[(proc text) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [5th Allotted Day]. (proc text)]
[Mdm 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":"Committee of Supply – Head W (Ministry of Transport)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [11 April 2016], (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head W of the Estimates be reduced by $100.\" – [Mr Sitoh Yih Pin]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
The Minister for Transport (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): Mdm Chair, let me first express my deepest condolences to the families of Mr Nasrulhudin Najumudin and Mr Muhammad Asyraf Ahmad Buhari. They lost their lives while working for SMRT on 22 March 2016. The thoughts and prayers of the entire transport family are with their families.
The tragedy was a massive blow to all of us. SMRT has completed its internal investigation and its findings are being reviewed by independent experts. LTA is conducting its own investigation. Statutory investigations by the Police and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) are on-going. There will be a Coroner's Inquiry in due course. Within the legal constraints, I will share what I can.
Our priorities are to establish the cause of the incident and prevent a recurrence. The investigations will ascertain whether the problem was inadequate safety procedures, or if there were human lapses in the execution of such procedures. If the investigations reveal human errors, those responsible will be held to account.
Workplace safety is the responsibility of the operator. When an industrial accident happens, MOM will usually issue a stop-work order and only allow work to resume when investigations are completed. But rail operations and maintenance have to go on. So, even as investigations are on-going, MOM, in consultation with LTA, found it prudent to issue interim safety orders to SMRT to ensure the safety of railway workers and commuters. LTA has shared the same instructions with SBST for compliance.
In addition, SMRT has set up a safety review committee with experts drawn from international transport operators. I have directed LTA to also work with SMRT to thoroughly review its safety-related procedures. Our common objective is to prevent such an accident from occurring again.
Mdm Chair, transport not only affects our productivity but also our living environment, social fabric and our quality of life. It is dynamic, constantly evolving as it shapes our life and, in turn, we re-shape it to make our life better. I appreciate the comments of Mr Sitoh Yih Pin and Mr Zaqy Mohamad on the future of transport in Singapore.
Let me share my take on this subject. I see four major drivers behind our transport's continuing evolution. First, emergence of new technology, such as driverless vehicles, with wide implications on many existing jobs. Second, introduction of new business models, such as the sharing economy and its current manifestation through Uber and Grab, which benefit commuters but are disrupting the incumbents. Third, continuing greying of our population and the need to ensure that our city is silver-friendly while promoting active ageing to add healthy years to our life. Fourth: greater urgency to protect our environment through reducing our carbon footprint.
These driving forces are already changing our transport sector in significant ways. We do not yet know how exactly the future will pan out but we can be sure that transport in, say, 2030 will be very different from today.
We use \"a car-lite Singapore\" to describe this future, but we know it is inadequate to characterise it as just about roads and cars. Transport 2030 is much more; it is also about active mobility, high quality first-and-last-mile connectivity, smart and on-demand point-to-point transport options, greater pedestrianisation, more opportunities to appreciate on foot our rich city heritage and greenery, and very much more.
It will be an exciting future. Singapore's transformation in the past 50 years has given us a solid foundation to make a quantum leap forward. Changes will be incremental but, over 15 years, we shall collectively experience a quantum leap. Actually, 2030 is not far off. Our SG50 babies will only be in Secondary school by then.
Unlike our generation, learning to drive may well be a thing of the past, let alone owning four wheels. The Japanese have already begun to observe their young's loss of interest in cars. They even coined a Japanese phrase for this phenomenon: \"kuruma banare\", meaning \"demotorisation\".
Indeed, why is there a need to own a car when you can easily summon up a driverless pod with a few strokes on your mobilephone? Private cars will likely start to go the way of horse carriages, if not in 15 years, definitely in 20 or 25 years' time. So, I agree with Mr Sitoh and Mr Zaqy Mohamad that we need to prepare Singapore, Singaporeans and our industries for this brave new world. We need to start making adjustments and mental preparations now.
Over the current term of Government, the Ministry of Transport (MOT) will progressively put forward the legislative and policy pieces to prepare us for this exciting transformation. We need to discuss what to do and which to do first. For this first Committee of Supply of mine as Minister for Transport, I wish to cover three areas.
First, how to enhance accessibility for commuters in particular, how to make it hassle-free for commuters to move from their homes to the nearest train station or bus stop? We crystallise this as First-and-Last-Mile Connectivity. We have taken some initial steps but these are not enough. Our First-and-Last-Mile Connectivity must make a quantum leap, to be among the best in the world.
Currently, many other cities, like Amsterdam and Copenhagen, do a better job than us. We must close the gap and be better, particularly because we live in the tropics with hotter and wetter weather. Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo will outline our approach on First-and-Last-Mile Connectivity and, within that framework, she will respond to the recent recommendations of Parliamentary Secretary Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim's Active Mobility Advisory Panel (AMAP).
Second, how to enhance point-to-point transport options for commuters? The sharing economy and, in particular, new business models like Grab and Uber, are benefiting commuters globally. But they are disrupting existing business models of taxi-operators, with impact on taxi-drivers, Uber, in particular, is causing havoc in many cities. Many countries have taken the wrong turn by banning Uber. We should not obstruct innovation, especially when it benefits commuters. We should be mindful of the disruption to incumbents and help incumbents make the correct adjustments. We should seek to achieve win-win for both the disrupters and the incumbents, with commuter welfare as the underpinning principle. It can be done. Later, Senior Minister of State Ng Chee Meng will outline our approach to this development.
Third, how to achieve excellence in public transport, especially in rail? This is a crucial piece if we are to become car-lite. As pointed out by Mr Sitoh and Mr Zaqy Mohamad, our current car-dominant transport model is not sustainable, given our land constraints. It needs to be replaced by one that has, as its foundation, an excellent public transport system which is reliable, convenient and smart.
Central to this vision is a reliable rail network. This has been one of my top priorities. I heard Mr Dennis Tan's comments on train faults and breakdowns. Our train workers are doubling their efforts. I meet them regularly, above-ground and underground. They, too, want our MRT to be the best. They are putting in their best. I thank them and I cheer them on. Please give them your support, too. We certainly should not unwittingly demoralise them.
Six months into the job, my sense is that we are making some improvements. Last year, trains on the MRT network travelled an average of 133,000 train-km between delays of more than five minutes. This is what we call \"mean kilometre before failure\" (MKBF), a common reliability measure widely used globally. The figure of 133,000 km is way below Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway's MKBF of 300,000 km. But it is a significant improvement of about 40% from 2014 of 93,000 km. So, in two years, we have improved from 93,000 km to 133,000 km. But 133,000 km is still below Hong Kong's 300,000 km. We want to catch up with Hong Kong and we will. We target 200,000 km this year. Performance so far has given us optimism.
Yes, our MRT did experience disruptions exceeding 30 minutes, on 14 occasions last year. This was more than Hong Kong's 12 disruptions in a year. Not as good and we are also working hard on this. I monitor this closely and I have some progress to report. The Downtown Line (DTL) has crossed 171 days of continuous service without any major disruption: 171 days, almost half a year, without any major incident. This is not a trivial achievement. For us in this trade, we know how difficult it is to achieve such a target. Half a year.
The other MRT lines are working hard to catch up. The North-South Line (NSL) has crossed the 93-day mark. This is our oldest line, nearly 30 years of age and, if there is no incident in the next seven days, NSL will cross the 100 days' mark next week. If they succeed, their success will be especially inspiring for our team, given its age.
Young or old, each time a line crosses a significant milestone, I visit the maintenance staff to thank them personally and to cheer them on; go for the next milestone. Even when they fail to cross a milestone, like the North East Line (NEL) which experienced a disruption two months ago, on the very day when they were about to cross the 100-day mark, I visited them to tell them that we appreciated their efforts, regardless. We lick our wounds, reset the clock, we press on, we work even harder. Today, NEL has crossed the 68-day mark and I look forward to welcoming them to the \"100-day Club\" next month.
What is our strategy to improve rail reliability? First, the operators are ramping up their engineering and maintenance resources. We are moving towards preventive maintenance – that is, we monitor the conditions of the assets and do the necessary maintenance before any issues arise. This requires the operators to deploy condition monitoring tools on the trains and on the tracks.
Some have already been deployed – the linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) to monitor the condition of the third rail, as well as the wheel impact load detector (WILD) to monitor the train wheels. This year, we expect to deploy even more sensors – a catenary eye system (CES) using infra-red to monitor the power system for NEL, and a rolling stock condition monitoring system (RSCMS) to collect information regarding the train systems on NSL and East-West Line(EWL). These are all very costly investments, but they are necessary.
Second, we are investing about a billion dollars in hardware replacement and upgrading. We are aggressively renewing the infrastructure of our rail network. Within two years, we would have completely replaced the sleepers and the third rail on NSL and EWL, and also upgraded their signalling system.
Third, we are forging a closer team, between LTA the designer and the train operators. We address each incident as a collective responsibility – no finger pointing, share openly and solve the problems speedily. We are tightening regulations and stepping up audits on the maintenance processes, augmenting resources where necessary to get the job done.
Fourth, we are learning from the best. LTA has set up technical advisory panels, such as for our power systems, and has overseas operators on the panels to share their expertise and experience. We are learning and benefiting from their insights. We are grateful for their generosity in sharing and advising us.
Fifth, we are reskilling and up-skilling our engineering and maintenance crew. We need a quantum leap both in the numbers and in the capabilities of our rail industry, both to up our existing maintenance standards and to cope with a rapidly expanding network. I am glad to see the Chartered Rail Engineers Scheme gaining momentum. We are setting up the Singapore Rail Academy to quicken this process. The Academy will work with the rail operators and the Institutes of Higher Learning to deepen rail engineering capabilities through training, as well as for accreditation and certification of training programmes and competencies.
In due course, we hope the Academy will also conduct R&D to contribute to the design of new systems which are easier to build, maintain and operate. Prof Cham Tao Soon has come forward, volunteered his service to spearhead this initiative. He and Mr Tan Gee Paw have been a valuable help to us. They know engineering and they are risking their reputation built up over decades of excellent work in the Civil Service. They are doing national service for the larger good. I am grateful to them and to many other seasoned engineers who have come forward to volunteer their services. We all want an MRT system which all Singaporeans can be proud of.
Even as we work hard to improve reliability, we are, in parallel, working to expand the rail capacity. Actually, the right order of things is to stabilise the system first, before expanding it. But we also have to address peak period crowding and improve connectivity. That is why we are, in parallel, adding new trains to all lines, shortening headways on NSL and EWL, extending EWL westward, DTL eastward, NEL northward, not to mention building the new Thomson-East Coast Line, while planning the new Jurong Region Line and Cross-Island Line.
I hope Members appreciate the severe pressure on the shoulders and the stress on our engineers. I can see it in their faces, though they never voice it. They are an honest, hardworking and resilient lot; they take their responsibilities seriously and stoically. These are tough guys, but I think some tender loving care from Singaporeans would be very much appreciated.
Before I leave this subject, let me add three more points. First, expanding capacity can impact reliability. Adding more trains and running them more frequently exert a heavy load on the power system during peak hours. While the additional load is within the original design capacity of the existing system, we are severely reducing the design buffer. As engineers, we know the importance of a comfortable buffer, to deal with unforeseen events, for instance, a sudden surge in demand on the rail network. I think Mr Sitoh alluded to this yesterday when he said, \"Are we biting off more than we can chew?\" I think we are, but what to do?
The solution is to upgrade the power system and build new substations. And this is what we are doing. But such an extensive upgrade on a live system will take a few years to complete. Meanwhile, we are taking a risk that it may cause more disruptions. We are deploying condition monitoring tools and techniques to help mitigate such risks, but we know the risks cannot be fully eliminated. So, please be forgiving should you experience a disruption during this very critical transition period.
Second, I want to reiterate an earlier observation. We are stepping up maintenance, we are doing major replacement works and we are expanding the system capacity. Normally, these activities should be done sequentially and in that order, but we are not. We are doing all three simultaneously. All these are happening on the ground, on a live rail system, with a small window of only three engineering hours a day. Ideally, we should provide longer continuous engineering hours and this means shorter revenue service hours. I hope commuters will allow us to open some of the MRT lines a bit later in the morning, or close them a bit earlier at night. An extra hour or two per day will make a lot of difference to our engineering and maintenance staff and help them perform better. We can run some buses to provide an alternative.
Third, we will be changing the signalling system of the NSL and EWL. This is a major engineering task. Experts from London Underground and the Taipei Metro shared with us their past experience in re-signalling which was not at all pleasant. It took them many months to get it right, with many delays and disruptions.
For example, London Underground went through two years of public unhappiness! This subject is now adding to what is keeping us awake at night. As Members may know, we will be changing the signalling system of NSL this year, followed by the EWL next year. We will do our best to try to achieve a flawless execution and we are keeping our fingers crossed. I seek Singaporeans' understanding and moral support.
The rail network is the backbone of our public transport system. We have invested more than $30 billion over the last 15 years and we will be investing even more in the next 15. Besides new lines, we are upgrading existing lines, as described earlier. These works cover trains, tracks, signalling systems and also MRT stations. For example, work will start later this year to upgrade 17 MRT stations, including Er Dr Lee Bee Wah's Khatib station. Following the upgrade, Er Dr Lee's residents will have more standing room and more elderly-friendly seats at the platform. We will also look at expanding bicycle parking. LTA will also look into her other suggestions as we continue refreshing our older stations.
Besides trains, our rail network must be complemented by a good and reliable bus network. We have made significant progress in recent years to increase capacity, improve reliability and enhance service levels. We have introduced new bus services and all bus services will run at shorter intervals. Transition to the bus contracting model is also progressing smoothly. LTA will be calling the third tender package very soon.
Under the Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP), we have added 800 buses, and will add another 200 by the end of next year. But as noted by Mr Melvin Yong, we also need a few thousand more bus captains to join the industry. He made several suggestions. Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo chairs the Public Transport Tripartite Committee (PTTC), which seeks to professionalise the bus industry, so as to attract more Singaporeans into the sector. The Committee will share details of their efforts in the next few months.
Mr Ong Teng Koon asked about the use of electric buses. It is a promising idea, though the current economics still do not make it viable. But I share his optimism that technological progress and especially in bus battery, will make electric buses viable in due course. Therefore, we are closely watching this development. Another promising idea is self-driving vehicles, as noted by Mr Png Eng Huat. Self-driving technology is not yet ready for mass deployment and may be 10-15 years away, depending on the pace of public acceptance. But it is just a matter of time before such vehicles can be deployed on public roads, whether for private or public transport.
As I outlined earlier, a fleet of self-driving vehicles plying the neighbourhood will greatly enhance our first-and-last mile connectivity. We are doing several trials and want Singapore to be amongst the leaders in such concepts. Yesterday, Mr Zaqy Mohamad mentioned nuTonomy. It is making a \"big bet on Singapore\", according to its COO. They hope to see Singapore amongst the world's first to commercially deploy self-driving vehicles. If they or their rivals succeed, it will impact existing taxi drivers. That is why we need to help incumbents prepare to cope with these changes.
