1 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Health with the data leak involving 14,200 people with HIV, what specific measures will be taken to (i) reduce the spread of, and access to, the personal data and HIV status of the affected persons, (ii) ensure that the psychosocial welfare of these persons are protected in view of the stigmatisation and discrimination that exist at the workplace and in society and (iii) ensure that this incident does not negate years of painstaking efforts in providing a safe climate for people to come forward for HIV testing.
2 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health (a) what designations of staff have access to the individualised data in the HIV registry; (b) whether staff who have legitimate reasons to analyse the data for policy purposes have access to the aggregated rather than the individualised data and, if not, why not; and (c) whether actions to extract or export such data are tracked and subjected to regular scrutiny to ensure that the purpose of the data extraction is legitimate.
3 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Health (a) what action was taken to ensure that Mikhy Farrera-Brochez no longer possessed or had any access to confidential information of HIV patients which was taken from the Ministry's HIV registry, prior to his deportation from Singapore after his imprisonment; (b) when was he deported; and (c) whether affected patients were alerted when it was known that their data had been compromised in May 2016 and, if not, why not.
4 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Health what can and will be done to take down the online leak of confidential information of the 14,200 people living with HIV.
5 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Health what can and will be done to protect the people living with HIV whose personal information has been leaked online from harassment and intimidation.
6 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Health in light of the unauthorised disclosure of HIV registry data announced on 28 January 2019, what steps will be taken to (i) safeguard the affected persons against unwarranted discrimination that affects their ability to participate in society, such as in employment and housing, (ii) educate the public to destigmatise HIV and related health conditions and (iii) assure the public that HIV testing remains confidential, safe and important for public and personal health.
7 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for Health (a) what was the outcome of the investigation into the May 2016 Police report which the Ministry lodged against Mikhy Farrera-Brochez on the possession of confidential information obtained from Singapore's HIV registry; (b) whether the Ministry made its own investigation after being tipped off in 2016 before making the Police report and, if so, what did the internal investigation reveal about the extent and amount of data stolen; and (c) whether there was any audit done on the integrity and unauthorised access of the HIV registry before May 2016.
8 Prof Lim Sun Sun asked the Minister for Health what efforts are being made in collaboration with international law enforcement agencies to ensure that Mikhy Farrera-Brochez does not create further mischief with the information he illegally obtained from Singapore's HIV registry.
9 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Health given the recent unauthorised disclosure of HIV registry data, what additional measures have been undertaken to ensure that all confidential information collected by the Ministry remains secure.
10 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Prime Minister (a) what standards apply for the timely public disclosure of Government information incidents involving personal data, given that in the case of the unauthorised disclosure of HIV registry data announced on 28 January 2019, the Ministry of Health lodged Police reports in May 2016 and May 2018; (b) what are the reasons why this breach was not publicly disclosed when the first Police report was made; and (c) whether public disclosure standards will be reviewed in light of this incident.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Prime Minister and Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, may I seek your permission for Question Nos 1 to 10 to be dealt with when the Ministerial Statement is addressed?
Mr Speaker: Okay.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Legislation to Deal with Foreign Interference of Singapore’s Election and Politics","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Prime Minister (a) what can Singapore learn from the various incidences of foreign interferences in the elections and politics of countries, such as the US, Australia, France and Germany; and (b) whether there is a need to introduce new laws or further strengthen existing laws to deal with foreign interference and Singaporeans who work with foreign actors to influence Singapore's elections and politics.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health and Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, I am taking this Question on behalf of the Prime Minister.
Members will agree that Singapore’s politics must be for Singaporeans alone to decide. Worryingly, however, the Internet and social media have created a new, vast and easy playing field for foreign interference. Among others, we have read about foreign interference in the politics of the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), Ukraine, Australia, France, Germany, the Netherlands and New Zealand. Clandestine and sophisticated tactics were used to fracture social cohesion and influence election outcomes through the spread of disinformation and half-truths and exploitation of sensitive issues.
In the US, indictments by Special Counsel Robert Mueller lay out how a foreign hostile information campaign systematically and surreptitiously sought to influence the outcome of the 2016 Presidential Elections. More than two years before election day, a foreign organisation had started infiltrating American society. They used fake social media accounts pretending to be real Americans, and created social media groups on controversial issues likely to engage Americans. These accounts and groups gained influence over time, attracting thousands of real American followers. Social media posts by such fake foreign accounts even found their way into American mainstream media.
The foreign actor was sophisticated in its approach. It had researched the fault lines in American society and politics, and drove wedges along these lines. Its social media accounts spread falsehoods and false narratives on divisive sociopolitical issues, such as race, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) rights, gun control and immigration.
The foreign actor used bots and digital advertisements to amplify its reach and viewpoints rapidly to give the impression that they were popular. This built a false sense of reality: Americans felt that their views and concerns were echoed by others, without realising that much of the support was artificially generated by fake accounts.
Researchers later found evidence that the foreign actor had targeted hotly contested states, such as Wisconsin, Virginia and Pennsylvania, through Facebook advertising campaigns on divisive issues. For example, voters in Wisconsin saw more paid ads on guns and race issues, because these issues held more sway with them. Those with household incomes of less than US$40,000 saw more paid ads on the issues of immigration and race. The campaigns riled up anger and fear, and deepened divisions in the society.
The reach was huge. Over two years, about 126 million US Facebook users were exposed to content generated by this foreign operation. Americans were also deceived to believe that they were part of spontaneous local movements when they were, in fact, being manipulated by a foreign actor. In one instance, the foreign organisation cultivated two ideologically opposed fake Facebook accounts, the “United Muslims of America” and the “Heart of Texas”, and organised a protest and counter-protest at the same place and time to orchestrate discord on the streets. Real Americans in both camps turned up and demonstrated in opposition to each other. One man even brought a rifle.
This hostile information campaign was not only to influence the outcome of the 2016 Presidential elections. Its longer-term objective was to undermine America’s institutions and democracy. The campaign polarised and generated deep suspicion within American society and against its institutions.
We saw a similar pattern of interference in the UK referendum on Brexit. Falsehoods on social media, bots and fake accounts were similarly key tools of foreign interference. Grievances over immigration and a growing sense of disenfranchisement were exploited to turn the British people against UK and European Union (EU) institutions and policies. A steady stream of anti-immigration falsehoods by foreign-linked social media accounts made people feel threatened and built a narrative of a British government that was failing to protect its citizens. There is also research suggesting that more than 150,000 foreign-linked accounts tweeted over 45,000 pro-Brexit messages in the last 48 hours of the campaign.
The 2017 French Presidential Election was also the subject of foreign interference. Just two days before the second round of voting, nine gigabytes of data hacked from presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron’s campaign were leaked online. In just three and a half hours, the leak was tweeted 47,000 times, with some suspicious Twitter accounts, likely bots in action, posting more than 150 tweets per hour.
In the Netherlands, a hostile information campaign sought to undermine support for an EU-Ukraine trade agreement in 2016. The same year in Germany, a hostile information campaign built upon a fabricated story about a German girl being raped by Arab migrants stirred up anti-immigrant sentiments, sparked demonstrations and eroded public confidence in the German government’s immigration and asylum policy.
Perhaps the starkest lesson comes from Ukraine. At the hearings of the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods, Ukrainian experts shared their country’s experience. Disinformation about the Ukrainian government was spread through foreign media channels and social networks. It created the impetus for armed conflict and weakened the resolve of Ukrainians to fight. It eroded trust among Ukrainians in their public institutions. The experts highlighted their country’s experience as a cautionary tale, a threat that countries ignore at their peril.
Mr Ruslan Deynychenko, co-Founder of StopFake.org, an Ukranian organisation that counters disinformation, said, “You cannot ignore the existence of propaganda, because Ukraine did it for years, and it might happen with any country that one day you can wake up and look in the window and see people with machine guns who kill each other because somebody on TV persuaded them they should hate each other. Our experience, again, demonstrated that disinformation is a powerful weapon and it could be pointed to any country at any time very, very quickly.”
He added, “Unfortunately, ignorance of this threat of foreign disinformation cost our country too much.”
We are also seeing other insidious forms of interference, by foreign actors attempting to influence those involved in domestic political discourse through funding and donations.
Miss Cheng raised the example of Australia. In one instance, a senator resigned after it was revealed that he had received donations from a foreign political donor and advocated that foreign state’s position on a sensitive issue, contradicting his own party’s official position. The Australian government has responded swiftly. Australia’s parliament passed a package of laws in June 2018, aimed at preventing foreign interference in their politics.
New Zealand has similar concerns. An opposition leader allegedly circumvented political donation laws by disguising a donation made by a businessman linked to a foreign government, so that it did not have to be declared. It has sparked debate within the country on the need to review policies against foreign interference.
Indeed, today, information can easily be weaponised by foreign actors, at low cost, and with anonymity and impunity. No country is immune. This is asymmetric information warfare, fought in a theatre and era with no distinction between war and peace.
In this battlefield, Singapore, an open, democratic, digitally-connected and diverse country, is especially vulnerable. We are a young country with sensitive fault lines that foreign actors can exploit to foment distrust and ill-will among our various communities. They can easily deploy the same tactics, both clandestine and overt, that we have seen elsewhere, to undermine our democratic processes and institutions, and subvert our politics.
Many of the countries I had mentioned have learnt hard lessons and are taking action to expose and counter foreign interference. We are likewise developing a strategy on two fronts.
First, we need to sensitise Singaporeans to the threat, and nurture a discerning public. We are our own first line of defence. We must learn to be sceptical of and be able to discern falsehoods or half-truths and detect foreign actors and their attempts to interfere in our politics. When they seek to create schisms in our society, we must stand together.
Second, we must update and enhance our legal framework, which is outmoded against modern and technologically-sophisticated tactics, \tto counter hostile information campaigns. We must also take further measures to minimise the possibility of politically-involved individuals and organisations being subverted by foreign actors.
On hostile information campaigns, new legislation should have two broad objectives. We must be able to act swiftly and effectively to disrupt and counter false, misleading and inauthentic information and narratives spread by foreign actors. We must also be able to pre-emptively expose clandestine foreign interference campaigns.
In the physical world, foreign actors may interfere in our domestic politics through the use of proxies, by funding or donating to politically-involved individuals and organisations, or by taking on key leadership roles in the organisations. Our laws must minimise the possibility of such entities being thus used and manipulated. We must not allow foreign actors to undermine our political sovereignty, nor our ability to make our own choices on how we want to govern our country and live our lives.
The threat is real and we will be moving on these issues later this year.
Mr Speaker: Miss Cheng Li Hui.
\t
\tMiss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): I thank the Senior Minister of State. I have two supplementary questions. The first is, have there been instances of foreign interference in Singapore? Earlier, the Senior Minister of State mentioned that Australia implemented some laws in June 2018. What are the gaps in our existing laws and whether new laws will be introduced to address foreign interference?
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Speaker, foreign interference has had a long history in Singapore. In the 1970s, the Government took two newspapers to task – The Singapore Herald and The Eastern Sun – for taking foreign money and then attempting to undermine the Government. There have been and will always continue to be countries with an interest in interfering in Singapore's affairs and swaying public opinion amongst us and against us.
More recently, Members may recall the case of Huang Jing, a Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy academic who the Government identified as an agent of influence, acting on behalf of a foreign country. He was expelled in August 2017 and had his Permanent Residency annulled. He had knowingly interacted and cooperated with intelligence organisations and agents of a foreign country to influence Singapore's foreign policy and public opinion. He had done so by engaging prominent and influential Singaporeans, and giving them what he claimed was privileged information about the foreign country so as to influence their opinions in favour of that said country. Huang also recruited others in aid of his operations.
Members will also recall the SingHealth hacking incident last year, essentially an attempt to extract health information of Singaporeans, with the Prime Minister being the specific target. The Minister for Communications and Information had stated that this was the work of an advanced persistent threat group, cyberattackers who are typically state-linked. These are not casual hackers or criminal gangs. Cyber hackings are often deployed in concert with hostile information campaigns to search for information that can be weaponised.
Testimony before the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods also showed indication of information warfare being carried out against Singapore, including the use of news articles and social media, to influence the minds of segments of the Singapore population.
Foreign interference is not always easy to detect or attribute. In December last year, when bilateral issues with our immediate neighbour were at the top of the news, we noticed that a curious spike in online comments on social media made from avatar accounts – essentially, anonymous accounts with profile pictures that do not show the owner's face. Many of these comments were critical of Singapore. On one such issue, jams at land checkpoints. Around 40% of the comments on alternative media outlets' pages on social media came from avatar accounts. We do not know who these suspicious accounts belong to nor do we know if they are being coordinated by foreign actors. But it is clear that these accounts had sought to give and create an artificial impression to netizens of the opposition to Singapore's position, at a time of heightened bilateral difficulties.
That is not the only issue or instance. In such instances, it is imperative that we have the ability to identify where these accounts come from and, indeed, if they are real. In our daily operations, our security agencies take it as a working assumption that we must be careful of the threat of foreign interference. The overseas examples that I have alluded to attest to this threat. But it is not convenient, for national security reasons, for me to enumerate all of these examples. Suffice to say that these threats are real, we are a target, and we must be vigilant.
\t
And on that score and Miss Cheng's second question, the Select Committee had recommended that the Government consider measures to address both deliberate online falsehoods and also state-sponsored campaigns that threaten our national security. The Government will consider the Report and will also consider legislation in both of these areas this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Public Agencies Exemption Provisions in Personal Data Protection Act ","subTitle":"In response to recent data breaches","sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Communications and Information given the gravity of data protection breaches in the public sector, whether the Personal Data Protection Act should be amended to remove the exemptions for public agencies.
\tThe Minister for Communications and Information (Mr S Iswaran): Mr Speaker, the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) came into force in 2012. With the gathering pace of digitalisation, we recognised the need to strengthen data protection in the private sector. PDPA establishes a baseline standard for data protection in the private sector, balanced against its need to use personal data for reasonable purposes.
On its part, the Government has always taken seriously its responsibility to protect the data entrusted to the public sector and we continue to strengthen our data governance policies. Since 2001, the Government Instruction Manuals (IMs) already include measures to govern the use, retention, sharing and security of personal data among public agencies.
In 2018, the Public Sector (Governance) Act (PSGA) was introduced and it provided for additional safeguards for personal data in the public sector, including criminalising the misuse of data by public servants. The data protection standards in PSGA are also aligned with the PDPA. In addition, data collected by the public sector is also protected by specific legislation, such as the Official Secrets Act, the Income Tax Act, the Infectious Diseases Act and the Statistics Act. Collectively, these laws impose a high standard of responsibility on all public agencies, with additional requirements for the protection of sensitive or confidential data. Also, regular mandatory audits are conducted to ensure that public agencies comply with the standards for data protection and the security of information and communications technology systems.
PSGA allows personal data to be managed as a common resource within the public sector for better policymaking and also for more responsive public services. For example, when a Singaporean applies for financial assistance at a Social Service Office, the frontline officers are able to quickly evaluate his or her eligibility for financial assistance because they have access to data from other relevant agencies. In this way, we minimise the documents that need to be submitted by the applicant and improve the delivery of public services. In contrast, each private sector organisation is expected to be individually accountable for the personal data in its possession, and there is no expectation of a similar integrated delivery of services across different commercial organisations.
Because of these important differences, we need and have adopted different approaches to the protection of personal data in the public and in the private sectors. That is also why the PDPA applies only to the private sector, while the PSGA and other legislation govern data protection in the public sector. We will regularly review the PDPA, PSGA and other legislation to ensure that they remain relevant and effective in safeguarding personal data in both the public and private sectors.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
\tMs Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): I have four supplementary questions for the Minister. The first question is, I acknowledge that the various statutes and the IMs, as the Minister mentioned, do set out standards for the Public Service to comply with. Does the Minister agree, however, that these instruments, legislation or IMs are usually silent or weak on the recourse that citizens may have if there is a data breach? They may be strong on penalties for errant officers but, generally, we get silences on the rights of citizens.
Secondly, does the Minister also agree that for the PDPA itself, I suppose one of the advantages or assets of the PDPA is its approach to try to balance the need of organisations to collect data and, at the same time, if we look at section 3, it also recognises that personal data belongs to individuals, and individuals have a right to protect that data?
The third question is, we talked recently about the SingHealth incident. Does the Minister agree, because SingHealth is a body that comes within the purview of PDPA, it is not a Public Agency as defined in the Act, and the SingHealth cyberattack case has shown that the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) can actually play a very useful role as far as the public is concerned? The PDPC's judgement in the cyberattack case mentioned that members of the public complained to it that their data had not been adequately protected by SingHealth. PDPC actually made some findings which will likely lead to improvements on the part of SingHealth and the Integrated Healthcare Information Systems (IHiS) as well.
Perhaps the last question for now is that one of the things that the PDPA does provide is a complaints procedure which I would like the Minister to confirm that this is something that is very useful to the citizens, which does not force the citizens to commence a lawsuit against a Government agency should one suffer damage and so on. So, these are very real advantages of the PDPA which I believe citizens can benefit from.
\tMr S Iswaran: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her comments. I am not sure all of them were questions because some of them were observations. But let me interpret them.
Let me start by making a more general point. I think the key conclusion we have to draw is this. When we say exempt – and that is the language that the Member has used in her question – that the public sector is exempt from the PDPA, that does not mean that the public sector is somehow subject to a different or lower standard, as might be implied, in terms of data security and safety. In fact, and that was the thrust of my reply that, one, the public sector and the PSGA, in particular, takes reference, and it is in broad alignment with PDPA. But having said that, there is a clear recognition that the mode of operation and the expectation of how data is used in order to provide an effective and efficient Public Service, implies that we do need a different methodology in the way we govern public sector data governance. That is why we have this differentiated approach. In addition to the PSGA, as I had said, we do have other legislations in place.
Just for Members' information, we are by no means alone in this approach. The Canadians, for example, at the federal level, also have different laws in terms of its application to the private sector and its application to the public sector. So, it is not about differing standards or somehow having a different threshold when it comes to the public sector. In fact, we subject the public sector to the same kind of standards, if not higher standards, precisely because we know that the data that is being entrusted to the public sector is done with the confidence that it would be dealt with in a secure manner.
So, many of the questions that the Member has raised pertain more to whether there are elements of the PDPA. For example, there is a complaints procedure where they can complain to the PDPC on, for example, the right to data. I think the Member made the point that the PDPA strikes the balance between the right to data of the individual versus the right to use the data of the enterprises. Indeed, that is the balance we are trying to strike, whether it is in the public domain or in the private domain. Because essentially, you can say the same sets of considerations apply in the public sector – that we want to ensure individual data is protected, accorded due safeguards, but, at the same time, it should be a common resource that public sector agencies can tap on in order to better serve citizens. Many of the services that we take quite for granted today actually rely on that backend sharing. So, when it comes to a complaints procedure today, there is nothing stopping an individual who feels aggrieved that their data has somehow been mishandled to launch a complaint. And they have different channels for doing so.
On the SingHealth piece, the Member made the point that PDPC came out with the recommendations and so on which were very useful and so on. But actually, if you look at the morphology of the entire incident, the key recommendations that came out of this was actually from the Committee of Inquiry (COI) which the Government established. That is the process through which we derived a whole set of very detailed recommendations. What the PDPC did, because it received the complaint early in the process, was to say that it will take reference from the COI's process in determining whether there was a breach by the relevant agencies, in this case SingHealth and IHiS, and, if so, what penalty should be meted out. But the substantial portion of the recommendations was actually made through the COI process which was, in fact, initiated by the Government, not mandated by any legislation but something that was because of the judgement that was exercised.
The point on recourse comes back to the same thing again. If a member of the public feels that, in some way, their data has been mishandled, then they have every opportunity to lodge a complaint with the Minister, the Ministry, the relevant department, and action will be taken. And you can also, if you think a crime has been committed, make a Police report, and that will also be investigated.
So, if I can summarise, we subject our public sector to the same, if not higher, rigorous standards of data governance. And we have to do that, because if we do not, then a lot of our other efforts, in terms of wanting to build a Smart Nation and delivering, harnessing the digital technologies and all these in order to deliver better public services will all be thwarted. So, that is exactly why we take this very seriously. By and large, the PSGA, in other words, the legislation that governs the public sector data governance, takes reference from the PDPA and we also have other legislation for specific sectoral matters which can also be implied in addition.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
\tMs Sylvia Lim: Two supplementary questions for the Minister. First, the Minister, in his answer earlier, mentioned that for members of the public who are aggrieved that their information has been mishandled by a public agency can always make a complaint. The question is: to whom? And the Minister mentioned that it could be to the Minister. Does the Minister not agree that the PDPC itself, which is focused on personal data protection, should have a role to receive such complaints because they are, after all, the domain expert on personal data protection?
The second supplementary question is: Minister mentioned the issue of public sector agencies being interconnected and, therefore, there needs to be a different approach. But I think the SingHealth incident also illustrates some artificiality in what is actually happening in the healthcare sector. If we look at the setup of SingHealth, for example, no doubt, it is not under the definition of public agency under the PDPA. But the fact is that it is very connected to the Ministry of Health (MOH). In fact, it is owned by MOH Holdings, and there is a frequent, I believe, exchange of data between such healthcare bodies and the parent Ministry. So, it would come to a stage, does Minister not agree that, if my data is given to a clinic, for example, under a cluster, I may be able to complain to the PDPC, but once that data goes to the Ministry and the breach happens there, I do not have recourse under the PDPC? So, there is some artificiality in the distinction as far as the healthcare sector is concerned.
\tMr S Iswaran: Mr Speaker, because there will be a Ministerial Statement governing many of the matters pertaining to the public healthcare system, I will keep my comments in response to the Member's queries limited, and I think we can take up clarifications after the Ministerial Statement as well.
The key point I want to emphasise in my response to the Member is this: the term \"recourse\" for the public has been used several times in the course of this exchange. The fact of the matter is that you need recourse. It does not matter whether the recourse is under the PDPC or PDPA, the legislation or there are other established improved mechanisms. But the key point is you must have recourse.
And that is my point when I said that individuals, depending on where or what circumstances they find themselves in, they can make complaints. By the way, the PDPC does receive complaints sometimes pertaining to the public sector. So, as a recipient of such complaints from the public, it does not turn them away. Rather, the standing arrangement is that they look at it and, if the jurisdiction is such that it does not come under the PDPA, they then refer it to the Government agencies involved to then follow through. In the case of the Government, the Government Technology Agency (GovTech), for example, is overall in-charge of the security and safeguard systems for data. And GovTech is the agency that does many of the reviews and ensures that the Government agencies are in compliance with the IMs and other provisions and so on. Moreover, there is also the Auditor-General's review as well, which occurs from time to time, and it includes security.
My point is that members of the public should not at all be concerned that they do not have recourse. They do, and, in fact, they have a multiplicity of recourse. And I would add that, in the case of the public sector, they probably have more channels and more avenues of recourse in some ways, compared to what you see in the context of the private sector. Because essentially, for private sectors, you go to the PDPC, or you take out a specific legal action against the company on your own. Here, you have got more options because you can go through the PDPC. It would be referred to the relevant agencies. You can go to GovTech, you can go to the Ministry that oversees the relevant department, you can also make a Police report if you feel that it warrants such action.
So, there should be no doubt in Members' minds that we have the appropriate recourse mechanisms. There should also be no doubt in Members' minds that the public sector's data governance standards are in no way inferior to the standards that we impose on the private sector. And, if anything, we impose a higher set of standards. That is the expectation that we have.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Preventive Actions Following Power Failure of 26 January 2019","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the extent of the power failure on the afternoon of 26 January 2019; (b) what are the reasons for the failure; (c) what has been the trend in occurrences of such power failures in the past five years; and (d) what steps are being taken to minimise such failures going forward.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, the power failure that occurred on 26 January at 1.30 pm affected about 27,000 consumers in Ang Mo Kio, Bishan, Sin Ming, Toa Payoh and Thomson.
Based on the Energy Market Authority's (EMA's) preliminary investigations, the disruption was likely due to an equipment fault at a substation at Bright Hill. The suspected cause is a faulty voltage transformer which started a fire in the substation. Immediately after the fire was detected, electrical protective devices were automatically activated to isolate the fault so that the downstream equipment would not be damaged. This resulted in the cut in power to the affected consumers. SP Power Grid (SPPG), the national grid operator, was able to restore supply to 80% of consumers within 30 minutes and fully restored power supply to the remaining 20% of consumers within 90 minutes.
This is the first power failure incident involving a faulty voltage transformer in the past five years. Our power system remains one of the most reliable in the world. Over the past six years, Singapore's average annual disruption per consumer ranged from 12 seconds to 4.2 minutes, which includes the most recent incident. In comparison, major cities, such as Osaka, New York, Hong Kong and London, experienced an average disruption per consumer of between five minutes and 21 minutes in financial year 2017.
EMA will thoroughly investigate each incident and take appropriate regulatory action if necessary. SPPG has since adopted a higher frequency of condition monitoring for the specific equipment that had failed and will prioritise the replacement of that particular component in future rounds of substation maintenance. SPPG has also set up an internal investigation committee to investigate this incident. In addition, SPPG has engaged the Original Equipment Manufacturer's (OEM's) experts to review and advise if the failure was due to design, manufacturing or material defects. SPPG has also engaged an independent expert, CHUBU Electric from Japan, to review the findings and recommendations of the equipment manufacturer. EMA will continue to work closely with SPPG to ensure high standards of reliability for our power system.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his detailed reply. Just a few supplementary questions. Firstly, could the Senior Minister of State share if the trend of such major blackouts has been on the increase or decrease over the last five years or so? That is the first question.
Secondly, based on analysis of the recent incidents, does the Government believe that there are any systemic issues that need to be addressed, whether it is in terms of equipment maintenance or training of staff or any other issues? This is, of course, bearing in mind that, according to media reports, there was another major outage affecting some regions of Singapore in September last year, and I believe about 150,000 consumers were affected by that.
Thirdly and lastly, is there a protocol that is agreed with the power suppliers for when these kinds of disruptions happen, automatically or otherwise, there is a certain time period within which the power supply must be resumed? And is that something that is tested from time to time?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, as I said earlier in my reply, this is the very first incident in which a voltage transformer has failed in the past five years. So, there is no trend relating to this particular component. Other incidents may have happened in the recent past. But this does not necessary indicate as a systemic issue because they pertain to either different parts of the system or actually could have been just due to human error.
On the previous incident, I have actually shared the findings in the reply to the earlier Parliamentary Question, so I will not repeat it here.
As far as protocol to ensure that our system is robust and resilient, let me just share that SPPG's distribution control and customer service monitors and controls the distribution network around the clock to ensure that electrical supply can be restored quickly in the event of power supply disruption to our consumers. And supply could generally be restored typically within three hours by switching to an alternate feed or deployment of mobile generators. This is for the distribution network resilience.
On preventive maintenance, SPPA practises the combination of both time-based and condition-based maintenance regimes. So, that is the kind of standard operating procedure or protocol as the Member had asked. And they carry out maintenance in accordance with the OEM's recommendation to ensure reliable operation of equipment. In addition to periodic maintenance, SPPA adopts a condition monitoring regime in sensing and tracking the health of the assets which includes technologies to detect insulation deterioration, abnormal oil contents in our electric city cables and equipment, amongst others.
This ensures that impending failures are properly mitigated before they actually happen. But, of course, as equipment gets replaced overtime, new models come on, they could well be unknown unknowns of how whether the design itself, the material itself, could lead to future faults. This is where we work closely with the equipment manufacturers to see if the design or the material that they use for the manufacturing could have been a cause of it. And some of these investigations will require us working very closely with the stakeholders and may take some time before we detect them.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera: I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Just one last supplementary question, which is on the trend in such incidents of major blackouts. Has that been an increasing trend or decreasing trend, or more or less stable in the last five years?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, as I said before, we would be worried about a trend if the same component or the same system within the electrical grid across different sub-stations fails repeatedly. But while there may be several incidents that happened in the recent past, they affect different parts, components, for which the OEMs are still looking at it. So, until investigations are complete, I will not draw any premature conclusions to say that there is a trend linking all these different equipment and different components together.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Study on Retail Electricity Market Liberalisation’s Benefits to Households","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether there is any study conducted to ensure that the liberalisation of the retail electricity market will benefit household consumers.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, the Open Electricity Market (OEM) completes the Government's efforts since 2001 to progressively liberalise the retail electricity market for all consumers. In deciding when and how to implement this liberalisation, the Government conducted studies and international reviews of other markets, to ensure that consumers are able to benefit from greater choice, competitive pricing and innovative offers with no change to the reliability of their electricity supply.
