it based on user feedback.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Level of Household Net Wealth and Savings in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Prime Minister (a) in the last five years, what is the annual level of household net wealth and savings respectively; (b) what are the factors contributing to the changes; (c) what proportion of the household net wealth is held in domestic real estate; and (d) whether the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the households’ propensity to save.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Household net wealth is estimated to have increased by 34% between Q4 2017 and Q3 2021 (latest data available). While both household assets and liabilities have grown, assets have grown faster than liabilities.
The increase in household assets has been driven by both residential property assets and financial assets. Some 42% of household assets as at Q3 2021 are held in residential assets and the remaining 58% in financial assets.
Household liabilities are mainly accounted for by mortgage loans. Mortgage loans have picked up amid the buoyant property market, increasing by almost 5% in the last year. The latest property cooling measures, which included a tightening of the total debt servicing ratio threshold (TDSR), should encourage financial prudence.
Annual personal1 saving increased by 58% from $67 billion in 2017 to $106 billion in 2020. Two factors have been important. First, wages have risen steadily over the years, increasing the disposable income available to households. Second, as our population is maturing and actively saving for retirement, private consumption has grown at a slower pace than the growth in incomes. The personal saving rate has hence increased to 29% in 2019 from 22% in 2011, contributing to the overall increase in annual personal savings.
In 2020, personal savings picked up sharply, reflecting a decline in consumption amid heightened economic uncertainty. Households’ opportunities to spend were also constrained by travel and safe distancing restrictions. At the same time, government fiscal measures that preserved employment such as our Jobs Support Scheme and direct transfers to households such as Care and Support cash payments, ensured that personal disposable income still grew by 1.3% despite the severe economic downturn. As private consumption declined by 15%, the personal saving rate rose to a historic high of 41% last year.
The personal saving rate has started to ease, coming down to 36% by Q3 2021. With the economic recovery underway and confidence returning, households have begun spending more. However, given lingering uncertainty associated with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, it will take some time for saving rates to get back to pre-pandemic levels of below 30%. Over the longer term, however, the ageing of the population will be the larger driver of trends in household saving.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The personal sector comprises the household sector and the non-profit sector serving households for free or at subsidised rates. As the latter is a small share of the personal sector, “household” and “personal” are often used interchangeably."],"footNoteQuestions":["2"],"questionNo":"2"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Legal Aid Provided under Amended Legal Aid and Advice Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Law since the coming into effect of the amendments to the Legal Aid and Advice Act to allow applicants who do not satisfy the means test to be nonetheless provided legal aid if it is “just and proper” to do so (a) how many (i) applications have been received to date and (ii) applicants were provided with legal aid; and (b) what are the main grounds upon which discretion is exercised by the Minister or Civil Legal Aid Means Test Panel to grant legal aid to such applicants.
Mr K Shanmugam: In deciding whether to waive part or all of the prescribed Means Test requirements, the Minister or the Means Test Panel considers whether the applicant can afford the legal fees on their own, without causing significant hardship to themselves or their family. Examples of the factors considered include: (a) Whether the applicant or dependents currently have or will have unmet basic needs, such as food, shelter or healthcare, if they are to spend their income or assets on legal fees; (b) Whether the applicant’s inability to meet basic needs is due to serious and long-term reasons such as health and caregiving obligations; and (c) Whether the applicant receives or is likely to receive sufficient support from other sources such as family members and other aid schemes.
Since its inception in 2019, the Panel has waived the requirements for five out of seven appeals received. The approved cases involved applicants who faced serious and long-term financial challenges, such as poor health or caregiving responsibilities. Of the five cases, two eventually did not proceed with their applications.
So far, there has been no necessity for the Minister to exercise his power to grant discretion as there has been no appeals to the Minister.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Take-up Rate of iLAB Since Its Launch and Plans to Promote Its Service","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Law since the launch of iLAB, a free legal chatbox that provides customised legal information on topics that lay people will find relevant such as family law, in February 2020 (a) what has been the take-up rate for this service in the past year; and (b) what plans does his Ministry have to promote the use of iLAB.
Mr K Shanmugam: In 2021, iLAB registered a total of 47,579 queries in 3,408 sessions, and an average of about 240 users per month. It has received good feedback, averaging four out of five stars in post-usage surveys.