Mdm Chair, when Founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew officiated the opening of the MRT system in 1988, he said, \"We only have a limited amount of land on which to house our people, build factories, hospitals, roads, schools and train the SAF. Therefore, we decided to give top priority to investments in public transport and to put private transport in second place. This means that we must put the MRT to optimal use and the bus services must dovetail and complement the MRT. We must also keep improving the bus and taxi services and keep the growth of cars to moderate levels.\" This principle has guided our transport strategy ever since.
At SG51, it is even clearer that a car-dominant model cannot underpin Singapore's next phase of development. We need to facilitate new transport technology, change mind-sets and go car-lite. Our public transport must make a quantum leap. We will, therefore, be relentless in pursuing rail excellence, improving our bus service and instituting a future-friendly regulatory and policy framework. We must allow various forms of point-to-point mobility to flourish in Singapore.
At the same time, we must rethink and adjust existing car and car parking policies. We already house one million vehicles. Our vehicle population is nearing its peak. Many other cities are making adjustments. London, Paris and many Japanese cities have introduced car-free days and reduced car parking norms. These are measures to help reset their motorists' attitude towards cars. We should gradually adjust, too.
In addition, we want Singaporeans to come to cherish public transport as an indispensable part of their daily lives. The recent Bus Carnival was attended by 140,000 Singaporeans. LTA will continue to forge among Singaporeans this sense of ownership and pride in our public buses. And I will make sure that this pride extends to our MRT, too. We cannot achieve this overnight. We need some more time but we will get there, during this term of Government. Of this, I am confident.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Mdm Chair, can I cover both cuts?
The Chairman: Yes, you have two cuts. Please take them together.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan: To promote a car-lite Singapore, the Government should provide better public transport for residents so that they can get to office and back home without the need to drive.
Currently, despite the high costs of driving to work, many people still grit their teeth, bear the ERP charges and bear the expensive parking charges because they have limited options of getting to office and back home.
One option is to provide better connectivity from the private estates to the nearest MRT stations. Within my constituency, I have many residents living in the condominiums at Meyer, Amber, Haig Road and Tanjong Rhu. Many of them drive to work daily. If they have a better option of a bus service to the nearest MRT station, I am confident that many of these drivers will leave their cars behind and take public transport to work.
During my dialogues with residents, many of them have requested for a shuttle bus service to bring them to the nearest MRT station during the morning and evening peak hours. Their feedback is that the train station is not that far off, about 1.5 to two kilometres away, but the weather in Singapore is too hot and too humid for them to walk too long a distance to the nearest MRT station. Imagine if we are able to persuade 20% to 30% of these drivers to leave their cars behind and take public transport to work because it is just as convenient and less expensive than their cars.
With the new bus model system, would LTA consider running shuttle buses during peak hours from MRT stations to and from the private estates? If the bus journey is a round-trip service, this would take a bus only about 15 to 20 minutes to make one round trip and pick up the next batch of commuters. This will strongly encourage commuters who used to drive, to leave their cars at home and use public transport as a choice mode of travel. So, Minister, this will alleviate road congestion during peak hours and will be environmentally friendlier.
May I also appeal to the Minister for LTA to also consider a pilot project to provide bicycles for rental at some private estates to allow residents to cycle to the MRT station? Any cyclist can pick up a bicycle near their home, ride to the nearest MRT station and park the bicycle there. In the evening, they can pick up any bicycle and ride home and park at the bicycle station near their homes. This will be akin to the bicycle rental scheme available in cities like London, Paris and Taipei. If these cities can do so, I believe Singapore can do so, too. May I urge MOT to consider this scheme?
Elderly residents are more vulnerable when travelling along public roads. As there are more and more elderly citizens, LTA should design the public roads and supporting amenities to facilitate travel for these elderly residents.
There should be more lifts for pedestrian overhead bridges, and where such lifts are not feasible, signalised crossing should be provided. If there is proper coordination and implementation of the green wave for vehicles, traffic speeds will not be adversely affected as all traffic lights along the same stretch of road would be green or red at the same time.
I had, over the past few years, appealed to MOT for a lift to be built at the pedestrian overhead bridge at the Tanjong Rhu area to allow the elderly residents to cross the road safely. Because Tanjong Rhu is an old estate, it has a high proportion of elderly residents. It does pain me to see the elderly struggling to climb the high pedestrian overhead bridge as they head towards the market. Although there is a ramp, none of the elderly wants to use it because it is too long a distance to climb and, hence, has become a white elephant.
Hence, I appeal to the compassion of MOT and LTA officers to reconsider having a lift at the pedestrian overhead bridge or, alternatively, to consider a signalised traffic crossing. If the signalised crossing is aligned to the traffic lights at the next main road junction, it will not impede traffic flow since the green wave conditions will allow traffic to flow smoothly at the same time.
The interest of the elderly residents should always be paramount when reviewing policies and I know that the Minister for Transport thinks in the same manner.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Chairperson, our public transport system will not be truly public until it is fully friendly to Singaporeans with disabilities and I would like to make a few suggestions in this regard.
Firstly, do we have enough lifts at our MRT and LRT stations? Currently, there is at most one lift per path. These lifts are typically small and accommodate up to two wheeled mobility devices. With an ageing population, there will be more pressure on these lifts. A single lift also means a single point of failure. The priority queue system by itself cannot address all these points. Can MOT look into building at least two lifts for all stations as a long-term goal?
Secondly, on taxis. SMRT, Comfort and other firms now provide some taxis that can ferry wheelchairs. However, the fare they charge is generally at least $50 per trip. This is a burden to wheelchair users with modest means who need to travel regularly to locations less accessible by public transport.
While transport allowance schemes are in place and some VWOs have programmes in place to address this, these are not always available to those in need. Could MOT work with taxi companies to find ways to address the needs of this group, a group which will grow as the population ages?
Lastly, can we do more to ensure safety for wheelchair users on our public buses? The current practice on buses is just to place the wheelchair rear-facing, back against the vertical wall and apply the brakes. This will not ensure the safety of both the wheelchair user and, other passengers who might be injured by a flying wheelchair, so to speak, should an accident occur. There is a worldwide standard known as the Wheelchair Tie-Down and Occupant Restraint System (WTORS). WTORS defines different securement systems including the four-point tie-down system.
Vehicles provided by some VWOs to ferry wheelchair users already use the four-point tie-down system today. I propose that our public buses be required to conform to international standards to ensure safety. Some of the new buses on display have a seat belt system to improve safety but this is still below international safety standards like WTORS.
Mr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong): Mdm Chair, I am heartened by the Minister's determination to make the First-and-Last Mile Connectivity in our transport system the best in the world, especially with the sheltered walkways. Singaporeans welcome the additional sheltered walkways. However, my residents and myself have identified some gaps between the shelters which make the walk less pleasant. I hope the Minister can help to plug the gaps.
Firstly, different hospitals enjoy different levels of protection from sheltered walkways. While I am glad that the Minister, in response to my Parliamentary Question last month, agreed to build a covered walkway from Little India MRT station to KK Women's and Children's Hospital, what about Changi General Hospital? Simei MRT station is only about 500 metres away from the Changi General Hospital but there is no covered walkway linking the two. This is also the case at Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, which is about 800 metres away from Yishun MRT station on a straight line basis.
Are there plans to connect these hospitals to MRT stations with sheltered walkways? I hope MOT has a comprehensive plan to build covered walkways for existing public hospitals. I know that new hospitals are all linked to the nearest MRT station by covered walkways. Elderly patients or those who are ill and need to make frequent visits to the hospitals without cars, as well as hospital staff, will greatly appreciate being able to travel to hospitals in comfort instead of having to brave the rain or broiling sun.
Secondly, because of how the Public Service demarcates areas of responsibilities, no one takes care of building shelters on walking pathways between HDB blocks and amenities, such as schools. These are the neglected zones. HDB does not want to do it because the pedestrian paths are under the jurisdiction of LTA. LTA is also unwilling to because it is only mandated to build sheltered walkways that connect amenities and schools to bus stops and MRT stations and not HDB blocks.
I would like to cite Jurong Primary School as an example where LTA has kindly built a sheltered walkway from the school to the nearest bus stop. However, from the school to the nearest HDB block at Block 310, Jurong East Street 32, is unsheltered, despite repeated requests from my residents. So, if it rains, children from the schools taking public buses will be dry while children walking home via Block 310 will get wet.
I am sure many constituencies also face similar problems. I hope that LTA can take a holistic view when building sheltered walkways, to think about the needs of the residents in totality and not in terms of which zones they are overseeing.
Thirdly, I hope that LTA can encourage building owners to build their own covered walkways to link with those built by LTA. Again, these are also neglected zones which do not fall under anybody's jurisdiction. One example which constitutes a poor last-mile connection is the Civil Service Club at Bukit Batok. I want to state upfront this Civil Service Club at Bukit Batok is not under the jurisdiction of Bukit Batok. It is under the jurisdiction of Bukit Gombak. I am not raising this issue because of the impending Bukit Gombak by-election, I must declare that.
LTA has kindly built a sheltered walkway 150 metres away from the nearest bus stop to the side gate of this Club. But from the side gate, there is a short gap of about 10-20 metres, not covered, before it reaches the sheltered staircase leading to the main building. For some reason, the Civil Service Club is not covering this path with a shelter. In the event of a heavy downpour, a pedestrian can stay nice and dry for 150 metres and will get drenched before he reaches the Club. We have marginally missed the last-mile connection and wasted the benefits of the 150-metre shelter. Once again, I hope LTA will work with the respective building owners to enhance the last-mile connectivity.
Mr Lee Yi Shyan (East Coast): Mdm Chair, the Ministry is investing heavily in enhancing our public transport infrastructure. By 2030, there will be an MRT station within a five-minute walk from any location in the central area and eight in 10 households will be within a 10-minute walk of a station. By then, three out of four commuters will travel by public transport daily.
Building transport infrastructure is a long-term undertaking. I applaud the Ministry's focus on the long-term needs of Singapore even as it beefs up our current capacity.
Compared to other leading cities in the world, however, we do not seem to have as comprehensive a last-mile connectivity as other cities do. So, in the spirit of contributing to a world-class transport system, let me mention a few examples.
In Canada, they have built an underground city named RESO right in downtown Montreal. RESO consists of 32 km of tunnels spreading over a 12-sq km area. By comparison, our Orchard Road shopping belt is only 2.2 km long. The underground city includes 60 residential and commercial complexes linking hotels, shopping malls, banks, corporate headquarters, museums, university buildings, seven metro stations, two commuter train stations and the Bell Centre hockey arena. This is equivalent to an indoor stadium of 21,000 seats.
There are more than 120 exterior access points to this underground city. Nearly 500,000 people use the underground city per day, especially to escape Montreal's harsh winters.
In another Canadian city, Toronto, there is an elaborate Downtown Underground Pedestrian Walkway called PATH. It claims to be the world's largest, continuous underground shopping complex with 30 km of shopping arcades.
PATH has approximately 1,200 shops and services, employing 5,000 people. Commuters can access more than 50 buildings and office towers, 20 parking garages, six subway stations, two major departmental stores, eight major hotels and a railway terminal. Commuters can also get to some of Toronto's major tourist attractions, such as the Hockey Hall, Roy Thomson Hall, the Air Canada Centre, Rogers Centre and the CN Tower.
Closer home, Japanese cities show how underground space development can be maximised. According to Japan Times, Tokyo has approximately 63,000 underground areas, 40% of which are underground paths, subway systems and shopping complexes. The eight largest underground shopping areas in the capital add up to about 214,000 square meters – about the same as having five Tokyo Stadiums buried underground.
One could walk from the Otemachi station to Higashi-ginza station, all via underground over a 4.05-kilometre walkway. This is about the walking distance between our Newton station and City Hall station in Singapore.
For those of us who have travelled to Hong Kong and Taipei, we also see similar underground walkway infrastructure which render the cities walkable.
In Singapore, most of our efforts to improve last-mile connectivity have been focused on sheltered linkways. For instance, in 2013, MOT announced the \"Walk2Ride\" initiative to build 200 km worth of linkways throughout the island. More recently, MOT has reaffirmed its vision to enhance our last-mile connectivity to promote \"walking, cycling, and riding public transport\" as a way of life.
Beyond sheltered linkways, we have heard little about our plans to build more underground spaces and walkways, especially in the City Core areas. Building owners often cite cost and technical challenges as key deterrents. Some also believe that the laws governing subterranean development can be further enhanced to catalyse new investments.
Would the Ministry, in consideration of the larger and long-term good for Singapore and as the lead agency responsible for last-mile connectivity, champion Singapore's underground space developments, especially in the City Core area? Would the Ministry provide an update on how the newly-amended State Land Act and Land Acquisition Act would facilitate such a lead role MOT might play?
Finally, I would also add that MOT's investments in last-mile infrastructure would have a profound and positive impact on Singaporeans' health and well-being. Walking more on a daily basis could help many average Singaporeans to reduce the risk of obesity, diabetes and other heart-related diseases.
Miss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): In its recommendations to the Ministry last month, AMAP recommended that cyclists and users of personal mobility devices (PMDs) be allowed on footpaths. While this recommendation will certainly help to reduce the risks that cyclists face on the road, the risk for pedestrians also increases.
In reality, a number of cyclists are already riding on footpaths and there are many accounts of cyclists and users of PMDs who do not give way to pedestrians nor stop when approaching bus stops or crowded areas like neighbourhood centres and markets. While residents understand the need to legalise PMDs on footpaths, I hope that we can continue to educate our cyclists on good practices, such as dismounting in crowded places.
Madam, I support cycling as a green and healthy mode of transport but I feel that they should be allotted a dedicated lane where there might be high cycling and pedestrian traffic, such as the last mile to the MRT stations. It would take additional planning and investments to do this but I do think it will be money well-spent. Pedestrians, especially the elderly and young children, should not be put at risk for the convenience of cyclists and users of PMDs.
I would also like to ask the Ministry how it intends to enforce speed limits, which the Panel recommended at 15 kilometres per hour (km/hr) on footpaths and 25 km/hr on cycling and shared paths.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Chairperson, recently, AMAP made its recommendations regarding the use of bicycles and mobility devices. It recommended that bicycles and PMDs should be allowed on footpaths. Although it is not presently allowed, we often see bicycles on footpaths. If introduced, steps should be taken to ensure that cyclists use the footpaths in accordance with any new rules and also with good practices, such as giving way and keeping left.
I agree with the recommendations for speed limits, use of helmet and use of standard bicycle lights. Bicycle lights are important safety devices, especially in the evenings. It is often difficult for motorists to spot a cyclist riding at night without any lights until one is almost caught up with the cyclist. Whether it is bicycle lights, use of helmet or cycling on footpaths and any new measures which the Ministry should choose to adopt, I feel that if there is no effective public education and effective enforcement, especially early on after the introduction of the new measures, such measures will never be adopted by many cyclists. I would also like to suggest that for reasons of safety, there should be a rule for keeping left, whether on footpaths, connectors or on the roads.
Next, personal mobility aids (PMAs). An example of PMA is the motorised device used by the elderly or people with some form of mobility constraints. But for the suggested ban on the use of PMAs on roads to work effectively and reasonably, there must be user-friendly pavements along every road; otherwise, such a ban will not be practical or fair. PMDs include electric skate scooters and kick scooters. Such scooters are regularly seen on the roads now. Again, public education, coupled with effective enforcement, will be important.