Following the successful soft launch of the OEM in Jurong, the Energy Market Authority (EMA) commenced the nationwide zonal rollout of the OEM in November last year. By May this year, all business and residential consumers will be able to choose who to buy electricity from.
The nationwide launch of OEM is progressing well. We observed that more households are choosing to switch. Zone 2 has seen a switch rate of about 19% in the first month, compared to 16% and 11% in the first month of Zone 1 and the soft launch in Jurong respectively. So, there is an increasing trend of more households switching.
Households value the choice offered by OEM and are actively choosing the retailer and price plan that best meet their needs. Households which are looking to switch can benefit from a wide range of competitive offers, incentives and promotions, such as referral programmes, loyalty programmes and bill rebates. Retailers are also offering value-added services and products through tie-ups with third parties, such as banks, telecommunications and home insurance companies.
Going forward, EMA will continue to work closely with the retailers to roll out the OEM to the remaining zones and actively engage consumers to raise awareness of the OEM and help them make informed choices.
Mr Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
\tMr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I would like to ask one supplementary question. Basically, the new vendors are offering up to 30% discount for the electricity charges. What I understand is that there are some concerns about this on the ground, where some segments of the population made a claim that it shows that Singapore Power (SP) Group has been profiteering in the past. The rationale is that after the 30% discount, the new vendors can still earn an income. So, I would like to get the Senior Minister of State's view on this.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, the regulated tariff charged by SP Group and approved by EMA reflects the long-term costs of producing and delivering electricity in Singapore, such as the cost of building and operating the power plants. On the other hand, the electricity rates that are offered by retailers typically reflect the current market conditions, the level of competition as well as the short-term cost of producing electricity and, under this current market condition where the capacity exceeds the demand for electricity, we can, therefore, expect market rates to be lower than the regulated tariff.
However, this may change over time, based on market demand and supply, and consumers should be aware that while the price plans offered by retailers are fixed for the duration of each contract, retailers, like all businesses, may adjust their prices and discounts over time. So, consumers who have switched to other retailers can also switch back to buy electricity at the regulated tariff from SP Group should they feel that the prices at a different point in time may be more favourable to switch back. They should check with their retailers if there are any applicable charges when making that decision.
So, the key here is to give options to consumers to choose a price plan that best meets their needs. I think the underlying difference between SP Group and the other retailers is that SP Group has to take into account the long-term cost of infrastructure.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.
\tAssoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if there are specific and defined criteria for measuring the benefits from the OEM, such as switch rates, electricity cost savings or market competition indices. To what extent have these criteria been met thus far and are there any plans to further develop the market to meet these criteria?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, from the data we have so far from the rollout, household consumers who have switched, generally pay electricity rates of about 20% to 30% lower than the regulated tariff. So, in itself, this is a very good outcome from the consumers' perspective.
\t
\t
\t
As this is an early phase in the rollout, we will continue to monitor the take-up rate. As I said before, with each zone of rollout, it seems the increased take-up rate has gone from 11% to 16% to 19%. So, probably, it will stabilise around the 20-something percent level. But, over time, based on the market fluctuation, as electricity prices fluctuate, perhaps with different bundling as well, the take-up rate may again change. So, this is something that the regulators will watch very closely.
Mr Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat.
\tMr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): I just want to seek a confirmation from the Minister. Does this mean that SP Group has been supplying electricity at market rate all this while? Is that a yes or no?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, SP Group's regulated tariff takes into account the long-term cost of producing and maintaining infrastructure. In the absence of competition, in the past, when SP Group was the sole monopoly provider, what EMA does is regulate the amount of profit that SP Group can make, and this is benchmarked across electricity providers in other jurisdictions which also operate on the similar structure of a monopoly. And that is benchmarked across all other jurisdictions.
Today, with liberalisation by encouraging competition, we allow the market to, therefore, compete based on supply and demand, and bring forth benefits to consumers. But at the end of the day, SP Group will continue to be the provider of last resort. Should any retailers fail, SP Group will continue to be the one that will provide electricity for all consumers, so that there will be no disruption to the electricity supply.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Theseira.
\tAssoc Prof Walter Theseira: Given the fact that, in some areas, the switch rates are still rather modest, and there are obviously very large savings to consumers who choose to switch, would the Ministry consider implementing switching on an opt-out basis, perhaps with assignment to a panel of open electricity retailers appointed on, let us say, a competitive tendering basis, because this may allow more consumers to realise the benefits immediately rather than waiting for them to switch?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: As I explained earlier, it is a difficult call for the Government to impose an opt-out basis because, as I said earlier, price plans do fluctuate over time. If you look at this in the similar vein to telecommunications companies and how they operate by proposing different price plans, bundling with broadband, with your cable television, for example, the plans change over time, and I think it is hard for us to do a kind of opt-out mechanism in which consumers may then find that they are locked in to something and cannot change when they have to. Whereas this is an active mechanism which allows consumers to make an active choice on who they want to give the contract to and get service from.
So, this is where the market must play its part. EMA, therefore, emphasises a lot on the education of the consumers. Through this zonal rollout process, staging it zone by zone, giving enough time to educate the public so that they are aware what the price plans entail, what the price plans mean for their own consumer needs, so that over the longer time, consumers will make better informed decisions and choices, and that, again, will also influence the behaviour of the retailers as well.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Identification of Industrial Area along Bukit Batok Street 23 as Funeral Parlour Site","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what are the considerations that led to the identification of the industrial area along Bukit Batok Street 23 as one of the four funeral parlour sites to be developed in the next 10 years; and (b) what are the mitigation measures that will be put in place to minimise the impact on residents living nearby.
\tThe Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Speaker, the National Environment Agency (NEA) will be launching four new funeral parlour sites for development over the next 10 years or so. This is to meet the growing demand for after-death facilities and services as our population ages. The demand for wake spaces is expected to rise in tandem with the increase in resident deaths, which is projected to double to around 40,000 annually by 2040.
The sites were carefully studied and identified through an interagency planning process. They are distributed across Singapore to provide better accessibility for bereaved families and their visitors. The sites were selected after considering factors, such as development plans for the surrounding area, the capacity of the road network to support the anticipated traffic, and accessibility to public transport.
The site in the industrial area along Bukit Batok Street 23 will cater to the demand for funeral parlour services in the western part of Singapore. The site is surrounded by industrial developments and is located next to an existing columbarium.
NEA will require the proposed funeral parlour operator to put in place measures to minimise impact on the residents and other nearby stakeholders. These measures can include barriers, such as plantings and setback from the road to keep funeral activities discreet, and the provision of eco-friendly burners to minimise smoke emissions. Rituals and funeral processions will be confined within the site as far as possible, to minimise disturbance. The relevant agencies have assessed that the road network in this area is able to support the funeral parlour development and will require the operator to provide sufficient parking facilities within the site. NEA will also work with the other agencies and the operator to reduce the impact of hearses when they move in the area. This can include ensuring accessibility via different routes and avoiding roads within residential estates as far as possible.
As a small and densely populated city state, there will always be competing demands for space to meet Singapore’s various development needs. From time to time, we may have to make adjustments to accommodate these developments. Through careful planning and by taking mitigating measures, the Government will make the best effort to minimise potential disamenities arising from these developments.
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
\tMr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Minister for his detailed answer to my question. I have a few supplementary questions.
First, may I ask whether distance from the housing estate is a factor to be considered in deciding which funeral site should be zoned, and if so, why is it that the Bukit Batok site was chosen, given that the nearest housing estate is about 200 metres away from the proposed funeral site?
The second question I have is whether in relation to the other three funeral parlour sites, the housing estates are as close or are they further?
The third question I have is in relation to mitigation measures. I am glad to hear that there are proposals to consider designating hearse routes. May I ask whether hearse routes could be designated even though they are vacant or in operation?
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The second question on, hearse routes, when we put out the tender for the funeral operators to build and design the funeral parlour, we will put this as part of the requirements for their proposal, such as what they will do, where they will route. We also advise them where are the best routes to take, to avoid the residents and Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats as far as possible.
The 200 metres was not the exact reason why we did it. For Bukit Batok, first, as I mentioned, there is a dearth of such facilities in the western region. If you look at the map, the nearest one is in Choa Chu Kang. It is not so accessible, very far for many people. If you do not have a car, it is quite difficult to get there. So, we think it is useful to have one in that area.
Secondly, the site is already surrounded by industrial buildings, shielded from the public view. Even so, when the operators come to build, we will ask them to build enough shielding, so that noise, disamenities or even sight can be mitigated.
Mr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): I have one supplementary question. Among the four sites selected, one of them is in my constituency. I would like to ask the Minister whether there will be consultation with residents before the design is finalised in order to address the concerns of residents because, surely, it will have an impact on my residents who are living in Meng Suan estate.
Just now, my Parliamentary colleague asked about the hearse route. In fact, there has been a lot of feedback from residents because, currently, quite a lot of them are using the route passing by Meng Suan estate. So, as far as possible, try to reduce using that route, but perhaps can come from another side of Mandai Road.
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: I thank the Member for the supplementary question. One of the important things we want to recognise is that after-death facilities are an important social infrastructure. We, as Singaporeans living in HDB estates, are very used to seeing funeral wakes at the void decks, and now, perhaps more frequently than before. This is one big-hearted society where we have never minded seeing either funerals or weddings right below where we live. As Members know, where funerals are conducted, even weddings, there are disamenities, and we have tolerated them for a long, long time ever since we have had HDB flats. We should keep that sense of accommodation, that sense of respect for people who need this in times of bereavement.
At the same time, there are also people who want to choose other options where perhaps they want a quieter place to grieve for their loved ones. We also want to make sure that the religious beliefs and cultural preferences are also being met.
Given all that, and the fact that, like I mentioned just now, the number of resident deaths is likely to double, we have to prepare now. We have to make sure that we provide for the spaces and give ample notice to everyone who is, in a way, affected by the presence of such social facilities.
We will definitely consult the advisors as well as the grassroots to help us communicate with the residents and, at the same time, get feedback on the kind of concerns they may have. We will try, as far as possible, to mitigate the disturbances and disamenities that consequently can arise from putting such facilities near them.
\tMr Speaker: So, for a change, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah is not actively canvassing for the facility in her area.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Feedback on Pollution Produced by Burning of Joss Paper and Incense","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what is the number of feedback received from residents about the ashes/smoke produced by the burning of paper offerings in large metal cages since the regulation took effect; and (b) whether the Ministry will work with religious organisations and vendors of large incense burners to use latest technology in the design of such burners so that the emission of ashes/smoke can be minimised.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources): The National Environment Agency (NEA) works closely with stakeholders, such as the Town Councils, building managements and religious organisations, to encourage responsible burning of joss paper and incense. Housing and Development Board estates display educational materials, such as posters and banners, to advise the public to use the joss paper burners provided and to burn joss papers in small quantities to minimise smoke. Town Councils have also adopted joss burners that can burn more cleanly. Feedback on joss paper and incense burning has been declining, from about 1,100 instances of feedback in 2015 to about 500 in 2018.
As for the large-scale burning of religious offerings, NEA works with stakeholders to minimise the emission of smoke and fly ash. This includes reducing the scale of burning, locating the large metal cages and burners away from dense residential areas, and improving the design of the burners. For example, NEA has introduced eco-friendly burners with a cyclone dust collection system at Mandai Columbarium. The Kong Meng San Phor Kark See Monastery has also installed an eco-friendly burner with an ash filtration system to filter out fly ash.
We encourage the public to be considerate when burning joss paper and incense so as to keep our environment clean and safe.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
\tMr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply, especially when she highlighted those temples had implemented these services. But we also do notice that in a public housing estate, we have cases where the families have used large metal cages to burn big offering items, which would take place quite close to the housing estate and this would draw complaints from other residents.
Would the Ministry consider, for example, incentives to work with the stakeholders or the relevant parties on how they could improve such big casings used to burn large items or even papers? That would be helpful.\t
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. First, let me say that in housing estates, for the large metal cage burners, they are normally used during specific events, such as during the seventh month festival as well as funerals. In order to be able to place those large metal cage burners in housing estates, you need the approval of the Town Council. Normally, the Town Council will allow this on a temporary occupation licence basis for a fixed period.
We work very closely with the stakeholders, including the Town Councils. Our advice is for the Town Councils to ensure that these large metal cage burners are not located very close to dense residential areas, away from the residential areas. We do also have educational materials that we share with the Town Councils so that they can give them to the residents as well as to religious organisations and other stakeholders in the industry, to ensure that they burn it within the large metal containers and in small quantities to mitigate or reduce the emission of smoke.
Of course, we also encourage the industry to look into improving the design of these large metal cage burners, including, for example, containing the smoke coming out. Indeed, we have worked with industry and other stakeholders to look at the trials of such eco-friendly burners and we will continue to assist in such trials to facilitate the adoption of technology, to mitigate smoke and fly ash emissions from burning, as long as there are parties who are willing to work with us.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safeguards to Ensure Religious Teachers Accredited under Asatizah Recognition Scheme Do Not Hold Radical Views","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Mr Mohamed Irshad asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) what safeguards are in place to ensure that the religious teachers who are accredited under the Asatizah Recognition Scheme (ARS) do not hold radical views; (b) whether there are mechanisms to periodically review and renew the ARS accreditation; and (c) whether there is an independent oversight body to review the ARS accreditation.
\tThe Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Speaker, the Asatizah Recognition Scheme (ARS) requires all Muslim religious teachers, or asatizahs, to abide by a Code of Ethics. This includes not encouraging extremism or violence, denigrating other racial and religious groups, committing ethical misconduct and promoting segregationist practices. The Asatizah Recognition Board (ARB) oversees the ARS and is supported by the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS). The ARB consists of senior and respected asatizahs in the community.
In the case of Mr Murad Mohd Said, who was placed on a Restriction Order in December 2018, his ARS-recognition was cancelled in May 2018, after he contravened the ARS Code of Ethics. This is how the ARS system should work. It monitors and takes action to bar those whose views are inimical to social cohesion from preaching.
I wish to assure the Member that ARB and MUIS take ARS registration seriously. Processes have been put in place to ensure that our asatizahs registered with ARS can perform the role that the community entrusts them to do. These processes include instituting provisional periods of observation and requiring additional interviews when deemed necessary by ARB. Each asatizah would also be required to renew their registration every three years.
All ARS-asatizahs are also required to go for regular training, and their suitability is periodically reviewed. If there are reports or if they demonstrate that they are unfit to be asatizahs, such as breaching the Code of Ethics, their ARS status will be cancelled.
Both MUIS and ARB conduct regular reviews of the ARS system. ARS is meant to build up and support our asatizah community, so that they are reliable and credible sources of religious knowledge for the Muslim community and play an important role in fostering peace and harmony. Mr Speaker, in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: I would like to thank our asatizahs for their hard work in implementing the ARS. ARS was made compulsory in 2017 and more than 4,000 asatizahs are currently registered under this scheme. Our community also supports this initiative. Through our collective efforts, we can build a Muslim community together that is strong, confident and constantly able to contribute to our nation's progress. The asatizahs' support of ARS is a reflection of their commitment to abide by the Code of Ethics that was established according to Islamic values that are durable, progressive and moderate. This is essential in promoting religious harmony within Singapore’s multiracial society.
Mr Speaker: Mr Zainal Sapari.
\tMr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): I have a supplementary question for the Minister. Assuming an asatizah loses his accreditation, is there a process whereby the asatizah can be accredited again?
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: It is not easy for the asatizah to lose his accreditation. He must have been very egregious to have lost it. Therefore, the process of getting him on board should not be too easy either. So, the ARB and MUIS will look into how we can bring such asatizahs back to ensure that they do not then regress into the situation when their ARS registration was cancelled in the first place.
Mr Speaker: Prof Fatimah Lateef.
\tProf Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, can I just ask the Minister, currently, on the website, it is written that the face-to-face interview for people who are asking for ARS accreditation is conducted on an ad hoc and case-by-case basis. Perhaps, this might be a useful thing to be made compulsory. But knowing the numbers are big, there may be some limitations. Perhaps, the best way to assess a candidate is when you are actually able to encounter them face-to-face, interact with them and look at their non-verbal communication skills.
Secondly, it is also about the numbers. Has there been any number that can be reported? Since 2017, when the ARS scheme came about, has there been any asatizah who has been reported to be doing something negative or inappropriate?
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The interviews are conducted on a case-by-case basis because some of the asatizahs come from institutions that we do not know about and the ARB needs to find out more before considering whether to register them. For those who come from established institutions, we are not too worried. But we also do monitor them and we must make sure that we are satisfied that, coming from those institutions, they do not mar the reputation of such institutions by teaching segregationist teachings and so forth.
The second question on the face-to-face interview, it is part of that process. I do take it that the numbers are not extremely difficult to manage, but we have to prioritise.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Process and Cost of Mediation for Accidents Involving Personal Mobility Devices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"18 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many users of personal mobility devices (PMDs) and their accident victims have gone for mediation in the past 24 months; (b) what compensation has been paid out in the mediation; (c) what is the cost of mediation that each party must bear; (d) how long is the whole process of mediation; and (e) what is the process should one party refuse to attend.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, personal mobility device (PMD) users and their accident victims can undertake mediation at the Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC) or the Law Society of Singapore.
Mediation is voluntary and can only proceed with both parties in attendance. The SMC facilitates this by contacting the relevant parties and explaining the benefits of mediation. To date, the SMC and Law Society have not received any mediation cases involving PMD users and their accident victims. The Law Society’s charges start from $350 per party. SMC’s charges start from $107 per party and vary according to the type of mediation and the dispute amount. SMC also provides subsidised rates to applicants with financial difficulties on a case-by-case basis.
The duration of mediation depends on the complexity of the issues and the parties’ willingness to resolve the dispute. The negotiation process is confidential, and parties generally do not disclose the compensation amount. If mediation fails, either because one party refuses to attend or the parties are unable to come to a resolution, the claimant can choose to file a civil suit in the State Courts.
The Active Mobility Advisory Panel and the Land Transport Authority (LTA) strongly encourage all active mobility device users to purchase third-party liability insurance to protect themselves against third-party claims in the event of an accident.
Mr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Sir, I have four supplementary questions. The Senior Minister of State mentioned earlier that if one party refuses to attend mediation, then the next recourse is to file a civil suit. A lot of people think that, firstly, it costs money and it is very troublesome. Is there anything that the Ministry can do to make it easier? If one party refuses to turn up, very likely that party is at fault.
Secondly, I would like to ask how many shared e-scooter operators have applied for e-scooter sharing licences. I think the application closed yesterday. How many had applied?
Thirdly, how do we ensure that all these shared e-scooters do not pose a danger to pedestrians and cause disamenities and chaos like what shared bicycles have done previously? E-scooters travel at a much faster speed. A lot of residents have already given the feedback why is it that we are opening up to these shared e-scooter operators. We need to look into this.
Lastly, it is about insurance. The Senior Minister of State mentioned earlier that it is not compulsory, if I heard him correctly. Can we make it compulsory so that when it comes to claims, the injured person can claim against the insurance of the other party?
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for the four supplementary questions. With regard to the first question on civil suit, like I have mentioned, if the two parties can agree on some form of mediation, that would be one of the best outcomes, failing which, the claimant can also consider a civil suit against the offender in the State Courts. In a situation where the claimant is unable to afford the legal fees, the claimant can also approach the Legal Aid Bureau which offers help to those who have difficulty procuring legal representation on their own. Of course, that would require some form of means-testing.
In addition to that, the claimant can also approach the Law Society of Singapore which can provide ad hoc pro bono services, with free legal representation on a referred basis. If the claimant wants to have some form of legal advice, they can also approach the community legal clinics at the Law Society as they do offer basic legal advice and give advice on the possible next course of action.
With regard to e-scooter sharing licences, so far, we have received quite good responses. I do not have the exact numbers of licences that would be issued. But once that information is available, I will be able to share with the Member.
As to the third supplementary question on e-scooter safety, we have the benefit of learning from our bike-sharing experiences. With the implementation of the Active Mobility Act and the implementation of safety requirements on PMD users, we will be able to ensure that the use of e-scooters will be done in a safe manner.
With regard to third-party insurance, right now, it is not compulsory because the Active Mobility Advisory Panel did not recommend mandating this, given the diversity in device users, so as not to significantly reduce the uptake of active mobility. For example, it can be quite onerous on occasional active mobility users as well as families and young children to purchase mandatory third-party insurance.
\t
Instead, the Advisory Panel suggested placing greater focus on upstream prevention of accidents, such as lowering the speed limits on footpaths and, at the same time, encouraging users to stop and look out for oncoming traffic at road crossings. So, these are some of the measures that the Active Mobility Advisory Panel has suggested.
However, having said that, the Panel strongly encourages the take-up of third-party liability insurance, in particular, by food delivery companies, for the employees. More recently, LTA also announced that motorised PMD-sharing licensees will be required to procure and maintain third-party liability insurance.
So, while it is not mandatory for PMD users to purchase third-party insurance, we do strongly encourage all active mobility device users to purchase third-party liability insurance to protect themselves against third-party claims in the event of an accident.
Mr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
\t
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah: For the pro bono legal advice provided by the Law Society, is it means-tested, that means, is it anybody can go and ask? Because it is not easy to get help from Legal Aid. If you earn more than $1,500, you cannot get help from Legal Aid already. So, if everybody were to go along that direction, I think it is quite onerous, quite tough. So, perhaps if there are increasing complaints, increasing incidents, perhaps the Ministry should look into how best to address this. If the appropriate party did not turn up, that means that the other party is at fault.
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for the additional supplementary question. Just to give a summary of how victims in PMD accidents can proceed to seek compensation, like I mentioned before, it could be in the form of either a private settlement or through mediation. Secondly, of course, it can be achieved through civil action, for which some of the limitations have been highlighted by the Member.
And thirdly, through criminal prosecution. If the victim was involved in an accident and suffered significant injuries, he is encouraged to quickly file a Police report as that would allow the Police to launch an investigation to determine if an offence has been committed. And should the Attorney-General's Chambers assess that an offence had been committed, then the Court will consider whether to order the offender to compensate the victim. So, this is actually another avenue where victims can seek compensation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Actions against Use of PMDs on Roads in Private Landed Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"19 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) what actions have been taken against the use of PMDs on minor roads in private landed estates; (b) how many PMD users have been caught for riding on such roads in the past year; and (c) what actions have been taken to ensure that roadside footpaths in such estates are kept clear of obstacles to allow unblocked access for use by PMDs, personal mobility aids and pedestrians.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, it is an offence to ride a personal mobility device (PMD) on roads. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has focused its enforcement on roads with high traffic and areas with high public feedback. In 2018, 616 people were caught riding PMDs on roads, of which an estimated 18% were caught for riding on minor roads in private landed estates.
When LTA receives feedback on obstruction on footpaths in private landed estates, LTA acts immediately to remove the item if it causes imminent danger to other path users. However, there are cases where obstruction is caused by residents. In such instances, LTA will engage the resident or work with the neighbourhood committee to remove the obstruction. Offenders who cause obstruction on public streets are liable for a fine of up to $2,000.
Ultimately, it is a joint responsibility of residents and the authorities to ensure that our paths are free of litter and obstruction.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Approval Rate for HDB Non-concessionary Housing Loans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"20 Mr Ong Teng Koon asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the approval rate for non-concessionary HDB housing loans; and (b) whether HDB will consider increasing such loans to help residents who are unable to obtain bank loans to purchase their HDB flats.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) provides up to two housing loans at concessionary interest rate to eligible Singapore Citizen households. This is generally sufficient to meet the lifecycle needs of each flat buyer. Flat buyers also have the option of taking a bank loan.
Nevertheless, HDB has extended a third housing loan upon careful consideration of the merits of each specific case, particularly for those with urgent need of housing but are unable to secure commercial financing options. These households must have sufficient savings and steady incomes to service the HDB loan. Last year, HDB received around 4,500 such appeals, and assisted about 20% of the appeals or about 900 households. HDB will continue to evaluate such appeals and extend flexibility where necessary.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ong Teng Koon.
\t
\tMr Ong Teng Koon (Marsiling-Yew Tee): I wish to ask the Minister what is preventing the HDB from giving more such loans, given that the cost of borrowing of HDB, the rate is much lower than the interest rate that HDB is getting from these loans. And if HDB is worried about the credit risks of these borrowers, can HDB consider over-collateralising the loan by basically giving less loan for every dollar of flat that the applicant is borrowing again?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, there are basically two broad categories of cases where they would not be able to get the third housing loan when they apply for such a loan from HDB.
The first would be cases where they, in fact, can get a loan from the bank. HDB would then ask them to take a commercial loan because they are, in fact, eligible. The second would be the one that Mr Ong Teng Koon has referred to. They cannot get commercial loans from the bank and they are asking for a third HDB loan. And in most of these cases, the reason why HDB rejects or is unable to approve is because they are unable to service the loan to begin with. So, there is an issue of them having difficulty with incomes and the ability to service the loan is in question. So, rather than having them overstretch themselves, it is more prudent for them to build up their savings, steady their incomes and then they can consider applying for an HDB loan at a subsequent stage.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extending HDB's Deferred Downpayment Scheme to 4-room and 5-room BTO Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"21 Mr Ong Teng Koon asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider extending HDB's deferred downpayment scheme to 4-room and 5-room BTO flats and to applicants with low income.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) requires new flat buyers to pay a downpayment of 10% or 20% of the flat price when they sign the Agreement for Lease within four months of booking a flat, to ensure that applicants are financially ready to commit to the flat purchase. The balance flat price is then payable when they collect the keys.
Deferred downpayment is a specific scheme for seniors and it is meant to facilitate the right-sizing process. Specifically, elderly flat owners aged 55 and above who are buying an uncompleted 2-room flexi or 3-room flat from HDB may apply for this Deferred Downpayment Scheme. So, it is really meant for seniors to facilitate rightsizing.
Separately, HDB also has a Staggered Downpayment Scheme (SDS) where flat buyers are required to pay half of the downpayment when they sign the Agreement for Lease and pay the other half together with the balance purchase price at key collection. This SDS is available to first-timer young couples below the age of 30. They can qualify for such a scheme when they buy any flat type from HDB, including 4-room and 5-room flat types. SDS is also available to flat owners who are rightsizing to a 2-room flexi or a 3-room flat in non-mature estates, regardless of the age of the flat owner.
Home seekers should continue to exercise financial prudence and buy a flat within their means. And for those who face difficulties with their downpayment, HDB can provide assistance on a case-by-case basis.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ong Teng Koon.
\t
\tMr Ong Teng Koon (Marsiling-Yew Tee): I would like to thank the Minister for the SDS. It is good to know that there is such a scheme to help young home owners. My question is: is the downpayment a form of credit protection? What is the purpose of the downpayment? If it is a form of credit protection to ensure that the flat owner does not renege on his transaction, then would it be right to say that if he already has equity in his existing flat and HDB has control over the process of the sale of his existing flat and the purchase of his new flat? If HDB has control over all these things, would it be correct to say that his equity in his existing flat is sufficient downpayment and sufficient credit protection for the downpayment for his new flat?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, I am afraid I have lost the Member. Was the Member asking a specific question again?
\tMr Ong Teng Koon: Yes. Why do you need a downpayment?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: So, the Member is asking whether we need a downpayment to begin with?
\tMr Ong Teng Koon: Yes.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Zero downpayment for all purchases of all HDB flats?
\t
\tMr Ong Teng Koon: I was referring to specific cases where there is an existing flat and the home owner is moving to another flat and HDB has control over both flats. Why do you need a downpayment in such cases?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, so long as the flat owner, regardless of whether they are new, first-timers or existing flat owners, when they would like to make a purchase of a new flat, the downpayment is an indication of commitment and an indication that the person is seriously making a commitment to purchase a flat because if they were to simply put in a free option and then renege on that option later on, they are, in fact, depriving other potential flat buyers from purchasing that flat. It will be an opportunity cost. So, we do want a downpayment policy and we want potential flat buyers to take the purchase of their flat seriously.