LAB has been working with various organisations such as the Community Justice Centre (CJC), the Law Society Pro Bono Services (LSPBS) and various social agencies, including PAVE, Star Shelter, Big Love and Heart@Feiyue to promote the use of iLAB.
To improve the effectiveness of iLAB, LAB has been increasing the topics covered to make it more useful. At launch, iLAB covered Divorce, Family Violence, Custody and Guardianship, Maintenance and COVID-19 legal issues. Since then, two more topics – Deed of Separation, and Deputyship – were added in December 2021. The Deed of Separation module also includes a basic Deed of Separation generation tool. Another topic, Monetary Claims, will be added by Q1 2022.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Current Prices of Indigenous Gross Domestic Product and Gross National Income and Other National Indices in Last 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Trade and Industry for each year over the last 10 years, what are the current prices of (i) indigenous Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (ii) indigenous Gross National Income (GNI) (iii) indigenous GDP as a share of total GDP (iv) indigenous GNI as a share of total GNI (v) per capita indigenous GDP and (vi) per capita indigenous GNI, respectively.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Department of Statistics (DOS) no longer compiles the indigenous GDP and indigenous GNI series due to a lack of public demand for them. Indigenous GDP and indigenous GNI are also not national accounts concepts nor are they compiled by other countries.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown in Deciles of Household Sector Balance Sheet by Household Assets, Liabilities and Net Wealth Annually over Last 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Trade and Industry for each year over the last 10 years, what is the breakdown in deciles of the Household Sector Balance Sheet by household assets, household liabilities and household net wealth, respectively.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Department of Statistics compiles the household sector balance sheet using aggregated data from firms and institutions, and not data at the household level. As such, it is not possible to provide a breakdown of the household sector balance sheet information by deciles.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lower Reliance on Liquified Natural Gas to Hedge against Rising Electricity Prices and Pilot Trial to Import Electricity from Malaysia","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether Singapore is on track with national plans to rebalance by lowering the reliance on liquified natural gas with other energy sources in order to hedge against rising electricity prices.
8 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether he can provide an update on the pilot trial to import electricity from Malaysia.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Under the Energy Reset pillar of the Singapore Green Plan 2030, Singapore will decarbonise our power sector by tapping on solar power, low-carbon electricity from the region and emerging low-carbon alternatives such as hydrogen and geothermal energy.
Solar is currently the only viable renewable energy for large-scale deployment in Singapore. The Energy Market Authority (EMA) is on track to achieve its solar target of at least two gigawatt-peak (GWp) by 2030, and accelerated target of 1.5 GWp by 2025. It will continue to maximise solar deployment, including on rooftops and reservoirs. Nevertheless, given our land and geographic constraints, solar deployment will still only serve around 3% of Singapore’s energy demand in 2030 even as we seek to maximise deployment.
Imported electricity is more scalable as we sit in a region with strong potential for renewable energy. We are working with our regional partners to develop regional power grids and tap on them for electricity imports. In October 2021, EMA announced plans to import up to four gigawatts (GW) of low-carbon electricity, or around 30% of our electricity supply, by 2035. EMA issued the first Request for Proposal in November 2021, for the import of up to 1.2GW of electricity by 2027.
EMA has also been working with various partners on trials to import electricity1, so as to refine the technical and regulatory frameworks for large-scale electricity imports into Singapore. This includes the two-year trial to import 100 megawatts (MW) of electricity from Malaysia via the existing interconnector between Singapore and Peninsular Malaysia. In October 2021, EMA appointed YTL PowerSeraya (YTLPS). YTLPS is in the process of securing approvals from the relevant authorities and entering into connection agreements with off-takers, and is on track to commencing the trial this year.
Over a longer time frame, there are emerging technologies to provide low-carbon electricity, including hydrogen and carbon capture, utilisation and storage. Under the Low-Carbon Energy Research Funding Initiative, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) had awarded $55 million to support the development of such solutions. MTI also entered into several partnerships with countries such as Australia, Chile, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, New Zealand, and the US, to collaborate on low-carbon solutions including hydrogen. EMA will continue working with industry partners to explore other forms of renewable energy which are not yet viable in Singapore, including geothermal energy.