On electric bicycles (e-bikes), I agree with the Panel's recommendations regarding maximum weight of 20 kg, maximum speed of 25 km/h and the devices' width. In fact, with these safety measures, it may be suitable to let e-bikes to be used on park connectors. We can often see people with illegally modified e-bikes on the roads or connectors. Presently, the onus is on the manufacturers to apply to the LTA for their e-bikes to be authorised by the LTA. However, unauthorised e-bikes are still available for sale. Many e-bikes which are in use are not authorised models. Would the Ministry consider only allowing authorised e-bikes to be sold in Singapore?
In respect of the existing unauthorised e-bikes which may technically comply with the new proposed rules, may I suggest that the Ministry consider, at least on a one-off basis, to allow owners of such e-bikes to apply directly for authorisation and registration? It would be harsh to expect them to stop the use of their bikes when they can comply with the new rules. On the issue of registration of e-bikes, I think this is a good method of ensuring bike owners use their e-bikes responsibly.
The Panel has also recommended against allowing e-bikes which are powered by throttle. I have received feedback that throttle may be more suitable for some users, such as the elderly, as they do not need some strength to paddle and kick in the electric power required in current authorised models. Control of speed by throttle is also more precise. As long as the maximum speed of the bike is limited, the throttle does not make the bike unsafe. Currently, PMAs, or even PMDs like e-scooters, are powered by technology which is similar to throttle. But, unlike e-bikes, safety may not be an issue.
In conclusion, the Panel has made many good recommendations. However, whatever measures adopted may only work if there is sufficient public education and effective enforcement, especially at the onset. There must be sufficient resources and the willingness for all authorities responsible for enforcing the use of bicycles on roads, cycling paths, footpaths and connectors to make the proposed new cycling rules work.
Last but not least, may I compliment the good efforts and determination of members of the Panel led by Parliamentary Secretary Assoc Prof Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim. The ball is now in the Ministry's court.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Chair, when I read about AMAP's recommendations to MOT in March, I was very worried about the recommendation that cyclists and users of PMDs share footpaths with pedestrians. I have heard of many cases of residents who had bad experiences with errant cyclists.
Of course, I support cycling as a healthy activity and an environmentally responsible way of getting around. Unfortunately, it is difficult to enforce responsible cycling behaviour and it is almost impossible to get errant cyclists to take on responsibility for their victims, unlike in traffic accidents. They are not licensed. Neither are their bicycles. They do not even take the Highway Code. There is no recourse for the victim and also no proper legal framework for insurance claims or resolution of disputes.
Vulnerable pedestrians, such as the elderly and young children, will face a higher risk from cyclists once they start sharing footpaths. I urge the Ministry to reconsider building separate dedicated paths for bicycles − in Mandarin − \"请三思\".
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mdm Chairperson, three years ago, I spoke on increasing cycling and pedestrian safety in this House. I rise to make the same call in light of the recommendations of AMAP and the frequency of feedback from residents, especially elderly residents, about accidents and near-accidents between cyclists and pedestrians on footpaths, zebra crossings and pedestrian crossings and even bus stops.
I would like to ask the Ministry, as it assesses the recommendations of AMAP, to also look at how such rules can be enforced in light of the demographic shifts taking place in our society, with more elderly and senior citizens using walkways and footpaths.
Just a few weeks ago, I stood near the junction of Bedok Reservoir Road and Jalan Eunos to assess the flow and egress of residents' vehicles from Bedok Reservoir Road and their complaints of cyclists who dashed across the zebra crossing to catch the flashing \"Green Man\" across the Jalan Eunos pedestrian crossing. In the hour or so I was at the junction, not a single cyclist, either a foreign worker, Singaporean or PR, stopped to dismount from their bicycle. Rather, there were quite a few glares from drivers towards cyclists and vice versa. Members may also have had residents complaining about cyclists who zipped by just as they were disembarking from buses at bus stops.
Mdm Chairperson, while a code of conduct to alter behaviour is a start, I am concerned that it will not go far enough even with an intense educational effort that would be required to compel a fundamental change of behaviour on the part of errant cyclists. I believe it must be compulsory for cyclists who use footpaths and pedestrian crossings or who are near bus stops to dismount from their bicycles and walk across these areas which are more prone to accidents and heavy pedestrian traffic.
In practice, the Ministry could consider how the stop line works for drivers in the US. Regardless whether there is traffic or not, every driver stops at the stop line or risks a fine. Likewise, we should implement a dismount-and-push rule for cyclists at critical areas and enforce it. In view of our crowded shared spaces during peak hours, such a clear rule is likely to make our footpaths, bus stops and pedestrian crossings safer, especially for our elderly.
Mr Ang Wei Neng: Mdm Chair, many Singaporeans that I spoke to supported most of the recommendations of AMAP. However, the devil lies in the details. In particular, who will be enforcing the rules and code of conduct governing the use of PMDs and bicycles on footpaths and cycling paths? Will MOT engage traffic wardens or even residents to enforce the rules and the codes of conduct? What will be the penalty if cyclists or persons using PMDs do not follow the rules?
Next, I would like to turn my attention to e-bikes. I wholeheartedly support the registration of e-bikes. It is important that retailers only sell LTA's approved e-bikes and facilitate the registration of e-bikes as they are sold. I trust that LTA will set up a system to make registration of e-bikes a seamless process. LTA may also want to consider mandating the e-bike user to pass an abridged Highway Code for the safety of e-bike users, pedestrians and other road users.
What about existing e-bikes? How would LTA mandate existing e-bike users to register? Would they be given a timeframe to register? What are the enforcement measures to deter e-bike users from using the pedestrian pathways or bicycle paths?
While the recommendations of AMAP are good, there remain many unanswered questions. I hope that the Senior Minister of State for Transport Mrs Josephine Teo will share with us the details of its implementation.
Mr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm chair, the use of PMDs is fast gaining popularity in Singapore. AMAP has issued a list of recommendations on the rules and code of conduct expected of cyclists and PMD users. I agree that it is more important that they behave in a safe and considerate manner rather than focus on having more enforcement.
It was recommended that e-bikes should be allowed on cycling paths and shared paths, but at a speed limit. E-bikes are also allowed on roads. The Panel also recommends that the Government consider registering e-bikes to facilitate identification and enforcement against errant riders.
However, illegally modified e-bikes may have more powerful motors and some even have throttles installed. Some may even go up to the same speed as motorcycles. As such, they are a potential danger on the roads and shared paths.
Consequently, it is proposed that we increase the fine for first-time offenders using or selling non-compliant e-bikes. Repeat offenders may be charged in Court and have their e-bikes seized. Likewise, retailers found to continue selling non-compliant e-bikes or workshop operators modifying them illegally will be charged in Court.
The number of offences involving the use of non-compliant e-bikes has increased significantly to over 1,000 notices in 2015. We also hear of incidents involving e-bikes and other vehicles on the roads, or with pedestrians. Besides educating e-bike users to exercise caution, there should also be stricter enforcement on illegal modifications and sale of unapproved models.
I hope that when LTA engages retailers and workshops to update them on the changes in the technical requirements and penalties for not conforming, they should also consider involving them in educating buyers on safe riding.
Furthermore, in their education and enforcement efforts, LTA should also cover e-bike rental operators or delivery companies who issue employees the use of company owned e-bikes, even though these may not be as prevalent at this point in time. I hope that we also anticipate and address situations where dormitory owners may rent out e-bikes for their residents or other commercial users —
The Chairman: Mr Ang, please conclude your speech, your time is up.
Mr Ang Hin Kee: Furthermore, will we also consider banning e-bikes on the expressway?
The Minister of State for Transport (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mdm Chair, I thank the Members for their comments and suggestions.
I will expand on a key theme in MOT's COS debate this year – that of enhancing accessibility for commuters, in particular, our plans to make it hassle-free for commuters to move from their homes to the nearest train station or bus stop. As Minister Khaw described earlier, we crystallise these efforts as First-and-Last-Mile Connectivity (FLMC).
Members of the House would already be aware of MOT's plans to double our rail network and add more than 100 new MRT stations across the island in the next 15 years. This will bring our MRT network much closer to where Singaporeans work and live. In around five years, no matter where you are in the city area, a train station will only be five minutes away. By 2030, eight in 10 residents all over Singapore will be within a 10-minute walk of a train station.
The expanded rail network will be much more beneficial if we also improve their accessibility to commuters. We share the same belief, as members like Mr Sitoh Yih Pin and Mr Ang Wei Neng, that there has been progress on FLMC and more is achievable.
Our goal is for Singapore to make a quantum leap, to be among the best in the world. To get to where we envision Singapore, we must close the gap with cities like Amsterdam and Copenhagen and aim to do better, particularly because we live in the tropics with hotter, wetter, more humid weather.
I will outline our approach on FLMC and, within that framework, respond to the recent recommendations of Parliamentary Secretary Muhammad Faishal's AMAP.
In the last five years, the Government has committed nearly $1 billion to improve FLMC for commuters. In the next few years, every resident will be able to reap the benefits of the upcoming FLMC improvements in their neighbourhoods. We want everyone, including the less mobile like our seniors and persons with disabilities, to be able to get to their nearby MRT station or bus interchange comfortably, conveniently and safely, whether it is by walking, cycling or using PMD.
Walking will become more comfortable. By 2018, every MRT and LRT station will be connected by sheltered walkways to nearby schools, healthcare facilities and public amenities. FLMC considerations are fully integrated into the design and construction of new stations. For example: (a) DTL 2 stations will be served by 13 km of sheltered walkways; and (b) DTL 3 stations will go slightly further; they will be served by 16 km of sheltered walkways.
There are 56 km of sheltered walkways today. So, if you add those 56 km to what DTLs 2 and 3 will have – we are talking about 85 km – that is one end of Singapore to the other and back. Existing stations will be fitted out under LTA's Walk2Ride programme.
So far, we already have sheltered walkways for about 40% of all MRT stations across Singapore and more will follow. Beyond the immediate vicinity of train stations, LTA will work with other stakeholders to make our towns more walkable.
For example, HDB and Town Councils co-share the responsibility of improving the walking experience within towns with LTA. They will follow up on suggestions like those of Mr Ang Wei Neng, for more covered walkways to link HDB blocks to nearby amenities.
Mr Ang also suggested that LTA build covered walkways from MRT stations to nearby hospitals, in particular, Changi General Hospital and Khoo Teck Puat Hospital. As Members know, under our Walk2Ride framework, LTA gives priority to connecting hospitals within 400 metres of MRT stations. And why 400 metres? Because this is a distance most commuters are willing to cover on foot.
The planned walkway from Changi General Hospital to Simei MRT station will be completed by 2017. However, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital is about 700 metres away from Yishun MRT station, and a little bit more, if we consider the actual walking route. At such a distance, commuters tend to prefer a bus transfer. Nonetheless, we will study the feasibility of a sheltered walkway later. Meanwhile, the free shuttle buses, as well as public feeder buses, will continue to serve commuters.
There will be more direct routes and options for walking. Both Mr Ang and Mr Sitoh have noted that some walkways can be circuitous and add many minutes to the walk. I agree with them fully that more direct routes will make walking a more attractive option for commuters.
Now, sometimes, large plots of privately-owned land and buildings can get in the way of a more direct walking route. But thanks to the support of our colleagues in MND and URA, private developers will be required to submit a Walking and Cycling Plan when they apply for URA's planning approval. Essentially, this plan will require developers to propose how they would design their buildings to provide safe and convenient access and infrastructure for pedestrians, as well as cyclists. LTA and URA will share more details shortly.
Mr Ang also asked whether we could encourage building owners to build or link up their covered walkways to those built by the Government. LTA already does so, although it remains the building owners' prerogative to decide.
Similarly, we are trying to connect our expanding transport network to more buildings via underground links, as suggested by Mr Lee Yi Shyan. I must thank Mr Lee for sharing many interesting examples with us and also for reminding Members of the health benefits of walking.
In fact, our plans include elevated off-road pedestrian walkways, such as those linking the twin towers of Ng Teng Fong Hospital to the nearby Jurong East station and adjacent shopping malls. I recently took a short but enjoyable walk there. I think it is called J-Walk, but it is entirely legal.
The linkways make very good sense, given our local weather, and we should have more. Minister Lawrence Wong has recently explained the approach which MND and MOT will jointly implement, which most likely involves further legislative change.
URA is the lead agency working with LTA and there is already an underground masterplan which includes the central area underground pedestrian network.
Let me now move on to talking about an inclusive transport system for the less mobile. They are an important group of commuters that we must take care of, either because they are less mobile by age or disability. Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Leon Perera spoke about their needs, as did Ms Chia Yong Yong during the Budget debate.
Today, all MRT stations and bus interchanges offer barrier-free access. Almost all bus stops and buses are barrier-free as well.
As part of the Government's Action Plan for Successful Ageing, LTA is putting in more seats at new MRT stations for seniors to rest. And, indeed, we are considering equipping new stations with two sets of lifts each – that is something that Mr Leon Perera asked about. LTA will also build signalised pedestrian crossings, rather than overhead bridges or underpasses, where possible, as the elderly and persons with disabilities do find it physically less taxing to use signalised pedestrian crossings.
LTA is looking at different standards for wheelchair users, including Wheelchair Tie-down and Occupant Restraint Systems (WTORS). Where there are overhead bridges, the Government has a programme to install lifts at frequently-used ones, so that the less mobile can still cross the roads with minimal difficulty.
LTA is currently installing lifts at 41 overhead bridges, prioritising the bridges near places frequented by the elderly or disabled. This includes transport hubs, healthcare institutions, welfare homes, homes for the aged and schools for special needs children. We will expand this programme to about 50 more bridges.
I am sympathetic to Mr Lim Biow Chuan's appeals for a lift to be built at a specific overhead bridge and I commend his diligence as the Member of Parliament. As Mr Lim knows, the overhead bridge is already fitted with a ramp. Given our need to provide barrier-free access to as many bridges as possible, we have to focus on bridges that do not yet have any form of barrier-free access. I seek his understanding as there are residents in every estate who are waiting for such lifts to be installed. We will study the possibility of a signalised pedestrian crossing; the primary consideration being the safety of pedestrians, especially seniors.
Moving on to feeder buses. Besides walking, many train commuters use feeder buses to get to the MRT stations. Today, FLMCs via some 64 feeder bus services are generally good. Most residents, including those living in private estates, have a bus stop within a five-minute walk.
To encourage more people from private estates to take public transport, Mr Lim Biow Chuan suggested providing peak hour shuttle bus services to connect MRT stations and private estates. We are open to providing public buses, especially if it is assessed that ridership will reach a certain minimum level. There should be reasonable cost recovery; otherwise, the service will not be well used and the resources should be re-deployed to areas where more residents can be served. This is a fair approach to assessing the regular requests for bus services and LTA can work with Mr Lim and other advisers to make the necessary assessments.
So far, Madam, I have spoken on what we are doing for pedestrians. This is an important priority for us because almost every public transport user would need to walk at some point in their journey. But more and more Singaporeans are making their connections to the public transport network or getting around their neighbourhood in another way – by cycling and using PMDs. This is a small, but rapidly expanding group. Their profile is quite diverse, ranging from neighbourhood \"uncles\" and \"aunties\", to students going to school and parents sending their kids to and from childcare.