As I mentioned earlier, we do have the SDS to help both young couples, as well as flat owners of all ages who are rightsizing. So, those are specific instances where we allow for staggered downpayment and, if there are other flat buyers who have difficulties, they can approach HDB and we can help them on a case-by-case basis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Reflect Women’s Contributions to Nation-building in Singapore Bicentennial Celebration","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"22 Prof Lim Sun Sun asked the Prime Minister whether the Singapore Bicentennial celebration will make a greater effort to reflect the contributions that women have made to Singapore's nation-building.
\tThe Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, the Singapore Bicentennial is an opportunity for us to reflect on the long arc of Singapore's history. Through the events and projects planned for this year, the Singapore Bicentennial Office will highlight the contributions of the diverse communities and peoples who arrived on our shores before and after 1819. This includes women and men of different ethnicities.
For women, in particular, we have started to share through social media stories of prominent persons, such as Hajjah Fatimah, a tradeswoman and philanthropist who came to Singapore in the 1800s and built houses for the poor and donated money and land to build a mosque for her community; Constance Goh, the pioneer of the Singapore Family Planning Association, who also started a feeding centre for poor children after World War II; Elizabeth Choy, a heroine who was also the first and only woman member of the Legislative Council in 1951; and Checha Davies, a social worker and a community volunteer who campaigned for women's economic, educational and social rights, leading to the passing of the Women's Charter in 1961.
Besides featuring individual women, the Singapore Bicentennial Office will also work with over 270 community partners to highlight groups of women who have made important contributions to Singapore. For instance, the Office is working with the National University of Singapore Asia Centre for Social Entrepreneurship and Philanthropy to study the role of female philanthropists in the 1900s. The Office is also partnering the Singapore Federation of Chinese Clan Associations to develop a heritage trail linking the iconic infrastructure and monuments built by Samsui women during the 19th and 20th centuries.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Ministerial Statement. Minister for Health.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Unauthorised Possession and Disclosure of Information from HIV Registry","subTitle":"Statement by Minister for Health","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for Health (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to make a Statement on the Unauthorised Possession and Disclosure of Information from the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Registry, and to respond to the various Parliamentary Questions (PQs) asked earlier. Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary will speak after me on matters regarding governance on data in general.
Sir, on 22 January 2019, the Ministry of Health (MOH) was alerted to a case of unauthorised possession and wrongful online disclosure of information from the HIV Registry by one Mikhy K Farrera Brochez, affecting 14,200 individuals diagnosed with HIV, and 2,400 of their contacts.
The incident has caused anxiety and distress to the affected persons. This matter is especially delicate as it involves persons living with HIV. Our priority is their well-being.
Members have asked several questions regarding the incident. So, let me first give a brief account on what happened, the actions we took, and why.
Some have asked whether MOH had known about Brochez's possible access to HIV Registry information in 2012 when he first made a complaint to MOH. Let me clarify that the issue then was not about Brochez's access to HIV Registry information, but a different one.
Brochez was then a partner of Dr Ler Teck Siang who was the Head of the National Public Health Unit (NPHU), and they had lived together. In November 2012, Brochez alleged that Ler had disclosed information about Brochez to others. He later also claimed that Ler had shared screenshots of his HIV status with others.
Despite multiple attempts by MOH to engage him, Brochez did not provide any evidence to support his allegation. He was uncooperative and evasive, and rejected or postponed meetings with MOH on several occasions. At one point, he even informed MOH officers that he was leaving Singapore and did not want to continue with the investigation into his allegation. Due to his uncooperative attitude, the investigation could not make much headway. Nevertheless, we re-assigned Ler to another role in May 2013, and kept up the investigation. Ler's access to the live HIV Registry was terminated after his re-assignment.
In the course of our investigations, MOH discovered in December 2013 that Brochez may have submitted fake HIV blood tests to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) in order to retain his Employment Pass. We informed MOM and also made a Police report. Ler resigned the following month.
MOH's investigations in 2012 and 2013 were on Brochez's allegation that Ler had revealed Brochez's HIV status to others. At no point in 2012 or 2013 did MOH have basis to suspect that Brochez had access to, or was in possession of, the data in the HIV Registry.
Between 2014 and 2016, the Police and MOH investigated whether Brochez had submitted fake blood tests, and whether Ler had abetted this process and provided false information to investigators. These investigations were difficult as Brochez continued to be uncooperative and initially refused to provide a statement to the Police.
The Police eventually recorded a statement from Brochez in May 2014, after he was stopped trying to leave Singapore. When interviewed, Brochez lied to the Police that it was his blood that was tested during a HIV test conducted in November 2013.
MOH then ordered Brochez to undergo a fresh blood test for HIV to verify his claim, but Brochez refused to cooperate. In late April 2016, Brochez was arrested for repeatedly refusing to comply with MOH's order to take a blood test. He then provided the Police and the Government authorities 75 names and particulars from the HIV Registry.
This was the first time MOH had evidence that Brochez may have access to HIV-related data. We made a Police Report on 16 May 2016.
The Police raided Ler's and Brochez's premises simultaneously and seized and secured all relevant materials. These included their computers and electronic storage devices containing files with confidential information from the HIV Registry, files related to hospital services and to other infectious diseases, as well as other information likely used by Ler for his work, such as emails, HIV studies and reports.
The Police searched through Brochez's email account and found that Brochez had sent the same screenshot that he had sent to Government authorities, as well as a portable document format (PDF) file of a further 46 records from the HIV Registry, to his mother. The Police then contacted Brochez's mother, who agreed to let the Police access her email account and deleted those records.
At this point, the Police had seized everything they found in Ler's and Brochez's possession and had done their best to ensure that no further confidential information remained with Ler and Brochez, including in their known online accounts. It was always recognised that there was a risk that Brochez could have hidden away some more information. Unfortunately, as recent events showed, Brochez did manage to retain at least the data which he has recently disclosed, and we cannot rule out the possibility that he has more.
Ler and Brochez were both charged in Court in June 2016. Ler was charged both under the Penal Code and the Official Secrets Act (OSA). Ler's charge sheet, which was public information, stated that he had had access to the HIV Registry as part of his position as the Head of NPHU in MOH, and that he had failed to take reasonable care of the information in the HIV Registry by failing to retain possession of a thumb drive on which he had saved the HIV Registry.
Brochez was charged for offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act, Penal Code and Infectious Diseases Act (IDA). The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) decides on the charges. AGC decided not to charge him under the OSA because they assessed that he would likely be sentenced to a fine only, or, at most, a few weeks in jail. This was because there had been no wide dissemination of the information at that stage, and he had primarily used the information to complain to Government agencies, and he was already facing numerous fraud and drug-related charges, which carried far heavier penalties. AGC also assessed that any jail term under the OSA was likely to be concurrent with jail terms that he would serve under other offences.
Brochez was, therefore, issued with a stern warning for the OSA offence.
Brochez was subsequently convicted in March 2017 and sentenced to 28 months' imprisonment. In its judgment, the Court found that Brochez had \"deliberate[ly] flout[ed] the law for personal benefit\", and that there was \"not a single word of regret.\"
Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now address questions as to whether MOH should have informed the public earlier. In 2016, MOH had to decide whether to inform the affected persons and whether to make a public announcement about the incident.
These were not straightforward decisions. On the one hand, there is the need to be transparent. On the other hand, we need to consider the impact of an announcement on the affected persons with HIV – would it serve their interest or would it harm them instead?
I discussed this with my medical colleagues in MOH. They emphasised the need to pay particular attention to the concerns and needs of HIV patients. A person's HIV status is a deeply emotional and personal matter. Some patients will experience high anxiety and distress from a disclosure or announcement. Some will feel compelled to reveal their HIV status to family members or friends. Relationships can be disrupted; lives can be changed. We had to exercise care and judgement in making our decision, and the well-being of the affected persons weighed heavily in our considerations.
One key factor was that there was then still no evidence that the confidential information had been disseminated to the public. Brochez had sent the information to Government authorities. The Police search was extensive and all relevant material found had been seized or deleted. While there could be no guarantee, MOH had good reason to believe that the information had been secured and the risk of future exposure significantly mitigated.
Ultimately, it was a judgement call to be made based on the information we had, and the considerations for and against an announcement, and the assessed risk of future public exposure of the information. MOH judged that, on balance, an announcement then would not serve the interests of the affected individuals, when weighed against the inevitable anxiety and distress they would experience.
Two years later, in April 2018, Brochez was deported from Singapore after serving his sentence and we had no basis to keep him here.
In May 2018, after his deportation, Brochez sent a screenshot containing 31 records from the HIV Registry to several Government authorities. All 31 records were not new. They were a subset of the 75 which Brochez had earlier revealed to authorities in May 2016. MOH lodged another Police report.
We considered again whether to inform the affected individuals and the public. The relevant factors were similar to those in 2016. But there was one difference. This time, we could not retrieve the screenshot of the 31 records in Brochez's possession because he was already out of Singapore.
MOH, therefore, decided to contact the affected individuals and alert them to the matter. We did not make a public announcement as there was still no specific evidence that Brochez had more information beyond these 31 records. Furthermore, as on previous occasions, Brochez had only shared it with Government authorities and not to any wider audience. A public announcement would create anxiety and distress not just among the 31 persons but also other HIV patients whose names were in the Registry.
In September 2018, Ler was convicted for abetting Brochez to commit cheating, and also of providing false information to the Police and MOH. He was sentenced to 24 months' imprisonment. Ler has appealed and this is scheduled to be heard in March 2019.
Ler's charge under the OSA is currently \"stood down\". That means that the OSA charge has been put aside for the moment, but it remains before the Courts and will be dealt with after proceedings on his other charges have concluded. AGC decided to go to trial against Ler on the cheating and false information charges first, as they were more serious and carried stiffer penalties. The trial for his drug charges will be held next, as these also involve stiffer penalties, including mandatory caning. So that there is no doubt, let me say again that the OSA charge against Ler is still \"live\". AGC will decide on the OSA charge, after proceedings on his other charges have concluded. This is the usual course.
The most recent incident in January 2019 stood on a different footing from the earlier incidents. It showed that Brochez probably still possessed the entire HIV Registry, beyond just the 31 records. He had also put the information online and provided the link to a non-Government party.
This new situation meant that the likelihood of the identities of affected persons being made public by Brochez had increased significantly. MOH, therefore, decided to make a public announcement on 28 January, even though we remained deeply concerned about the impact this would have on the affected persons. We sought to quickly contact each of the affected individuals to inform them of the circumstances and also offer them assistance prior to the announcement. We worked with the Police and other relevant parties to disable access to the information as quickly as possible.
Mr Speaker, Sir, at this point, let me reiterate the basis of our decisions and actions, especially on the issue of disclosure and announcement. At each juncture in May 2016, May 2018 and January 2019, MOH had to decide whether to inform the affected persons and make a public announcement.
In making those decisions, MOH had a responsibility to balance the opposing considerations and exercise judgement on what would best serve the interest of the affected persons and the public.
MOH made a judgement call, balancing the various considerations. It is arguable that MOH should have made a different call. But I reject any allegation that MOH sought to cover up the incident.
On all three occasions, MOH's primary concern was the well-being of the persons on the HIV Registry.
Today, we still face the same dilemma as we did back in 2016 and 2018. We now know that Brochez retained some of the data after the Police seized all the files they could find in 2016. Quite possibly, he still has more files in his possession.
Should MOH now make known all that Brochez may, or may not, still have in his possession? Do we contact every person whose data may, or may not, be at risk? And in the process inflict more harm on people even though it may ultimately turn out that Brochez, in fact, does not have the information?
Again, we have to assess and make a judgement call. MOH has decided to continue to manage the situation in a way that reduces the possibility of further exposure. This is consistent with the decision taken in 2016 and again in 2018. It is based on what we believe to be the interest of the potentially affected persons.
Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now turn to what else we are doing following the latest incident.
Brochez is currently under Police investigation for various offences. He is believed to be in the US. The Police are engaging their American counterparts and are seeking their assistance in the investigations against Brochez. The Police will spare no effort pursuing all avenues to bring Brochez to justice.
Following our public announcement, a few parties have come forward to inform us that Brochez had, in fact, attempted to make contact with them in 2018, and had given them links to confidential information he had uploaded online. We have quickly worked with the authorities to similarly disable access to the online content. The content that was uploaded is similar to what we had found in January, so no new individuals have been exposed.
We have also been working with relevant parties to scan the Internet for indications of further sharing of the information. There have thus far been no signs of further disclosure, but we will continue to monitor.
Should we detect any disclosure or online publication of the information, MOH will work with the relevant authorities and parties to take down the content and disable access to the data.
Here, I would like to remind everyone that the Police will not hesitate to take stern action, including prosecution, against anyone who possesses, communicates or uses any of the confidential data that has been disclosed. The Police will also not tolerate any harassment or intimidation, of any form, towards any person, arising from this leak. Stern action will be taken against perpetrators.
MOH has prioritised informing and supporting the affected individuals. We have completed attempts to contact all the affected individuals. But we are unable to reach all of them, as many had dated contact information, given that the Registry went back to 1985. Many of the foreigners were work pass applicants who never worked in Singapore, or who previously worked here but are no longer in Singapore.
Amongst the affected Singaporeans diagnosed with HIV and are still living, we have reached 2,400 out of 3,500. Individuals who worry that they may be affected or who have concerns, can contact our hotline at 6325 9220. I repeat: 63259220. We seek their understanding that to maintain confidentiality of the information, we have to verify the identity of the caller. Officers manning our hotline will then provide information on the incident and direct callers to available avenues for support.
Ms Anthea Ong, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira and Assoc Prof Daniel Goh asked about the measures taken to protect the psychological welfare of the affected individuals. We know that the affected persons may have concerns and may be worried about unfair treatment arising from this incident.
Prior to calling patients, our medical social workers have helped to first identify those likely to require more support, so that designated officers can exercise extra care and provide additional support when calling them. If callers request to speak to our counsellors, are in distress, or require more advice and support, counsellors are on standby to speak with them.
Some affected individuals may prefer to discuss their concerns with those they are more familiar with, such as the medical social workers, nurses and doctors who have been supporting their ongoing care and treatment. We have arranged with the relevant public hospitals to have medical social workers and doctors onsite to attend to them.
Agencies, such as the Life Insurance Association (LIA), MOM and the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) have provided public assurances on common concerns. MOM shared that Singapore has employment laws to protect employees from wrongful dismissals, including on the grounds of HIV. LIA has, in turn, assured policyholders that insurers that receive information related to this incident will not use such information. They will inform the relevant authorities immediately.
Understandably, despite these efforts, some will continue to be concerned. Some may decline to return to care because of the fear of future disclosure. Some felt we should have just informed the affected individuals. A few wished they had not been called at all. The anxiety and concerns which some individuals felt have also been carried in various online, broadcast and print articles in recent weeks.
Our medical social workers were themselves distressed by the news they had to break and felt the anguish that the patients experienced when they were told. They had to conduct the calls carefully and gently and be alert to signs of distress so that they could help the patients appropriately. At times, our medical social workers became the target of anger and blamed themselves. Nevertheless, they do their best to support the affected persons.
These reactions are not unexpected and they were the reasons we made a judgement call in 2016 not to make a public announcement, and in 2018, to inform only the affected patients.
Mr Speaker, Sir, Members have asked about the purpose and safeguards of the HIV Registry.
MOH’s national HIV Registry contains information of persons diagnosed with HIV in Singapore. We are not unique in having such a registry. Countries, such as the US and Canada, also maintain HIV registries containing identifiable information.
We need the Registry to monitor the HIV infection situation, conduct contact tracing, and assess disease prevention and management measures. The data needs to be identifiable for purposes, such as contact tracing, to protect those who are contacts of HIV patients.
The security safeguards for the HIV Registry in 2012/2013 were in accordance with the prevailing Government policies on classified information and information technology (IT) security. Staff were briefed on the policies, systems and processes, and regularly reminded of the sensitivity of the information, which they should access on a need-to-know basis. All of them signed an undertaking to observe confidentiality obligations under the OSA.
Prior to 2012, the HIV Registry was placed in a secured network drive. The file could only be accessed and downloaded from Government issued computers, and was password protected. NPHU staff would need to download the HIV Registry in order to carry out routine data entry, contact tracing and analysis. Staff were allowed to use personal thumb drives at that time, subject to adherence to data protection guidelines and policies.
As the Head of NPHU, Ler had authority to access information in the HIV Registry as required for his work. He is believed to have downloaded the HIV Registry into a thumb drive and failed to retain possession of it. Ler has been charged for mishandling the information.
Mr Seah Kian Peng asked about the additional measures undertaken to ensure data security. In 2012, prior to the complaint from Brochez, the Registry database was migrated to a network-based system. NPHU staff no longer had to download a database file stored on a network drive to do their work. Instead, staff would call up records they require from the network-based system. With the implementation of a network-based Registry, the audit trail was also enhanced. In 2014, alerts of multiple failed login attempts were incorporated into the system.
MOH continues to follow the security policies from the Singapore Government Instruction Manual (IM) for the Security of Classified Information. In tandem with the Government guidelines, we implemented several controls to tighten our systems.
Specifically for NPHU, MOH’s Chief Data Officer also conducted a data security review in 2016. Following the review, enhancements were made to further strengthen the NPHU systems. These include the following:
(a) elevating the approval authority for downloading and decrypting Registry data to the level of the Director of our Communicable Diseases Division (CDD) or higher;
(b) implementing a two-person approval process to download and decrypt Registry data, to ensure that data could not be accessed by a single person; and
(c) designating a specific workstation for processing of sensitive data from the HIV Registry. This workstation is configured and locked down to prevent unauthorised removal of data.
In 2017, NPHU also complied with Government-wide policy to disable the use of unauthorised portable storage devices on official computers and only allow the use of authorised and encrypted thumb drives.
To give greater attention to data usage and safeguards, we had also set up a Data Analytics Group in April 2018. Within the group, a Data Governance Division was set up to formulate policies, practices and guidelines for MOH and its agencies. The aim is to protect and secure access to health sector data, in accordance with data protection requirements in the Government IMs and the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), and other MOH sectoral legislation.
In light of the recent incident, and the increased prevalence of data use across the healthcare sector, it is important to ensure that data security and governance policies are strictly adhered to on the ground. MOH will expand the role and resourcing of this unit. We will include within it a specific mandate and team to look into the compliance and audits of data access and use.
Several Members have called for destigmatisation of HIV and asked how we can protect people living with HIV from discrimination. Stigmatisation is an issue that all of us are concerned with. Destigmatisation requires efforts across the society. Let me cite some of the efforts by MOH, together with the Government and non-Government agencies, advocacy groups as well as voluntary welfare organisations.
Persons living with HIV require lifelong treatment. HIV, therefore, continues to be a serious infectious disease that MOH closely monitors and actively manages for public health reasons. But clinically, HIV treatment has vastly improved over the years, and early treatment can delay disease progression and improve the quality of life.
Over the years, MOH has increased financial support and lowered the financial barriers for HIV treatment through MediSave and MediFund. Since 2014, HIV anti-retroviral drugs can be supported under the Medication Assistance Fund (MAF). MAF provides means-tested subsidies for lower- and middle-income patients, covering up to 75% of the cost of anti-retroviral treatment.
In 2015, with the introduction of MediShield Life, persons living with HIV are now covered by our national health insurance scheme should they be hospitalised.
We have also made HIV testing and counselling services more widely available. For example, anonymous HIV testing is now available at 10 sites across the island. Special outreach efforts have also been made for specific groups. For instance, it is part of standard antenatal testing at our public hospitals.
Support from doctors, medical social workers and healthcare workers is also widely available in public hospitals. Generally, every HIV patient in public healthcare institutions is assigned to a medical social worker to provide assistance upon their diagnosis.
Sir, it is easy to stigmatise something that we do not understand. MOH has, therefore, been working with stakeholders to raise awareness of the disease and reduce stigma for the disease. In 2017, the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF), Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH) and the Health Promotion Board (HPB) worked together to introduce \"Guidelines on Managing HIV and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) in the Workplace\" to help companies create enabling workplace environments for employees with HIV. More recently, the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices call for employers to treat employees fairly and based on merit. This includes employees with HIV.
MOH will continue to work with partner organisations to step up efforts in public education, stigma reduction, prevention, testing, treatment and counselling support. But beyond this, how each of us as individuals relate to persons with HIV also matters a lot.
Here, I would like to appeal to Singaporeans to stand in support of these affected individuals and our efforts to fight the stigma against persons living with HIV. I would like to urge the public and media not to share illegally obtained information and inform the Police/MOH immediately.
The welfare of the affected individuals in this incident would be something of deep concern for us. We would like to encourage those with concerns to contact us at our hotline at, again, 6325 9220. You may also call the Samaritans of Singapore (SOS), TAFEP and Action for AIDS, or approach the healthcare institutions and professionals that have been providing you care and support.
Mr Speaker, Sir, this has been a regrettable incident caused by the irresponsible and deplorable actions of two individuals.
Ler is a Singaporean doctor and ex-MOH officer who had been entrusted with the care of our patients, but he had betrayed the trust of the Ministry and the medical profession. I am sorry that these irresponsible actions of one of our officers has resulted in such distress to the affected persons. Ler’s case is now before the Courts and he will be dealt with according to the law.
The other, Brochez, is an American citizen who had left a trail of lies and deceit and now perpetrated a reprehensible act that has affected thousands of persons with HIV. He had already spent time behind bars here for his earlier offences, and we will spare no efforts in bringing him to justice again for his latest crime.
As individuals and part of the larger Singaporean community, the best way for us to respond to this incident is with sensitivity, understanding and support for those affected. If we can say no to discrimination and reduce the stigma surrounding HIV, we can turn the harm and discord which the perpetrators seek to sow into a more inclusive and supportive environment for persons with HIV.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary.
The Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information (Dr Janil Puthucheary): Mr Speaker, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira had asked some questions about the standards for public disclosure of Government information incidents involving personal data.
Mr Speaker, in the event of a suspected data breach, the first priority is to limit the potential harm to affected individuals. The agency involved will assess the damage, prevent further losses and take precautionary measures to heighten safeguards. The Government Technology Agency (GovTech) will put other agencies across the Government on alert and also take broader measures, if need be. A Police report will be made if there is suspected foul play or loss of physical equipment, such as laptops.\t
As to the issue of broader public disclosure of the breach, this is taken as a considered decision, taking into account the possibility that such a disclosure may allow the attacker to create more damage, may help him cover his tracks or may cause unnecessary distress. Thus, there is no standard timing for public disclosure that automatically applies to all data breach cases.
Post-breach, the agency affected will undertake a comprehensive review of the incident to understand what more could be done to prevent such an incident and what could be done better to manage such an incident. Such a review would include the approach taken to inform affected individuals and the public.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I will ask some questions of the Minister for Health first. At any of the decision junctures that the Minister had to consider over the last few years regarding this case, did the Ministry ever consult any persons with HIV or HIV advocacy groups for their views on whether disclosure should happen and, if so, what views were expressed by these groups or persons?
Second, in light of the move to destigmatise, the policy decision that HIV should be destigmatised in Singapore, and this should be reflected in employment and in other areas of life, would it be appropriate to review, for example, immigration and employment regulations of foreigners regarding HIV as well, at this juncture?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: On the consultation with other organisations, as the Member would appreciate, this is a very sensitive area. We had information about Brochez and Ler, and both were being charged in Court. Therefore, we did not consult outside parties. We were discussing within the Ministry, with people who had been dealing with persons with HIV. So, we were familiar with the concerns about the patients, and it was borne out with the issues that arose as a result of this disclosure. We were, therefore, quite clear that the pressure, the distress and the anxiety were real.
With regard to destigmatisation of HIV persons and whether we would review the immigration policies, we do these reviews quite regularly. Every time, we would look at the practice here and around the world and take into account the concerns and interests of Singaporeans and decide on these issues. We have made adjustments along the way, as we have done so over the past few years.
As I had explained, HIV remains a very serious infectious disease. Therefore, we need to be very cautious in approaching this issue. We want to make sure that we are able to manage the disease environment here and to protect Singaporeans where possible. Therefore, for persons with long-term residence in Singapore, we still have a restriction on their access to Singapore. For persons who are on short-term stay, the restriction has been lifted recently. We are also not alone in this. Australia and New Zealand also have restrictions on long-term stays for persons with HIV.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister. I have two questions. The first is, for those who have been contacted by Brochez and do not report to MOH, and if there is any leakage of personal information, would the person be liable for prosecution? That means, if the person is contacted by Brochez, given links online to confidential information online, would the person be liable for prosecution if that person did not report to MOH that correspondence, that contact?
The second question is: I am assuming that NPHU also kept a list of people living with other infectious diseases like sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and tuberculosis (TB). Were any of these lists also compromised by Ler and Brochez?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Let me answer the second question. NPHU oversees public health issues which would include infectious diseases, such as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), Bird Flu, TB, STDs and HIV. The Unit will handle many of these infectious diseases and that is part of the information and data that officers would be handling. As to the data that has been exposed, it is limited to the HIV Registry, as I had mentioned.
The other question on whether a person receiving information or a link that is provided by Brochez, whether it is illegal to retain them, I have to consult my colleague. But my suggestion is, whether it is legal or illegal, please forward it to us or to the Police so that we can follow up to investigate the implications of that.
Mr Speaker: Minister Shanmugam, your response on the point of law.
The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Technically, there could potentially be some offences under the Official Secrets Act, particularly if further action is taken upon receipt, to say, publicise it or send it to others. But as the Minister has said, if it is sent to MOH, I do not see AGC taking action in those circumstances.
Mr Speaker: Ms Anthea Ong.
Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): I have two questions for the Minister for Health. The first is, we are all aware of the painstaking efforts we have taken over the decades to allow people who have or suspect that they may have HIV to come forward for testing. So, given this latest incident, what specific measures is the Ministry taking to make sure that these decades of efforts have not been negated?
The second question is that given the requirement for long-term residency and HIV being an issue, which obviously created that whole fraud on the part of Brochez and Ler, how many cases have we encountered so far where fake blood has been used in order to get access to our long-term residence pass, or in the past, even short-term pass?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: I stand corrected. But this is, to my memory, the first case that we have seen. I will check and provide the Member with the information.
On the issue of HIV testing, we do encourage persons who suspect they may have HIV, or who are uncertain whether they have HIV, to come forward to be tested. We do have anonymous test sites across Singapore. The identity of the person will be kept anonymous and MOH will only receive an aggregated number of people who have tested. We do not get the identity. So, we will continue to encourage you to come forward and be tested so that at least you will know your status. And we also encourage you to seek treatment. When you seek treatment, we will know who you are because we need to provide treatment to the patients. We will do our utmost to protect the data and the information as much as we can. Rest assured that we will do what we can to support you.
The Ministry will also continue to step up efforts on public education to reduce the stigma on HIV patients. At the same time, the effort is not just the Government's alone. The society as a whole should come together and show support for these persons living with HIV. By showing them support, it will encourage more of them to come forward for testing and, more importantly, for treatment as well.
Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): I thank the Minister for his Statement. In the constituency I serve, there are persons with HIV. We work with them, we partner them, they are fellow Singaporeans. While I recognise that good work has already been done in this area by various organisations, such as Action for AIDS or Catholic AIDS Response Effort, will the Ministry consider formalising and bolstering this process, drawing from good initiatives in other countries? For example, Living Positive Victoria in Australia has a team of peer navigators who are themselves living with HIV, who work extensively with HIV patients and their families, one-on-one.
Sir, some contract HIV through no fault of their own. These include babies. So, arising from this data leak, will MOH consider a more formalised process of support for those living with HIV and their families?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Sir, I thank the Member for his suggestion. Indeed, we will learn from other countries, their experiences and share their practices on how to better support persons living with HIV. We also work with advocacy groups and support groups, as well as non-government organisations and voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs), to see how we can enable them, how we can support them in the work that they do.
As I have mentioned, many of these require collaborative efforts, not just from the Government. Some persons with HIV would feel more comfortable talking to people that they know, people they are more familiar with and, therefore, it is not just the Government doing it. We need to work with multiple agencies, whether it is Action for AIDS, SOS or other VWOs. We try to work with them and see how we can best reach out to these people who need support and provide the relevant and effective support.