Over the past few months, a confluence of recovering economic activity, severe weather events, and a series of gas production outages have sent global energy prices significantly higher. These have raised electricity prices in many countries. As around 95% of Singapore’s electricity is generated using natural gas, we were also susceptible to the increase in global gas prices. EMA has also put in place various measures to safeguard our energy security and resilience.
While the development of the alternative energy sources will enable us to reduce reliance on natural gas in the long-run, Singapore will still have to import most of our energy supply, in one form or another. We therefore cannot be fully insulated from the volatility in the global energy market regardless of the type of energy we import. Our pace of transition to cleaner energy sources will ultimately depend on when emerging alternative technologies become economically viable.
MTI and EMA will continue to develop alternative energy solutions to decarbonise and diversify our energy sources. Singaporeans are also encouraged to conserve energy as a way of life.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Besides the 100MW trial in Peninsular Malaysia, EMA has also been working with various partners on two other trials, i) 100MW Lao PDR-Thailand-Malaysia-Singapore Power Integration Project (PIP) that is expected to commence in 2022, and ii) 100MW trial with a consortium led by PacificLight Power (PLP) from Pulau Bulan in Indonesia that is expected to commence in 2024."],"footNoteQuestions":["7","8"],"questionNo":"7-8"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reports Received of Consumer Prepayments Lost Due to Business Closures and Amounts Involved and Recovered","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry since 2020 (a) how many reports have been received of consumer prepayments being lost due to business closures; (b) what is the total amount of reported lost prepayments; (c) what is the median amount of lost prepayments per affected consumer; and (d) what proportion of prepayments are subsequently recovered.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Since 2020, the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) received about 420 reports of consumer prepayments being lost due to business closures. The total amount of reported lost prepayments was around $720,000, while the median amount of lost prepayments per affected consumer was around $680. Of consumers who went on to seek CASE’s assistance, about one in three were able to recover some of their losses. Some may have recovered their losses through other avenues such as through the Small Claims Tribunal. However, we do not have data on the prepayments recovered through other avenues.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Domestic Consumer Spending in Last Five Years and Expected Trend in 2022","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) in the last five years, what is the annual amount of domestic consumer spending with a breakdown by luxury and non-luxury items respectively; (b) how much of the reduction in local tourism spending in the last two years have been offset by higher domestic spending; and (c) what is the expected trend in domestic consumer spending in 2022.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The domestic consumption expenditure of residents from 2016 to 2020 was $134.4 billion, $139.3 billion, $146.3 billion, $151.8 billion and $147.1 billion. The data is not granular enough to break down into luxury and non-luxury items.
Nonetheless, the Singapore Tourism Board has been in close contact with business operators in tourist shopping areas like Orchard Road and the Integrated Resorts. The general feedback is that Singaporeans have supported the tourism and tourism-related sectors by staying in our hotels, visiting our attractions, going on local tours, shopping locally, and eating at our F&B outlets. As of 1 December 2021, $280 million in vouchers and additional expenditure had been spent under the SingapoRediscovers Vouchers (SRV) scheme. However, such domestic spending is unlikely to make up for the decline in international tourism expenditure. In 2019, tourism receipts hit close to $28 billion, but fell to less than $5 billion in 2020. We expect further declines in 2021 because of the international travel restrictions put in place by many countries.
As we progressively ease domestic restrictions, and consumer sentiments improve in tandem with the turnaround in labour market conditions, the domestic consumption expenditure of residents is likely to increase in 2022. Nonetheless, this increase is unlikely to make up for the fall in tourism receipts. As the recovery in visitor arrivals is expected to be slow, activity in some consumer-facing sectors like the food & beverage services sector, may not return to pre-COVID levels by the end of 2022.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Revisions to Design and Technology for On-Board Units for Next-Generation Electronic Road Pricing System and Measures to Ensure Compatibility with Latest Technology and Consumer Preferences","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the revisions to the design and technology for the On-Board Units for the Next-Generation Electronic Road Pricing System since the last update; and (b) how will the Ministry ensure that the Unit stays compatible with the latest technology and consumer preferences when it is implemented in mid-2023.