As many Members would be aware, we are building dedicated intra-town cycling networks for every HDB town as quickly as we can.
Today, residents in Tampines, Sembawang, Pasir Ris, Changi-Simei and Yishun are already enjoying their completed networks. We will build cycling networks in 11 more towns over the next five years.
In particular, Ang Mo Kio will be a demonstration project as we test out additional infrastructure, such as seamless cycling and walking corridors below the MRT viaduct. If these experiments work well, we can replicate them in other towns.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan also suggested providing bike-sharing services to connect MRT stations and private estates. We are, indeed, keen to test out how bike-sharing can help improve first-and-last-mile connections. We will pilot bike-sharing services in the Jurong Lake District next year, learn from this pilot and see how we can bring it to other residential areas.
As Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Miss Cheng Li Hui noted, dedicated cycling paths are really the most ideal and safest option for cyclists and pedestrians. So, I fully share their concerns for pedestrians, especially seniors. But the reality is that we have limited land and much of Singapore which the public regularly accesses is already quite built-up. It is, therefore, not realistic to build dedicated cycling paths everywhere.
For cycling and use of PMDs to become viable first-and-last-mile options soon, rather than far into the future, we need an environment and culture where pedestrians and cyclists, as well as users of PMDs, are willing and able to share space.
To consult the public on how we can foster such an environment and culture, we set up AMAP in July last year, and the members were drawn from a broad spectrum of society and were led by Parliamentary Secretary Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim, my former MOT colleague, who remains very passionate about active mobility. The Panel submitted its report to the Government last month. Mr Gan reminded us: \"请三思\". There is another phrase thereafter: \"而后行\". So, think thrice but, after that, take action.
I am pleased to share that the Government will accept the Panel's recommendations in full. I commend and thank the Panel for their detailed work and well-considered recommendations. They have taken in as many views as possible and made some very difficult trade-offs. Overall, the recommendations are fair and balanced, with sensible rules and guidelines to ensure the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and users of PMDs alike.
These new rules will mean that bicycles and PMDs like kick-scooters, e-scooters, electric unicycles and hoverboards, can be used on footpaths, shared paths and cycling paths. We will, however, not allow power-assisted bicycles, or e-bikes, on footpaths, because their nature and use tend to pose a higher safety risk to other path users.
These new rules significantly improve the mobility options for everyone. Our seniors and persons with disabilities will find it easier to get around their neighbourhoods using motorised wheelchairs or mobility scooters. Students will find it safer to cycle to school; parents have more peace of mind. Families cycling to town centres for their daily activities or to catch a train will also be safer.
On the other hand, we fully recognise the safety concerns of pedestrians in sharing the footpaths with faster moving users, as pointed out by Mr Gan, Miss Cheng and Mr Dennis Tan. That is why the Panel had also proposed a set of rules and code of conduct and policies on speed limits and maximum weight and size of permissible devices. Education and enforcement will also be important, as many Members have pointed out. Let me outline our broad plans.
First, on education – how do we foster a culture of safety and consideration for others? The first thing we will do is to launch a nation-wide Active Mobility campaign this April to raise awareness about the proposed policies, rules and code of conduct. Through a mix of outdoor, online and printed media, we will explain the new policies and rules and their rationale. We will also encourage cyclists and users of PMDs to pledge their commitment to riding safely on footpaths, shared paths and cycling paths through various activities.
This will be supplemented by more in-depth education on safe cycling through a new Cyclist Education Programme. Participants will be taught how to be safe and considerate around others, how to use cycling infrastructure properly and practise what they have learnt. The programme will be launched in May and will be progressively rolled out in schools, community centres and foreign worker dormitories.
Third, a shift in culture is a shared responsibility. To change habits and evolve new ones, to contribute to a culture where all users of shared paths conduct themselves with consideration for others, we need the involvement and ownership of the community. This is the only way. I agree with Mr Ang that it is important to cast the net wide when engaging these partners. LTA will partner community interest groups, grassroots organisations, retailers of bicycles and PMDs and others to help spread key education messages in their respective communities.
In particular, we will work with the grassroots to set up volunteer Active Mobility Patrols. This is modelled after the cycling warden programme that has been successfully implemented in Tampines. Some of you from Tampines GRC may already know Mr Steven Yeo. He is a long-time volunteer cycling warden and he believes strongly in the role of education to change behaviour. It has taken 10 years to develop this sharing culture in Tampines, but he feels that the end result is fulfilling. Cyclists in Tampines have become more considerate and the most encouraging indicator is that they maintain safe cycling habits even when the wardens are not around.
Moving on to enforcement and how we step up deterrence, cyclists and PMD users should always care for and give way to pedestrians, who are gracious in sharing the space with them. Just like how cyclists do not wish to be endangered by motorists on the road, they should spare a thought for pedestrians and avoid being a menace on footpaths.
The Government will step up enforcement against reckless cyclists and users of PMDs. LTA will set up a dedicated enforcement team and will join the Traffic Police on joint enforcement exercises at hotspots. NParks will also play their part by conducting targeted enforcement in parks and park connectors. We will also increase penalties for stronger deterrence against reckless behaviour.
Miss Cheng asked how we will be enforcing the speed limits on footpaths and cycling paths. It is not practical to station enforcement officers at every corner – I think we all know that – nor should we be overly rigid by penalising users for going slightly above the speed limit by one kilometre per hour or two kilometres per hour. For a start, we will focus on hotspots, such as crowded bus stops, and use speed guns to help us identify those who are speeding excessively and posing a danger to pedestrians.
In the same vein, AMAP was particularly concerned about the proliferation of illegally modified power-assisted bicycles, or e-bikes. The Panel recommended registering these devices for more effective enforcement.
The Government accepts this recommendation. Some irresponsible users have illegally modified their e-bikes to travel at high speeds of 40 km/hr, even 70 km/hr on the roads, effectively making them similar to motorcycles. They pose a safety hazard to pedestrians and motorists and, if I may add, to themselves.
I thank Mr Ang Wei Neng for his suggestions on how registration can be implemented. We accept that there should be a grace period for e-bike owners to register and will need more time to work out the details. We hope to be able to share more information by the end of this year.
Mr Ang Hin Kee called for stricter enforcement against retailers of non-compliant e-bikes. Since last year, LTA has stepped up enforcement against errant retailers and will continue to do so. We will also amend legislation to tighten up on the sale of non-compliant e-bikes.
Mr Dennis Tan also provided several suggestions, for example, allowing throttles. LTA will study this as we go about, together with implementation of e-bike registration.
Mdm Chair, the transition to the new policies, rules and code of conduct is challenging and will take time. We target to implement most of the changes by the end of this year. In the meantime, we will need to study the details carefully, make the necessary legislative changes and ramp up our resources.
Even after these changes are implemented on paper, it will not all be smooth sailing. It will take time for everyone to get used to the new policies and rules and to cultivate the habits and culture of safe sharing of paths. Some conflicts will inevitably occur, but I believe that, with time and strong education and enforcement efforts, we will be able to develop a culture of safe and gracious sharing.
This is the right direction to go and we are taking an important first step, but the journey will be a long one spanning many years. We will have to make adjustments along the way, by continuing to take in feedback and constantly engaging the community.
Once again, I would like to thank Parliamentary Secretary Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim and his Panel for their very good work in putting forward a set of recommendations to MOT. Parliamentary Secretary Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim has also graciously agreed to MOT's requests to continue to chair the Panel, which will advise on the implementation process and champion this worthy development.
Mdm Chair, I have spoken at length about the importance of making the first-and-last-mile of our daily trips comfortable, safe, convenient and inclusive. Where would we like to see ourselves in 15 years? Tokyo, a familiar city for many Singaporeans, offers a good preview. Thirty-seven percent of all trips in Tokyo are made on foot or on bicycles, compared to just 17% in Singapore today. There are only about 10 km of dedicated cycling paths in Tokyo, yet pedestrians, cyclists and motorists co-exist harmoniously. Mr Lee Yi Shyan also reminded us about their extensive underground pedestrian network. For all of these, the most important ingredient in Tokyo's success is the people's civic-mindedness and consideration for others.
Such changes in habits and culture will take time. But we are making a good start and with perseverance, we have a good chance of becoming an attractive walking and cycling city, where the first and last mile are among the best that any city can offer.
The Chairman: Ms Sylvia Lim, not here. Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera: Mdm Chairperson, the new GNSS-based ERP 2.0 will allow real-time tracking of traffic and road usage. I would like to make several suggestions and pose a few questions.
Firstly, has MOT done any simulations to show the net impact of the ERP 2.0 system on total revenue collection? If not, I would urge them to do so and to design the charging model to ensure that total revenue collection remains more or less neutral relative to the current distances travelled and current vehicle population. The purpose of the ERP system should be to ease congestion and not to raise revenue.
Secondly, MOT has said that the data collected will be made available to motorists so that they can easily see which are the congested roads and avoid them if possible. How will this be done? I suggest that the aggregated and anonymised data be made accessible in real time and in a user-friendly manner to the private sector so that third-party app developers can provide innovative solutions to motorists, making Singapore a test-bed for such innovations.
Thirdly, the Government has provided assurances that data privacy will be upheld. I would like to ask if the Government can conduct a privacy-impact assessment (PIA) to give the public transparency that personally-identifiable information is collected, used, accessed, shared, safeguarded, stored and discarded in a proper manner. The US Department of Homeland Security, for example, conducts PIAs for several of its programmes.
I would also like to ask if Government agencies will have limitless access to these data or will there be safeguards against executive over-reach. For example, if the Police want access to information on someone's travel patterns, will they need a Court Order or can they do so without one?
Mr Ang Wei Neng: Mdm Chair, we can expect a bumper crop of COEs this year and next. The motor vehicle industry players have been appealing to the Government to smoothen the supply of COEs and to avoid cyclical retrenchment and mass recruitment of staff. At the same time, wild-swinging COE prices have encouraged premature de-registrations of relatively new vehicles in the past, which is a wastage and not pro-environment. Hence, we would like to know if MOT has plans to further regulate the supply of COEs in the coming year.
The growing proportion of Category B or Cat B COE, vis-a-vis that of other categories, is also a concern. In January 2000, Cat B COE only constituted 10% of the total COE quota for that month. In January 2016, Cat B COE constituted 28% of the total COE quota. So, 10% in year 2000, 28% this year.
This is because Open Category or Cat E COE received at least 10% of the de-registrations in each category and Cat E COEs are mainly used to register the CAT B vehicles. Such a phenomenon has unfairly disadvantaged Singaporeans who just want to buy a basic car out of necessity. Thus, I would like to urge MOT to consider a reset of the COE distribution to make the system more equitable.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Chair, as we move towards a car-lite Singapore and improve our public transportation system to make it as cost-effective, reliable and comfortable as it was before, more individuals would choose to travel by bus and train rather than drive. However, it would take a generation to wean cars from our culture. For some, owning a car would remain an aspiration or a status symbol. For many others, owning a car is felt as a necessity, especially young families.
In a car-lite Singapore, cars will become even more a scarcity than it is today. Therefore, the socio-economic inequality and wealth gap between Singaporeans will become reflected in car ownership. The Government created Category A or Cat A for social equity reasons and had to re-categorise it recently to keep the Category for mass-market car buyers after luxury car buyers swamped the category and drove up prices. This will become a cat-and-mouse game between the re-categorisation of Cat A and the re-engineering of luxury makes to fit Cat A, especially in car-lite Singapore.
Therefore, for a fairer COE system, would the Government consider adding a surcharge to the COE for cars owned by a single-generation household beyond the first car and a multi-generation household beyond the second car? Like the Additional Buyer Stamp Duty for the property market, a carefully calibrated COE surcharge would help to reduce over-consumption on the part of the wealthy and help achieve some equity in the car market, especially in favour of young middle-income families. I understand a version of such a proposal was considered and rejected in 2013 by LTA after public consultation due to the belief that it would be difficult to implement. If this is to be the reason again, would the Ministry explain the difficulties in implementation?
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Madam, I have previously made the call to review the COE for motorcycles and, in particular, abolishing it for motorcycles in the class 2B Category whose engine capacity does not exceed 200cc. Another colleague of mine had also touched on this issue during last year's COS debate.
Many Singaporeans utilised their lower capacity motorcycles for work and to feed their families. As such, an abolition or review of the COE will be a much-needed boost for them, especially in the weakening economy.
Presently, a class 2B motorcycle will cost an average of $11,000, with the Category D or Cat D COE costing an average of $6,106 in 2015. This is three times higher compared to the average in 2011 which was $2,098. The then Minister of Transport Mr Lui Tuck Yew, in a response to my question on whether LTA will consider splitting the COE for motorcycles into three categories according to the engine capacity of the motorcycles, which correspond to the class 2, 2A and 2B licences, said that, \"splitting would result in a much smaller quota in each sub-category and this may lead to more volatility in quota and prices.\"
I would like to propose that the available Cat D quota for class 2B, class 2A and class 2 motorcycles be allocated in accordance with the percentage of these vehicles on our road. This means to say that if the average class 2B motorcycle population on our road is 75%, then 75% of the available Cats D to E quotas will be allocated to class 2B motorcycles, adjusted according to the demand. I believe this move will address many of the concerns, as expressed in the Minister's reply to my Parliamentary Question.
Secondly, I would like to touch on the present COE renewal term for motorcycles. An estimated 40.1% of the total renewal in 2015 chose a 10-year renewal term, compared to an estimated average of 63.4% between 2010 and 2014. Due to higher COE prices, more motorcycle owners are compelled to renew their COE every five years instead of 10. I would like to propose that the motorcycle owners who have earlier chosen a five-year renewal term be offered the option to renew their COE for another five years which, I understand, the present policy does not allow.
Madam, these measures, to improve the present policy, will address and mitigate the financial burden of our fellow Singaporeans who rely on their motorcycles to make a livelihood. I hope the Ministry will consider them.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): I thank the Minister and his colleagues for sharing with us MOT's vision for the future. Transportation is very challenging and we appreciate MOT's hard work. I would like to talk about the issue of motorcycle COEs today.
Motorcycle COE prices have increased significantly since 2014, even though our COEs for cars have largely stayed the same in terms of pricing. Many motorcyclists in my constituency shared with me that in times of peak congestion, for example, at traffic light junctions, motorcyclists in Singapore ride in between cars. If so, this means that motorcycles could lead to a smaller impact on peak congestions than many of us previously assumed. Since we are re-evaluating our overall traffic pricing model with the upcoming satellite ERP system, can we consider increasing COEs for motorcycles by perhaps 5%-15%? This could decrease the motorcycle COE prices considerably, without increasing the impact on congestions significantly. I look forward to hearing MOT's view on this matter.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Chair, business owners have complained about the high cost of Category C or Cat C COEs for commercial vehicles. In fact, for the first bidding in February and March this year, we have a perverse situation where the price of Cat C COEs is higher than Cat B COEs for bigger passenger cars.
The main reason for the high cost of Cat C COEs is that the quota set aside for Cat C is reduced by the number of vehicles registered under the Early Turnover Scheme, which encourages commercial vehicle owners to switch to cleaner models.