We will also look at how we can formalise these arrangements in a more structured way so that they are more sustainable and also, there is a continuity in the efforts. So, we take the Member's point and will explore other possibilities.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister for his comprehensive Statement. Just three questions. Firstly, just to confirm, I believe the Minister said that although this was not the protocol previously at the time, but right now it is the protocol that where, as far as sensitive data is concerned, like personal data and the HIV Registry, right now, when the public officer exports, extracts or downloads the data, there is an automatic alert that is triggered, and then someone will see that list of download attempts and they will be subject to some scrutiny. So, I just wanted to confirm that that is in place right now.
Secondly, I think the Minister explained that the individuals, such as Dr Ler, who had access to personalised information from the HIV Registry, needed that information in order to do their work by contact tracing and so on and so forth. In hindsight, I just wanted to ask the Minister, does the Minister feel there could be more scope going forward to maybe reduce the number of people who have access to the personalised data to the absolute minimum and possibly even break up access for the entire database between different individuals, so that very few, or perhaps even no individual, has access to all the personalised data, even though other individuals may have access to the aggregated data for the purpose of policy analysis? That is my second question.
My third and last question is, based on what I heard from the Minister's timeline – and I stand corrected if I misheard this – the Minister mentioned that Brochez was convicted and sentenced to 28 months in jail in March 2017 and he was released in 2018. So, I just wanted to check if he did, in fact, serve the full sentence as per conviction or was the sentence reduced in length or was it because he had already served time when the conviction took place?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: On the last question, I can confirm with my colleagues. But I would imagine that it is subject to the normal prison terms where you have remission of a certain period and then he was deported thereafter. So, perhaps my colleagues can confirm.
On the Member's question about access, in fact, access to the data has always been on a need-to-know and need-to-use basis, and the number of staff in NPHU is actually very small. They are limited to a handful of people. Whenever they need the information, they would have to then access because they are all doing contact tracing, doing analysis, so all of them are actually working on the similar type of matters. At the same time, we also have to understand that Ler was the head of the unit. So, in his particular position, he needs to have oversight of all the work that the staff is working on and, therefore, he would have access to all the information in any case. So, it probably does not relate to this particular incident.
The new system that we put in place has audit trail and this audit trail was not meant to watch everybody and what they do. There are certain alerts that are built into the system where if there are excessive access to the information, or where there is unusual kind of access to information, it will be flagged up. The audit trail will also allow us, when something does happen, to look back.
Therefore, let me just put in perspective. We have to take a multi-pronged approach to data security. The first level is to have a system in place to prevent abuse of data – things like encrypted thumb drives. So, those are important to allow us to prevent attempts to abuse the data or illegal access to data. The second level is for us to detect should something happen and there are some suspicious activities that are going on. These are the audit trails which are important, the documentation which is important. The third level, which is equally important, and that is deterrence. And that is why if we were to find someone who has made an illegal access or who has abused information or has been less than careful with the information that he is entrusted with, then we must take stern action and that is what happened to Ler and Brochez. That is why they were charged in Court.
Only when we do these three would we be able to have a robust system of protecting our information. So, if Members bear in mind that Ler himself was the head of the unit, the safeguards that you put in place, even if it is effective, he had the right to access. Even if you have audit trails, most of the things that he did from our audit over the last few years, when we checked what he did, based on our investigation, they were legitimate work that he was doing with MOH. Whether or not he was careful in protecting the data that he was using is a separate issue. Many of these may not be able to stop Ler from doing what he did but the deterrence is an important part to make sure that those who want to try have to be mindful of the penalties that could be imposed on them if they were ever caught. Therefore, these three must work hand in hand to ensure we have a robust system of data security – protection, detection and deterrence.
Mr Speaker: Ms Tin Pei Ling.
Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): This is a very unfortunate incident. I have got two questions. One is, may I know what is the risk of potential suicide amongst the affected individuals and what MOH may be doing to provide more support to help them tide over this very difficult period?
Second, quite clearly, from the whole sequence of events, these two individuals, Brochez and Ler, lacked conscience. They are recalcitrant, spiteful, committed a very despicable act and, as Minister has mentioned also, despite having systems and policies in place, it did not stop Ler from abusing his position and authority. It did not stop Brochez, even with the different time milestones after being discovered, from being willful and spiteful. So, I am wondering whether the current penalties are deemed to be deterrent enough and whether there is scope to enhance the penalties further to prevent such individuals from ever committing such crimes ever again?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Sir, two points. First, on the risk of suicidal tendencies, I get feedback from my medical social workers who are working on calling the patients and they do tell me that in their calls, there were patients who were suicidal and they have to manage the case very delicately. They have to sense the distress the patients are facing, and they have to make a judgement how much to tell them, whether to stress them further, or to refer them for help. Often, when they come across a person who has a clear intention to do something drastic, they would refer them to the Institute of Mental Health, for example, who can manage them. Often, they would try to refer them to people whom they are familiar with, people who have been their support group, so that they are able to continue to support them. But these are very delicate issues, and I do not want to go into specific details for various reasons.
On the issue of – what is Member's second question?
Ms Tin Pei Ling: Whether the penalties are a deterrent.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: This is something probably for the Ministry of Law to look into. But we will press for whatever is allowable under the law. But because Ler's case is still being appealed, I would not want to go into the case's specific details. We will wait for the Court and the law to take its process.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): I have got two clarifications actually for the Ministry of Communications and Information, so I am not sure whether Minister S Iswaran or Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary will take them.
The first clarification is that, in this recent incident involving NPHU, the organisation concerned is actually within MOH and, therefore, I would like confirmation that it does not come under the auspices of the PDPA. That is the first clarification.
The second clarification is, earlier Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary went through the IM or some policy about how the public sector safeguards personal data and, if I heard him correctly, a lot of responsibility is placed on the department concerned to assess and come up with measures. My question is, in this recent incident involving the HIV leak, did any department outside MOH assess whether the arrangements that were in existence at the time when the breach occurred, whether the security arrangements were reasonable? Did anybody outside MOH come to any conclusion or inquire into the matter?
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, for the first point, Ms Sylvia Lim is correct, the PDPA does not apply. For the second point, the answer is yes, the arrangements that the MOH team and the officers who were involved in at the time were audited to be in compliance with the standards that were set. Those are not the same standards that are present today. The standards have changed, the training of officers has changed, and the deployment and use of technology have changed.
Mr Speaker: Mr Edwin Tong.
The Senior Minister of State for Health and Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Thank you, Mr Speaker. On Mr Leon Perera's point earlier on the sentence, I would just like to clarify that it was backdated to the time that he was first remanded, which was June 2016. And thereafter, he also had remission, as is usual, which accounted for the dates that the Member had in mind.
Mr Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.
Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Just two supplementary questions for the Minister for Health. I am heartened by the additional measures that the Minister has shared, one of which he mentioned was the setting up of the compliance team. I believe it was last year. I want to have a sensing of how big this compliance team is.
My second question is, on the one part we talk about deterrent measures. On the other part, for positions within the Ministry which we consider as in possession of sensitive information, I wonder whether we could improve – prior to the appointment of people to these positions, whether we could subject them to additional tests on character, things which can allow us to sharpen the process of appointing these people to these positions. I recognise there are no foolproof systems. But for these positions, perhaps it is already in existence, but I would request that perhaps these appointments be subjected to more tests prior to confirmation of their appointment.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: As I mentioned, we are now expanding the data governance division. We would need to look at the scope of the work and determine what is the size that we need. Currently, it is a very small unit and it is focusing on dealing with the policies, dealing with practices and reviewing MOH's governance practices on data security. But in order for them to do the audit function, to go down to the ground, to look at practices and to enforce practices, we would need to significantly enhance resources and these would include visiting and checking on the operations and practices on the ground to ensure compliance. Policies are as good as how much they are practised on the ground. Therefore, it is important for us to make sure that they practise what the policy requires. So, we will have to continue to enhance the size of the group.
On the recruitment for staff handling sensitive information, we will take a look. But there is no foolproof system because integrity of the person has to be tested over time. The Chinese says, \"路遥知马力，日久见人心\". So, sometimes you do the best you can in assessing a person's character, but you will never know until you have worked with him over a period of time. We also have to be careful with unnecessary discrimination when you deal with a character assessment. Some of these may not be objective. Therefore, in recruitment and selecting people, we would need to take quite a holistic approach and make a holistic assessment on the suitability of the person.
Mr Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat.
Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): I have two questions to ask the Minister. It was reported on the MOH website that Ler has been charged under the OSA for failing to take reasonable care of confidential information regarding HIV-positive patients. So, the critical issue here is not really about failing to take reasonable care of the confidential information. The issue here is why did the MOH system at NPHU allow someone to download the entire database. You can access the database but why allow someone to download the entire database onto a thumb drive, to begin with? I seek confirmation from the Minister that there was actually no safeguard against such downloading of the entire database by authorised staff prior to 2016.
The second issue is, I also read from the MOH website that additional safeguards against mishandling of information by authorised staff were only put in place three to four years after MOH was first alerted to an allegation that Ler had misused the HIV Registry. I also understand earlier from Minister Iswaran that there are regular mandated IT audits done with regard to security of personal data at our public agencies. So, why did it take so long for MOH to implement the additional safeguards because authorised staff still can access and download the entire database like what Ler did from 2013 to 2016, before the additional measures were put in?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Let me first respond to Mr Seah Kian Peng's question on Data Analytics Group. We have about 50, but the number who are looking at the governance division, we have about six. So, we will need to expand the governance division.
On Mr Png Eng Huat's question, even in 2012, there were data security governance policies at that time stipulated by the Government through the IMs and so on. NPHU is compliant with the requirements stipulated in the Government's data governance policies. For example, even at that time, you were only allowed to download data onto Government-issued computers. Therefore, you were not allowed to download data into your own computers. You were allowed to have portable storage devices at that time, because the encrypted storage devices were only a requirement in 2017, as a whole-of-Government policy, not MOH policy, but whole-of-Government.
Therefore, we were in compliance. The nature of Ler's job requires him to constantly operate on the database and, therefore, he is allowed to download the registry into his computer. Unfortunately, he did not protect the data by using an unencrypted thumb drive. At that time, we did not have the encrypted thumb drive policy, so he used a normal thumb drive and he did not protect the thumb drive. If you are using the thumb drive, you need to transfer files from computer to another Government computer to work on it, you ought to protect the thumb drive. The policy stipulates that you must ensure that your access to the confidential official information must be with you all the time. You must ensure that you have possession of the information all the time. But he was believed to have failed to keep the thumb drive with him at all times and, had therefore, contravened the OSA, and that is why he is charged on that basis.
Mr Speaker: Ms Irene Quay.
Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching (Nominated Member): Can I ask the Minister, with PDPA exemption for MOH, what will be the recourse that the victims can seek as a result of this exposure of sensitive information? This is to address public trust for better accountability.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Patients can take civil action against MOH on breach of data or loss of data. But we encourage them to talk to us, and we will discuss with them what are the ways to help them and to support them in whichever way we can.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): My question relates to what I understand was the blood test that was done at the clinic where Dr Ler was a locum. Brochez did the blood test at the clinic where Dr Ler was a locum. So, I would like to ask the Minister what are the rules preventing doctors from carrying out test for people they know which may put them in a position of compromise or conflict of interest, or question of independence may be raised exactly in the situation like when Brochez went to take a blood test at the clinic where Dr Ler worked? And just to supplement, to this end, whether or not the Minister thinks that we need to strengthen the governance in this particular area.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: I would need to be careful in answering this because the appeal is still in progress, but I can answer, probably, generally.
Generally, doctors have to exercise discretion and they will have to exercise judgement, too. Under the ethical codes of conduct and guidelines, they will have to assess whether they do have a conflict of interest. If they feel that they have a conflict, they ought to make it known to the patient and to then step away from whatever procedure or treatment that they may be offering to them. But we cannot have a rule to say that you are not allowed to see everybody you know. Then, you have a problem, because doctors know many people. Therefore, eventually, it is the judgement of the doctor himself to assess whether by treating you, I do have a conflict of interest.
But I must say that, in this particular case, it is not the conflict of interest, it is more than that. Brochez has been charged for cheating for fraud for specific reasons. So, it is not just a conflict of interest. In Brochez's case, and the case is over. It was fraud.
Mr Speaker: Dr Lim Wee Kiak.
Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Out of the 2,500 that MOH has contacted, has any of them been contacted and blackmailed? Was there any demand made on them in the first place? The Minister mentioned that there were a few of them that were given the link. When they were given the link, what was the demand? Under what circumstances? Why were they given the link?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Part of this is part of the Police investigation that is ongoing. Maybe I can just say that Brochez is not very consistent in his communication with all the relevant parties. So, it is very difficult to fathom what is his motive in sending these letters or demands. So far, we have not received any complaints or feedback on blackmails or threats from our patients or from any of our contacts. So, I probably should not go too much into the mechanism and the process because this is part of the Police investigation work that is ongoing.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): This is a question about Government disclosure policy. I agree that, in this case, the Government had to make a very difficult decision to balance transparency with the interest of those affected, and I do not want to second-guess that decision. But I fear that without a general Government policy on the issue, the Government will find it difficult to effectively rebut claims or conspiracy theories about Government's lack of transparency. So, I would like to ask the Government if it would find elucidating, developing a general policy on disclosure useful to enhance transparency and public trust in the Government.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: These issues tend to vary from issue to issue, from case to case. As much as I would like to have a standard rule and say, \"This is not my problem; I just follow the rules\" —
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated Senior Minister of State Dr Janil Puthucheary would give the reply. (proc text)]
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Okay.
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, I thank Assoc Prof Walter Theseira for the question. There are general guidelines for the handling of data, the training of officers, the protocols that should be in place across the public sector, including what are the considerations that should be taken into account after an incident occurs with respect to the affected individuals, the processes of the agency and the broader public. So, it is not that there are no guidelines; it is not a vacuum. There is quite a lot of thoughts, considerations and processes that are in place. But there is no single general rule, simply because of the complexities of the situations as we have described today.
And as Members have heard from the difficulties in making the judgement call in this incident, you can imagine that it would be very, very difficult to come up with some general rule which will ultimately get the right balance between the privacy of the individual and the public interest, and we do want to strike that right balance.
The other aspect to consider is that within the public sector, there are a number of other entities, Smart Nation and Digital Government Group, GovTech and also the security services and the Police where these matters can be reported to, and external views given by people who were not directly involved in the incident.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Ministerial Statement. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.00 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.41 pm until 4.00 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.00 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore Food Agency Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Last July, the Government announced plans to form the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) to oversee food safety and food security from farm-to-fork. Currently, the regulation of the food industry is divided among three public sector agencies. The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) regulates food safety before retail during import, local production and manufacturing. The National Environment Agency (NEA) regulates food hygiene at the retail level. Analysis of food samples is carried out at laboratories under the Health Sciences Authority (HSA). The SFA will consolidate regulatory oversight for these different aspects of food safety and security in a single public sector agency.
Singapore is not the first country to adopt a farm-to-fork model. We have studied other countries like Ireland, where a single agency is responsible for food safety along the entire food supply chain. There are merits to consolidate the responsibilities for food safety and security into a single agency. One, it emphasises the high priority and commitment that the Government places on food safety and security. Two, it allows uniform application of measures, faster response, and more efficient and effective use of resources and expertise.
NEA will, however, continue to develop and manage hawker centres as our community dining rooms. This arrangement will enable sharper focus by SFA and NEA in their respective roles vis-a-vis hawker centres. HSA will continue to regulate health supplements. HPB will continue to promote the consumption of healthy food. SFA will support them from the food safety angle. AVA’s remaining non-food plant and animal-related functions will be transferred to the National Parks Board (NParks) via the National Parks Board (Amendment) Bill 2019. The Minister for National Development will explain this transfer during the Second Reading of the National Parks Board (Amendment) Bill 2019.
Mr Speaker, food security is fundamental to our National Security. Let me repeat this: food security is fundamental to our National Security. We have worked hard to ensure Singapore’s food safety and security over the decades. This is critical because Singapore depends heavily on food imports. The 2018 Global Food Security Index puts Singapore as the No 1 country in the world in ensuring that citizens have access to safe and nutritious food at affordable prices. This is testimony to the hard work by generations of our staff since AVA’s early days at the Primary Production Department in pre-Independence Singapore. We have done well but cannot take the current situation for granted.
Let me elaborate. The agriculture and food, or agri-food, landscape is changing rapidly. By 2050, the global population is expected to grow another 30% to 9.7 billion. Global food demand is also projected to rise by 60% as incomes rise in developing countries, leading to greater demand for meat and proteins. Vital resources to meet the increased food demand, such as water and energy, are increasingly scarce. The World Bank estimates that agriculture accounts for 70% of global water consumption but one-third of the world’s population lives in water-stressed areas.
Over the longer-term horizon, too, climate change will exacerbate these threats. Extreme temperatures, droughts and floods from rising sea levels will affect production yield. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates widespread declines in crop yields of between 10% and 25% by 2050 due to climate change impacts. The International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines forecasts a 20% reduction in Asian rice yields for every degree of temperature rise. Rice becomes sterile if exposed to temperatures above 35oC for more than one hour during flowering. A heat wave during flowering season, like in Australia right now, would wipe out the entire year’s crop. Scientists from various disciplines all mark 2050 as a watershed year when projected increase in population intersects with severe decline in crop yields due to unmitigated climate change. Competition for water, energy and, consequently, food, will escalate conflicts if not mitigated.
Indeed, right here in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), one of my counterparts shared with me that the impact of climate change is already being felt and has caused more frequent and severe droughts and floods in the Mekong River Delta, which is the \"rice bowl\" of Asia. Rice production can fall by more than 50%. These are real-life threats and can hit us badly since we import more than 90% of our food. The 2007 and 2008 global food crises, which stemmed from various factors, including droughts and rising oil prices, triggered spikes in food prices worldwide, and even led to street protests in Indonesia and Bangladesh. Food producing countries like India and Brazil introduced export bans. These impacts were felt in Singapore in the form of increased prices. Fortunately, we did not face food shortages.
We also need to manage the risks from the growing complexity in global food supply chains. Our food undergoes multiple processes involving many players in different countries, before reaching our tables. For example, the frozen pizza in our supermarkets can have more than 10 ingredients from different sources. The pineapple could have been grown in the Philippines, the ham brined in Australia, the tomato sauce canned in the US and the flour milled in Singapore. This simple example highlights the confluence of food supply and food safety, and the challenges we face. On the one hand, we get to enjoy a wide range of ingredients and cuisine.
On the other hand, complex global supply chains increase the potential points of failure where contamination can enter the food chain. This makes it more difficult to identify the source of the problems when they occur. Was the cause of a food poisoning incident due to poor hygiene in the restaurant or hotel? Could it have been due to high levels of pesticides on the raw ingredients? Contaminants introduced in the manufacturing process of packing and canning? Or deterioration in quality and safety during transportation?
Such challenges will intensify. Complex supply chains will evolve as climate change affects production. Epidemiology has to keep up with changes in the survival and transmission patterns of food-borne diseases. In Singapore, Government agencies have worked well together to address food safety and security, and we have a strong reputation. But we must ensure that our food safety and security regime is well ahead of the curve. It is in our DNA to constantly look ahead, anticipate trends, adapt and seize opportunities. We will consolidate NEA and AVA’s current capabilities in licensing, compliance management, investigation and testing by HSA, in SFA. SFA will be able to holistically respond to food safety incidents wherever these occur along the food supply chain.
For example, in the scenario of a food poisoning incident, a single team will oversee the entire food supply chain and manage investigations. Starting from the accreditation of overseas farms, to import, to intermediate processing by central kitchens and retailers, and finally to the proper storage and preparation at the retail outlet. This will allow SFA to respond more promptly to trace the source of contamination.
Mr Speaker, amidst the uncertainties facing the agri-food landscape, our goal is to seize the opportunity for Singapore to turn our food challenges into strategic advantages. Strategic advantages to secure our food supply, transform our agri-food industry, develop our local enterprises, and provide good jobs to Singaporeans. Just like how we have turned our vulnerability in water into opportunity. Let me give a few examples.
First, new food production methods and techniques are emerging at an unprecedented pace. Modern food production has become more productive, sustainable and resilient to climate change. We can learn from others around the world how they leverage their strengths and overcome their constraints. The United Arab Emirates enjoys cheap and abundant energy but struggles with a hot and dry desert climate where water is extremely scarce. On the other hand, water is abundant in the Netherlands, but energy is expensive and scarce.
I visited a tomato farm in Dubai last month, which channels waste carbon dioxide from air-conditioning back into the glasshouse to boost the plants' growth. To reduce water use, the farm recirculates the nutrient solution used to feed the crops. The farm is able to produce tomatoes at high yields consistently throughout the year, even when the temperature outside reaches 50oC. Last year, I visited Wageningen University and Research in the Netherlands and was impressed by their innovation in greenhouse technologies to reduce energy consumption in the cultivation of tomatoes. Their target is to produce net-zero energy greenhouses.
Singapore suffers scarcity at both extremes – scarcity of water and energy. We must develop our own approach to agriculture, which accounts for our deficiencies in water and energy and, to add to this complexity, also land. Technology now allows us to solve this conundrum. Our future farms will be different from the farms that we are familiar with today. Rather than backbreaking physical toil under the sun, new-age farmers will work indoors in an environmentally controlled enclosure, much like the Domes at the Gardens by the Bay. Instead of shovels and hoes, they will operate computers controlling autonomous robots that plant seeds and harvest crops. With the right crops, these farms operate at much higher productivity and can sustain good jobs. Indeed, such technological innovations apply not to just land-based farming, but even aquaculture where we can increase the yield and improve the quality of our local seafood. The working environments will be almost indistinguishable from the offices or automated production lines many of us work in today.
In addition to regulatory oversight of the food industry, SFA will partner businesses to transform our food industry. We must seize opportunities in the agri-food sector to further enhance our food supply resilience. We must sow the seeds now for Singapore’s development into an agri-food hub. In time to come, we will harvest the benefits – a strong stable of local enterprises which can export sustainable urban food solutions to cities around the world, good jobs which will appeal to Singaporeans, and a secure supply of safe food for Singaporeans.
Second, the emergence of new and novel food products. These have the potential to provide us with a safe and sustainable supply of food, without compromising on taste or health. One example is plant-based protein with meat-like texture and taste from companies, such as Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods. These new food products have a smaller environmental footprint, compared to conventional meat products, and could potentially be scaled up to meet future food demand. Another example is the cultivation of insects, such as the black soldier fly, for animal feed. This will require us to make a conscious effort to position Singapore as an agri-food hub – from facilitative regulations that encourage innovation, to creating the necessary research and development ecosystem and growing a pipeline of Singaporean talent.
Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now highlight some of the main elements in the SFA Bill.
Part 2 of the Bill establishes SFA as a body corporate with a structure similar to major Statutory Boards. Clauses 5 and 6 lay out SFA's functions and powers, which are drawn from existing provisions in the AVA and NEA Acts. These include developing the food industry, regulating food safety across the supply chain, and regulating street hawking and trade fairs.
Parts 3 to 6 cover governance matters, such as the appointment and decision-making procedures of SFA, personnel matters, including the appointment of the Chief Executive, and financial provisions of SFA. The provisions are aligned with the requirements in the Public Sector (Governance) Act 2018.
Part 7 of the Bill contains miscellaneous provisions necessary for the administration and enforcement of the Bill. In particular, clause 43 will protect against the improper use of accreditation, certification and inspection marks that are administered by SFA. This includes schemes to be administered by SFA, and third-party testing, inspection and certification services. This is to ensure that all licensees and products carrying such marks meet SFA's stringent standards, in order to facilitate the growth of the local farming and food export industries.
Part 8 contains the provisions that transfer the relevant food-regulatory undertakings, including assets, liabilities and employees, from AVA, NEA and HSA to SFA. Once the transfer takes place, the AVA Act will be repealed by clause 55.
Part 9 of the Bill makes related and consequential amendments to other Acts.
First, with the consolidation of food safety functions in a single agency, and the transfer of non-food related functions to NParks, some pieces of legislation become obsolete and are being repealed.
Clause 56 repeals the Cattle Act as that becomes obsolete, with similar powers provided for under the Animals and Birds Act, Sale of Food Act, and Environmental Public Health Act (EPHA). Clause 59 will repeal provisions in the Fisheries Act relating to the prohibition, regulation or control of piranha or any other dangerous species of fish. NParks will take over this function from AVA and draw powers from the Animals and Birds Act. The regulation of stage shows under EPHA will be abolished, as this is already regulated under the Public Entertainments Act administered by the Singapore Police Force.
Next, clause 62 amends the functions of the NEA in the NEA Act to remove food-related functions since these are transferred to SFA.
Clauses 57 and 61 further make consequential amendments to the EPHA and the Infectious Diseases Act (IDA) respectively to transfer powers from NEA's Director-General of Public Health to SFA's Director-General, Food Administration (DG FA). DG FA will administer Parts 4 and 9 of EPHA that relate to the safety of food and drinking water for consumption, and the licensing of retail food establishments, markets and hawkers. DG FA will also administer sections 38 and 39 of IDA which relate to the supply of food and water to vessels.
The EPHA will also be amended to provide powers to both the Director-General of Public Health and DG FA, to modify the conditions of a licence after giving notice to the licensee. This is to facilitate further reviews to extend the duration of licences issued under EPHA.
Clauses 58, 59, 64 and 65 make consequential amendments to the Feeding Stuffs Act, Fisheries Act, Sale of Food Act and Wholesome Meat and Fish Act respectively to transfer the administration of the Acts from the Director-General, Agri-Food and Veterinary Services to DG FA.
Clauses 59, 64 and 65 make other related amendments to the Fisheries Act, Sale of Food Act, and Wholesome Meat and Fish Act, respectively to provide the Minister to make regulations requiring records on imports and food stocks to be kept and supplied to DG FA upon request. This will allow DG FA to monitor the supply of fish, meat and other food items to ensure a secure and reliable food supply in Singapore. These powers will extend to food businesses, fisheries and persons involved in fish cultivation, and importers of food in Singapore.
DG FA will also be empowered to take into consideration the ability of importers of food items, such as meat and fish, to provide a secure and reliable supply when granting licences, and to impose licence conditions to this end. This will enable DG FA to work with importers of key food items to adopt plans, including preventive strategies, to mitigate the impact for supply disruptions.
Mr Speaker, Sir, as I mentioned earlier, food security is fundamental to our national security. Members will recall that only last December, Malaysia had announced that it was considering limiting or stopping egg exports and restricting exports of certain types of seafood. This will not be the last time that Singapore faces possible disruption to our food imports. We must, therefore, continue to diversify our food import sources and not be over-reliant on any single source.
With the formation of SFA, we will continue to strengthen Singapore's food security and reduce our vulnerability to external volatility and price hikes. SFA will also continue to partner other Government agencies to ensure basic food items remain affordable.
Clause 60 amends the HPB Act to better delineate the food functions between SFA and HPB. HPB's role is to encourage and facilitate healthier food choices in Singapore.
Clause 63 abolishes the exclusion of land used for agriculture from being treated as a development, for the purposes of the Planning Act. This paves the way for SFA to work closely with the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) to better develop land in Singapore that will be used for agricultural purposes.
Clause 64 makes a related amendment to the Sale of Food Act to enable regulations to prescribe the circumstances when trademarks may or may not be used in relation to any particular food or its advertising. This will support existing work by the Formula Milk Taskforce led by Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon, in particular, to ensure that labelling and the provision of information are done in a manner that protects consumer interests. The implementation details will be finalised by the Government agencies supporting the task force.
Part 10 of the Bill provides for saving and transitional arrangements. These will cover AVA's financial statements for financial year 2018, and appeals made before the commencement of SFA and pending when the amendments take effect. As in other Bills, the Minister is conferred power to make regulations setting out additional provisions of a saving or transitional nature.
Mr Speaker, in conclusion, this Bill provides for the reorganisation of Government to further our efforts to ensure and secure the supply of safe food for Singapore. As the lead agency for food-related matters, SFA will be well-placed to work closely with all stakeholders from farm-to-fork to transform the agri-food industry, seize opportunities in the future food landscape and provide good jobs for Singaporeans. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, the decision to establish SFA is timely, as we witnessed several significant lapses in food safety in the past months. With large-scale food poisoning cases, including one fatal case and with undesirable foreign items discovered in prepacked food, Singaporeans cannot help but wonder if our eateries and relevant Government agencies are getting things right in food hygiene management. Are food and beverage (F&B) staff overworked, resulting in lapses in food handling hygiene? Or are they not receiving adequate training? These are common concerns that people would raise when they see yet another news report concerning food safety lapses.