Mr S Iswaran: The On-Board Unit (OBU) has been designed to balance several needs. These include performing the charging functions accurately and securely in different vehicle types and environments, as well as being able to interoperate with both the existing system and the new global navigation satellite system (GNSS).
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) conducted surveys and focus group discussions with motorists last year to better understand and meet motorists’ preferences for OBU installation positions and display user interface. While this will not lead to a fundamental redesign of the OBU at this juncture, it will help improve the motorists’ experience.
As previously announced, we are also studying the option of allowing motorists to use their smartphones as the display screen of the OBU and will be engaging the industry on possible ways to implement this.
The nexgen ERP system is designed for long-term use. It is supported by GNSS technology which remains one of the most commonly used navigation technologies today. In addition, the nexgen ERP system is based on open standards and adopts a modular design to provide greater flexibility for future updates and improvements. We will continue to monitor technological developments and incorporate refinements where feasible.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhancing Existing Requirements for Vaccinated Travel Lane Travellers to Minimise Imported Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider enhancing the existing requirements for all Vaccinated Travel Lane (VTL) travellers, such as adding 24-hour Stay-Home Notice at a specified facility, to balance the need to minimise imported cases with supporting air travel, local tourism and businesses.
Mr S Iswaran: The Ministry of Health’s (MOH) current assessment is that the enhanced testing regime and limits on the number of VTL arrivals that we imposed after the Omicron variant was designated as a Variant of Concern are sufficient to manage the public health risk, and there is no need to introduce a 24-hour Stay-Home Notice for VTL travellers.
The Ministry of Transport (MOT) will continue to work closely with MOH to regularly review our border measures, and reopen our borders in a careful and calibrated manner while safeguarding public health.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Percentage of Cases Where Surveillance Cameras Did Not Detect Instances of High-rise Littering or Identity of Culprit","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in the past year, whether the Ministry has any data on the percentage of cases where the surveillance camera did not detect any instances of high-rise littering or was not able to identify the culprit.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: When there is persistent high-rise littering feedback at a block of HDB flats, the National Environment Agency (NEA) will work with the Town Council to first issue advisories to residents in the block. Should the issue persist, surveillance cameras with video analytics will then be deployed.
In the last five years, on average, high-rise littering incidents would be detected in about 40% of surveillance camera deployments. Of the high-rise littering cases detected by the cameras, the offender could not be identified from our investigations in about 3.5% of cases.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rules of Engagement for School Counsellors Dealing with Runaway Youths","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the rules of engagement that a school counsellor has to abide by when dealing with a youth who has run away from home; (b) whether a parent or guardian needs to be informed when a counsellor is engaging with such youths; and (c) in what cases will the Child Protective Service be activated.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: When youths run away from home, school personnel including teachers, School Counsellors (SCs) or Student Welfare Officers (SWOs) would help to find them and offer support. They would quickly ascertain that the youths are not in any danger and the circumstances that caused the youths to run away.
For non-abuse cases, SCs or SWOs would advise the youths to return home. The school would engage the parents and link the family with the relevant community partners (e.g. social workers from Family Service Centres) for support when they return home. The school would also monitor the well-being of the youths and provide counselling support when they return to school, with consent from their parents.
Where abuse is suspected, Principals report such cases immediately to the Child Protective Service, and work closely with the Child Protection Officers and/or Approved Welfare Officers to ensure that timely intervention is provided for the youths involved. SCs and SWOs are trained to use the Child Abuse Reporting Guide which was jointly developed by Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and the Ministries with frontline staff working with children (e.g. Education, Health, Police).
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Subsidiaries of Temasek Holdings and GIC Involved in Major Potential Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance Issues","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Finance (a) whether the Government as sole shareholder of Temasek Holdings and GIC has ever directed Temasek or GIC to take decisions relating to subsidiary companies involved in major potential environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) and reputational scandals such as the Brazilian government's lawsuit against Olam; and (b) how the public, through the Government, can hold the boards of Temasek and GIC to account on ESG issues.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Government does not direct the individual investment actions of GIC and Temasek. GIC and Temasek make investment decisions that are oriented towards generating long-term returns on a sustainable basis. These decisions are the responsibility of their Boards and managements, and are independent of the Government.