The high cost of COEs for commercial vehicles not only affects companies but even sole proprietors, such as hawkers and wet market stall-holders. One stall-holder selling fish at the wet market told me that he is going to retire once the COE for his van expires because a new van would cost $80,000 to $100,000 and he will not be able to recoup the cost selling a few \"ikan kuning\" for $3.
For the current quarter, there should have been more than 4,000 Cat C COEs. However, as 90% of the COEs used under the Early Turnover Scheme are deducted from the Cat C quota and there are more than 3,000 vehicles registered under this scheme, the number of Cat C COEs available for bidding is substantially reduced to less than 1,000 for the quarter; or about 300 per month. If we do not adjust the current formula, we may even end up with a situation where there may be no Cat C COEs available for bidding when there is a high number of vehicles registered under the Early Turnover Scheme.
How can we justify a deviation from the formula? First, quotas for Cat E draws from Cat A to Cat D equally. Currently, each of Cat A to Cat D contributes 10% of their quota to Cat E. This percentage has been reduced recently but was as high as 25% in 2012. So, over the years, while Cat C for commercial vehicles has contributed quota to Cat E, most of the COEs under the Cat E were used for bigger passenger cars. While drivers of bigger passenger cars have alternatives, such as taking public transport or switching to a smaller car, there are no alternatives available for commercial vehicle users.
Secondly, the Early Turnover Scheme was meant to benefit commercial vehicle users, but because the number of Cat C COEs available for bidding was so small, we ended up squeezing supply, pushing up the price and then giving them a discount to the high price.
Third, because of the factors mentioned above, even though our economy has grown substantially since 2008, the number of commercial vehicles on our roads has remained constant at around 150,000 over the past seven years. As our economy grows, it is logical that the number of commercial vehicles must grow in tandem to support our businesses.
To help businesses and for the reasons mentioned, I urge MOT to do a comprehensive review of the way COEs for commercial vehicles are determined. Meanwhile, we should consider adjusting the formula such that a higher percentage for the Early Turnover Scheme is deducted from Cat E.
The Chairman: Mr Ang Hin Kee; not here. Senior Minister of State Ng Chee Meng.
The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Mr Ng Chee Meng): Mdm Chairperson, I thank Members for their questions on car ownership, and taxi and chauffeured services.
As Minister Khaw noted, the emergence of new technology is transforming our transport system. Nowhere is this more evident than in the area of point-to-point transport services, especially in the area where taxis are providing this service today.
Since I joined MOT some six months ago, I have had the pleasure of getting to know some of our 55,000 active taxi drivers. Our taxi drivers take great pride in their profession. Good taxi drivers know their routes and where and when customers are likely to be waiting. They plan their routes well, try very hard to avoid traffic jams and provide good customer service.
Singaporeans recognise that, generally, our taxi industry has served their needs adequately. For the past three years, in our annual Taxi Customer Satisfaction Survey, more than 90% of respondents say that they are satisfied with taxi services. This, of course, is, in large part, due to our taxi drivers.
Our taxi drivers are embracing new technologies. For example, more are taking bookings via apps. The number of pre-booked taxi trips has increased by 50% over the last three years, with the bulk of this increase coming from bookings via apps. This is partly because our taxi companies have improved their own booking apps, with smarter algorithms to match commuters' needs with the drivers. They have done this more efficiently and better. Third-party taxi apps, on the other hand, have helped to aggregate supply and demand at the industry level.
As a result, both taxi commuters and drivers have benefited. Taxi drivers, especially those from the smaller taxi companies, tell me that they get more jobs from bookings and earn more. Indeed, taxi drivers' incomes have increased continuously over the past three years.
However, not all the levers for responding to the new environment are in the taxi companies' and drivers' hands. The Government will play its part. One common feedback I receive from taxi drivers is that the training curriculum for the Taxi Driver Vocational Licence (TDVL) should be updated to reflect technological developments. I agree. For example, we should no longer focus as much on memorising the street directory for route planning. We should instead also teach our drivers to use GPS and online navigational tools. In addition, we can deliver more training online, rather than in the classroom. I have, therefore, asked LTA to shorten the TDVL course with appropriate modifications.
I have also asked LTA to exempt good drivers who do not have any demerit points from having to attend mandated refresher courses. I hope this incentive can lead to better services which would, ultimately, benefit commuters. It will be a win-win situation.
Technology has also transformed chauffeured services to become an attractive alternative to taxi services. The entry of Uber and GrabCar has made chauffeured services more accessible to the general public. They have disrupted the industry. Mobile apps can now match individual passengers with a chauffeured car service quickly and on a per-trip basis, rather than on a per-hour basis or perday basis, as it was previously in the chauffeured industry.
Today, an estimated 8,000 to 10,000 drivers provide chauffeured services during peak hours. This has effectively increased the supply of point-to-point transport services by about a third during these hours. Many commuters I have met have told me that they really appreciate how chauffeured services supplement taxi services, especially during periods when taxis are in short supply.
Most of the drivers providing chauffeured services are part-timers. One such driver, Mrs Rennu Mahajan, a mother to two sons and also a real estate agent, shared that she has been a part-time GrabCar driver since August 2015. She explained to me that she enjoys the flexible hours where she can have her time with family while also earning some extra income in a rather quiet real estate market.
The growth of chauffeured services has benefited commuters, but the new competition has understandably caused some disquiet amongst some taxi drivers. While Mr Ang Hin Kee did not quite raise the issues in Parliament today, in our course of discussion when he was representing NTA, we had discussed many pertinent points about the disrupting effect on the taxi drivers, so I will take the time now to address some of these points.
The responses from some cities like Paris, Brussels and Rio de Janeiro have taken what I think is the wrong approach, by creating protectionist regulations or banning chauffeured services entirely. Such an approach ultimately leads to a poorer outcome for commuters and risks fossilising the taxi industry.
Fortunately for us, we are in a much better position. Our taxi industry has generally been well-run, based on sound market principles and not excessively regulated. We do not rely on a medallion system or an expensive taxi permit licensing system to limit the entry of new taxis or drivers. Therefore, our taxi drivers are not in heavy debt, unlike some in Paris or Florence where a taxi driver must pay anywhere from €200,000 to €300,000 euros just for the privilege or the right to provide taxi services. We have opened up our industry and deregulated fares for many years now and so the industry in Singapore has remained competitive and market-responsive. With our good foundation, we are better able to move with the times and reap the benefits of technology improvements and innovations.
Nevertheless, with the growth of apps like Uber and GrabCar, some basic regulations are needed to ensure that the commuters' interests, particularly safety, are taken care of. Hence, LTA will introduce a new Private Hire Car Driver Vocational Licensing framework, PDVL. Like for the Taxi Driver Vocational Licence, this framework ensures that drivers providing chauffeured services undergo sufficient training on safety and the regulations for providing such services. Applicants will also undergo background screening and be subjected to a demerit point system for errant conduct, like touting or soliciting street-hail jobs.
As the profile of private hire car drivers is quite different from taxi drivers, the eligibility criteria for their respective licences will not be exactly the same. As per current criteria, private hire car drivers must either be employed as a driver in a limousine company or be registered as an owner of a chauffeured services company. For the safety of commuters, applicants for the licence must have a minimum driving experience of two years.
We recognise that the TDVL curriculum covers a substantial part of the PDVL curriculum. Hence, we will make it easy for taxi drivers to convert their TDVL to a dual TDVL-PDVL licence. They will only need to undergo a short briefing on the chauffeured services industry and regulations unique to the industry. This will allow them to easily switch between taxi driving and providing chauffeured services using private hire cars.
The Singapore Taxi Academy will continue to be the training provider for the TDVL. LTA will later decide on who would provide the PDVL.
In order to strengthen enforcement against errant drivers, private hire cars providing chauffeured services will have to be registered with LTA and they will display a distinctive, tamper-evident decal that will be visible from the car's exterior. This will also help to assure commuters that the vehicle is, indeed, registered with LTA. LTA will make more detailed announcements later today.
We have taken a practical, balanced and minimalist approach in these new regulations. They will ensure that we meet our key objectives of protecting commuters' interests and safety, allowing the point-to-point transport industry to continue to grow and innovate and also, at the same time, helping our taxi industry adjust to new and disruptive \"sharing\" technologies.
Let me now turn to the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) and Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) policy questions raised by Members.
Mr Leon Perera asked about the next-generation ERP system. As LTA had announced, the system is being developed and will be implemented from 2020. This new system will open up many opportunities to improve our transport system, beyond congestion management. There is, of course, potential to offer added-value services to motorists, such as using it to replace the paper coupon usage for roadside parking, getting more accurate and real-time traffic information, providing such real-time information to motorists and also including enhancements to the Off-Peak Car schemes.
Mr Perera also raised concerns about privacy under the next-generation ERP. LTA takes this issue very seriously. For the purposes of traffic management, only aggregated data will be used by LTA and we will also ensure that the appropriate data security technologies and controls are put in place for all data use. MHA has already addressed the ERP 2.0 for security uses and I will not go further into that. Mr Perera has made some good suggestions that MOT will also take on board to study as we look at the renewal of the ERP system.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap shared his concern regarding COEs for motorcycles and suggested different forms to make the Cat D motorcycle COE framework better. Mr Henry Kwek suggested riding on the introduction of the next-generation ERP system to consider increasing COE quotas for motorcycles, on the basis that ,being smaller in size, they contribute less to congestion.
First, I would like to point out that the lesser contribution of motorcycles to congestion is already accounted for in the lower ERP rates they pay, compared to other vehicle types. In addition, owners of motorcycles enjoy several concessions, such as lower taxes, compared to car owners.
On the specific suggestion of allowing Cat D owners to have unlimited shorter-term renewal, currently, COE tenures are all fixed at 10 years for all categories and, as a concession, vehicle owners are allowed a five-year renewal on the condition that they deregister their vehicle thereafter.
Allowing repeated short-term renewals for motorcycles, however attractive, favours the incumbent owners and delays timely deregistration, and this reduces the quota for potential new buyers of motorcycles. It can also lead to older and potentially more pollutive motorcycles remaining on our roads. This is a phenomenon that we actually see today, where older motorcycles are kept on the roads for a long time, polluting the air. While these suggestions are on the table, we will continue to study this and see how we can make the Cat D framework better.
But, ultimately, the COE system is designed to help control Singapore's vehicle population, given the land constraints. As Minister Khaw has explained, there is very limited room for us to grow the overall vehicle population, whether it is for cars or motorcycles. We should, therefore, be very cautious about increasing the COE supply in one form or another. Instead, we should be encouraging Singaporeans to move towards public transport. Having said that, I do know that COE is a hot topic and LTA does regularly review the COE framework to keep the system updated.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh suggested levying a COE surcharge on multiple COEs registered to a household. Indeed, he pointed out that this is not a new suggestion. MOT has consulted the public extensively in 2013 on this issue and the outcome of the discussion was that this form of surcharge or the form of proposal given by Assoc Prof Daniel Goh would be very easy to circumvent. It would also inadvertently penalise households that are larger. LTA had, therefore, decided not to implement such a measure back in 2013 after extensive consultation. All the considerations and findings had been shared and discussed with Singaporeans.
Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Yee Chia Hsing have offered suggestions to address the trend of Cat E COEs being used mainly to register Cat B cars. The Cat E provides flexibility in the COE system by allowing the vehicle mix to evolve in response to market demand. While most of the Cat E COEs in recent years have gone to Cat B, this has not been the case always. For instance, Cat E COEs were routinely used to register Cat C vehicles between the years 2008 and 2010, when Cat C COE prices exceeded that of Cats A and B COE prices. We also saw this in recent COE bidding exercises just this year.
Nonetheless, to maintain a more stable supply of COEs in each category, we had lowered the Cat E contribution rate from 25% previously to 20% back in 2012 and further to 15% in 2013 and to 10% in February last year. We are not keen on lowering the contribution rate to zero as it is still helpful to keep some fluidity within the system, so that COEs can still move across different categories to meet demand. Again, the COE system, as I have said, is one area that LTA monitors closely and we will continue to study this area with all the suggestions that are given.
On the impact of the Early Turnover Scheme (ETS) on Cat C quotas and premiums, while the ETS reduces the quota available for bidding, it also reduces the actual demand for new Cat C COEs. This is because when an ETS-eligible vehicle is deregistered, that COE can be used to register a new vehicle within a one-month period. This means that the owner of the ETS-eligible vehicle would already have a COE obtained in this manner and would not need to bid for a fresh COE for his or her new vehicle. In fact, what we have observed is that Cat C COE prices have seen a slight downward trend generally since the introduction of the ETS in April 2013.
Mr Ang Wei Neng also asked if we should consider smoothening the supply of Cats A and B COE quotas in the coming year. We have studied this issue extensively. It is really difficult to determine the optimal amount of quota supply to hold back and determine the right time to release the withheld quota back into the system. The risks of inadvertently causing even more volatility in COE premiums are very real. In any case, even our projections were not right on target. Recently, many more car owners have decided to renew their COEs and this has tempered the previously expected increases in Cats A and B COE supply by more than 10% in the last two quarters. Hence, we feel that it is better that we leave it to the market to determine the supply of quotas.
To conclude, a car-lite Singapore does not mean a carless Singapore. Car-lite is about creating an eco-system of transport options in the form of good quality public transport, first-and-last-mile options and point-to-point services like taxis and chauffeured services, so that Singaporeans feel that their commuting needs can be met without owning a car.
Importantly, it also requires a change in mindset, lifestyle and culture to one of sustainable, smart and green mobility. As Minister Khaw and Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo have stated, we have started the journey and, together, we ask Singaporeans to come along this journey with all of us to make our transportation system better and greener for the future.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Chair, Singapore's status as a major trade and business hub in Asia is heavily dependent on our air and sea connectivity for us to provide easy access to people, goods and capital. In line with this, the Government's announcements to build Terminal 5, a third runway at Changi Airport, as well as a new port in Tuas, are designed to build our capacity as an air and maritime hub in Southeast Asia. Can the Ministry elaborate on what are the new capabilities that will be developed as part of these developments that can benefit and differentiate Singapore as a maritime and air hub and for businesses to look forward to?
Last year, Singapore also saw the sale of its national liner, NOL, to a foreign entity. With the sale of NOL, what are some of MOT's plans to ensure that we do not lose container volumes and that the sale would not adversely impact our logistics sector, in particular, in the mid to long term, where the new entity's private sector interest may change due to competitive or business priorities? How does the sale of NOL impact our position as a strategic maritime hub, given that a foreign entity now has better access to our strategic port facilities?
The redevelopment of our strategic plan and maritime capabilities would enhance our economic and transport standing in the region. But it is also important that these developments provide for meaningful business and jobs for Singaporeans. What are the expected new jobs and business opportunities that these hubs will bring to Singapore and what are the Ministry's manpower development plans to provide these enhanced sectors with a Singaporean Core? How can we get young Singaporeans also excited about the prospects of working in these transport hubs, given that these are not typical professions that our young look forward to? I think there is that scope to make it sexier.