In truth, the food landscape in Singapore and around the world is evolving rapidly. Globalisation and new business models have made food supply chains more complex than ever. International brand names are setting up restaurants on our sunny island and they are also flying in raw ingredients from overseas. Climate changes and disasters disrupt the supply of food ingredients, pressuring businesses to turn to alternative sources. Perhaps the pressure to deliver under disruption may have compromised some safety procedures.
Domestically, more young people are turning to entrepreneurship and, considering Singaporeans' passion for food, it is not surprising that cafes and eateries are popular business choices. With the gig economy becoming increasingly mainstream, we are also seeing more freelancers making use of their talents to become home bakers and private chefs.
Food deliveries are becoming the norm for F&B establishments, from hawker centres to restaurants to grocery retailers, to deliver consumers' meals. Yet, this adds additional challenges to the food safety process – packaging, exposure to outdoor temperatures and with more people involved in handling of the food. These are all additional matters to consider in food safety management. In short, all these developments would lead to a higher probability in food safety lapses, and so there is a need for the Government to better manage food safety risks.
Mr Speaker, I am pleased to note that SFA has pledged to improve regulatory oversight. This is being done by overseeing food safety across the entire food supply chain from farm-to-fork. SFA has promised to harmonise regulatory and enforcement processes. Hopefully, in doing so, there can be better coordination for food-related issues, product tracing and recall, as well as engagement of stakeholders and members of the public. In the meantime, SFA will require adequate manpower and resources to implement such a large-scale process.
Will SFA be hiring more people? What kind of training will be given? How will technology be applicable to make the process more efficient?
Meanwhile, I do not think it is practical to rely on SFA to manage every aspect of food safety for all F&B services and businesses. The onus is on business owners to provide their customers with meals that are safe to consume. I hope the newly established SFA will work closely with these businesses, including freelancers, to provide them with the education and resources they would require, staying abreast with food safety management requirements. In fact, perhaps it would be timely to review the mandatory basic food hygiene courses that food handlers are required to undergo, and the frequency of the mandatory refresher course could be increased as well.
We are fortunate that our country is free from natural disasters due to our prime location. Nevertheless, that does not absolve us from being at the mercy of natural disasters and disease outbreaks that hit other countries. Most of our food products are imported from other countries. We get hit by whatever shortages and price hikes that impact on our importers. With the world climate becoming increasingly unpredictable, it is sensible of SFA to consider food security among its priorities.
A key food security strategy is to diversify our food supply sources, much like what we did with our water supply. With the new powers that SFA will get through this Bill, they will be able to impose diversification requirements on food importers via licensing conditions. Moreover, the ability to collect food-related data from the industry will help us to better prepare and plan for food supply disruptions. Yet, while this is a good strategy, this could mean additional burdens on importers of vital food items to come up with the relevant diversification strategies. Will SFA provide any form of assistance to these importers?
I understand that AVA has helped to organise overseas food sourcing trips and match importers to suppliers. Will SFA continue this and possibly even enhance it?
Creating our own supply of food is another vital aspect of food security. I am heartened to note that SFA intends to work with the industry and research and development (R&D) partners to develop new products and solutions that can enhance food supply resilience, while overcoming resource constraints in land, energy and water. Happily, there has been growing interest in farming among young Singaporeans. There are farmers’ market events where one can purchase locally grown organic produce. We are hearing more about Singaporeans volunteering in community gardens or growing their own indoor produce.
In Nee Soon South, we encourage residents to take part in community gardening. One such active resident is Mr Ong Choon Yeow, who was featured in the Straits Times recently. Mr Ong said that he rarely buys vegetables and he gets his vegetables from the community garden on top of our multi-storey carpark besides our Community Club because that multi-storey carpark, the top level, is seldom used. So, we converted that to a community garden for residents to plant vegetables. And Mr Ong is not alone. I am sure that if we can systematically harness every inch of our soil, like what we do for water, we can achieve amazing results.
Mr Speaker, by envisioning Singapore as an agri-food hub that exports sustainable urban food solutions to cities around the world, SFA has demonstrated foresight. I am looking forward to hearing about the specific plans that SFA has in place to achieve this. We will need to have the relevant talent for sure, and I trust that SFA will be working with educational institutions to open up new education pathways for those who are interested in food science, agriculture and other relevant disciplines. By developing a new sector, we can expect to open up a new job market for Singaporeans. And for Singaporeans who have a passion for agriculture but feel inhibited by the lack of demand, they can take heart that they may soon be able to work towards fulfilling their dreams of going professional right here on home ground.
Sir, the future is bright and exciting with the new SFA and the enhanced focus on food security and safety management.
We can look forward to better safety protocols with regard to our food, and opportunities to grow our capabilities and extend our relevance in the global market. In Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: Recently, there were a number of food poisoning cases. Our neighbouring country also said they were going to restrict food supply. Setting up SFA now cannot be more timely.
The food industry is facing tremendous challenges, such as the popularisation of food delivery services and global warming. SFA must thoroughly review the whole industry and see how to improve our food safety and the supply chain.
I am glad that SFA will endeavour to overcome our geographical limitation and develop urban farming, making Singapore a global leader in this area. I hope SFA can introduce courses in urban farming, hence providing a new career choice for Singaporeans.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the SFA Bill seeks to create a single agency to manage food safety and security across the supply chain. The new SFA will subsume the food-related functions of AVA, NEA and HSA. NEA’s food hygiene arm, which has been the frontline agency dealing with the recent spate of food poisoning cases, as well as HSA’s food safety lab, will be subsumed under SFA. As such, SFA will be in charge of food safety and also national food security. AVA’s remit of regulating and nurturing the farming sector will also, presumably, come under the new SFA.
The Bill creates a one-stop shop for food licensing as well as food safety inspection and response. This promises a number of benefits. For example, the fact that one agency is licensing central kitchens and caterers means that businesses may be able to save costs by not duplicating locations for these distinct facilities, cost-savings which may be passed on to consumers. Mr Speaker, Sir, as such, this Bill is a step in the right direction, and I do not oppose the Bill. I do, however, have several questions and comments.
Before I continue, I declare my interest as the Chief Executive Officer of a research consultancy that undertakes studies in the agri-food space, among other sectors.
Firstly, Sir, I would like to speak about food safety. The World Health Organization has said that unsafe food is a global threat, contributing to over 300,000 deaths in 2010 alone, for example. Most of these deaths are caused by pathogens, such as salmonella, E coli and norovirus, and the majority of lives lost are in Africa and Southeast Asia.
Sir, there is a widespread perception of a recent spike in food poisoning cases at restaurants and caterers in Singapore, leading to illness and, in one case, death. And that case was the tragic death of the late Mr Fadli Saleh in November last year, seemingly as a result of a mass food poisoning incident. There were five reported mass poisoning incidents in the last quarter of 2018 alone.
At the end of the day, I suspect that the problem of unsafe food from food-service outlets may come down, in many cases, to the human factor – an employee showing up for work when he or she is ill, a supervisor willing to turn a blind eye to that, individual negligence in food handling practices and so on.
Would the new SFA consider taking a long hard look at the entire profession of food handlers, which is to say, all those involved in food preparation and handling, to understand if their conditions of work, training, compensation and workplace environment are in line with global norms? If, and I stress if, poor compensation, career prospects and treatment by employers are persistently found in this industry, while it does not absolve individuals from individual responsibility, it would perhaps explain the root causes which need to be addressed. I would urge the new SFA to look deeply into the conditions of work of food handlers, including their economic conditions, to understand if there is more we could be doing to address the root causes of such incidents.
Having said that, penalties, enforcement and deterrence are important parts of a healthy food safety ecosystem. In this regard, I note that some larger and more organised food-service outlets have their own corporate whistleblower hotlines, though I very much doubt that the same can be said for most companies in the industry. I would like to ask whether the Government will look into making a food safety whistleblower hotline mandatory for large food-service outlets, since detecting food safety lapses is in the interest of the companies themselves. At the very least, would the Government consider instituting protections for whistleblowers who identify legitimate food safety problems and enable their rectification? In the United States (US), laws exist to protect employees who blow the whistle on food safety violations. For instance, under the US Food and Drug Administration, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011 has provisions against retaliation toward whistleblowers by food businesses. The United Kingdom (UK), China and other countries also have similar laws and regulations.
Next, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to confirm that, in addition to sample checks of imports, SFA will also conduct proactive surveillance of global news reports to identify potential food safety dangers among global food exporters who are exporting food into Singapore, so that proactive preventive action can be taken. This issue came to the fore in the recent case about the possibility of needles in strawberries imported from Australia.
Next, I would like to ask if the Government currently publishes the results of its sample food safety checks in aggregate form, that is to say, without naming specific establishments, as this will serve as a useful barometer on how well we are doing. If this is not currently being done, can this be considered? For example, the US regularly publishes the results of its national residue programme that inspects meat, poultry and egg products for chemical residues.
Lastly, on the subject of food safety, I would urge SFA to look into food labelling requirements. Can nutrition labelling be made mandatory rather than being only recommended? According to the European Union’s (EU's) Global Nutrition Update 2018, 26 countries, including in our neighbourhood – Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea – plus all the member states of the EU and all the member states of the Gulf Co-operation Council, now make nutrition labelling mandatory, while 13 countries have a voluntary labelling regime of which Singapore is currently one. Allergens, such as nuts, should be clearly called out on food labels, given the rise in diagnosis of allergies.
Also, would SFA consider making it compulsory for food importers to declare on the label the quantity of total and added sugar, as is now the case in the US? Right now, the Handbook on Nutrition Labelling does not list sugar as a core nutrient that is recommended to be listed. Added sugar should be called out on labels so as not to deter consumption of natural sugars in healthy food products like fruit. The inclusion of added sugars on the label can be a tool in the effort to educate the public about the health risks associated with excessive consumption of refined, added sugars.
Next, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak about the farming sector. In the Government press release announcing this Bill, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Mr Masagos Zulkifli said, and I quote: \"The formation of SFA is timely as Singapore aims to turn our food challenges into opportunities. SFA will work closely with industry partners to develop new solutions and products... (such as) climate resilient farming solutions and advanced food manufacturing techniques.”
SFA, I assume, will take over the role of nurturing and regulating the farm sector in Singapore. This is a subject I have spoken about in Parliament several times before and I would like to urge SFA to focus on several key areas in this effort.
Firstly, SFA should use all available tools to grow the high-tech, high-value-added farming sector in Singapore, especially local enterprises that are applying technology and innovation to raise yield per square metre of footprint in land-scarce Singapore. The rate of disbursement of the $63 million Agriculture Productivity Fund (APF), launched in 2014, appears to be low. As per the answer to my Parliamentary Question in July 2018, over $13 million has been awarded to 74 farms from APF to date, of which only over $7 million has been disbursed.
Secondly, in 2017, Minister of State Dr Koh Poh Koon shared that the Government's local food production targets are 10% for vegetables, 30% for hens' eggs, and 15% for food fish, and our production has generally been rising over the years. I would like to ask if we are making progress on these targets. No doubt, it is unlikely that we will ever produce all our food domestically, at least in the foreseeable future. But with recent advances in indoor farming technology and the presence of Government support, is there room to raise these targets, using the tool of the APF to support local farms in raising output?
Thirdly, I hope SFA will also address a number of the issues I have spoken about in Parliament in the past relating to the farming sector – the length of leases where there has been some improvement, a level playing field for local startups and farm tenders, and the need to promote adoption of effective insurance against both natural and man-made disasters.
Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, an emerging trend in the global food industry is that of micro-brands, which is to say, startups developing their own unique food products and selling these online. As reported in The Economist, the 25 biggest F&B companies generated 45% of sales in America but drove only 3% of the total growth in sales between 2011 and 2015. A long tail of 20,000 companies below the top 100 produced half of all growth. These startups sell all manner of food products, from Greek yoghurt and micro-brewed beer to allergy-friendly snacks.
It is important that our regulation and inspection framework keeps abreast of this trend and ensures food safety in these supply chains, both during production and delivery.
At the same time, we should embrace relevant global trends. Food micro-brands can help increase choice and reduce cost, which micro-brands have helped bring about in other non-food categories like, for example, mattresses and shaving razors. At the same time, food micro-brands could create good jobs in Singapore and could be a domain for fruitful local entrepreneurship. Will the business of nurturing food industry companies, such as food micro-brands, be handled by SFA or will it still be driven by organisations like the Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board and the Economic Development Board (EDB)?
Mr Speaker: Mr Mohamed Irshad.
Mr Mohamed Irshad (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I support the SFA Bill as it will streamline food-related functions that are currently under AVA, NEA and HSA into a single body to better deliver services to Singaporeans in an effective and efficient manner. The creation of SFA is a timely natural evolution of existing governance mechanisms to safeguard Singapore’s food security in an era of global food uncertainty. Today, I wish to speak on three areas: food safety, food security and food sustainability.
On food safety, Singapore have developed a world-class food safety system that is comprehensive and robust in responding to real-world shocks. Last year, in Australia, widespread panic was sparked when needles were found in strawberries. In 2013, horse meat was discovered in products falsely advertised as beef in the UK. To tackle such challenges, can I seek clarity if the Ministry has explored deploying emerging technologies, such as blockchain?
For instance, through an immutable, distributed ledger system, the authorities can keep track of suppliers and food items as they move down the supply chain. This would allow the authorities to quickly trace the origins of contaminated food items to their sources and hold the right parties accountable for any lapses, mitigating the impact of contaminated or sabotaged food.
With the rise of e-commerce, many Singaporeans are purchasing food-related products from overseas sources and having it directly shipped to them. Can the Minister clarify how such food products that are bought online are checked for food safety?
In 2018, Singapore was ranked No 1 in the Global Food Security Index formulated by the Economist Intelligence Unit. This is a commendable feat for a country that imports about 90% of its food. It is also a testimony to the efficacy of our sound policies, tools and governance structures that have securitised food resources over the years. However, we must not rest on our laurels and take for granted the access to affordable and nutritious food that we enjoy now.
Our reliance on global food supplies to meet the needs of our people makes us susceptible to global price volatility. The global food crisis of 2008 highlighted our vulnerability in being import-dependent. As a price taker, we are directly affected by the global food trends resulting in a 7.8% increase in prices of imported food between December 2007 and December 2008.
The need to ensure access to affordable and safe food has emerged as a key policy agenda for many nations, as socioeconomic, climatic, demographic and political conditions shift over time. As such, I would like to seek the Minister’s clarifications on the measures that will be undertaken to mitigate the volatility in future food prices due to supply disruptions. Also, what are the requirements that will be introduced for importers of key food items to mitigate the impact of supply disruptions?
Future initiatives could also include public campaigns to educate the masses on measures, such as increasing the public’s resilience to food supply disruptions, either by encouraging stockpiling of food in homes or by shaping consumers’ willingness to switch to substitutes in times of shortages.
On food sustainability, today, less than 1% of Singapore’s land is used for agriculture. Modern agrotechnology is opening up new opportunities for small countries like Singapore, making it possible to produce significant amounts of food without delegating huge amounts of land and labour. However, from my interactions with the agro-industry players, there are still challenges that they face in adopting such technologies.
While they are appreciative of schemes, such as APF, that enable them to undertake innovation or technological improvements, securing loan financing from banks was still cited as an issue. Despite being in the high-growth agrotech business, they were still deemed to be in the farming business. Perhaps the Ministry can look into formulating a mechanism to differentiate the various farm types in Singapore.
Besides agrotech farms, we should be more creative in the use of our limited space by collaborating with urban planners and communities to integrate urban agriculture into the lives of Singaporeans. Allow me to cite the example of a sustainable urban farming model – the Citizen Farm. The farm was piloted in the housing estate of Queenstown in 2016. A dilapidated, abandoned former prison along Jalan Penjara was transformed into a closed-loop urban farming system that integrated natural systems with modern technology. Beyond its use of technology and innovation, the farm had its foundations in a social enterprise model, with the aim of connecting communities through farm spaces. Smaller startup technologies and innovations were also encouraged in the farms. These included indoor microgreen harvesting, mushroom farming and an indoor fish farm, amongst others. In this way, the dilapidated, abandoned former prison was transformed into a thriving urban farming model.
The development of the Citizen Farm not only showcased the viability of small-scale urban farming setups in Singapore, but also highlighted the potential to convert underused, marginal land for interim purposes. Moreover, these farming models are designed to be moveable and, therefore, can be easily adapted to various spaces. Such setups could help to supplement local food production. In addition, these setups also provide much-needed spaces for startups to explore innovations in the agrotechnology sector. Moving forward, we can also look up to Japan as an example for how urban farming can be expanded and integrated into the life of our city. Sometimes, creativity and flexibility go a long way in maximising the potential of underused spaces.
In relation to the Bill, I would like to seek clarification on section 5J regarding the role of SFA. Given SFA's role as the main regulator on all matters relating to food, from farm to fork, how does it concurrently intend to play a role in promoting and developing the food industry, and would there be an overlap with Enterprise Singapore? SFA can serve as a good example of how both regulatory and industry promotion functions sit within a single agency, allowing not just more pro-enterprise outcomes, but greater agility in serving the needs of the industry.
On the topic of food industry development, I note that the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) recently announced that halal food products from Singapore are now recognised by international standards. This represents an important opportunity for Singapore to capitalise on the growing global halal market by increasing international usage of its recognised standards of halal food accreditation. Thus, I would like to ask if SFA plans to work with MUIS and relevant economic agencies to ride on this growing demand for halal products and services globally and to capture the market for Singapore.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, history has showcased Singapore’s ability to adapt to changing circumstances and overcome new challenges. With the rapid progression of food and agriculture technologies, and an increasing global demand for food, this is an opportunity for Singapore to emerge as a forerunner in sustainable urban food solutions while fully meeting local needs.
Singapore’s agriculture sector has evolved over time through efforts to optimise, adapt and strengthen food security. But the potential remains for us to do more, particularly in coming times. By expanding this sector, we not only enhance our food security, but we also develop a new growth industry that can create jobs for Singaporeans.
Our water scarcity pushed us to develop the water treatment and management industry, transforming a threat into an opportunity and to develop strategic advantage. Similarly, with food, we should aspire to create a Singapore Food Story, to establish Singapore as a recognised centre for food in the region, and even in the world. With optimism and encouragement, Mr Speaker, I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Prof Fatimah Lateef.
Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, this Bill is all about food, a topic close to all our hearts. It is about (a) availability of food, either from local or global sources; (b) accessibility of food by Singapore consumers through established supply chain networks; (c) affordability of food for consumers and people and (d) safety and nutrition standards of the food available for Singapore consumers.
The food manufacturing industry in Singapore contributed $4.3 billion towards our gross domestic product in 2017 alone – not a small sum. In fact, they also employ a large number of employees, and it is an important business, indeed. As such, my first query is on the coordination between the roles and responsibilities of NEA, AVA and HSA, and how this is going to come under the SFA umbrella and perhaps also some simple and consolidated point of contact for consumers and the public as well.
Despite various constraints, such as scarcity of land, traditional agriculture and food farms as well as competing economic needs, we must continue to deliver safe, affordable and uninterrupted food supply for our people. And one of the most important fundamental steps for a new agency is to get the basics working right.
With a dedicated agency overseeing our food safety and standards now, it is hoped that we can manage the challenges better, handle lapses more efficiently and effectively in a more coordinated fashion. This includes, of course, food-borne disease outbreaks, through tighter controls and checking mechanisms, and engagement of the various stakeholders and the public as well. We hope for better oversight and surveillance in general.
Can the Minister also update us on the National Centre for Food Science? What are the main objectives and deliverables? What newer areas of food supply and research can we expect to see? Will there be a focus on food diagnostics and development, the latter being one area that can address the food challenges a small urban country like Singapore will face?
Also, as there are now six institutions offering Food Science and Technology courses, that is, the National University of Singapore (NUS), Nanyang Polytechnic, Tampines Polytechnic, Singapore Polytechnic, the Singapore Hotel Association Training and Education Centre Institution and the AEC College, can you also share with us their programmes and curriculum as I feel that there needs to be a dynamic view of their education in order to stay relevant and even address Singapore's food needs? How can these institutions work with the National Centre for Food Science (NCFS) in terms of supporting attachments, projects, scholarships, new innovative ideas and so on? This is going to be an important area that we will have to look towards the future.
One other institution, the WIL @ NUS, which has a lab by Wilmar International, opened in June 2018. This is also another important facility. What is the progress in the work conducted? This would include themes like newer food choices, specific nutrition for the elderly and seniors and healthier versions. So, we hope to be able to hear on some of the developments with these institutions. In line with this, Singapore has a strategic location and position to attract more global and food R&D companies here. Our pro-innovation climate will, of course, be attractive to this as well.
One other query I have is for an update by the Minister on the Healthier Ingredient Development programme. What are the outcomes thus far and how is the progress? I see this programme becoming more important in the coming years and, under SFA, we hope there will be more publicity on this programme and also recruitment of people and non-government organisations which are interested in having healthier food choices into the future as we look towards healthier ageing also.
With the new agency, how will the relationship with food industries and food businesses be strengthened? They are the important partners who need to be engaged. So, therefore, it is really important that we have focus group discussions and also apprise them of the developments with this new agency. The networks must be established, but we must also bear in mind the ringfencing of the security of our food resources and sources is important. This is because in this age of terrorism, food can serve as a source of targeted widespread terrorist type attacks to impact large numbers of people at one time, and we must ensure vigilance at all times. Thus, even with diversification, we need to maintain surveillance and monitoring and must never let our guard down. Our food safety network and framework must remain up to date and robust.
As a very small nation, changes in world food production, trade, food safety and supply will, of course, affect us. But it also tests our resilience, our food innovation capabilities and security. We are on the right track. And with this new Bill, Sir, I definitely think we are going in the right direction. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the SFA, which this Bill proposes to establish, will be a significant step forward for a critical sector. As a small nation and city-state highly dependent on imports for our food supply, food security and safety are a constant concern for Singapore.
We have done well in this respect, having topped the Global Food Security Index last year for the first time. The Economist Intelligence Unit, which publishes the Index, cited Singapore's access to cheap, safe and nutritious food as the reason. But the Unit also noted that Singapore is most vulnerable to potential disruptions to our food supply due to climate change and natural resource risks. When these risks were taken into account, our position in the Index would slip to 16th. Establishing the SFA at this juncture is, therefore, a timely move to address these risks.
My colleague Mr Leon Perera had addressed the food security and safety issues that SFA will be chiefly concerned with. For my part, I would like to raise what I believe are two important functions that SFA can and should perform, given its powers and position. These two functions are, one, mitigating rising food prices that fuel increases in cost of living and, two, addressing household food insecurity within the country.
The first function is the mitigation of rising food prices. According to the Consumer Price Index, the price of food, excluding food services, rose 22% in the last 10 years from 2009 to 2018, and 51% in the last 20 years from 1999 to 2019. At first glance, rising food prices do not discriminate among the rich, the poor and the middle-income.
However, rising food prices affect lower- and middle-income households disproportionately. The Household Expenditure Survey of 2012/2013 shows that for the bottom 20% of households, in terms of income, food expenses make up some 13% of total expenditure. For the top 20% of households, food expenses make up only 6%. This means that any increase in food prices would have doubled the effect on the budget of poorer households, compared to richer households.
Rising food prices have been a regular concern of this House. There have been many questions raised on this by Members. Last month, I asked the Minister for Trade and Industry about the rise in prices of eggs, which is a staple in our food culture and an important source of nutrition for Singaporeans. Minister Chan Chun Sing's reply is instructive.
He said that the prices of eggs from some of our import sources went up significantly between June and November 2018, by up to 50%. This reflected the experience and concerns of ordinary Singaporeans, which were reported in the press. However, Minister Chan also said this increase was mitigated by other import sources, the prices of which remained stable or declined by up to 7%. On average, thus, the local retail price of eggs only increased around 4%.
The big differences in percentages actually pose a mathematical puzzle worthy of a Primary School Leaving Examination question. I suspect the 50% increase is for the cheaper eggs imported by land and sea transport from neighbouring countries, and the other sources are much more expensive eggs air-flown from Australia and New Zealand and other places. Thus, the average retail price did not seem to have increased much. The more important point here is that the low average rise in the price of eggs conceal the fact that the lower-income households are disproportionately affected by the 50% increase in the price of cheaper eggs.
Nevertheless, Minister Chan's answer points to how rising food prices can be mitigated by strategies targeted at our food supply sources. He said, quote, \"we must continually and consciously diversify our supply sources and supply chains to avoid being held ransom by the discontinuity in any particular supply source or disruption to any supply chain. This includes sourcing from different countries and building up a certain amount of local capacities where we can and when it makes economic sense.\"
The proposed SFA will be in a good position to do just this, to diversify our food supply sources to avoid disruption and to build up local food production capacity to mitigate price increases. SFA could perform this function indirectly or directly.
As listed in the Bill, one of the SFA's functions is to collect data on food supply and analyse them. Another is to conduct research on food supply, and yet another function is to advise the Government on food supply. Thus, SFA can assist the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) to mitigate food price increases by collecting and analysing data on food supply and import prices, conduct research on alternative food supply sources and provide advice on the diversification of food supply sources.
A more direct way that SFA can do this is to leverage its close relationship with the food import and distribution businesses here to diversify food supply sources to mitigate food price increases. Compared to MTI, the SFA will be in a better position to do this, given that it will be working closely with stakeholders on the ground and will be the domain expert in understanding our food supply system.
In case anyone thinks this is going beyond the natural scope of SFA, I would like to point out that the Agency is housed under the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR), together with NEA. NEA has been managing our hawker centres and has been concerned with both the food safety and hygiene aspects of our hawker centres as well as ensuring a low-cost avenue of cooked food for Singaporeans. The function of mitigating the rising cost of living is well in the institutional purview and experience of MEWR and its agencies.
The second function is addressing household food insecurity. A recently published report of a study of household food insecurity in Singapore by the Lien Centre for Social Innovation at the Singapore Management University warned that we may be underestimating the problem of hunger here. Household food insecurity comes about when a household has problems with economic and physical access to enough food for a healthy life.
Though the study is limited by the small sample size of 236 households and a non-random targeted sampling, it suggests that there are significant pockets of food insecurity in a country that has topped the Global Food Security Index. The Lien Centre for Social Innovation researchers found that around two-fifths of the households surveyed experienced mild food insecurity, meaning that they worried about the ability to obtain food, while one-third experienced moderate insecurity, having to compromise on quality and variety of food. Around one-fifth experienced severe insecurity, cutting down on quantity consumed and experiencing actual hunger.
This is a disconcerting finding and warrants a more thorough investigation by the Government. SFA is well-placed to do this and, I argue, it is obliged to do it, as the Agency's second function stated in clause 5(b) reads, \"to support regulation of the handling and supply of food to ensure that it is safe and suitable for human consumption and to promote public health\". Let me emphasise the last part, \"and to promote public health\". So, surely, the problem of household food insecurity is well within the scope of the Agency's function to regulate the supply of food to promote public health.
The Lien Centre researchers also interviewed the representatives of 35 organisations that provided food support to Singaporeans. The researchers concluded that there is a need to focus on developing a national food support system to combat household food insecurity. Two of the recommendations were, one, greater coordination of food support organisations and more effective targeting of food support and, two, prioritising nutritious and quality food.
Again, given the SFA's would-be close links with food supply businesses and its knowledge of the supply chain networks, the Agency is well-placed to develop the national food support system to fight hunger in Singapore. The Agency can connect the food support organisations with the food supply chain, and to help the food support organisations coordinate their efforts as well as to provide the organisations with a good supply of excess nutritious and quality food from the supply chain.