The Government monitors the long-term performances of GIC’s and Temasek’s overall portfolios. Both GIC and Temasek believe that companies with good sustainability practices can have better returns over the long term, and have integrated Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) considerations into their investment processes. For instance, Temasek monitors relevant ESG-related developments in its investee companies and shares its perspectives on ESG with the investees’ Boards and management teams where appropriate. GIC’s investment teams incorporate climate change risks in its investment process, and actively engage its investee companies in their transition towards sustainability.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Publication of Findings of REACH Survey in 2021 on Social Workers Impacted by COVID-19","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry will be publishing the findings of the REACH survey in 2021 on how social workers have been impacted by COVID-19; (b) if so, when will the findings be published; and (c) what further steps will be taken by the Ministry to consult with social workers after obtaining the survey findings.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: REACH conducted a dipstick survey with 547 social workers on how social workers have been impacted by COVID-19. The survey was conducted from 15 October to 26 October 2021 and the findings were subsequently shared with MSF and the Singapore Association of Social Workers (SASW).
The purpose of these surveys and engagements are to inform MSF and the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) in our ongoing efforts to support our social workers, working closely with our Social Service Agencies (SSAs). SSAs play an important role in supporting and retaining their staff and initiatives are in place to support and strengthen their Human Resource (HR) practices and policies1, in areas such as Recruitment and Selection, Compensation and Benefits, Performance Management and Career Development.
The survey reflects sentiments expressed by social workers with regard to their remuneration, amount of workload and issues of inter-agency coordination, which MSF and NCSS have been working together to address.
To support our social workers, MSF and NCSS publish sector salary guidelines and SSAs are encouraged to adhere to these guidelines to reward and retain good staff. Funding to MSF programmes is calibrated to allow SSAs to hire at a reasonable staff to client ratio, and remunerate staff according to the salary guidelines. During COVID-19, the Government provided significant support to SSAs in the form of the Jobs Support Scheme to retain their workforce, and MSF stepped in further to provide more funding where necessary to support SSAs in coping with additional work brought about by COVID-19. We also reviewed if services could be delivered online to facilitate work from home and closely monitored the staffing of MSF-funded programmes, and directed SSAs with shortfall in staff to relevant grants and schemes to meet their transformation and hiring needs. In-sector social workers can also apply for the Sabbatical Leave Scheme supported by NCSS and the VWOs-Charities Capability Fund (VCF). The Sabbatical Leave Scheme provides seasoned social service professionals, including social workers, with paid leave and a Professional Advancement Sponsorship, to recharge themselves and develop their professional competencies.
Over the past two years, MSF has been regularly engaging social work leaders on balancing staff well-being with maintaining service delivery standards, particularly during this period of high workload and uncertainty brought on by the pandemic. MSF also works closely with SASW to support social workers in various ways, e.g. through recognising their contributions at the annual Social Work Day and Outstanding and Promising Social Worker Awards or promoting best-practices within Social Work supervision via the biennial Social Work Supervision Seminar.
MSF and NCSS will continue to work with our tripartite partners in the social service sector to address feedback from our Social Workers, through the Social Service SkillsFuture Tripartite Taskforce (STT). Comprising social workers in SSAs, Hospitals, Community Care Organisations (CCOs), Post-Secondary Institutions (PSEIs), Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) and other institutions, the Taskforce will continue to consult social workers to co-create initiatives with them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Approximately 100 SSAs are participating in the People Practice Consultancy (PPC), an initiative that has been ongoing since 2016."],"footNoteQuestions":["16"],"questionNo":"16"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Beneficiaries of COVID-19 Recovery Grant","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) to date, how many individuals have been supported by the COVID-19 Recovery Grant (CRG); and (b) what is the number of individuals assisted under each tranche of the CRG payout.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: As of 31 December 2021, the COVID-19 Recovery Grant (CRG) has supported around 27,500 individuals. Around 22,000 individuals have received one tranche of CRG, and around 5,500 individuals have received two1 tranches of CRG. Each tranche comprises three months of support.