Mr Ang Hin Kee: Mdm Chair, air travel is now made more affordable due to the popularity of low-cost carriers or the so-called budget airlines. Through interactions with the budget airline staff in my capacity as an advisor to one of the airline house unions, I understand that the operating mode of low-cost carriers can potentially generate high levels of stress and fatigue amongst the flight crew.
Budget airlines typically keep costs down by deploying the flight, cabin crew and aircraft in the most economically efficient manner. Furthermore, these low-cost carriers may get more red-eye flights, as well as less favourable arrival and departure timings, with short turn-around flights as well.
By that, it may mean that the pilots have tight rosters and operate at or near maximum flight and duty time limits. As for the cabin crew, they may have to work extra hard to turn-around the plane within shorter timelines.
Staff should have sufficient rest periods during duty time to perform at an optimal level, so that neither service delivery nor the well-being of crew is compromised. With hectic working hours, safety and welfare conditions of the airline crew should be looked into.
Currently, there is little data or research done in this area. Will the Ministry consider embarking on a study to understand the needs, challenges and stress faced by the crew in budget airlines, as well as full-service airlines?
The Chairman: Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mdm Chair, I thank Mr Zaqy Mohamad for his interest in strengthening Singapore's position as a global aviation and maritime hub. Together, the direct economic contribution of these two sectors amounts to 13% of our GDP. Their indirect contribution is much larger. For example, our financial services, tourism, manufacturing and logistics sectors are considerably enhanced because of our position as aviation and maritime hubs.
Let me start by providing an update on aviation. Our air hub now provides good jobs to some 55,000 people. The dedication and pride of these staff have made Changi Airport the most-awarded airport worldwide for passenger experience. As a result, passenger traffic has continued to grow. Thanks in part to a rebound in tourist arrivals from key markets, such as China, Thailand and Australia, a record 55.4 million passengers flowed through Changi in 2015. Airfreight volumes, which have been lacklustre everywhere, still managed a 0.5% growth.
We continue to be optimistic about Changi's prospects. Air travel in the Asia Pacific is projected to double over the next two decades. We have also put in place policies to ensure that Changi remains a leading air hub and continues to provide good global connectivity for our people and businesses. If Asia grows as projected, passenger traffic through Changi can also be expected to grow at between 3% and 4% annually over the next two decades.
A key plank of our strategy to ride this growth momentum is to expand Changi Airport. Terminal 4 is on track to open in the second half of 2017 and Jewel Changi Airport in 2019. Works to operationalise a three-runway system are also going well, with Changi Airport Group (CAG) having awarded the first construction contract in October 2015. We expect the three-runway system to be operational in the early 2020s.
The centrepiece in positioning Changi Airport for the future is Terminal 5. Since finalising its concept plan in 2014, we have been engaging the aviation community to develop a robust and flexible design that will stand the test of time. This is a mammoth task, as Members will know by now, that when T5 is fully developed, it will, in fact, be bigger than Terminals 1, 2 and 3 combined. So, you take Terminals 1, 2 and 3 today, put them together and imagine what Terminal 5 is going to be like. With Terminals 1, 2 and 3 today, if you just add them up, it is 66 million passengers. After Jewel Changi Airport, actually Terminal 1 should be able to handle a little bit more. So, that is the scale that we are talking about.
Terminal 5 will open in the late 2020s and be operational till about 2050 before a major upgrade is due. It will have to last us much longer than that, but around 2050, that is when you can have a major upgrade. The architects for the design have a heavy responsibility; they will be appointed within the next one to two years.
As was the case when we moved our airport from Paya Lebar to Changi, the expansion of our air hub will create many good jobs for Singaporeans and business opportunities for our companies, in areas ranging from airport management to aircraft maintenance.
But we are also mindful that with our manpower constraints, quantum improvements in productivity are needed. Efficiency-enhancing innovations must be incorporated into the new facilities at Changi as well as existing ones. These efforts will be complemented by programmes to attract Singaporeans to take up aviation careers and continuously upgrade their skills. The bottom line is this: for our air hub, we must always be ready to take advantage of improved technologies as they become available.
One aspect of aviation which requires constant and careful attention is safety. Most of us do not have to think too much about it and that is only because many other people in aviation spend a great deal of time and resources to make sure that we get to fly safely. Therefore, I am glad that Mr Ang Hin Kee has asked about rest, welfare, training and other needs of low-cost carrier crew, because it is, ultimately, about safety.
All Singapore carriers, both full-service and low-cost carriers, are required to meet the same safety standards for fatigue management and crew training and competency promulgated by the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS). These standards are based on scientific research and studies and consistent with the requirements of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). You have to set the standards and what are the standards based on? You have got to do studies. And you have to leverage on other studies that are present, or do your own studies. Most of our airlines have done their own studies.
In particular, there are mandatory rest periods between duty periods to ensure that the crew have sufficient rest. All airlines are also required to have structured training and competency frameworks and ensure that their crew maintain currency in their operational duties. Tests are conducted annually to ensure that crew members have the necessary competencies.
Rules aside, it is penny-wise and pound-foolish for anyone involved in aviation to take chances with safety. It has very much to do with culture. That is why in the Singapore air hub, we instil and reinforce a safety culture through stringent independent audits and regular exercises.
Another area where safety matters a great deal is in air traffic management (ATM). As Members know, CAAS manages the airspace known as the Singapore Flight Information Region (FIR). The Singapore FIR, which was assigned by ICAO in 1946, has seen air traffic grow by leaps and bounds.
Last year, it handled some 650,000 flights, which are 50% more than 10 years ago. Six hundred and fifty thousand flights that our Singapore FIR manages, flying through our skies. But of this number, around 40% were over-flights, meaning that they neither landed at nor departed from Changi; they are just over-flights. They are part of the air connectivity of other countries. By 2025, it is projected that more than a million flights will fly through the Singapore FIR annually.
Given the importance of the Singapore FIR to the international aviation community – it is not just for us, it is for the international aviation community – Singapore takes its responsibility as the FIR manager very seriously. To ensure the highest levels of safety and efficiency and to prepare for the growth in regional air traffic, CAAS invests heavily to enhance our ATM capabilities.
For example, our pool of air traffic controllers has expanded and will grow further from 380 today to 600 within the next five years. Our state-of-the-art ATM system – the third-generation Long Range Radar and Display System (LORADS III) – is one of the most advanced in the world. We continually incorporate advanced technologies, such as Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B), which allows CAAS to extend tracking of aircraft beyond radar coverage. This, in turn, allows us to provide better ATM services to more aircraft to fly safely within a block of airspace. From 2018, we expect to also use satellite technology to track aircraft.
With a firm eye on the future, CAAS is commissioning significant research and development efforts in ATM. It has embarked on an initiative to develop Singapore as a Centre of Excellence for ATM by setting aside $200 million to fund research and development projects. Within Southeast Asia, this is the only cluster of research and development focusing on ATM. In less than three years, the initiative has built up a pool of more than 50 researchers and funded more than 20 projects.
The investment has started to bear fruit. For example, CAAS is working with its counterparts in Thailand and Hong Kong to develop a concept to better manage air routes with heavy traffic. Typically, air traffic controllers worry about getting departing flights out on time, but not whether there could be bunching when these flights arrive at their destinations. So, as an air traffic controller, if you have a job to get a flight out, your job is to make sure it gets out on time. But you never really worried about what happens when it arrives at the destination airport and if there could be bunching.
This collaboration will allow air traffic controllers at both the departure and arrival airports to share information and adjust the departure times of flights to avoid bunching at both ends. This is especially helpful for busy routes which will get more congested as regional air traffic grows; it will minimise delays and optimise capacity usage at each airport – and we know airport capacity is very expensive. The concept is now undergoing operational trials. We intend to pair up with more airports so we can manage the growing air traffic in our region more efficiently.
As all fair-minded users of our air navigation services can attest, CAAS air traffic controllers conduct their operations professionally and objectively, in accordance with international standards and best practices. With the help of technology and research insights, our controllers will raise their game and uphold the trust and confidence of the international aviation community using the Singapore FIR.
On this note, let me reiterate that FIR boundaries are designated by ICAO based on technical and safety considerations to ensure air traffic safety and efficiency. Inevitably, FIRs cross national airspace boundaries and air traffic controllers are expected to consistently and professionally handle aircraft movements in their designated FIRs, irrespective of who owns the airlines, where the flights originate from or are headed.
If FIR boundaries were based on state boundaries alone, we would see fragmentation of regional airspaces. This means breaking them up into smaller pieces with more parties managing the airspaces, more complexity, multiple points of coordination and, certainly, more safety risks.
In fact, fragmentation of regional airspaces runs counter to calls by the international aviation community, particularly the airlines which have to operate the flights, for more seamlessly-integrated airspaces. Europe is taking the lead on this move, with the Single European Sky vision being one such example.
Indeed, with air traffic in ASEAN projected to grow strongly, it is all the more important that airspaces in our region be more integrated, not less. We need to enable more aircraft to fly safely and efficiently within the same volume of airspace. If we cannot do so, we will fail to capture the opportunities that aviation connectivity provides to all our economies.
It was, therefore, far-sighted that ASEAN Leaders called for the implementation of a Seamless ASEAN Sky when they met last year. Singapore is committed to this worthy goal.
Mdm Chair, let me now move on to the maritime sector. The shipping industry, which anchors our maritime sector, has been in difficult waters for several years now. For the first time since the 2009 Global Financial Crisis, PSA saw container volumes decline last year. Charter rates for offshore and dry bulk carriers have come under intense pressure due to weakened demand.
Nevertheless, the medium- to longer-term outlook is positive. Over the years, we have made significant gains in building up various aspects of our International Maritime Centre. It is today more multi-faceted and vibrant than before, with activities ranging from maritime insurance to LNG bunkering. Moreover, the maritime community here is resilient and adaptable.
Employment levels in the maritime sector have also remained stable at around 170,000. With Government support, we believe that recovery in shipping will return and broad-based growth momentum will pick up again.
To lend a helping hand to shippers, the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) enhanced the port dues concession to offshore support vessels in November last year. Last week, MPA extended the concession to dry bulk carriers. MPA has also granted an additional 10% port dues concession to container vessels calling at Singapore.
Taken together with existing concessions, the full slate of concessions is expected to yield $18 million in annual savings for shipping companies. It is not a lot of money but I am told that they are nonetheless well appreciated by the industry.
In spite of the current headwinds, Singapore's International Maritime Centre continues to stay ahead of the competition. For two years in a row, Singapore has topped the Baltic/Xinhua international shipping centre development index, which ranks the relative performance of maritime centres around the world. In addition, our port has just been voted \"Best Seaport in Asia\" for the 27th time.
These accolades were not easy to come by and we do not take them for granted, even though we got it for the 27th time. They are a result of careful nurturing of a robust maritime ecosystem that has taken many years. Today, Maritime Singapore is home to over 130 international shipping groups and more than 5,000 maritime establishments.
As in all business sectors, corporate restructurings are not uncommon. The strength of our maritime cluster does not depend on whether the companies are Singapore-owned but whether they see value in being anchored here. For maritime businesses which can have very long investment horizons, the key is that our policies must be sound and consistent over time.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked about the sale of NOL. We all feel a bit \"sayang\" because it is like marrying off a daughter that has long been a flag-bearer of our maritime sector. But at the same time, let us also recognise who the suitor is and the way the marriage could work out.
The merged entity draws on the complementary strengths of both groups and provides a firmer footing for them to compete with the giants. NOL brings something to the table, CMA-CGM brings something to the table that the other party does not quite have. In its proposal to acquire NOL, CMA-CGM has made it clear its intention to establish its regional head office in Singapore and commit more volumes through Singapore. This is a testament to Singapore's importance as a maritime hub and will reinforce Singapore's leadership position in container shipping.
As Mr Zaqy Mohamad pointed out, it is crucial that Singapore continues to enhance our value proposition as a maritime hub. Indeed, we are taking proactive steps to develop the key capabilities. And I will touch on them now.
First, we will continue to invest in building port capacity that meets the industry's long-term needs. Works on the Pasir Panjang Terminal are on schedule and reclamation works for the new Tuas Terminal are progressing well.
Infrastructure aside, technology is an enabler to improve capabilities, as well as the quality of maritime jobs. We are investing in technology as a multiplier of capacity, to boost productivity and transform current jobs into higher quality, higher value-added jobs.
A good example can be found in PSA. In many ports, conventional rail-mounted gantry cranes are individually manned and operated from booths that sit atop each crane. However, PSA has introduced new systems at Pasir Panjang Terminal where a single crane specialist can remotely monitor and control the operations of several cranes, from the comfort of an air-conditioned control room. Better comfort means better concentration and higher productivity.
The new Tuas Terminal will be a greenfield site that offers exciting opportunities for the use of smart technologies. For example, instead of prime mover drivers, driverless vehicles will ferry container boxes around our port. This will provide new job opportunities in engineering and software development. Meanwhile, the next-generation Vessel Traffic Management System to be deployed at Tuas will need skilled data analysts and data scientists to predict congestion hotspots and to avoid potential collisions.
To spur the development of a vibrant maritime technology cluster in Singapore, MPA has been actively encouraging R&D and innovation through the Maritime Innovation and Technology or MINT Fund. A total of $150 million has been set aside to support numerous research organisations and projects.
One such organisation is the Energy Research Institute at NTU where a new Maritime Energy Test Bed facility was launched last November in collaboration with the Singapore Maritime Institute. This facility will help build up R&D capabilities in areas concerning ship emissions and abatement, alternative marine fuels and energy storage.
The MINT Fund is also helping to put Singapore at the forefront of the global push towards cleaner marine fuels. Supported by the MINT Fund, Singapore company Billion Miles Pte Ltd is pioneering a methanol fuel blend system for marine engines to run on methanol. The attractiveness of this system is that it requires only minor modifications to conventional bunkering infrastructure on top of vessels. If the concept works, it will mean lower cost for ship owners to meet the higher standards for clean energy use that they must comply with in the future.
I am pleased to announce that MPA will top up the MINT Fund by a further $50 million and extend its term to 2021. Part of the MINT Fund's enhancements will be directed towards encouraging product and solution development for the maritime industry. For instance, with the support of the MINT Fund, local firm Hope Technik developed the Water Spider – a buoyant, waterproof drone that can be deployed to monitor oil spills or support search and rescue operations in Singapore's waters. The MINT Fund will support more of such technologies and use-inspired R&D to further promote maritime innovation.
Besides harnessing cutting-edge technologies to our advantage, having a highly-skilled workforce sets us apart from our competitors. We will continue to invest in developing manpower for the maritime sector, especially during periods of slow growth. This requires a multi-pronged approach. First, help more Singaporeans know more about jobs and careers in the maritime sector. I note Mr Zaqy Mohamad's point that we have to try and make it more \"attractive and sexy\", as he said. Second, make sure that those who are interested gain the skills and experience to take on the job opportunities. And, third, support for those in the sector − up-skilling and re-skilling.
With the support of our unions and industry associations, we will do more to raise Singaporeans' awareness of good jobs and rewarding careers in the maritime sector. Indeed, this is one of MPA's priorities for this year. For example, it is organising the inaugural Maritime Youth Festival, where outreach activities will help generate curiosity and interest about the maritime sector amongst our youths.