Just to give an example of how the powers of the Agency will be useful in this respect, clause 64 of the Bill amends section 56(1) of the Sale of Food Act, expanding the record-keeping requirements to enable the collection of current and accurate data related to secure and reliable food supply, such as data about the level of imports or stores of food held by food businesses. This means the Agency will know and be well-placed to identify the excess stores of food that can be supplied to food support organisations for the national food support system.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister spoke at length about alleviating Singaporeans' concerns with the rising cost of living at the National Day Rally last year and the Workers' Party has raised this issue time and again in Parliament. Rising food prices feed into the perception as well as the experience of the increasing cost of living. SFA is in a good position to mitigate rising food prices and we should not waste the opportunity. Furthermore, hunger has no place in Singapore, even if it is just small pockets of households facing food insecurity. Again, SFA is in a good position to address this issue and it should. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Anthea Ong.
Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I support the SFA Bill and wish to highlight the opportunities that this Bill presents in support of our zero-waste aspirations, especially with 2019 being designated as Singapore's Year Towards Zero Waste. I shall focus, in particular, on food waste today.
Mr Speaker, if we are truly serious about becoming a zero-waste nation, then the first step must surely be to seriously examine the current state and the root causes of food waste. Food waste comprises avoidable food waste and unavoidable food waste. In the following sections, I am referring to avoidable food waste.
Singapore's current food supply chain is a linear economy which is the cause of much food waste every day because it is simpler and cheaper for businesses and individuals to throw away food than channel the same to better use. I was heartened by Minister Masagos' acknowledgement of this fact at the launch of Singapore's Year Towards Zero Waste, where he noted the need for Singapore to adopt a circular economy approach to achieve zero waste. A circular economy is one where the \"waste\" of one part of the food cycle becomes resources for another.
Sir, let us start upstream with food imports. Based on 2016 figures provided by AVA, there were almost 1.4 million tonnes of food, plus 1.9 million eggs, available for consumption versus almost 800,000 tonnes of food wasted in the same period, according to NEA. This shows that more than half of all food available in Singapore was wasted in 2016. While it is important to ensure enough food for Singapore, how can we make sure that we do not over-import food that leads to much waste?
Next on the food chain is avoidable waste generated by businesses, including food manufacturers, food wholesalers and F&B businesses. While no official numbers have been released, an informal group, like SG Food Rescue, can give us some indication.
SG Food Rescue rescued over 100 tonnes of food in the past year through volunteer efforts alone. Less than $5,000 was spent to collect and redistribute the food by 250 individuals to feed 550 people, three meals a day for a whole year. That is 200,000 meals. Remember that this is just one group's effort.
Let us now examine the amount of \"avoidable\" food waste generated by each household, Mr Speaker. This amounts to 2.5 kilogrammes (kg) each week, according to a 2017 study by the NEA. With 1.28 million households in Singapore, 168,000 tonnes of food waste are generated by households, which is about 21% of total food waste of the 800,000 tonnes I mentioned earlier.
Mr Speaker, these are big numbers and hard to fathom for laypersons like myself. An easier way to understand what 800,000 tonnes of total avoidable food waste a year means is to look at someone like Ah Hua whom I happened to meet at Kreta Ayer a few weeks ago. In his 50s, partially blind and likely intellectually-challenged, he was not asking for money but for food. Ah Hua is one of the 400,000 food-insecure people in Singapore, according to Singapore Against Poverty, who need 438 million meals a year. Eight hundred thousand tonnes of edible food waste translates to 486 million meals a year which would, therefore, allow us to more than provide for everyone who struggles with food security. Too simplistic a calculation I admit, but I hope we get the point here.
NEA's current food waste management strategies expressly state that the most preferred methods for food waste management are: one, prevent and reduce food wastage at its source, and two, redistribute unsold and excess food. In food resource management, the order of priority should be, first, to feed humans, then animals, then to \"feed\" the soil via composting or as we call it, recycling, before finally generating energy from food waste. Currently, we seem to manage food waste by doubling down on recycling food waste and recovering energy from food waste, and not enough is done to reduce food waste from upstream sources.
All edible food waste can and should be redistributed to people like Ah Hua instead of investing millions of dollars to build digesters to turn food waste into energy. The benefit here is not merely reduced waste, but a long-term reduction of the inflated cost of food resource which worsens food insecurity for the poorest amongst us.
Sir, I would like to share some concrete proposals that are made in consultation with several seasoned members of the green community, including Climate Conversations, SG Food Rescue and Lepak in SG.
First, regulations should clearly define terms used in the sale of food, such as \"best before\", \"consume by\", \"sell by\", \"use by\" and \"expiry\" dates. Presently, these terms denoting dates all have the same meaning, which is, that businesses are not legally allowed to sell an item past the indicated date. However, if some of these terms, in fact, only denote the food manufacturer's recommended period of consumption for the food items sold, then regulations can be enacted to extend the shelf life of, for instance, processed foods on the condition that the food is donated to charities. This allows for food to be redistributed instead of being discarded.
Second, and I acknowledge that this might be controversial, the law should make it costly for businesses to throw away edible food. Donating food which remains edible but is no longer retailable costs time and manpower. Businesses, therefore, prefer to discard food because it is cheaper and more convenient to do so. Policies which disincentivise edible food wastage will push businesses to seek alternatives. In France, a law was enacted in 2016 exactly for this. The enactment of such regulations certainly requires much preparatory legwork, such as better measurement and reporting of how much food is discarded, so commissioning a continuous collection and study of data concerning food waste would be most important and relevant to clause 5(1)(n) of the Bill. After all, if we cannot measure something, we cannot improve it. Another step could be to legislate that all food imported or grown in Singapore has to be sold or donated, with a similar concept to the Extended Producer Responsibility that is coming into effect for e-waste.
Given that such a policy would be controversial, it should be accompanied by a third complementary measure: a law which incentivises businesses to donate food to charity. This could come in the form of tax rebates from food donations. Ideally, the charities which receive food donations should be the ones to weigh the donations received and provide receipts to the businesses for their food donations. The tax rebate should also be based on weight of food donated, not price.
Mr Speaker, I am heartened that the Bill explicitly recognises climate change's impact on food resiliency as distinct and separate from the impact of natural or man-made disasters. We know that we will not be able to feed future population growth if the world continues to produce and consume food the way we currently do. At the same time, research is also showing that with changing air quality, concentration of carbon dioxide as well as soil quality, the levels of nutrition in our staple foods could change drastically. This dual challenge requires radical re-imagination of the world's food production systems. New farming techniques, plant-based meats, alternative protein, all these developments require adaptable food regulations that allow for rapid adoption without compromising on food safety considerations.
With this in mind, I would like to make further suggestions specific to the Bill including:
(a) a more robust and accessible food issues reporting and whistleblowing system in performing its functions of regulating businesses, as per clause 5(1)(e). Such a system is already present in the UK;
(b) being flexible to react quickly to changing technology and norms when it comes to food labelling and food risks assessments. Transparency around supply chains and, therefore, confidence in terms of food safety, can be achieved through increasingly low-cost technology. While championing the development of information labelling systems, as per clause 5(1)(h), there is also a need to strike a balance to ensure it does not become a barrier, for example, to the use of non-commercial composting as fertiliser within our food systems. It would be counterproductive to stifle production systems and models that are striving to achieve wholesome nutritious food that is also fair to producers;
(c) developing deeper analytics as part of data collection in clause 5(1)(n) around our food sources and nutritional content over a period of time to ensure wholesomeness of our food supply is not compromised due to changing geographical and climate realities affecting our food sources; and
(d) exploring ways within or related to our carbon pricing framework to reward actors that are helping to reduce the carbon burden of our food system.
Mr Speaker, please allow me to end with some food for thought, pun intended. We can learn much from our own history. When we gained Independence, we harnessed our limited resources to save every single drop across our national water taps because every drop counts. Whatever actions we take with food, it shall be with the same indomitable spirit that we save every single grain across our national food baskets: no food goes to waste. Every morsel counts.
We can learn much from the rainforest that wastes none. One's trash becomes another's treasure. It shall be with this same wisdom, creativity and kampung spirit involving all sectors of society – from the Public Service to businesses to civil societies, and every single consumer, that we collectively ensure Ah Hua's and our next generation's food security is assured. Every act counts. Everyone counts.
Finally, Mr Speaker, against the backdrop of our Bicentennial commemoration, as well as overfishing and climate change triggering global food shortages and volatile geopolitics limiting food trade, the SFA Bill with the vision of a Zero-Waste Nation is not only timely but also timeless, as Singapore embarks on this journey of becoming a thriving circular economy and nation within the next 200 years, and beyond.
Mr Speaker: Mr Henry Kwek.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. The creation of SFA under MEWR is the right move and will enhance our ability to keep our food supply safe. I also note our success thus far to keep swine flu out of our food supply.
The creation of SFA also offers economic opportunities for our food manufacturing and supply industry. Let me outline these opportunities today.
First, let me start with trust. There is a trust deficit in food, especially in developing Asia. Most Asian customers do not fully trust the industry. In fact, where there are many international standards for food, both at a general and industry level, these standards are usually: one, not well understood by customers; two, too narrowly defined. For example, the important Good Manufacturing Process standard does not provide end-to-end assurance of food products; and three, not well enforced. Many companies work hard to get a certification but fail to keep up with these standards subsequently.
As Asia grows, consumers, especially those within developing Asia, desires high-quality food, such as milk powder that are free from contamination. There are also well-to-do consumers who also want organic food, food produced using fair trade principles and food produced without adversely impacting the environment.
Leading food manufacturing companies tried to position themselves as such. But there is widespread consumer distrust, such as in areas of food labelling, source of raw materials, and whether the products are genuine. Because of this, management consulting and auditing firms, such as PricewaterhouseCoopers in Singapore, has started exploring \"trust audit\" for selected food manufacturing and supply companies in Asia, including for large Chinese State Own Enterprises.
At the same time, there is also widespread trust in developing Asia and the Middle East in the Singapore brand with regard to food. In fact, Singapore has one of the highest standards in Asia outside Japan.
Why do I say that? Three reasons: one, in selected areas, such as fresh vegetables, processed food, poultry, Singapore has gone beyond certifying food that comes to Singapore. Singapore is even sending officers overseas to accredit the food supply chain across the world for these key areas. Second, Singapore has adopted food standards similar to those of the EU. Third, we already certify food outside Singapore. A little-known fact is that China's Jilin province is collaborating with Singapore through the Jilin-Singapore Food Industry Park. Therefore, the Singapore Government has set up, I was told, a certification arm in Jilin. Over time, I was told, this certification arm will stamp the \"Approved by Singapore\" mark on those products, and these products will be eligible for import to Singapore.
Therefore, there are ample opportunities for Singapore-based companies to offer \"trust audit” services in food which can include advisory service, certification services and assurance services which include regular internal or external audit, and, lastly, forensic service.
How can we create these trust audit opportunities? Let me go into some details. SFA can work hand in glove with the Singapore Food Manufacturing Association and our professional services industries so as to embed trust audit into the Food Service Industry Transformation Map. SFA can also drive industry-wide research, set the relevant standards, recommend legislation, create the relevant ecosystem and identify training requirements.
Singapore businesses which pass through all these processes safely can also get the \"Approved by Singapore\" mark. Hopefully, over time, our \"Approved by Singapore\" mark can carry as much clout as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with regard to drugs, and doing so can also create revenue opportunities for the Singapore Government, as SFA can offer certification services either out of Singapore or onsite in markets like China and India.
In conclusion, the creation of SFA keeps our food supply standards high. I also believe that the Agency can create more economic opportunities for Singapore and Singaporeans. With that, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. Singapore has limited land available for farming, and we have limited fishing grounds as well. According to statistics from AVA, we import over 90% of the food consumed in our country. Our local farms can produce only a small amount of food that we eat, and we are heavily reliant on food sourced overseas. It is, therefore, critical that we place a strong emphasis on ensuring the security and safety of our food.
Despite our reliance on food imports, Singapore has managed to claim the top spot in the 2018 Global Food Security Index. It is vital for SFA to continue the good work of AVA by ensuring that we continue to have diverse and reliable sources of food imports to prevent a situation of food shortage due to changes in the political climate of other countries, disease outbreaks or climate change. While we were ranked first in the Global Food Security Index, we achieved this mainly due to the affordability of our food. If we look at the Index’s other key matrix on Quality and Safety, we are ranked 24th. How does the Ministry and SFA intend to improve the quality and safety of our food imports?
It is also important that we continue to grow our domestic food supply as a key strategy in securing our food security. In October 2017, the Singapore Agro-Food Enterprises Federation (SAFEF) announced that it will work with AVA and the Institutes of Higher Learning to improve the local agricultural sector in four key areas: set standards, boost productivity, enhance manpower development and lower costs. I would like to ask the Minister if there have been any improvements in this area since then.
Last month, I visited the SG Farmers Market organised by SAFEF at Cairnhill Community Club. I was heartened to see that many of the stalls were helmed by young passionate Singaporeans. These new generation farmers have introduced new technology and innovative processes into their farming operations to enhance both the quality and the yield of their produce. I hope SFA can do more to support our local young farmers in adopting technological innovations in their farming operations. I would also like to take this opportunity to encourage all Singaporeans to support our local farmers and buy local produce. Our support is key to their sustainability.
Mr Speaker, the tail end of 2018 saw an increased spate of food poisoning and food contamination cases, with some cases having led to fatalities. Food safety is a cause for concern. With the creation of SFA and the powers accorded to it, there must be enhanced measures put in place to strengthen our food safety regime. Under the current policy, food hygiene certificate holders only need to attend their first refresher training after five years from completing their Basic Food Hygiene Course. Subsequent refresher training courses are required only every 10 years thereafter. This is too long a gap. I am of the view that the duration between recertification should be shortened to send a strong message to the industry on the importance of keeping a high level of food hygiene standard at the workplace.
Apart from ensuring our working people in the F&B industry adhere to stringent food hygiene guidelines, we also need to ensure that our food sources are safe for consumption. I would like to ask what are the current local food safety standards and how do they compare with international standards?
Mr Speaker, the flip side of ensuring that we have a steady stream of food supply is ensuring that we minimise the food that we waste. According to NEA, the amount of food waste generated in Singapore has increased by about 40% over the past 10 years. In 2017 alone, more than 676,000 tonnes of food waste were disposed. We must tackle the issue of food wastage. I am heartened to note that bigger supermarket chains, such as the National Trades Union Congress' (NTUC) Fairprice, have started to take this issue seriously. Fairprice now packages “ugly-looking” fruits and vegetables, which are just as nutritional, and sell them at discounted rates, rather than to simply dispose of them. I believe more can be done in terms of public education, and I would like SFA to take on an active role in reducing food wastage. Another way of reducing food wastage is to better match producers of excess food to recipients who need it. Can SFA also play a matchmaker role to link charitable organisations with those who have excess food that can be donated on a timely basis?
Two months ago, we launched two community refrigerators in Pek Kio. Working with SG Food Rescue and the local market stallholders, we distributed more than 300 kg of fresh fruits and vegetables to more than 200 households at the launch event itself. Since then, many more fruits and vegetables were donated and contributed. I hope that SFA can work closer with social enterprises, such as SG Food Rescue and the Food Bank, to enhance community efforts to redistribute unwanted but edible food to those in need.
In conclusion, food security, food safety and food wastage are big areas of concern. The Government needs to work with multiple stakeholders to monitor, educate and encourage safer and more responsible food production, food preparation and food consumption. With that, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome and support the Bill which will consolidate all the different departments responsible for various aspects of food regulation across Government agencies and Ministries into one central body, the SFA. Over the years, a number of my Parliamentary seniors and colleagues had suggested this and I am very glad that we have finally managed to do so.
As a regional and global port, our people have been fortunate in being able to obtain a great variety of food from different regions, even though we ourselves produce too little food for our own consumption. However, today, with climate change, as pointed out, and human mismanagement disrupting food sources, food security is no longer a given. Climate change has resulted in more extreme weather patterns, affecting crop growth and harvests. Overfishing and over-consumption of meat are taking their toll on our food ecosystem, and international research has found that humans’ increasing consumption of meat and dairy products is unsustainable.
Although Singapore is a small country, we can do our part by reducing our consumption of meat and dairy products, which also happens to be beneficial to our health. I urge the newly formed SFA to consider implementing policies to reduce meat consumption. Measures can include a combination of school and public education, subsidies for plant-based food and even lower rentals at food centres managed by the Agency.
Against this backdrop, we must continue to diversify our food sources and strengthen our ability to substitute various food items in the event of natural disasters or plant or animal disease outbreaks occurring at our usual food supply bases. Singaporeans must be introduced to alternative foods, such as liquid egg products, and learn to adapt to the taste and cooking methods of a variety of such foods.
A spate of food safety incidents last year reminds us of the importance of staying ever vigilant in our guard against lapses in the food sector. Would the Minister share with us what efforts have been made to ensure food safety so far and how the centralised SFA will operate differently to enhance our capability in ensuring food safety and quality?
Last but not least, we need to ensure free and rules-based maritime and air space navigation for transportation to ensure food supply security. SFA will need the support of the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), the Ministry of Transport and other Government agencies to fulfill its mission to ensure food security. With that, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ong Teng Koon.
Mr Ong Teng Koon (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, food security and food safety are important in Singapore, even more so, with recent events. The SFA Bill is a concrete step in achieving that. My speech will touch on three points: food security, food safety and nutrition.
My first point: self-sufficiency is important to Singapore. Singapore has diversified our water resources to ensure that we are self-sufficient. Food security is an important next step towards further self-sufficiency. Singapore imports most of our food from our immediate neighbours. We have to import widely and diversely to minimise disruption to our food supplies. Singapore aims to be friendly with our neighbours, but that is not always possible. Our neighbours have recently announced that sales of certain food products to Singapore will be curtailed. This has caused concern among Singaporeans. Will we be able to import substitutes of comparable quality and safety? Can the Minister address these concerns?
Food security is also necessary for affordable food costs. If we are unable to secure food sources easily, food prices will certainly rise. In this aspect, SFA is instrumental in ensuring that Singaporeans can enjoy affordable food. Can the Minister elaborate on how the Bill aims to manage such risks?
To truly secure our food supply, we must venture overseas and secure it at the source. We have Temasek rice, high-tech fish farms, high-tech vegetable farms, to name a few, all started and operated by local companies. These companies have begun to expand overseas. Where there is an abundance of land, water, labour and, as the Minister mentioned, energy, this will help Singapore to further augment and secure our food supply. Does SFA have any plans to implement farm-to-fork in overseas farms and fisheries where we source our food? What can SFA do in conjunction with MTI to give more support to these local companies?
Mr Speaker, my second point is about nutrition. Food security is not just about securing safe food sources. It is also about having access to nutritious and healthy food. How will SFA ensure that Singaporeans have access to nutritious and healthy food? Does SFA have any plans to prevent the entry of unhealthy food into Singapore?
Mr Speaker, my third and final point is about food safety. Recent incidents of mass food poisoning have caused concern among Singaporeans. These incidents took place in various locations and settings, affecting Singaporeans from all walks of life, including children. I have a resident in my ward who lost his hearing after eating raw fish. He used to be a high-level executive earning a good living taking care of his family. But now, he has lost his job, he cannot work and his family had to make serious adjustments to their lives. Mr Speaker, we must take food safety with utmost seriousness as it is a matter of life and death.
Nevertheless, public trust in Singapore’s food safety remains strong. Our strong track record and robust regulations play a part in this. Yet, we are only as strong as the weakest link. In one of the food poisoning incidents, it was found that food was handled and managed in an unsanitary manner. Something that is so basic and yet not done properly. How would SFA intend to strengthen regulation and oversight of food safety?
Oversight and enforcement are likely to be challenges for SFA and related agencies. Dangerous and harmful food products are threats to public health. These threats can disrupt public order.
Another example is the 2008 milk scandal in China which led to the stockpiling of milk powder. It is important to prevent such incidents, but it is also necessary as well to be prepared to respond to these situations. Such efforts will likely involve various stakeholders. So, I would like to ask the Minister: what roles will the SFA play in an emergency situation, such as this?
Mr Speaker, in conclusion, we all know that Singaporeans love to eat. We celebrate eating. This is our national pastime. It forms part of the Singaporean identity. Affordable safe food is, therefore, not a luxury but a public good that everyone should have access to.
An agency which helps to make food safer and readily available plays an important role in ensuring that we keep our national identity. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: Some time ago, we faced issues on several matters related to national security. Just to name two: one is the issue of oil supply and the other is water. Over the years, through good strategic planning, we were able to navigate ourselves so that we are able to build ample reserves of these two resources to meet our national security needs. Today, we are addressing another one of these challenges and that is food safety and supply.
We have seen how, in recent years, food safety and supply are in the limelight. There was the outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy or “mad cow”, and then the avian influenza which undermined consumer confidence in the producers as well as the processors, and even in the governments where these diseases broke out. In fact, in February 2003, when the severe acute respiratory syndrome broke out in Singapore, it could have resulted in some serious consequences if we were unable to take swift action to get things under control. Hence, the setting up of SFA will make us better placed to look into various aspects of our food supply, from its procurement, production and hygiene to the provision of accurate information for consumers.
We can see how, during the festive season, from Chinese New Year, Hari Raya to Deepavali, certain food items would experience a spike in prices. Sometimes, this is because supply is temporarily disrupted due to disease outbreak and, at other times, it was because of supply-demand factors.
Therefore, NTUC Fairprice and other importers, with the support from our Government, have, in recent times, been actively looking at alternative sources of supply. This is important so that we could be assured of a stable supply.
Can I ask the Minister how are we tapping on our business organisations to continually look for new and reliable sources of supply? Is there a need for SFA to tap on bodies like EDB or even our Trade Consular Officers under MFA to source for new food supply? In key strategic countries, would there be a need for SFA to set up its own offices in these countries, so that we can get our man on the ground to look at the production, processing and handling as well as testing before the food reaches our shores?
We are also living in an age where production and farming overseas will have artificial preservatives added to foods. For example, the preservatives used to stop the browning and discoloration of food have been linked to an asthma-related sensitivity and allergy in some cases. How do we then monitor the use of artificial preservatives in food products that are imported here? Some of these synthetic preservatives are harmful to health. For example, last October, the US FDA removed seven synthetic flavouring substances and flavour enhancers from its list of approved food additives. Based on evidence presented to FDA by the various petitioners, who stated that benzophenone causes cancer in animals, the FDA amended the food additive regulations to no longer provide for its use as a plasticiser in rubber articles intended for repeated use in contact with food. So, there are many changes in the management of additives and other food-related matters in the food chain, and I foresee our new food agency would have a very busy schedule ahead.
I would also like to ask the Minister how many food scientists do we have and whether we would be expanding our team of experts to cope with the role of the new food agency.
Next, under the penalties for a person who is found falsifying or using without lawful authority any accreditation, certification or inspection mark, a Court trying the offenders has the power to direct that any property in respect of which the offence has been committed can be forfeited. May I ask what happens, and we know it is quite often the case, when the offender may just be a lessee or tenant of a premises, how then does the Court handle such cases? A restaurant, for example, that may not own the premises, but is merely a tenant?
Another issue which I would like to ask is whether there any process for an owner or management of a restaurant to ensure that all its employees who are handling food are in good health. Would a restaurant be penalised if, say, its employee has a bad flu and yet he is in the kitchen handling food? Lastly, for the protection of public health and safety, how often are audits or checks made at the various eateries, restaurants and the like to ensure that all steps have been taken to ensure that a high hygiene standard is maintained? As we know, prevention is better than reacting and suspending a food establishment only after people fall victim to food poisoning.
Therefore, the scope of the new Agency is very wide and it would require a large team to check the food industry, from manufacturing right down to the kitchen in restaurants and other places where food is served to customers. With that, Mr Speaker, I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister for the Environment and Water Resources.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members for their support and thoughtful feedback on the Bill.
SFA will focus on food safety and food security. These are mutually reinforcing objectives. Food safety is a prerequisite for a resilient food supply, and key to developing a thriving agri-food industry. Allow me to outline SFA’s priorities in these two areas and address some of the specific comments. I will start with food security.
Mr Ong Teng Koon referred to recent potential disruptions in our egg and seafood imports and asked how SFA can better handle such incidents without causing alarm. The answer is that SFA will ensure our food security by developing and enhancing our three national strategies to obtain food. We call these our three \"food baskets\".
First, SFA will build on the existing work by AVA to diversify import sources. AVA has already expanded our import sources from 140 countries in 2004 to around 180 countries today. We take for granted apples from Poland, bananas from Ecuador and Mandarin oranges from China in our supermarkets. These are, in fact, the fruits of a deliberate strategy to diversify our food sources.
Imports will remain our largest food basket for the foreseeable future. SFA, in partnership with relevant Government agencies like MFA and Enterprise Singapore (ESG), will continue to diversify our food sources, as Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Saktiandi Supaat have suggested. This includes working with importers to organise overseas sourcing trips and business matching sessions, as well as increasing the number of farms across different countries which can export to Singapore. In fact, our officers were accrediting farms in Thailand over the Lunar New Year break while many of us Singaporeans were taking a break and enjoying good food with our families. I would like to express my appreciation to our officers who have worked hard over the years to strengthen our food security and safeguard our national security.
Our food importers are also a key node in the supply chain, and we must ensure that they are prepared to withstand potential shocks from climate change and geopolitical developments, as highlighted by Mr Mohamed Irshad. SFA will introduce requirements for importers of key food items to adopt plans to mitigate any supply disruptions. As Mr Ong Teng Koon has highlighted, food security is fundamental to national security. In the long run, securing our food supply is also the primary way to mitigate price volatility and spikes. This is a focus of SFA, which will continue to contribute to whole-of-Government efforts to provide affordable food accessible to all Singaporeans, as highlighted by Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.
Second, SFA will intensify efforts to grow an agri-food ecosystem in Singapore, as suggested by Mr Mohamed Irshad and Mr Melvin Yong, thereby reducing our dependence on imports.
This requires close coordination between SFA and other Government agencies in domains, such as land planning, industry development and financing, and skills training. SFA will also partner our industry stakeholders across the food supply chain to catalyse industry transformation.
Transforming the industry requires us to cultivate a generation of \"agri-specialists\". AVA has been working with our Institutes of Higher Learning in this area. One such initiative is the \"Earn and Learn Programme\", a work-study programme through which students from Temasek Polytechnic and Republic Polytechnic work at local farms and apply the knowledge and practical skills learnt in school. SFA will continue working with the industry and the Institutes of Higher Learning to enhance manpower development for the agriculture sector, as raised by Mr Melvin Yong, and create meaningful value-added jobs for our future workforce.
Given our lack of natural resources, such as land and water, the future of farming in Singapore has to be one that is technology- and R&D-driven, climate-resilient and resource-efficient with high productivity. Going forward, we expect to expand further into controlled environment agriculture in indoor vertical farming and deep-sea fish farming in our waters.
We recognise the contributions by our existing farmers. They bring valuable experience and we would like to continue working with them to improve Singapore’s food security. We will take a pragmatic approach by helping existing farms modernise.
In addition to productivity, we will also prioritise the environmental sustainability of food production. As part of the MEWR family, SFA will work closely with NEA and the Public Utilities Board to find synergies in food production, water, waste and energy. This will ensure that our local food supply will remain resilient in the face of wider trends, such as resource scarcity and climate change.
Together, we can become a world leader in agri-food solutions, just like how we have turned our constraints in water to strategic advantages. Our Water Story, which Members, including Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Ms Anthea Ong, had talked about, is well-known internationally. SFA will work together across the Government, and with industry and other stakeholders, including fellow Singaporeans, to write the Singapore Food Story.
Third, SFA will continue supporting our companies to expand and grow overseas. These overseas-based Singapore companies will be able to overcome land constraints and even manpower constraints, and access new and bigger overseas markets. This allows them to bring down costs through economies of scale and reduce the price of exports to Singapore.
Mr Henry Kwek has also rightly identified this as an area of tremendous economic opportunity for our local companies, especially if our companies develop expertise in highly sought-after farming technologies that are resource-efficient, high-yield, and climate-resilient.
Barramundi Asia, which aspires to produce the fish equivalent of Kobe beef, has expanded to Brunei, where they are developing a 6,600-hectare fish farm to export an estimated 40,000 tonnes of fish back to Singapore. I hope to see more of our local farms succeeding in overseas markets.
Our three food baskets are what I call \"supply-side strategies\". However, the demand side of the equation is equally important. SFA will continue to prioritise public education and outreach to complement the three food baskets, as mentioned by Mr Mohamed Irshad. These include supporting local produce, as suggested by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Melvin Yong, and promoting the consumption of substitutes, such as liquid eggs and more sustainable foods, such as plant-based protein, as suggested by Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Mohamed Irshad. I would also like to assure Mr Saktiandi Supaat that even as we allow new food to come in, SFA will take reference from global standards, such as those set by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, in permitting food additives for use in Singapore.