To continue providing financial support for individuals who are significantly affected by the pandemic, applications for CRG have been extended by another year, until 31 December 2022. From 1 January 2022, eligible individuals can receive up to three tranches of CRG over 2021 and 2022.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : In 2021, eligible individuals could apply and receive up to two tranches of CRG."],"footNoteQuestions":["17"],"questionNo":"17"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Vaccine Injury Financial Assistance Programme for COVID-19 Vaccination under National Vaccination Programme to Delayed Serious Side Effect Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Health whether the Vaccine Injury Financial Assistance Programme for COVID-19 vaccination under the National Vaccination Programme can be extended to cases where the serious side effects only appear after a considerable period of time after vaccination, provided there is clear expert corroboration of the correlation between the serious side effects and the vaccine received.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Serious side effects caused by vaccines are rare. This applies for COVID-19 vaccines or vaccines protecting against other conditions. Most side-effects are mild, appear within the first three days and resolve with no treatment. Rarely, side effects can develop up to six weeks after vaccination.
Applications for the Vaccine Injury Financial Assistance Programme for COVID-19 Vaccination (VIFAP), will be considered thoroughly, taking into account the details of the medical episode that occurred post-vaccination, together with scientific information and evidence.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics of Patients with Multiple Visits to Specialist Outpatient Clinics or Polyclinics Per Year with Mobility Needs or Requiring Caregiver Assistance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) from 2019 to 2021, what is the number of individual patients in each calendar year that had (i) six to 11 (ii) 12 to 23 (iii) 24 to 35 or (iv) 36 or more, visits to specialist outpatient clinics or polyclinics; and (b) what proportion of these patients (i) had mobility needs or (ii) required caregiver assistance or an accompanying person.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The data required are as follows. 2021 data is not available.
Public hospitals and polyclinics do not track the proportion of patients who have mobility needs or require caregiver assistance. All hospitals and polyclinics stand ready to assist patients with mobility needs. For example, service ambassadors or healthcare assistants would assist these patients during their clinic visits, including the loan of wheelchairs and supporting them in way-finding. Wheelchairs are also provided at facility entrances, clinics, and drop off points for patients who require mobility assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Transport Assistance Measures Available for Patients with Mobility Needs Requiring Multiple Medical Appointments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has studied the transport costs incurred by patients with mobility needs who have multiple medical appointments; and (b) what measures are available to assist such patients with transport to and from their medical appointments.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The transport costs incurred by patients with mobility needs vary depending on the type of transport required, the frequency of appointments, and the proximity of the medical appointments to their homes. The Ministry of Health therefore does not track such costs.
Seniors who are unable to travel independently for their medical appointments can tap on the Medical Escort and Transport (MET) service for medical appointments at hospitals, specialist outpatient clinics and polyclinics. Eligible seniors can receive up to 80% subsidy. Seniors who require MET services may call the Agency for Integrated Care’s (AIC) hotline or approach a nearby AIC Link for help.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Households with One Person Requiring Adult Diapers on Regular Basis and Median Expenditure and Financial Support Available for Such Purchases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) from 2020 to 2021, how many households in Singapore had at least one person requiring adult diapers on a regular basis; (b) what is the median expenditure on adult diapers per person; and (c) what financial support is available for families of limited means to purchase adult diapers.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: MOH does not track the number of households in Singapore with at least one person requiring adult diapers on a regular basis. However, seniors requiring adult diapers can apply for subsidies, through the Seniors’ Mobility and Enabling Fund (SMF). Eligible seniors can receive up to 80% subsidy, up to the maximum annual subsidy cap. In 2021, more than 6,100 seniors applied for SMF for home healthcare items, of which about 5,700 applied for adult diapers. For these applicants, the median expenditure per person for the nine-month period between April and December 2021 was around $400 before subsidy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Phasing Out TraceTogether and SafeEntry and Reducing Functionality of TraceTogether to be Used Purely as Mode of Displaying COVID-19 Vaccination and Test Status","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health whether the Government plans to (i) phase out TraceTogether and SafeEntry and (ii) reduce the functionality of TraceTogether to be used purely as a mode of displaying COVID-19 vaccination and test status.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: This question for written answer has been addressed by the oral reply to Question No. 105 on the Order Paper for 10 January 2022. [Please refer to \"Necessity of TraceTogther SafeEntry Requirement Given New Protocols for COVID-19-positive Patients\", Official Report, 10 January 2022, Vol 95, Issue 44, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on and Outcome of Public Complaints Received Each Year Since Enactment of Prevention of Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Communications and Information for each year since the enactment of the Prevention of Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), (a) how many public complaints has the POFMA Office received relating to alleged online falsehoods; and (b) of these, how many subsequently led to a direction or order being issued by under POFMA.