To complement these outreach efforts, the Singapore Maritime Foundation's Maritime Singapore Connect Office will intensify efforts to profile the maritime sector. It will provide a platform to connect employers, schools, relevant Government agencies, industry associations and other stakeholders. In addition, it will develop an online portal to provide access to information and guidance on maritime careers and training opportunities.
We will also equip Singaporeans with the necessary skills and experience to take advantage of job opportunities in the maritime sector.
MPA will roll out the Internship Reimbursement Scheme to help students gain relevant work experience. The scheme will defray the costs incurred by employers when providing internship placements. One good example is Ms Ong Pei Wen. She shows how internships can help students kick-start their careers. She was a recipient of the MPA Global Internship Award while a student at NTU. Her internship was at Shipowners' P&I Club and her host company was impressed by her good performance and attitude and offered her a job upon graduation.
For those fresh out of school, MPA will reintroduce the Graduates Attachment Programme or GAP in short. GAP seeks to place University, Polytechnic and ITE graduates in participating maritime companies so as to help them gain industry experience. We recognise that companies are under pressure to cut costs amid this downturn. So, MPA will provide monthly stipends to graduates on the programme to encourage companies to take them on board, rather than turn them away.
For Singaporeans looking to make a career switch into the maritime sector, the Maritime Career Conversion Scheme will subsidise training costs and provide wage support. One of the many such individuals who have taken advantage is Mohammad Huzaifah bin Rasidi. Huzaifah was previously a technician working at a shipyard. Peering out at sea from where he worked, he was amazed to see tug boats towing far larger vessels and oil rigs. In February last year, he took the plunge and joined the pioneer batch of trainees for the 15-month tug-master training programme. Huzaifah is now gearing up for his final examinations and looks forward to graduating this year, as a tug-master, sometime in May.
Finally, to encourage up-skilling and re-skilling amongst Singaporeans already in the sector, we will increase co-funding support for maritime companies to send their local employees for selected maritime training courses. All in all, MPA will set aside $12 million for its enhanced manpower initiatives which are expected to benefit some 5,000 Singaporeans. MPA will announce the details of these new programmes shortly.
In closing, Mdm Chair, Singapore and Singaporeans have benefited from our strengths as aviation and maritime hubs. We are committed to enhancing Singapore's connectivity to the world by investing in first-class infrastructure and technologies. At the same time, we will develop a future-ready workforce that will uphold the standing of our twin hubs.
The Chairman: We have a bit of time for clarifications. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Thank you, Mdm Chair. I am happy to hear from the Minister that for the 17 stations that will be upgraded, they will be more spacious, more seats for elderly residents. I would like to ask the Minister whether it is possible to also take this opportunity to address the problem of the morning sun. Because quite a lot of commuters have been complaining about the hot morning sun; it is very glaring. It is not just from the commuters in Khatib. I have also heard about this from commuters who use Yishun and other stations.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Yes, we will try.
Mr Ang Wei Neng: Mdm Chair, I have three clarifications – one for Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo and two for Senior Minister of State Ng Chee Meng. I will keep them short. Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo said that MOT is already working with building owners to encourage them to build linkways to link up with Government-built linkways. But it is up to building owners to decide whether to build the linkways. I suppose the Civil Service Club at Bukit Batok is a Government-owned building. Will MOT encourage the Government to take a lead so that the rest of the building owners from the private sector will also follow?
For the second clarification, I agree with Senior Minister of State Ng Chee Meng that Cat E COEs, at times, are used for Cat C and Cat A vehicles. But the fact remains that the majority of the Cat E COEs, a big majority, are used for Cat B vehicles. It also appears from the speech that MOT is not quite ready to do a reset of the COE distribution across the different categories. So, would Senior Minister of State Ng Chee Meng agree that it is not healthy for Cat B COE to continue to grow in this proportion, beyond 30%, or is it something that the Senior Minister of State would like to see increase beyond 50%?
Lastly, many industry players reckon that COE bidders, particularly the industry players, will likely be more careful in bidding for COEs if we adopt a pay-as-you-bid\t system. It is not a new topic but I hope the Senior Minister of State would consider doing a trial in one of the categories; perhaps Cat A.
The Chairman: I think it will be wonderful if the clarifications could be as short as the Minister's response, but I know it is a tall order. If you can meet it halfway, it would be fantastic. Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mdm Chair, yes, we will also try.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: Mdm Chair, I will keep it short as well. We will let the market decide. Ultimately, even though there are imperfections, the current COE mechanism is the best that we have today. As the Member rightly pointed out, where Cat E COEs have been moved to Cat B, that is the market's decision. If we come back to the fundamental reasons for this allocation, well, I will keep the answer short as well − let the market decide.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mdm Chairperson, my question is to the Senior Minister of State. Should Indonesia be able to address safety and equipment-related concerns with regard to the management of the Flight Information Region (FIR) over the Riau Islands and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) directs Indonesia to manage that FIR, what impact, if any, will this have on Singapore's position as an aviation hub?
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mdm Chair, it is not a straightforward question. There are many complexities involved. In the first place, the ICAO requires that the parties who are involved should satisfy themselves that, indeed, safety considerations can be fully met. There are many parties involved in our FIR, even though it is Singapore that is managing it. It will not be a simple issue to resolve, but we have to work together and the way in which we think is a positive direction for this subject to develop is towards ASEAN Seamless Sky, where we work together with one another to manage the airspace.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: I have three clarifications, Mdm Chair. One is on the issue of safety protocols. I have asked about this in one of my cuts. Could the Minister please clarify what are the routine obligations of LTA to check on the MRT operators' observance of safety protocols for maintenance and operations?
Second, I agree with the Minister that we should appreciate the hard work of MRT engineers and workers who are running our MRT system. They are having to cope with the situation caused by legacy issues, such as lack of timely maintenance and parts replacement in the earlier years and failure to provide timely capacity for increase in commutership, all of which can be attributed to the past leadership.
Three, a question for Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo: would the Ministry consider my suggestion of allowing a one-off opportunity for current owners of unauthorised e-bikes which can comply with the new criteria?
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Mdm Chair, let me take the safety-related questions. As I had stressed in my reply, I have been advised by legal counsel to be careful with what I say because investigations are still going on, so I cannot say too much.
The general safety principle that governs all metros, including SMRT, is that one must isolate the work area/space from any passing train. It does not mean the train cannot pass through the work area but, if it does, then the train has to be manually operated and at slow speed. That is the SOP that covers all operators and that includes SMRT.
Then how come the safety procedure was breached in this instance? That is the subject of the investigation.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mdm Chair, may I seek a clarification from the Member Mr Dennis Tan? Just to check, Mr Tan, are you asking for an amnesty and, if that is so, are you also suggesting that after the amnesty is granted, the e-bikes which do not meet the criteria continue to be allowed on the paths and on roads?
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: I thank the Senior Minister of State for the clarification. No, I am not asking for an amnesty but I can foresee that under the new rules, perhaps, it is possible that some of the existing unauthorised e-bikes, because they were not the subject of application by their manufacturers to register for authorisation, but perhaps, these e-bikes can comply with the recommended protocols by the Panel. So, for these people, would it be possible that you can have a one-off opportunity for them to come forward to LTA to present their e-bikes for registration?
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mdm Chair, I thank Mr Tan for his clarification. There must be a reason why those e-bikes were not authorised in the first place. Nonetheless, we take his point. We will have to consider the specific instances and take these on board when we draw up the implementation details for e-bike registration.
Mr Ang Hin Kee: Mdm Chair, two clarifications. One, for Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo: earlier she mentioned about safety for budget airline crew and that there are independent studies and there are standards to follow. But somehow or other, the crew themselves may not quite feel that these reports or studies gave them peace of mind. So, will the Ministry consider either publishing these reports or engaging the budget airline crew to assure them that these standards are adequate and that there is no excessive stress faced by them? The passengers who take the flights will feel more comforted that the crew are well taken care of.
The second clarification is for Senior Minister of State Ng Chee Meng: he mentioned earlier that LTA will encourage taxi drivers and taxi operators to change their mindset with regard to third party private hire vehicles. I was wondering if LTA themselves will be bold enough to also change their own mindset with regard to quality of service rules and taxi availability standards. These proxy measures with regard to taxi service standards may, indeed, be obsolete in view of available technology and other measures of taxi services that commuter may want to experience today.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mdm Chair, I thank Mr Ang for his suggestion for engagement and better communications. That is always a plus and CAAS will follow up with him.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: I thank the Member for the clarification. Indeed, I do agree with the Member. The quality of service standards and the taxi availability framework is currently undergoing review and would be consistently reviewed to make sure that it is updated and relevant to the evolving market and industry landscape.
Mr Leon Perera: Mdm Chairperson, I will keep it short. Just two points of clarifications to Senior Minister of State Mr Ng. I thank him for addressing some of my points. Firstly, on ERP 2.0, in designing the charging model, will the Ministry consider keeping the effect on total revenue neutral vis-a-vis the current vehicle population and current distances travelled? So, if the vehicle population increases, of course, revenue can increase, but the point of reference should be to keep it neutral to current revenue, since we want it to be mainly for easing congestion, rather than raising revenue.
Second point is: what will the Ministry be doing to work with the taxi companies to ensure that there is a minimum fleet of taxis that can carry wheelchairs, given the expected increase that we will face in the future of elderly Singaporeans who are not ambulatory and will need to go to and from medical appointments more? And also, to ensure that the fares are affordable for the most vulnerable group.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: I thank the Member for the clarification. On the charging model that Mr Perera had asked about, it is too early to say. We are in the preliminary stage. The primary objective of ERP 2.0 is for congestion management; it has never been to raise revenue.
Given the vast amounts of things that we have to study, whether eventually there will be more or less revenue collected, it is too early to say. Let me assure the Member that the primary objective of ERP 2.0 is for congestion management.
On the second point on the composition of the taxi fleet, when the demand goes up, we will be encouraging the taxi fleet to answer to these needs. As for the affordability part of it, MOT, together with MSF, has different programmes for the lower income groups to access certain grants so that they are able to afford such point-to-point services, should they need it.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Madam, I would like to clarify on what Senior Minister of State Mr Ng mentioned earlier. He said that any improper tweaking of the current COE scheme may result in an increase of the vehicle population and this contradicts the objective of the COE scheme.
However, Madam, my proposal in asking for an adjustment to the existing Cat D is more towards making a proper and fairer allocation of quotas among the three different classes of motorcycles, according to the demand of the respective classes. Hence, it does not increase the vehicle population. So, I do hope that the Ministry will further study this proposal.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: Madam, I thank the Member for clarifying. I apologise if I got him wrong when he articulated the question. I could not hear the question clearly.
In terms of the engine power, 70% of the motorcycle population are motorcycles below 200cc, and about 30% are those above 200cc. There is a 70:30 split. But if we were to split the COEs into smaller categories, it will bring in rigidity and the subsequent effect will lead to higher volatility of COE prices for motorcycles. That is something we want to avoid.
And for the point on assistance to the lower-income, which I now recall the Member asked as well, can I suggest that we take a more targeted and needs-based approach towards assisting the lower income, outside of the COE system? Because, ultimately, as I have said, the COE system is to allocate the scarce resource of vehicle needs for Singaporeans in a land-scarce Singapore.
The Chairman: Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, do you wish to withdraw the amendment?
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Madam, I would like to thank Members for their insightful and thoughtful contributions. Further, on behalf of Members, I extend our appreciation to our officers from MOT and our Ministers for answering our questions, as well as sharing with us the future of transportation in Singapore. On that note, Madam, I beg to withdraw my amendment.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $1,346,786,800 for Head W ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $9,459,952,200 for Head W ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Head L (Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mdm Chair, I beg to move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head L of the Estimates be reduced by $100.\"
The sweltering temperatures in Malaysia must serve as a warning bell to all of us. In Singapore, the temperatures are also climbing. Should we be blanketed again this year by the transboundary haze, the impact may be even worse than last year, with the rising temperatures.
The transboundary haze is one of the major contributors to climate change. According to estimates released by Guido van der Werf on the Global Fire Emissions Database, there had been nearly 100,000 active fire detections in Indonesia last year.
Since September last year, it has generated emissions exceeding the average daily emissions from all US economic activity, every day. Imagine how severe it is. We have been robbed of our clean and green living environment. This is why I do not understand how some political leaders from a neighbouring country can say that they gave us 11 months of fresh air and then we complain about one month of haze. Not sure if he can survive on 11 months of healthy food and one month of poisonous food. What steps are being taken under the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act to prosecute and deter errant companies which are contributing to the haze?
There is increasing recognition that the root cause of the forest fires in Indonesia is commercially-driven. What measures have the Ministry taken to enhance the accountability of companies? What were the regional and bilateral efforts that Singapore participated or led, in mitigating the causes of the transboundary haze pollution in our region?
Have all the companies that have businesses in Singapore provided detailed maps of all concessions in their supply chain? Of course, we also understand the challenges and limitations that our leaders have been facing, if our neighbouring country does not have the political will to solve the root cause of the problem.
Haze causes climate change which, in turn, causes temperatures to rise; which, in turn, causes mosquitoes to bread faster. To put it simply – haze has caused more dengue cases. The National Environment Agency (NEA) has announced that we may reach a record high in the number of dengue cases this year. Again, we have been robbed of our clean and green living environment, thanks to the haze.
In addition, South Korea and Vietnam had confirmed their first Zika cases recently. There is a very real threat that the Zika virus could enter Singapore. May I know how the Ministry intends to tackle this threat?
I believe, with the havoc created by climate change, we also need to look at our drainage system. To date, we have been coping fairly well, but flash floods continue to disrupt our daily lives, though only occasionally. May I know what is the PUB doing to prepare the drainage system for any extreme weather conditions where you see very heavy continuous rainfall?
On the flip side, as we know, we may also get prolonged dry weather. It may be timely to remind our people of the need to conserve water. May I ask: what is the progress of efforts to encourage water conservation and what are our plans in this area?
While on PUB, can the Minister give the House an update on the ABC Waters Programme? Since its launch in 2006, where are we now? How has this been benefiting Singaporeans? What further plans are there to expand this ABC programme in the next five to 10 years?
Still on clean and green, earlier this year, MOE took a huge step in the right direction by having all students from Primary to Junior College level to participate in daily cleaning activities in their schools. Hopefully, this can nurture the current generation of children into future adults who possess great community ownership.
But in the interim, there are still people who believe that cleaners and conservancy workers will pick up after their mess. These are the culprits who rob their fellow residents of a clean and green living environment. May I ask: what is the progress of efforts to engender greater community ownership to keep the environment clean?
I think more community-based ground-up initiatives will help. In Nee Soon South, I pick litter with residents every month. It was initially difficult to convince the less-receptive residents, but seeing their fellow residents and their Member of Parliament in action had convinced more people to come together and appreciate the importance of taking responsibility.
The prohibition of second-hand smoke is another subject that has been very close to the heart of my residents. The last extension of the smoking ban was in 2013. Does the Ministry intend to further extend the smoking ban to cover more places to safeguard the health of the public against second-hand smoke? Does the Ministry have any plan to roll out designated smoking points, like in Japan and Taiwan?