Ms Anthea Ong and Mr Melvin Yong raised an important initiative which AVA and NEA are already collaborating on – reducing food waste. In fact, food waste is one of NEA's priorities in the Year Towards Zero Waste. My Ministry recognises that Government regulations may promote the reduction of food waste, and will look further into it with our partners, taking into consideration other factors, such as food safety and business costs. I urge Ms Anthea Ong, Mr Melvin Yong and other Members to continue supporting community efforts to redistribute food better so that there is no hunger even among our needy and, in the process, reduce food waste.
I will now move on to outline three strategies which SFA will adopt to ensure the safety of food in Singapore, an area which many Members have spoken about.
First, the formation of SFA will integrate operations related to food safety which currently resides across AVA, NEA and HSA. These range from providing a single contact point for the public to provide feedback, as suggested by Ms Anthea Ong, to combining contact tracing and industry engagement operations. This will allow SFA to manage more holistically across the entire farm-to-fork supply chain to pinpoint and remedy critical points, and react more quickly to food safety incidents, as raised by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Prof Fatimah Lateef and Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
These efforts over the years have strengthened coordination across the Government in response to food safety threats. I thank Mr Henry Kwek for recognising efforts by the agencies to keep swine flu out of our food supply.
AVA, NEA and the Ministry of Health (MOH) work closely under the One Health framework and follow a protocol to respond to and address food-borne outbreaks. Information received by each agency, whether from individuals or doctors and laboratories, is tracked and analysed centrally to ensure that any unusual increase in notifications linked to food establishments is investigated promptly.
Second, having a single agency like the SFA will support consistent administration and enforcement of the regulatory framework for food establishments, balanced against supporting enterprise and job creation.
As Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Mohamed Irshad and Ms Anthea Ong have suggested, we can harness technology and data to make our regulatory regime more effective and efficient. Let me give an example. Joyvio, one of the largest end-to-end fruit companies in China, developed an app that tracks the product's thousand-mile journey from a vine to the supermarket shelf. With a simple scan, shoppers can tell which field the fruit came from, who was in charge of its production, what tests it went through before entering the market, and even details about the soil and water tests from the farm. This allows consumers to check that the fruit has not been contaminated anywhere along the way. Similar ideas can be applied in Singapore.
As suggested by Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Saktiandi Supaat, SFA will also raise the level of accountability of operators and the food industry which must take greater responsibility for the hygiene standards at their premises to ensure food safety. This will be complemented with robust enforcement, as suggested by Mr Leon Perera.
In fact, over the last five years, NEA has conducted more than 600,000 unannounced inspections of food retail outlets. Where necessary, we will enhance regulatory oversight and penalties. As Mr Mohamed Irshad has highlighted, our regulatory regime will need to evolve with changing business models, including online food sales and food delivery.
In addition to the emphasis on food safety, SFA will, as part of its functions, look into harmonising licensing standards and combining existing licences for food businesses. Our vision is for businesses across the supply chain to only have to interface with one agency. This will take time, and we will work closely with the industry to put in place facilitative regulations. For example, we are looking into ways to streamline the licences for premises carrying out both central kitchen and catering operations.
As pointed out by Mr Henry Kwek, there is much potential to leverage the trusted food safety standards in Singapore to promote internationalisation efforts by the food industry. This is an area that SFA will continue to work with MTI and ESG on.
Mr Mohamed Irshad has suggested that SFA could tap on similar opportunities in the halal food market. MUIS will primarily focus on certification of halal food for consumption by Muslims in Singapore. SFA will support our food companies to look for opportunities in the region and the Middle East.
Mr Ong Teng Koon and Prof Fatimah Lateef asked about the role of SFA with regard to nutrition. HPB will continue to promote the consumption of healthy food, and SFA will provide the relevant support.
Mr Leon Perera spoke about food labelling as a tool to help consumers make informed choices. AVA already imposes regulations to provide consumers with pertinent information, such as ingredients and allergens. SFA will continue to work with partner agencies, such as MOH and HPB, on food labelling.
Third, forming a single agency like SFA will enable deepening of food safety expertise in Singapore. The NCFS, which Prof Fatimah Lateef alluded to, will be transferred to SFA under the Bill. NCFS will bring together more than 100 food scientists from AVA, NEA and HSA, and consolidate key competencies in food diagnostics and research on food safety.
Consolidation will also eliminate the need for food samples to be tested in multiple laboratories across different agencies with different competencies. This streamlining of processes as well as the sharing of facilities and technology will allow for greater operational, testing and cost efficiencies to be achieved. This further ensures that our food continues to be safe for consumption, and standards are benchmarked internationally. NCFS will also develop commercial laboratories to support the food safety testing needs of food businesses as production and exports increase.
Mr Speaker, let me conclude. SFA will draw on the lessons learnt and results achieved by AVA, NEA and HSA, and write a new chapter in the Singapore Food Story by bringing together stakeholders from farm-to-fork to co-create solutions to ensure and secure a supply of safe food for our people. Sir, with that, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"National Parks Board (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for National Development, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\" The purpose of this Bill is to effect the transfer of the non-food plant and animal-related functions from the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) to the National Parks Board (NParks).
AVA was established in 2000 to address the increasingly challenging task of maintaining Singapore's high standards of food safety as well as animal and plant health. Minister Masagos Zulkifli earlier spoke about AVA's efforts in ensuring our food safety and food security. AVA has also steadfastly done its job to safeguard our animal and plant health. In particular, AVA has done well to keep Singapore and Singaporeans well-protected against zoonotic diseases, such as the highly pathogenic avian influenza, or bird flu, and rabies.
Over the years, there has been more interest in animal welfare issues. Many Singaporeans are showing greater empathy and compassion towards stray animals. The number of pet owners is growing, and many see pets as family members. At the same time, there are those who are afraid of animals, while others may consider them as a threat or nuisance. So, there have been instances where residents want to remove wildlife they deem dangerous or causing a nuisance, but animal welfare groups and animal lovers may have a different view.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]
In this regard, AVA has worked with animal welfare groups (AWGs), other Government agencies, industry partners and residents to address issues arising from our co-existence with animals in a dense urban setting, while bearing in mind animal welfare. For example, AVA has worked with AWGs and veterinarians to develop the nationwide Trap-Neuter-Release-Manage (TNRM) programme where stray dogs are sterilised to humanely manage their population and rehoming them where possible.
We want to ensure that we continue to co-exist harmoniously with wildlife and other animals. NParks has done well over the years to make Singapore a biophilic city in a garden. It has built up deep expertise in terms of our flora and fauna, as well as strong relationships with a wide range of stakeholder groups. To enhance our approach for animal welfare and management, and plant health control, AVA's non-food plant and animal-related functions will be transferred to NParks to reap synergies with NParks' current work in wildlife conservation and horticultural science. NParks will become the lead agency for animal and wildlife management, as well as animal and plant health.
The transfer will bring about several benefits for Singapore and Singaporeans. First, NParks will provide a one-stop service on animal management and animal welfare issues. A new Animal and Veterinary Service (AVS) will be formed under NParks, as the main touchpoint for animal-related issues, whether they occur in parks, nature reserves or other parts of our city. Accordingly, AVS will take on AVA's current role as the first responder for animal-related feedback. AVS will also deepen existing partnerships with veterinarians and animal-related industries to enhance animal health and welfare.
Second, we will be better positioned to manage human-animal issues, as they become increasingly complex. NParks will have a comprehensive overview of urban and natural ecologies. Combining NParks’ expertise in wildlife conservation and horticultural science, and AVA’s in animal and plant health, and animal management, this will ensure that efforts to conserve Singapore’s natural heritage are holistic and science-based.
NParks currently works closely with its 45,000 volunteers in its greening efforts. With the transfer, stakeholders who have an interest in animal issues, such as pet owners, community animal caregivers and AWGs, will now become a part of the NPark family. They will be able to work with NParks’ existing stakeholders to come up with new and innovative solutions for animal issues.
Third, we can improve our detection of, and response to, zoonotic diseases, and put in place better safeguards for public health. NParks will now oversee disease detection at all potential points of incursion, for instance at the point of import, from migratory wildlife, and between wildlife and urban animals. Disease response can also be enhanced with the consolidation of NParks’ existing expertise in ecology and animal population studies, with AVA’s expertise in veterinary science and diagnostic testing.
Let me now outline the key clauses in the Bill which will effect the transfer of the non-food plant and animal-related functions from AVA to NParks. Clause 3 sets out NParks’ new functions, which include: the protection of animal welfare and animal and plant health, the management of animal population, the prevention of threats and risks arising from animals and plants, to public health and safety, the regulation of trade in endangered animals and plants, and the regulation and promotion of the veterinary industry.
Clause 7 inserts a new Part VII in the National Parks Board Act to transfer to NParks, one, the relevant assets and liabilities of AVA; and two, the relevant employees of and seconded officers in AVA, with general preservation of the employment terms.
Clauses 9 to 16 contain amendments to the Animals and Birds Act, Control of Plants Act, Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act, and Wild Animals and Birds Act for the purpose of transferring from the Director‑General, Agri‑Food and Veterinary Services of AVA the responsibility of administering those Acts to NParks, and to make consequential amendments to other Acts with cross-references to AVA. There are also other amendments to the Animals and Birds Act and the Control of Plants Act to require importers of key food items to adopt plans, including preventive strategies, to mitigate the impact of supply disruptions. These provisions are to support the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) in safeguarding our food security.
The transfer of AVA’s non-food plant and animal-related functions will take effect on 1 April 2019. AVA and NParks have been working together to ensure that the transition is as seamless as possible for all relevant stakeholders. NParks will continue to engage and work with all stakeholders to develop holistic and science-based strategies and more effective responses to animal health, welfare and management, as well as plant health. I believe that this transfer of functions will leverage NParks’ strengths to amplify the effectiveness of AVA’s approach on animal issues thus far. I look forward to Members’ and Singaporeans’ support for NParks’ expanded role. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to begin by applauding the decision to reorganise the functions and structures of AVA and NParks. Food issues as well as wildlife management and animal welfare issues are becoming more significant these days. It is important that they be managed under specific bodies with the relevant resources and expertise. The newly created SFA and the expanded NParks will certainly have their work cut out for them, but this reorganisation is a step in the right direction for sure. With better defined responsibilities, they will be able to act on them more efficiently and effectively.
There is no question we must co-exist with wildlife. But there are many cases of people feeling threatened by animals. Indeed, there seems to be an increasing number of cases of snakes appearing in residential areas and causing alarm. One woman was even bitten by a python outside her house on the second storey of a Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat. Wild boars, too, are a cause for concern, as there have been several cases of wild boars attacking people. And let us also not forget about the monkeys harassing residents, first in the condominiums, and now in densely populated HDB estates, too. And, recently, I received several feedback from my residents that monkeys are found at the bus stops and overhead bridge near Yishun Stadium. They were so worried when they have children with them. So, there would be a lot on the plate for NParks to manage as I can foresee.
What should we do in such situations? I have always found it perplexing that the Police are called in to handle snakes. I urge the AVS to train a group of experts who can handle wildlife and attend to residents who need help.
I give Members an example. Recently, a resident saw a snake in the drain in front of her unit which is on the ground floor. And she is so worried because her grandchild was sleeping in the house. So, she called the Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (ACRES). ACRES told her that the drain is a habitat for snake. Therefore, they will not come and catch. Furthermore, she was told that that snake is a python, it is non-poisonous. It is correct. But can you just imagine this poor grandmother, in front of her is a snake and behind her is her grandchild? By the time I came to know about it, I quickly called the Town Council to send a pest controller down and catch the snake. But by the time, it was too late. The snake had disappeared. So, can you imagine how much stress it is causing to the resident living in that ground floor unit, not just her unit, but all the neighbours on the ground floor, because they do not know when the snake will appear again.
So, I hope in cases like this, AVS and NParks can come in to help. And following several snake sightings in the landed properties in Springleaf Estate, Springleaf Neighbourhood invited speakers from the Singapore Nature Society to give a talk, and I attended the talk as well and found that it is very informative, very useful.
So, I hope with more streamlined functions, NParks will now be able to do more to increase its outreach. NParks could work with the Ministry of Education and schools to educate students about dealing with wildlife. Start them young so that they develop a positive interest and knowledge from a young age.
On the flip side, there are cases of humans hurting animals, too. Although fishing is illegal along certain riverbanks, it is not uncommon to see people fishing illegally. On weekends, especially along the Sungei Seletar in Springleaf Estate, one can see fishermen decked out in hats and fishing rods, sitting or standing on the riverbanks to fish. This is despite signages clearly stating \"No Fishing\" in that area. Overfishing will result in an upset in the biodiversity of the river. And not only that, some of the fishing rods get hooked on other river animals like otters. These animals will not survive from such man-inflicted injuries without the intervention of wildlife welfare groups.
My residents often gave feedback that some of these fishermen simply throw away the fishes, especially if the fishes caught are too small for them to eat. So, they just throw along the riverbank and, very often, residents also found fishing hooks along the riverbank, and all these can be very dangerous when someone steps on them.
I would like to ask what can be done to improve enforcement of penalties against illegal fishing?
Before I conclude, I would like to reiterate that it is good to have harmonious co-existence with animals, but we need to strike a balance. We need to consider the safety of our residents first.
I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the problem that some cat feeders caused to our community. In Nee Soon South Zone A, many residents are complaining about sightings of big, big rats and I went down at night to take a look. True enough, I can see many rats dancing about, running about and I activated the National Environment Agency (NEA), AVA and the Town Council. We formed a Rat Task Force. We found that the root cause actually is the food left behind by cat feeders, several cat feeders, not just one, and when they walked away, the rats come and eat, the big cockroaches come and eat and I asked NEA to act, they said cannot, there was an agreement by AVA and Cat Society to leave food there for two hours. So, many cat feeders mean many two hours. How to solve the rat issue? Rats multiply very fast as well. The Town Council and NEA have been working very hard. They have been treating the burrows, sealing the burrows, catching the rats at least twice a week but we do not seem to be able to solve the problem.
I would like to take this opportunity to plead to the relevant agency to remove the \"two hours\" feeding for areas that have rat issues. Residents' health is much more important.
To conclude, the Government's decision to create a lead organisation for the management of animals is evident that it recognises the importance of this issue to the environment and to the hearts of Singaporeans. It is good to take care of animals. But please do not forget to take care of our residents' safety and hygienic living environment. In Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: To have peaceful co-existence with the animals is good for everybody. Nature can bring about positive effects to tourism, eco-balance and our mental health. But there are potential conflicts between animals and people in two areas.
First, the animals can bring fear. We must educate our people not to panic when they see animals. Under this circumstance, you do not have to report to the Police but to look for the relevant organisation. Hopefully, the new agency can step up the education and offer help to the residents when necessary.
On the other hand, some humans may hurt animals. In Singapore, we often see people fishing illegally. This will harm otters and other animals and disturb the eco-balance. Can the Government step up enforcement efforts?
In conclusion, it is a good move to separate the functions of overseeing food from nature, so that the Government can better manage these two important areas. While it is good to take care of wildlife, we should also think more of our residents’ safety and the hygiene of their living environment.
(In English): Notwithstanding the above, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Er Dr Lee. I assume rats are not animals. Mr Yee Chia Hsing.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. Among other things, this Bill seeks to transfer certain functions currently undertaken by AVA to NParks, which would improve the coordination and implementation of matters relating to animals.
Sir, there is currently a rule that cats are not allowed in HDB flats. However, in practice, most of us adopt a live-and-let-live approach. HDB, generally, does not take too much enforcement action as long as the keeping of cats does not affect anyone adversely and the neighbours do not complain.
Unfortunately, there are also cases of irresponsible cat owners who keep their cats in an unhygienic condition. I have a resident who keeps many cats in her flat and does not exercise good hygiene or proper cat litter box practice. This case has been going on for more than four years and the stench from the cat faeces is unbearable for the neighbours. And, every few months, the surrounding neighbours of up to 10 different households would come to see me to ask how much longer they have to suffer the stench. There are also complaints of unusual insects spotted in their flats by the neighbours, possibly attracted by the unhygienic environment.
It must be surprising that the various agencies are not able to solve this problem after four years. First, HDB does not have the power of forced entry to enter the particular flat to document the facts of the case. The owner is uncooperative and refuses to open the door. So, HDB is unable to enter the flat to confirm the existence of the cats and to serve a summons in person on the flat owner.
NParks’ new role covers protecting the welfare, safety and health of animals, as well as preventing and managing threats to public health and safety from animals or plants.
Sir, I believe this is not sufficient. For the case I have highlighted, on the one occasion that HDB and AVA were able to enter the flat, AVA was unable to remove the cats because although the cats were staying in an unhygienic condition, they were generally in good health and the current rules only allow the removal of the animals if they are found to be mistreated or in poor health.
As such, I would like to propose broadening NPark’s responsibility to include removing animals where they cause severe public disamenities which would presumably include stench suffered by neighbours. I am not sure if AVA has the power of forced entry. If this is indeed the case, then another suggestion is for NParks to be given the power of forced entry to carry out its duties.
To be fair to pet owners, I believe this rule of allowing NParks to enter private property and to remove pets causing severe public disamenities should only be used when all other avenues of solving the case have been exhausted. But nonetheless, it is a useful tool to have in cases where pet owners are uncooperative and recalcitrant.
Sir, I hope the relevant authorities can take into account the suggestions I have made today.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Prof Fatimah Lateef.
Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Mr Deputy Speaker, this is an important Bill. It sets the fundamentals based on our principle of “Let's Make Singapore Our Garden” – Our Garden, referring to both flora and fauna – a vision we have set since the 1960s when we commenced our nation-building. It also aligns with Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s vision for us in transforming Singapore into a Garden City.
With this Bill, there is a revamp of the Statutory Board and the agencies' organisations. Can I find out how this is going to affect the staffing arrangements and reporting structure? What about the secondment of staff, with the AVA now being subsumed and transferred under NParks as well?
The transfer is appropriate, in terms of AVA coming under the same umbrella, as NParks manages our greenery and our parks, which is also the basis of our ecosystem for many animal species and types. Coming together does make sense and helps streamline work processes and flow. The oversight and planning of our ecosystems will also be more wholesome and aligned.
Can the Minister advise us also on how the new entity will be working together with other agencies, such as the Health Promotion Board for health-related issues, infectious diseases and also health and medicinal products concerned? How about NEA, especially pertaining to public health issues?
Can we also get an update on how much, on average, do we spend on animal management annually? I anticipate this amount is going to increase, with the new developments and changes we have planned for the next several years.
The National Biodiversity Centre has been in existence since 2006. With this renewal of the management and plans, are there going to be changes to the focus and thrust of this Centre? Can we get an update on this as well?
With the transfer and merger effected, I assume there will be a review of our national plans. So, will there be any changes to our National Conservation strategy and action plans?
Finally, Sir, will there be a single access number or hotline number with the reorganisation? This will help publicise to the public information and also a single point of contact which makes it a lot easier for all forms of feedback as well. With that, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I declare my interest as the Chief Executive of ACRES, an animal protection charity, the same ACRES that my Group Representation Constituency colleague Er Dr Lee Bee Wah was talking about. Perhaps, I should start by thanking her for sharing the extensive list of animals we have in Yishun and the amazing biodiversity we have. I think the Senior Parliamentary Secretary will reply to some of the concerns Er Dr Lee has raised, but I would like to add that, perhaps we have so many rats also because we have removed all the pythons which eat the rats.
But, Sir, I have spent more than half of my life, over 20 years, speaking up for animals and giving them a voice. I have to say that this merger of AVA and NParks is good news for the animal protection community. It addresses a significant problem we face on the ground.
Many times, we respond to feedback related to monkeys, for example. If that particular monkey is in a nature reserve, we would inform NParks. As we wait for NParks officers to arrive, the monkey moves, sometimes just by a few metres, and ends up outside the nature reserve. We then have to inform AVA. There was once the monkey was at a bus stop, like Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has said, and we were told to inform the Land Transport Authority instead. As these animals are quite mobile, things can get quite complicated with multiple agencies involved.
Thus, the move to combine all non-food plant and animal-related functions is very much a welcomed one. This will enable a more unified and coherent approach. I stand in support of this Bill but would like to seek a few clarifications.
First, I would like to seek clarifications for the rationale for limiting the definition of “animal”. The definition of “animal” under the current Act, which references the Parks and Trees Act, includes “any other living creature, vertebrate or invertebrate”. Basically, it includes everything.
The proposed new definition is more restricted. The word \"invertebrate\" is no longer there. Anthropods are now included in the definition of animals but there are invertebrates that are not anthropods. This includes cnidarians, such as jellyfishes and annelids, such as earthworms and leeches.
Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify the rationale for limiting the definition of \"animal\" in this way? What prompted this change?
Next, the positive aspect of this merger is that it will create synergy. We are merging so that, instead of two organisations, we have one organisation focused on animal and plant issues.
I thus find it strange that after this merger, we then split the Director-General’s (DG's) duties. Instead of one DG, we will have four DG positions, that is, a DG for Animal Health and Welfare, a DG for Wildlife Management, a DG for Wildlife Trade Control, and a DG for Plant Health. While I understand that the DG for Animal Health and Welfare and the DG for Wildlife Management will be the same person, the DG for Wildlife Trade Control will be a different person.
Why are we merging and then splitting? I find this will complicate things on the ground. For example, many wildlife trafficking cases involve both species protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act and also species not protected by CITES that fall under the Wild Animals and Birds Act. There is often animal cruelty involved as well and that offence will fall under the Animals and Birds Act.
Prior to all the changes, this case would have been covered by one DG. Now, it will involve three DGs. Would this not be a waste of resources? Do officers handling the case have to send reports to the different DGs and the DGs will then have to meet to discuss the case? Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify how the DGs will work together now, and whether there will be separate lines of reporting for enforcement officers?
Lastly, I would like to focus on the issue that I have raised many times in this House, that is, culling. Whenever we have animal-related nuisance complaints or feedback, culling seems to be the solution. Be it chickens, monkeys, birds or wild boars, we have culled them. We have made progress on this front, as the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned, and now have good TNRM programmes for dogs and cats, which focus on more humane, scientific and long-term solutions. These programmes address both residents’ concerns and animal welfare concerns. I hope that with this merger, with NParks’ strong background in science, we will start to develop more holistic, science-based management approaches towards managing animal populations in Singapore.
Sir, we have been culling animals for decades. I ask that we look at this not just from an animal welfare perspective but also from an effectiveness perspective. Culling has clearly not worked. If culling worked, we would not have the same animal-related problems in the same areas year after year. We spend tons of resources, including financial resources, on a solution that does not seem to produce results. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary also confirm whether there are any scientific studies that show that our current culling measures work?
As a biologist by training and having done a literature review, I have found no scientific studies that support our current culling measures. Certainly, there are no scientific studies that suggest culling based on public complaints is effective. In fact, there is scientific research that shows the contrary, that is, that culling not only fails to reduce the population, it actually leads to an increase.
We have to understand that with our current measures, while there is a clear reduction in numbers following a cull, at times, within a few weeks, with pigeon, for example, the pigeon numbers may be back to the pre-cull numbers and, at times, exceed it. Why? Because we usually kill the adult birds who may be the non-breeding birds. The younger, healthier and stronger breeding birds survive the cull. According to the Pigeon Control Advisory Service, “pigeons control their own numbers very effectively according to the volume of food available to them. An adult pair of pigeons will usually breed four to six times a year but can breed more frequently in optimum conditions, producing two young each time. If, however, the food supply reduces and there is only sufficient food available to support the existing flock, adult birds may only breed once or twice a year or possibly not at all.
Pigeons will not breed if there is insufficient food to service the needs of their young. If the food supply increases for any reason, following a cull, for example, pigeons will breed continuously until the flock reaches the point where it is fully exploiting the food available to it. In other words, there is a minor population explosion each time a cull takes place. The end result is an estimated 15%-30% increment in flock size over and above the pre-cull figure.”
Sir, many others have used culling as a solution and have found as well that it does not work. In the City of Basel, for example, they had 20,000 pigeons in 1963. Over a period of 24 years of intensive culling, they killed 100,000 pigeons. In 1988, they did a count. Instead of having 20,000 pigeons, they now have 30,000 pigeons. Despite the culling, the population increased by 33%.
Clearly, culling did not work. The City of Basel then focused on a public awareness campaign to address the public feeding of pigeons. It installed pigeon lofts, removed the pigeon eggs and controlled the availability of food. Within four and a half years, the city’s pigeon population decreased to 10,000 birds. Some culling continued during this period but that was to prevent the birds from starving to death due to the lack of food. This is very different from the culling that takes place in Singapore, which takes place in response to public complaints.
The culling of monkeys is similarly ineffective as it is usually the young ones who get trapped. The mother monkey which lost her young goes into heat again, the male monkey mates with her and another baby is born, replacing the monkey which was killed. If we somehow manage to kill an entire troop, the neighbouring troop will then take over the territory of the troop who were killed. With more resources, they breed more and, sooner than later, we will have the same number of monkeys again.
Sir, I can go on and on about this. Culling ignores the science and puts a burden on valuable Government resources. I sincerely hope that we can move forward on this issue and that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can share more about how NParks intends to manage the animal population in Singapore.
Sir, this Bill is much needed and opens a new and exciting chapter in the animal protection movement in Singapore. When this merger was first announced, there were some concerns as to whether it was really true. Is it really happening? Was this fake news?
The problem is that it was announced that the merger would take place on 1 April, on April Fools' Day. I hope that the public is now assured that this is not a joke and perhaps that it is really happening, and maybe the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can also provide some assurances on that. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in full support of this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. We can expect greater synergy and efficiency after the consolidation of all non-food-related plant and animal functions to NParks under the Ministry of National Development. I am sure there will be many benefits to be reaped from the optimisation of resources and leveraging of expertise.
I would like to take this opportunity to raise a couple of issues on behalf of my residents regarding the population of wild birds and pets.
Firstly, about the wild birds. I think we would all agree that most of us want to live and work in environments which integrate nature with man-made structures. Very few people would choose to live in a sterile estate with only concrete buildings. The challenge we face is in striking a balance between the management of wildlife and human populations.
Having birds and other creatures around us is good and necessary for our well-being. However, they can also be the sources of disamenity, such as noise pollution and animal waste. Some residents have shared their concerns over the population of wild birds with me, particularly species which are growing in numbers. Does NParks have plans to manage such wild bird populations in our estates? How would NParks tackle big populations of certain birds which appear seasonally? Would the choice of particular trees or plants help to resolve the problems of certain wild birds in our HDB estates?
Secondly, about keeping pets in HDB flats. In recent years, I have been receiving many pieces of feedback relating to problems created by increasing pet ownership in our HDB estates. Some residents complain about incessant barking; others are dismayed by the foul smell of pets’ urine along common corridors and void decks; irresponsible owners who leave pets’ faeces on the ground are also a big problem. Personally, I am quite worried about pets which are mistreated by owners who have lost interest in them, such as by confining them in small cages. I would like to ask how NParks will proceed in tackling these problems, including how it will work with other agencies and Ministries.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of a Sitting","subTitle":"Business Motion ","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Pursuant to Standing Order No 2(5)(d), I propose to extend the time for today's Sitting beyond the moment of interruption for period of up to 30 minutes. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"National Parks Board (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Ms Sun Xueling: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for their very animated speeches and for their suggestions and views.
Let me start by addressing Members’ comments on the Bill. Mr Louis Ng expressed concerns about the limiting effect of the new definition of “animal” which replaces the present one in the National Parks Board Act. The new definition is non-exhaustive, as signified by the use of the word “includes”. The new definition in the Bill, therefore, allows for the inclusion of invertebrates as an animal.
Mr Louis Ng also asked why we split the duties of AVA’s DG of Agri-Food and Veterinary Services among four newly-created DGs in the Animals and Birds Act, the Wild Animals and Birds Act, the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act, and the Control of Plants Act. The administration of each of these four Acts will be transferred under the Bill from AVA to NParks. Each Act has a significantly different and distinct purpose and scope from the other. Hence, the Bill provides the flexibility to appoint separate technical experts for each role. But notwithstanding this, as Mr Louis Ng has pointed out, the same person could be appointed as the DG for more than one role, if he or she has the right expertise. Regardless of the number of officers performing these roles, they will report to the same Chief Executive Officer who will ensure that there continues to be close coordination across the different teams.