Mrs Josephine Teo: After POFMA took effect in October 2019, the POFMA Office received 22 pieces of public feedback and enquiries in 2019, 435 in 2020, and 345 in 2021. The vast majority of alleged falsehoods reported by the public included content that was not actionable as “false statements of fact” under POFMA, such as opinions and criticisms. Seven POFMA directions were issued regarding falsehoods that had been reported by a total of nine pieces of public feedback to the POFMA Office.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Study on Viability and Feasibility of Converting Vacant State Land to Nature Parks for Nearby Residents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for National Development whether a study can be undertaken on the viability and feasibility of whether vacant small plots of state land, especially those adjacent to residential estates, can be converted to nature parks for residents living nearby.
Mr Desmond Lee: As part of our greening efforts, we have safeguarded approximately 7,800 hectares of nature reserves, parks, and park connectors in Singapore. In the next 10 to 15 years, we will add another 1,000 hectares of green spaces. Of these, more than 200 hectares will be set aside for new nature parks, which serve as important buffers to protect our core biodiversity sites. Some of these nature parks are located near residential estates, such as Bukit Batok Hillside Nature Park and Khatib Bongsu Nature Park. Besides extending our network of nature parks, we also plan to bring more green spaces into our neighbourhoods. By 2030, every household will be within a 10-minute walk from a park.
In planning for our green spaces and identifying suitable plots of land that can be converted into parks, we take into account other land-use needs such as community facilities, public amenities, and infrastructure, and seek to balance the demand for green spaces with these needs. We also consider factors such as ecological significance and connectivity, as part of our science-based approach towards nature conservation.
In line with this approach, NParks launched the island-wide Ecological Profiling Exercise (EPE) in February 2021, to map the ecological profile of green spaces in Singapore, in consultation with the nature community and experts. Findings from the exercise will guide our long-term land-use plans in identifying key biodiversity sites for conservation and support our greening efforts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cases Prosecuted for Illegal Import and Export of Endangered Species in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development of the cases prosecuted for the illegal import and export of endangered species in the past five years, in how many of the cases prosecuted (i) were the endangered species in transit in Singapore for a different country and (ii) was Singapore the final destination for the endangered species.
Mr Desmond Lee: Between 2017 and 2021, 18 cases were prosecuted for the illegal trade of endangered species under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act. Of these, one case was prosecuted for illegal transit through Singapore. The remainder were prosecuted for illegal import into Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Registration of Real Estate Salespersons on Basis of Workplace Literacy and Numeracy Assessment Since 2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for National Development since 2020, how many real estate salespersons have been registered on the basis of the Workplace Literacy and Numeracy (WPLN) assessment in lieu of having four GCE \"O\" Level passes, broken down by decade of age.
Mr Desmond Lee: Individuals who wish to register as real estate salespersons (RESs) are required to fulfil the registration criteria, which include having a minimum of four GCE “O” Level passes or the equivalent as determined by the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA). This is to ensure that RESs have basic literacy skills to understand the laws and procedures on property transactions and are hence able to provide accurate advice to their clients to safeguard consumer interests.
Individuals without the relevant educational qualifications can take the Workplace Literacy and Numeracy (WPLN) assessment by registering with the British Council. The assessment is highly subsidised for Singaporeans and Permanent Residents and can also be paid for using SkillsFuture Credits. CEA accepts a grading of Level 5 and above for the WPLN assessment in lieu of the four GCE “O” Level passes.
In 2020 and 2021, a total of 227 applicants who successfully registered as new RESs fulfilled the educational qualifications criteria based on their WPLN assessments. The breakdown by decade of age is provided in the table below:
27 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Manpower whether the CPF Board will consider allowing CPF savings to be utilised to service mortgage loans for HDB flats based on Islamic financing.
Dr Tan See Leng: There are currently no mortgage loan products for HDB flats based on Islamic financing. If financial institutions approach relevant authorities to allow the use of CPF for such products, the CPF Board and authorities will assess such proposals, taking into consideration the need to protect CPF members’ retirement savings.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Closure of CPF Account and Discontinuation of CPF Life Policy for Singaporeans Who Renounced Citizenship and Permanent Residents Who Returned to Their Home Countries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether Singaporeans who have renounced their citizenship and migrated to another country, as well as permanent residents who have returned to their respective home countries, are required to close their CPF account and discontinue their CPF LIFE policy at the time of departure from Singapore; (b) what happens when they fail to close their account promptly; and (c) whether they will be paid the same interest rate for the monies in their accounts if there is a delay in the closure.
Dr Tan See Leng: Singaporeans who have renounced their citizenship and left the country, as well as permanent residents who have returned to their respective home countries, are strongly encouraged to close their CPF accounts, as their intention is not to retire in Singapore. The CPF Board reminds these members to do so through various channels, including the CPF Board website and targeted notifications. Upon closure of their CPF accounts, their CPF LIFE policy would generally be terminated.
Prior to account closure, monies within the CPF system will continue to receive the same treatment as all other CPF monies, including prevailing CPF interest rates.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Minister for Communications and Information","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following statement was made during Question Time at the Sitting of 12 January 2022: (proc text)]
The Minister for Communications and Information (Mrs Josephine Teo): In my earlier reply, I have also said that IMDA had in the last five years deemed six other publications to be objectionable, for denigrating various religious communities. None of them were about politics either. They either contained offensive and prejudicial comments about other religions or espoused polemical religious teachings which were likely to cause ill will and hatred amongst the different religious groups in Singapore. \"Red Lines\" is objectionable for similar reasons. [Please refer to “Considerations for Classifying 'Red Lines: Political Cartoons and the Struggle Against Censorship' as Objectionable under Undesirable Publications Act”, Official Report, 12 January 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 46, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Mrs Josephine Teo circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual clarification to the reply given during Question Time at the Sitting on 12 January 2022. My reply should read as follows:
The Minister for Communications and Information (Mrs Josephine Teo): In my earlier reply, I have also said that IMDA had in the last five years deemed six other publications to be objectionable, for denigrating various religious communities. None of them were about politics either. They either contained offensive and prejudicial content about other religions or espoused polemical religious teachings which were likely to cause ill will and hatred amongst the different religious groups in Singapore. \"Red Lines\" is objectionable for similar reasons.
","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 Social and Family Development","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following statements were in the reply given by the Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Ms Sun Xueling) during Question Time at the Sitting of 12 January 2022: (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Ms Sun Xueling): These two centres also have the capability and capacity to provide social and emotional support to persons who experience sexual violence or harassment in their workplace. [Please refer to “Improving Support for Survivors of Domestic and Sexual Violence”, Official Report, 12 January 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 46, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Ms Sun Xueling 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 the reply given during Parliament Sitting of 12 January 2022. My reply should read as follows:
The Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Ms Sun Xueling): These two centres also have the capability and capacity to provide social and emotional support to persons who experience sexual violence.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":4761,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220112/vernacular-12 Jan 2022 - Minister Masagos - Reply to PQ 5.pdf","fileName":"12 Jan 2022 - Minister Masagos - Reply to PQ 5.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4768,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Poh Li San","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220112/vernacular-12 Jan 2022 - Ms Poh Li San - Motion on Low Carbon Society.pdf","fileName":"12 Jan 2022 - Ms Poh Li San - Motion on Low Carbon Society.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4769,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Poh Li San","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220112/vernacular-Poh Li San Motion 12Jan2022 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Poh Li San Motion 12Jan2022 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4770,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Don Wee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220112/vernacular-Don Wee Motion 12Jan2022-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Don Wee Motion 12Jan2022-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4771,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Hany Soh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220112/vernacular-Hany Soh Motion 12Jan2022 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Hany Soh Motion 12Jan2022 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4772,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Saktiandi Supaat","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220112/vernacular-12 Jan 2022 - Mr Saktiandi Supaat - Motion on Low Carbon Society (Mr S inputs).pdf","fileName":"12 Jan 2022 - Mr Saktiandi Supaat - Motion on Low Carbon Society (Mr S inputs).pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}