Prof Fatimah Lateef asked about the staffing arrangements. The senior management of AVA and NParks have engaged their staff through several townhalls and engagement sessions to ensure that they are aware of their roles and reporting structure after the reorganisation. All AVA staff in its present food-related and non-food undertakings, including secondees, will be transferred to SFA and NParks respectively. The Member may wish to refer to the new section 25(6) which is inserted by clause 7 of the Bill for AVA’s non-food undertakings. Persons on secondment in AVA’s food-related undertakings will have been transferred to SFA under the Singapore Food Agency Bill 2019 which this House has just passed.
Members also spoke about animal management. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Gan Thiam Poh spoke about the need for us to co-exist harmoniously with animals, birds and other types of wildlife. Indeed, in our biophilic City in a Garden, we live in close proximity to nature and should continue to try to minimise friction in human-animal interactions. The transfer of animal-related functions from AVA to NParks will put us in a better position to do so in several ways.
First, as Er Dr Lee Bee Wah suggested, we will continue to heighten public awareness regarding wildlife. Should members of the public encounter wildlife, such as snakes or wild boars, they can call the existing Animal Response Centre at 1800-476-1600, which NParks will take over from AVA. This is also the hotline that Prof Fatimah enquired about. We have also put up advisories in parks where there have been previous sightings of wild boars so that members of the public would know how to react if they come across them. NParks will also continue to work with nature groups, Town Councils, as well as schools on public education and engagement programmes. For instance, AVA and NParks are members of the Long-tailed Macaque Working Group alongside volunteers from animal interest groups, such as the Jane Goodall Institute. The Working Group’s flagship community education project, the Monkey Guards Programme, teaches people how to respond to monkeys and to guide them away from residential areas.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has raised the issue about stray cat feeding. Many community cats are taken care of by regular, responsible feeders. In this regard, agencies have worked with the Cat Welfare Society (CWS) to adopt a calibrated approach to allow such feeding whilst taking action to prevent disamenities. When NEA officers encountered cat feeders, they take down their particulars. If the officers return and find that the site is not cleared after a reasonable amount of time, they will be able to carry out enforcement using the particulars collected earlier. But we take the point that Er Dr Lee has raised. At locations where cat feeding has exacerbated rat problems, NEA and AVA will work with the CWS to tighten the processes. For instance, feeders may be asked to clear up immediately to mitigate the problem.
Next, NParks will build on AVA’s existing partnerships with animal interest groups, animal-related businesses and other stakeholders, as it continues to refine and implement our animal and wildlife management strategy. NParks will also work closely with other public agencies in carrying out its functions.
Er Dr Lee raised the issue of illegal fishing at Sungei Seletar. NParks and the Public Utilities Board will continue to monitor the situation and step up enforcement where necessary. To address Prof Fatimah Lateef’s question on how NParks will partner other agencies to safeguard public health, NParks will join MOH and NEA, as well as SFA, which currently work closely together, to address public health issues. This is made an express new function of NParks in clause 3(a) of the Bill. In particular, NParks will be contributing its expertise in veterinary health and zoonotic diseases to the group.
NParks will also undertake a holistic review of the regulatory approach for animal-related businesses, such as pet boarders, pet breeders and veterinary centres. As part of this review, NParks will engage industry players and animal interest groups to find the right balance across their various needs and interests.
Third, we will continue to take a holistic science-based approach to animal management This entails understanding the underlying drivers, putting in place appropriate public education programmes, and applying the appropriate animal-management measures for each specific case. A sustainable animal management strategy requires a holistic suite of measures. This can include removal of food sources, use of contraceptives, habitat modification and population control.
For instance, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Louis Ng spoke about the management of wild birds in HDB estates. AVA has worked closely with grassroots organisations, Town Councils and NEA to educate the public about proper food waste management, as well as stepped up enforcement in problem areas where the presence of improperly disposed of food waste exacerbates the situation. AVA has repeatedly highlighted in its public communications that such food sources attract birds and increase their population. This point has been carried by various media outlets, such as The Straits Times, Channel NewsAsia and Today, in their coverage of such issues.
Apart from controlling food sources, AVA has trialled various measures to move the birds away from trees near residential areas, such as the use of lasers, natural bird repellent and passing low electrical currents through roost trees. A variety of measures are used and there is no reliance on any one single method for a quick-fix. Taking on board the lessons that AVA has learnt in dealing with wild birds, NParks will monitor the population, occurrence, diet and movement of wild birds, so as to develop effective long-term strategies to mitigate the disamenities caused by them. For example, NParks is replacing roost trees with other trees that still provide shade but are less attractive to the birds, to reduce the number of roosting sites. We have also found recently that with the pruning of potential roost trees, we are able to direct birds away from roosting closely to residential areas.
I would like to assure Members that NParks will undertake a holistic and scientific approach and also learn appropriate lessons from experiences overseas to support our efforts in wildlife and animal management. For example, by applying population studies, active tracking and modelling techniques, NParks was able to identify the various troops of macaques in the Upper Thomson area. NParks then worked with the grassroots leaders and residents to stem habits like feeding and poor handling of household trash, and to actively drive the macaques away from residential areas. Only when a macaque has acted aggressively will NParks step in to relocate it, or if necessary, put it down for public safety reasons.
To address Prof Fatimah Lateef’s question about NParks’ budget for animal management, we are currently focusing on ensuring a smooth transition for all stakeholders and continuity for all existing programmes. Thereafter, NParks will undertake a comprehensive review of our animal management measures, including the appropriate budget required.
Prof Fatimah Lateef also asked if there would be changes to the National Biodiversity Centre, which is currently under NParks. With the reorganisation, NParks will be able to integrate its existing expertise in biodiversity, conservation and ecology with AVA’s capabilities in animal and plant health, as well as veterinary science. This will enable NParks to add new dimensions to its Nature Conservation Master Plan, which is coordinated by National Biodiversity Centre. For example, NParks will be able to better incorporate the monitoring and management of zoonotic diseases into its wildlife management and species recovery programmes.
Next, let me address Members’ comments on pets. I fully agree with Mr Gan Thiam Poh that pet owners need to be responsible for the welfare of their pets. The Animals and Birds Act has mandated that pet owners show a duty of care to their pets. NParks will continue AVA’s good work to remind pet owners that “A Pet is for Life”. Through the Responsible Pet Ownership programme, we hope to equip potential pet owners with knowledge on the care and responsibility that comes with owning a pet. With the Bill, NParks will take over the administration of the Animals and Birds Act, and its officers will be suitably empowered to take enforcement action against anyone who commits an act of animal cruelty or fails to provide adequate care for their pets.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Yee Chia Hsing highlighted the issue of irresponsible pet owners in HDB flats causing disamenities to their neighbours. In such cases, AVA, and in future, NParks and HDB will work with the flat owners, grassroots leaders and Animal Welfare Groups to resolve the issues, and to rehome the animals if necessary.
Under the Housing and Development (Animals) Rules, recalcitrant owners who refuse to allow HDB officers to enter and inspect their premises may be brought to Court where they can be fined up to $4,000 upon conviction. In cases where there is reasonable cause to believe that the welfare of the pets is compromised, or there is mistreatment, AVA today has powers under the Animals and Birds Act to enter the premises for investigation. The owners, if convicted in Court for failing to provide adequate care for their pets, may be liable to a fine not exceeding $10,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both. AVA can also seize the animals if there are concerns about their welfare. To answer Mr Gan Thiam Poh, NParks officers will have these same powers even after the Bill is passed.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing further suggested that agencies be given powers to forcibly remove pets from private homes due to disamenities arising from the pets but added a caveat that this should only be used when all other avenues have been exhausted. Indeed, we would need to consider very carefully whether to put in place such powers for NParks officers, as the powers are very intrusive.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to conclude by thanking Members once again for their support and suggestions. NParks will continue to engage and work with stakeholders on holistic and science-based strategies to enhance animal health and welfare, as well as ensure that we co-exist harmoniously with wildlife and other animals. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Sun Xueling.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to 11.00 am tomorrow.\" – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien.] (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.04 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Admission of Special Needs Students into Institutes of Higher Learning and ITEs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Education (a) in the past three years, how many special needs students have been admitted into Institutes of Higher Learning (IHL); (b) how many IHLs are equipped to accommodate special needs students; (c) what is the Ministry doing to help special needs students further their education in IHLs; and (d) whether there are plans to work with ITE to take in more special needs students who may benefit from a vocational education.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: On average, over the last three years, about 2,500 students with Special Educational Needs (SEN) were enrolled in the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs). This constitutes about 2% of the enrolment in the institutions.
All IHLs provide specialised support to students with SEN. Every IHL has a SEN Support Office which provides a one-stop service in supporting students with SEN from pre-enrolment to graduation. The SEN Support Office and the relevant IHL academic department will engage the students to better understand their needs and offer necessary support, such as access arrangements for classes, assessments and examinations. The Offices also administer funding for students to purchase Assistive Technology devices and support services, such as text enlargement software, wireless assistive hearing devices and notetaking services. IHLs also work with voluntary welfare organisations for mentorship programmes, internship placements and job matching to further help to prepare students with SEN for the workforce.
Over the years, the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) has been proactively strengthening its support for students with SEN who will benefit from a vocational education. These students account for about 4% of ITE's enrolment. ITE will continue to admit any student with SEN who meets their admission criteria. ITE, together with the rest of our IHLs, is committed to supporting all students in their educational journeys.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Programmes to Include Deaf Students in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the total number of deaf students in schools last year; (b) what inclusion programmes are in place for both the hearing and deaf students; and (c) with the plan to mainstream deaf students, whether the Ministry will consider SgSL (Singapore Sign Language) as an elective \"third language\" for all schools.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As at December 2018, there were about 1,300 students with reported hearing loss in our mainstream primary and secondary schools.
The majority of students with reported hearing loss in mainstream schools have mild symptoms and are able to communicate with teachers and peers orally. The Ministry of Education (MOE) supports their learning by working with organisations, such as the Singapore Association of the Deaf (SADeaf), to provide itinerant educational services to these students. MOE also provides funding for these students to use assistive technological devices, such as Frequency Modulation systems, to help them access the learning.
Students with moderate-to-severe hearing loss who require additional educational support have a number of options. For students who communicate orally, they may enrol in Canossian School, a Special Education (SPED) school offering the national curriculum. Canossian School has a satellite partnership with Canossa Catholic Primary School which enables the students with hearing loss to be fully integrated with their mainstream peers. Upon completion of their primary education, these students may articulate to designated mainstream secondary schools, namely, St Anthony’s Canossian Secondary School or Outram Secondary School, where there are Resource Teachers to support the learning needs of students with hearing loss.
For a small number of students who communicate using sign language, they may enrol in Mayflower Primary School, a designated primary school for Hearing Loss (signing) students. At the school, students with Hearing Loss learn alongside their peers, co-taught by a Specialised Teacher using Singapore Sign Language (SgSL). The school is also resourced with an Educational Interpreter who provides sign interpretation for students to access school-wide activities. Upon completion of their primary education, these Hearing Loss students may progress to Beatty Secondary School, also a designated school for Hearing Loss (signing) students. For students with more complex needs, such as both hearing loss and intellectual disability, they may enrol in Lighthouse School, which provides a customised curriculum.
MOE supports the adoption of SgSL as the language of instruction and communication1 in our designated and SPED schools. In these schools, the school community is encouraged to learn SgSL to facilitate communication and interaction with Hearing Loss students. For example, Mayflower Primary School organises SgSL enrichment programmes for students and teachers who would like to learn the language.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : This is an important component of the Bilingual approach, an established method in deaf education which uses both the natural sign language of the deaf community, for example, American Sign Language (ASL), German Sign Language (GSL), French Sign Language (FSL) and the written/spoken language of the hearing community, namely, English, German, French."],"footNoteQuestions":["25"],"questionNo":"25"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cool Climate Solutions for Singapore in Light of Rapidly Rising Global Temperatures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Mr Mohamed Irshad asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what efforts are being undertaken to cool our island in light of rapidly rising temperatures; (b) whether the Ministry has considered using latest technologies, such as thermal insulation coating, to paint our buildings to reduce temperatures and keep the buildings cool; and (c) what measures are in place to reduce overall energy consumption in Singapore in the face of such rising temperatures.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Government is mindful of the need to plan for and mitigate rising temperatures. Apart from climate change impacts, temperature rise is also partly due to the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect from urbanisation.
Government agencies have implemented measures to help Singapore cope with rising temperatures and have plans to do more. For example, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) uses urban environmental modelling to design and orient blocks of flats to maximise wind flow and shade in estates. The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), the National Parks Board (NParks) and other agencies have incorporated green open spaces in our urban landscape and distributed greenery to cool the environment through shade provision and evapotranspiration. We are also encouraging the use of coatings and building materials that limit the absorption and retention of solar radiation.
A key contributor to the UHI effect is heat generated by human activities requiring energy consumption. Hence, a key strategy under the Climate Action Plan is to improve our overall energy efficiency (EE), particularly in the industry sector, which is the largest consumer of energy. I will cite a few examples.
We amended the Energy Conservation Act in 2017 to enhance the energy management practices of large industrial energy users. Our carbon tax came into force in January this year and sends an important price signal to incentivise emissions reductions in the most economically efficient way. In tandem, we enhanced our grants this year to support the industry sector’s push to improve EE.
In the household sector, we introduced the Mandatory Energy Labelling Scheme (MELS) and Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS) in 2008 and 2011 respectively, which has raised the EE of energy-intensive household appliances, such as air-conditioners and refrigerators. This has helped households to reduce their energy consumption and save on costs.
In the building sector, the Government has been driving the adoption of energy-efficient design and solutions for more environmentally sustainable buildings. We are making good progress.
The UHI is a complex topic and the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources and other relevant Government agencies will continue to study this in greater depth. This includes investing in research and development to better understand the effect of rising temperatures on our local microclimate, as well as tapping on technology to help Singaporeans cope with rising temperatures.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Differential Fares Scheme in Spreading Out MRT Commuter Load","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether there has been further improvement to the spreading out of MRT commuters during morning peak hours after the Differential Fares Scheme is implemented; and (b) whether he will consider granting further incentives to the elderly to travel during off-peak hours to spread out MRT commuters.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: To encourage off-peak travel, rail commuters enjoy a discount of up to 50 cents if they tap in before 7.45 am under the Differential Fares Scheme. Since the discount was introduced in December 2017, the number of commuters travelling during the morning pre-peak period has increased by 12%. This is significantly higher than the ridership growth of 2%.
More than 70% of seniors today travel during off-peak hours. Some of those who travel during the peak period are likely to do so for work. We will continue to monitor the situation before deciding on further incentives for off-peak travel.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cost of Ensuring Maritime Safety in Singapore Waters","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport since Singapore's Independence, how much money has been spent in safekeeping the security, and ensuring the safety of users, of the waters at Tuas South that are within our jurisdiction and port limits, including environmental control, navigation and maritime management.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Several agencies perform the roles and functions in Singapore Territorial Waters mentioned by the Member, often in close coordination with one another.
The agencies carry out their enforcement and operational duties in our waters as part of their overall statutory responsibilities. It is not possible to assign a specific dollar amount to the work carried out only in the waters off Tuas South.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Top Three Causes of Death among Elderly Persons Aged 65 and Above","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Health for the past five years (a) what are the top three causes of death among elderly persons aged 65 and above; and (b) what is the number of elderly persons who die annually because of pneumonia or pneumonia-related complications.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: From 2013 to 2017, the top three causes of death among Singapore residents aged 65 and above were cardiovascular diseases, cancer and pneumonia.
During this period, between 3,000 and 3,750 elderly persons died from pneumonia each year. This made up about 25% of the total deaths among elderly persons.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Roadmap and Industry Transformation Map for Singapore's Energy and Chemicals Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the roadmap laid out for Singapore's energy and chemicals sector and its Industry Transformation Map, including employment demand and supply outlook in the short to medium term; (b) what is the Ministry's long-term strategy to develop the growing energy and petrochemical sector in Singapore; and (c) which foreign country is the largest investor in this sector.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Energy and Chemicals (E&C) industry is an important sector to Singapore's economy, contributing about 3% of our gross domestic product (GDP) and employing about 28,000 people in 2017. United States (US)-origin companies account for the majority of net fixed assets in the E&C industry.
The E&C Industry Transformation Map (ITM), developed together with the tripartite partners, was launched in October 2017, with a two-pronged strategy focusing on transformation and growth. Transformation aims to improve the competitiveness of refineries and crackers through asset rejuvenation, while growth is driven by opportunities from high value-added petrochemical derivatives and specialty chemicals. The E&C ITM aims to create 1,400 new jobs and contribute $12.7 billion to Singapore’s GDP by 2025.
Over the past one year, the E&C industry has made good progress under several of the ITM pillars. For example, 10 plants have leveraged Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) technologies to drive efficiency gains and productivity in their plant operations. In terms of innovation, the industry has successfully anchored five application development centres focused on developing applied research capabilities to support specialty chemicals product innovation.
We have also observed good outcomes on the jobs and skills front. The Government is working closely with key industry associations, such as the Singapore Chemical Industry Council (SCIC) and the Association of Process Industry (ASPRI), to create quality jobs and to enable our people to capitalise on these jobs. One particular initiative is the Chemical Industry Manpower Advisory Committee (Chimac), which is co-chaired by the Economic Development Board and SCIC, and looks at present and future manpower-related issues, such as labour supply, training and hiring practices, to ensure that future manpower needs of the growing industry can be met. In addition, through initiatives, such as the Professional Conversion Programmes (PCPs) and SkillsFuture Earn and Learn Programmes (ELP), 86 mid-career workers were reskilled and successfully placed into suitable E&C jobs, while 134 trainees have been placed in 23 E&C companies respectively.
The success of the E&C ITM requires the collective effort of all industry stakeholders. Our trade associations will have to continue playing leadership roles in building capabilities across the community. Companies will have to continue investing in productivity and innovation efforts, and in their workers. Our people, too, must be prepared to upgrade their skills and even take on new job roles. The Government will likewise continue to work with our companies and workers to keep our E&C sector attractive and competitive.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Integrating Platforms to Facilitate Donations through Smart Nation Initiatives","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Prime Minister (a) whether the Smart Nation narrative includes a Smart Giving Nation narrative as part of our aspiration to be a caring, inclusive and resilient society; and (b) if so, how has the Smart Nation blueprint and architecture been planned to support the vulnerable groups as well as to integrate with social sector agencies and giving platforms.
Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): Our Smart Nation narrative and the framework for implementation have three broad equally important thrusts: Digital Economy, Digital Government and Digital Readiness. Digital Readiness includes our strategies to help citizens, businesses, community groups and the Government use technology in an inclusive way to build a caring and resilient society.
We want all Singaporeans, regardless of age or ability, to be enabled by digital technology to pursue their dreams and aspirations. This means that everyone should have the digital access, literacy and confidence to participate in Smart Nation. The Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) has worked with our community partners to drive readiness programmes at our libraries and community centres. Building a caring, inclusive and resilient society is a whole-of-Nation effort, and our Smart Nation initiatives seek to enable this with technology.
Technology allows better partnerships to serve our vulnerable communities. For example, the Ministry of Social and Family Development is looking into using digital platforms to work more closely across the social sector agencies, including voluntary welfare organisations. This allows agencies to have a comprehensive understanding of families in need, and coordinate support to get families back on their feet. The Ministry of Community, Culture and Youth's Volunteer.sg and SG Cares app will help volunteers in both public agencies and non-profit organisations to be more engaged and more effective. Platforms, such as the Agency for Integrated Care's Dementia Friends and the Singapore Civil Defence Force's MyResponder, allow individuals in need to receive help from the community in real-time.
MCI's Digital Readiness efforts encourage and educate organisations to design for digital inclusion. The Government itself subjects our digital services to regular usability checks. We involve diverse users in the design process.
The Smart Nation and Digital Government Group, together with social sector agencies and officers across the public sector, are keen to partner community groups and volunteer organisations so that, together, we can better serve all Singaporeans using digital technology.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review on Number of Open Visits for Inmates with Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) for each year in the past five years, what is the average number of open visits which an inmate has with their children; and (b) whether there are plans to increase the number of open visits which an inmate can have with their children.
Mr K Shanmugam: In the past five years, an average of around 1,500 inmates each year participated in structured family programmes which have an open visit component. However, the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) does not track the number of open visits individual inmates have with their children.
SPS will extend such programmes to more inmates.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulations and Frameworks Involving Firework Displays","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the types of entities that are allowed to conduct firework displays in public spaces; and (b) what are the governing regulations and frameworks involved in such firework displays in ensuring public safety and avoiding any environmental risk.
Mr K Shanmugam: There are six companies in Singapore that are exempted from the Dangerous Fireworks Act (DFA), which prohibits the possession, sale, transport, delivery, distribution, import or discharge of dangerous fireworks1. These companies deal with fireworks and pyrotechnic displays for indoor events, such as concerts, and outdoor events, such as the National Day Parade.
Notwithstanding their exemption, the six companies are required to comply with strict conditions to ensure public safety, as stipulated under the Dangerous Fireworks (Exemption) Notification 2018. For instance, the fireworks must be certified safe and approved by the competent authority of the country of origin or manufacture, and by the manufacturer. There are also conditions pertaining to the storage of fireworks at the firing point, safety distances and direction of fire. The companies have maintained a good track record.
Separately, ambient air and water quality monitoring by the National Environment Agency and the Public Utilities Board have so far showed no long-term environmental impact of concern arising from fireworks displays.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The six companies are Explomo Technical Services Pte Ltd, Glorious (S) Pte Ltd, Intermay Consultech Pte Ltd, Knights Synergy (S) Pte Ltd, Effects Technologies Pte Ltd and SpectaWorks Pte Ltd. "],"footNoteQuestions":["2"],"questionNo":"2"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress on Project E-learning Mental Health First Aid Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Health (a) how many persons have been trained and certified on the Project E-learning Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) programme since its launch in May 2017; (b) what is the profile of these participants; (c) how many of these certified participants on the central registry have been mobilised in 2017 and 2018 respectively; and (d) what type of cases have they been mobilised for.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The e-Learning Mental Health First Aid (Singapore) [MHFA(S)] was developed by Changi General Hospital (CGH) with funding from Temasek Foundation Cares to make mental health literacy more accessible through blended learning, that is, online learning with a half-day face-to-face practical session.
As of November 2018, over 900 individuals from 26 organisations have attended this e-learning initiative. Of these, 94%, or more than 800, of the participants were certified by the MHFA(S) to have the knowledge to provide initial help to a person developing a mental health problem or in a mental health crisis until appropriate professional treatment is received or until the crisis resolves. The participants, who completed online and practical sessions, were mainly from Government agencies, social organisations, educational institutions, grassroots organisations and faith-based groups.
While we do not have information regarding the activities of the trained participants, from informal feedback, CGH understands that their skills have been utilised to support their friends, co-workers and family members with mental health conditions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Success Rate of Appeals to use MediSave Beyond Annual Withdrawal Limits","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Health in each of the past two years (a) how many Singaporeans of 65 years old and above have exhausted their annual MediSave withdrawal limit for (i) outpatient treatments, (ii) outpatient MRI/CT scans and diagnostics and (iii) flexible MediSave use, respectively; (b) how many appeals have been received from this group of seniors to use their MediSave beyond the annual withdrawal limits; and (c) what was the rate of successful appeals and the basis for these approvals.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: We recently increased the MediSave withdrawal limit under the Chronic Disease Management Programme from $400 to $500 and lowered the minimum age for Flexi-MediSave from 65 to 60 in June 2018. This has allowed more Singaporeans to tap on more of their MediSave for outpatient treatments. The statistics for 2018 are not yet available.
In 2016 and 2017, about 17% of Singaporeans aged 65 and above with chronic conditions and about 16% of those who used MediSave for outpatient diagnostic scans had fully utilised their respective MediSave limits. About 16% of Singaporeans 65 and above had fully utilised their Flexi-MediSave limit.
Over the past two years, the Ministry of Health (MOH) received about 200 appeals each year from all age groups for outpatient MediSave use. All appeals are considered on a case-by-case basis and we take into consideration exceptional circumstances, such as whether more complex treatment is required due to unforeseen complications, or if the family is facing difficulties due to special social or financial circumstances. About half of the appeals were approved.
MOH will continue to monitor the affordability of subsidised care, and regularly review the financing policies, including MediSave withdrawal limits. We will also continue to consider appeals for usage of MediSave above the withdrawal limits. Those who require further financial assistance could approach medical social workers at our public healthcare institutions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures in Place to Promote Safe Use of Park Connectors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development in the past year, what actions have been taken to promote the safe use of park connectors by users who are on foot, cyclists and PMD users, including safe and orderly adherence to the respective lane markings for users on foot and for Park Connector Network (PCN) users.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The National Parks Board (NParks) works with its stakeholders and the community to promote the safe and orderly use of park connectors (PCs).
First, NParks implements safety measures, such as installing additional lighting, speed regulating strips, and advisory signs at high usage parks and PCs. In 2018 alone, NParks installed over 2,000 advisory signs.
Second, NParks conducts outreach programmes to raise awareness on PC etiquette, including the need for users to keep left and give way to others. For example, NParks and its volunteers produced and released the \"PMDs in Our Parks\" video on social media in May 2018.
Third, NParks and the Land Transport Authority conduct joint enforcement efforts against errant Personal Mobility Device users, such as those who exceed the speed limits or ride recklessly. In 2018, 56 enforcement exercises were conducted at popular parks and PCs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on New Hawker Centre in Bukit Batok","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether the Ministry can provide an update on plans to build a new hawker centre in Bukit Batok Town, in particular, where will it be built; and (b) what is the expected date of its completion.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: My Ministry announced in 2015 that we would build a new hawker centre in Bukit Batok town by 2027. We will provide further details, such as the location and expected date of completion, when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Basis for Admission of Students into Normal (Technical), Normal (Academic) and Express Streams","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education (a) how does the Ministry decide what percentage of students are streamed into the Normal (Technical), Normal (Academic), and Express streams each year; and (b) whether the streaming system allows for the possibility that no students enter the Normal (Technical) or Normal (Academic) stream in a given year.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry sets qualifying criteria based on the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) result for the courses to ensure that students accessing each course can cope with its academic rigour and pace of learning. So, the proportion of students in Normal (Technical), Normal (Academic) and Express courses is dependent on students' performance at PSLE and their eligibility for the respective courses, and the students' choices when they are eligible for two courses.
The table below shows the placement criteria for each course and option band. The proportion of students in each course varies slightly from year to year. It is possible that in a cohort when more students meet the Express and Normal (Academic) criteria, we may end up having very few Normal (Technical) classes. This remains the case when we move to a new PSLE scoring system in 2021.
8 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education with the removal of the EM3 stream in primary schools, what have been the effects on students, teachers and parents respectively.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: In 2008, the Ministry of Education (MOE) introduced Subject-Based Banding in primary schools, in place of streaming by the entire course. This enables the child to focus on and stretch his potential in subjects that he is strong in, while building up the fundamentals in the subjects that he needs more support in.
Today, the great majority of students take up all Standard Subjects, or a combination of Standard and Foundation Subjects. We believe that this has helped raise the confidence and motivation of students, while customising education to their aptitudes and pace of learning.
There are also more opportunities for interaction among students across the different subject combinations, as a form class can have students of several subject combinations. Concerns about labelling and stigmatisation have diminished. Teachers find that students are more engaged and can better pace their lesson to suit students’ learning needs. Parents have been very supportive of Subject Based Banding.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Value of Unpaid Salaries in 2016, 2017 and 2018","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Manpower what was the value of unpaid salaries in 2016, 2017 and 2018 respectively, according to the orders made by the Employment Claims Tribunal on employers to pay owed salaries.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The amount of unpaid salaries ordered by the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) since its establishment on 1 April 2017 is shown in the table below. Taking into account that the 2017 figure is not based on the full year, the value of unpaid salaries ordered by ECT in 2018 is not significantly different from that in 2017.