Now, I would like to turn to food. In our society, hawker centres still hold dear for many Singaporeans and even the tourists. I am pleased to note that 20 new hawker centres are expected to be ready by 2027. However, there have been concerns that it will be difficult to find sufficient hawkers to take up the stalls. Youths interested in F&B tend to favour cafes and restaurants. What plans does the Ministry have to further ensure the vibrancy of our hawker centre culture? How can we make it more appealing to young entrepreneurs? Can we improve the working conditions in hawker centres?
Talking about hawker centres, I would like to thank the Ministry for the new hawker centre in Yishun. I am very happy to see that construction work has started on site. This is a place my residents have been looking forward to, because they know that it is the place to have good food at reasonable prices. And, certainly, we hope that it will be completed on time. Many of my residents, especially those who have good cooking skills, are also looking forward to having stalls in the new hawker centre. So, I hope that NEA can look into this aspect and help everybody.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan (Nominated Member): Mdm Chair, I note from the Budget Book that the largest share of the Ministry's operating budget for FY2016, which is almost 70%, is dedicated towards NEA. NEA, as we know, aims to promote and sustain a clean and healthy environment in Singapore.
Since the passage of the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act in September 2014, NEA has a new tool in its arsenal – to hold errant companies responsible for causing or contributing to haze pollution in Singapore, especially through unsustainable land-clearing in Indonesia and elsewhere.
Significantly, this law gives investigative and enforcement powers to the Director-General of Environmental Protection, who is appointed under section 3(1) of the Environmental Protection and Management Act.
Last year, our Pollution Standards Index (PSI) remained at Unhealthy or Very Unhealthy levels for weeks on end due to fires that were started in Sumatra and Central Kalimantan.
Haze pollution affected many of us. The most vulnerable, of course, were the elderly, those with respiratory problems and children. There were also very clear financial costs to corporations here which depended on visitors, especially sports events, hotels and outdoor tourist attractions like the Zoo and the Bird Park.
I am, therefore, encouraged by speeches made at the Committee of Supply (COS) by the Minister for Foreign Affairs indicating that he is committed to combating transboundary haze pollution.
I am also encouraged by the Senior Minister of State for Finance Ms Indranee Rajah's statements in response to a Parliamentary Question that both GIC and Temasek do not support companies that cause haze pollution; that they abide by sustainable business standards.
With all of these in mind, may I ask these questions of the Ministry? Beyond haze subsidies and haze preparedness, what action has the Director-General of Environmental Protection and NEA, as a whole, taken to investigate, address or mitigate transboundary haze pollution under Part III of the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act?
In particular, can we have a status update on the six preventive notices that were issued last year to companies domiciled in Indonesia? Were these notices effective in prompting the companies in question to provide relevant information, desist from their misconduct and take remedial action? If not, has prosecution been recommended by the Director-General or NEA in general?
Apart from prosecution, has NEA sought to work with our homegrown NGOs, such as the People's Movement to Stop Haze Pollution? This is a small group of NUS, NTU and SMU graduates led by Mr Tan Yi Han who mapped hotspots all across Indonesia.
Has NEA consulted the Singapore Stock Exchange (SGX) on whether listed companies which cause or contribute to haze pollution in Singapore will be required to disclose their unsustainable practices and, if not, to explain them?
Finally, would NEA consider inviting perhaps the Law Society of Singapore to have a panel of commercial disputes and corporate lawyers to advise on possible next steps were we to have another sustained incidence of haze pollution? I understand that lawyers from Singapore and foreign Bar counsels in Brunei and Malaysia are currently talking about what they can do.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mdm Chairperson, climate change and the reality of rising sea levels are upon us. Just a couple of months ago, a friend shared with me a video clip of how far the tide had reached at an area of East Coast beach close to the old Big Splash. Mdm Speaker, with your permission, I would like to show that clip.
The Chairman: Yes, please. [A video clip was shown to hon Members.]
Mr Pritam Singh: Members will notice the waves breaking at the very edge of the foreshore with the backshore inundated with sea water.
In late 2014, it was reported that the new Changi Airport was being built on higher ground to guard against rising sea levels and that it would be able to withstand more than the projected 18-inch or 46-centimetre rise in sea levels. Separately, the minimum level for newly reclaimed land went up in 2011 to 2.25 metres above the highest recorded tide from 1.25 metres. Early this week, it was reported that Nicoll Drive was being elevated by 80 centimetres.
Can the Minister share what are the plans to protect our beaches and mangrove areas and other existing coastal areas from rising sea levels? Can the Minister update the House on the progress of the Government's Coastal Adaptation Study that was announced almost three years ago? Does the Minister foresee the raising of a Climate Change Fund akin to the Changi Airport Terminal 5 Fund, to build a sizeable financial buffer over a few Budgets, so that Singapore can be better ready from a fiscal point of view to address the very real and debilitating effects of climate change?
Miss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): Experts have warned that Singapore is at risk from rising sea levels due to climate change. May I ask the Ministry for an update on the long-term plans to protect our coastline and the infrastructural costs involved? Would the Ministry also share the progress of the road-raising works on Nicoll Drive in anticipation of rising sea levels? What other parts of Singapore are at risk if the sea level rises by another metre?
As the global climate changes, Singapore is not immune to its effects. We have seen in recent years, periods of extreme weather – more frequent episodes of heavy rain alternating with very hot weather. How will we minimise the incidents of flooding due to the downpours and mitigate the impact of the blazing sun on our population, particularly those engaged in outdoor activities? What can we do to ensure that people whose profession or hobbies require significant outdoor exposure are educated and protected?
With the hotter weather, our energy consumption will also rise as more Singaporeans turn on their air-conditioning. Do we have long-term plans to reduce this dependency on air-conditioning via green building or eco-friendly architecture?
The Chairman: Mr Louis Ng, you have three cuts, please take them together.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Madam. As a small city state on an island, Singapore is not insulated from the impact of climate change. It has been reported that from 1972 to 2014, the annual mean temperature has increased from 26.6°C to 27.7°C. The mean sea level in the Straits of Singapore has also increased at the rate of 1.2mm to 1.7mm per year in the period 1975 to 2009. Rainfall has also become more intense in recent years.
Singapore was supportive of the historic COP21 climate deal last year, declaring its intention to reduce Emissions Intensity by 36% from 2005 levels by 2030 and stabilise emissions with the aim of peaking around 2030. What specific steps will the Government be taking to ensure that we meet these goals? Will the Government be moving beyond its current strategy of improving energy efficiency, towards investments in renewable energy, or reducing our economic reliance on high carbon industries?
Transboundary haze has been a problem in Southeast Asia for the past few decades. Year after year, we face the same problem despite all the efforts in the previous year to ensure that we wipe out this problem. This is also despite the signing of the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution.
With the haze season drawing near and, in fact, we have already caught sight of the haze in the past few weeks, what are the regional and bilateral efforts that Singapore will participate in to mitigate the causes of the transboundary haze in our region?
As Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has mentioned, there is increasing recognition that the root cause of forest fires in Indonesia is commercially-driven. We are also aware that there may be some publicly-traded companies in Singapore who might have a stake in or have played a role in the forest fires in this region. These fires and the resulting haze have not only destroyed the environment and wildlife, but have also resulted in health issues amongst Singaporeans and economic losses in Singapore.
What measures has the Ministry taken to enhance the accountability of such companies and what measures will the Ministry further take to ensure that such companies are brought to task?
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development and Acting Ministers for Education (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim): Mdm Chair, Singapore was affected by the longest episode of transboundary haze pollution in 2015. It had affected Singaporeans' lives and our economy. Minister Masagos mentioned that the haze in 2015 caused us an estimated $700 million of losses. Can the Minister update the House on the steps taken under the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act to prosecute and deter errant companies which contributed to the haze?
As there is an increasing recognition that the root cause of the forest fires in Indonesia is commercially-driven, what measures has the Ministry taken to enhance the accountability of these companies? What more will the Ministry do to have more effect on these companies' actions that caused the haze? How can we Singaporeans be part of this process?
Madam, my next cut. The Ministry has set higher standards for air quality benchmarked against guidelines by the World Health Organization. I understand that vehicles are major domestic emitters of pollutants in Singapore. I would like to know where we are compared to other countries in terms of vehicular emissions. What are the Ministry's plans to better address vehicular pollution and to move towards our 2020 Air Quality Targets?
On a related issue, in the past decade, there had been advancements in technology in the production of vehicles where some have arrived on our shores here in Singapore. Some claim to be better for the environment and lower the cost of fuel consumption. While these claims may have been scientifically proven, I would like to ask if the Ministry has conducted any studies to better understand the pollution caused by this new vehicle technology and types of engine, such as diesel engine, within our local context in Singapore.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mdm Chair, I am filing my annual cut on dengue as it continues to plague Singaporeans and my residents in the Serangoon ward of Aljunied GRC.
In February, the Government reported that the number of dengue cases in 2016 may exceed 30,000, higher than the record of 22,170 cases in 2013. The main reasons are the warmer conditions due to El Nino and a change of the main virus serotype from DEN 1 to DEN 2.
History has shown that a change in the predominant dengue virus will cause a spike of cases during the earlier periods. The Aedes mosquito population in our community has also increased since November with NEA's gravitraps and inspection checks showing a 50% increase in Aedes mosquitoes and breeding.
The Ministry's top priority is source eradication and I must convey my residents' gratitude for the tireless NEA officers and contractors who visited estates and homes to do inspections and misting and to provide advice.
At last year's Committee of Supply, we were told that NEA had 850 staff in the regular vector control workforce. To what extent have additional resources been needed this year? Some locations are not accessible for inspection. And since 2014, NEA has been trying out radio-controlled aerial inspection crafts (RAIC) for the surveillance of roof gutter conditions. RAIC is able to deposit Bti larvicides to kill larvae in roof gutters. Has the trial been successful and will it be fully implemented?
The Minister has also said that $3 million is being put aside to develop the Wolbachia bacteria to fight dengue over the next three years. When are we likely to see the results of this?
Finally, concerning the dengue vaccine, several countries, including the Philippines, have registered the use of the Dengvaxia vaccine developed by Sanofi. The vaccine apparently works against all four serotypes, though its efficacy rate is not uniform. Is the Government in a better position now to comment or commit to a dengue vaccine?
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Madam, it is the time of the year again when we need to raise our vigilance against the rising cases of dengue. NEA announced that we are likely to see a higher number of dengue cases compared to last year. This time around, we have the added threat of Zika which could be transmitted by the same mosquitoes.
The key is to reduce the population of mosquitoes through removing the source of breeding. At the community level, the practical response is always to encourage as many of the residents as possible to conduct the \"Do the Mozzie Wipeout\" exercise. We also need to step up vector control operations and enhance surveillance. What more can we do to tackle this threat?
I read that the Wolbachia technology has been experimented in countries like Australia, Brazil, Vietnam and Indonesia. Can I ask if NEA will be looking into this technology? I understand that there are also some positive developments in the area of vaccine. Is the Ministry also looking into this option as well?
Miss Cheng Li Hui: Singapore's current demand for water is 400 mgd and it is expected to double to 800 mgd by 2061 due to population increases and growing commerce and industry needs. The Linggiu Reservoir in Johor is five times larger than all of Singapore's 17 freshwater reservoirs combined and hence, it is a critical source of water. Our 99-year water agreement with Malaysia will end in 2061. What is our long-term water supply plan to ensure Singapore will continue to have adequate water for her needs in the future?
Currently, the Linggiu Reservoir's water level is hovering around 43% due the recent dry weather. What plans do the Ministry and PUB have to ensure that our water supply is resilient against increasing occurrences of dry spells and even prolonged drought?
Can we expedite the installation of water retention tanks to collect rainwater during heavy rain and reduce the amount of rainwater flowing into the public drainage system and help reduce flooding?
Water is precious and we need to manage its use carefully. What is the progress of our public education efforts to encourage water conservation? Can we incorporate more water-saving designs and mechanisms in our buildings?
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Chair, the prolonged dry season has a devastating impact on the Linggiu Reservoir in Johor which supplies much of our water to us. What measures can we take to reduce the loss of water there?
I would also like to ask the Ministry what are our plans to ensure that we have enough water and ensure our water resilience?
Our current water strategy has three parts: maximise collection, water treatment and desalination. Would the Ministry update us on the development plans to increase our water catchment areas, including our drains, canals and waterways? What new technologies have we adopted or developed to treat used water? Have there been any new advances in our desalination technologies?
Water is precious, as my colleague has said, and we need to minimise wastage and leakage. Would the Minister share how serious is our problem of water wastage and leakage and what is being done to rectify this? Do we have plans to implement stricter criteria for buildings to ensure that they install water-saving devices?
Mr Lee Yi Shyan (East Coast): Mdm Chair, according to experts, Singapore will face severe water supply challenges in 2040 as one of the world's most water-stressed countries.
What is the Ministry's plan to further moderate demand of water usage in the general population? Can the Ministry give us an update on what new measures or smart devices PUB might introduce to help households save on water usage?
On commercial water users, I see on the one hand very effective water-conserving devices being fitted to the taps in public buildings, hotels and shopping malls. On the other hand, I see generous water usage in many manual car-wash service outlets at petrol kiosks. Observations like these suggest that we have very uneven practices in different commercial and industry sectors.
While there is a requirement for commercial water-users consuming more than 60,000 cubic metres of water a year to submit Water Efficiency Management Plan to PUB, would the Ministry consider introducing finer measures which would promote water conservation amongst different industries and establishments, large and small?
Singapore has accumulated substantial expertise in water reclamation, regeneration and consumption management. Many water-related companies based here have grown and are exporting their expertise to the regional markets. Would the Ministry consider leveraging RIE2020 and the Industry Transformation Roadmaps to further strengthen our water industry cluster and, thereby, creating more meaningful jobs for Singaporeans?
The Chairman: Mr Louis Ng, please take your two cuts together.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Madam, over the past few decades, we have seen increasingly frequent and more intense rain in Singapore. This has resulted in floods in several areas in Singapore and on numerous occasions.
With the onset of climate change, we can expect to experience more unpredictable and intense rainfall. This will potentially result in more floods despite our recent efforts to mitigate flooding. Can the Ministry further elaborate on its plans to mitigate floods in the face of these challenges?
Madam, my next cut. Technological advances have led to affordable ownership of personal electronics and this has resulted in more electronic waste being generated by Singaporeans. According to the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources, quite disappointingly, only less than 1% of our e-waste was recycled in 2015.
Electronic and electrical waste, or e-waste, contains small amounts of hazardous substances, which pose health concerns if not disposed of properly. What are the Ministry's plans to ensure the continued safe recycling or disposal of our growing volume of e-waste in Singapore?
Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): Mdm Chair, electronic and electrical waste, also known as e-waste, contains small amounts of hazardous substance, which may pose health concerns if not properly disposed of. Substances, such as mercury or cadmium, found in e-waste could also cause long-term environment pollution and degradation. However, e-waste also contains useful materials, such as rubber, plastics, glass, gold and lithium, which can be recycled.
Sixty million kilogrammes of e-waste are produced every year, of which only a small portion is collected by community e-waste recycling programmes. I understand that NEA is looking into the option of having a national system to collect, recycle and handle e-waste. In view of the growing e-waste volume in this iDevice generation, I would like to seek an update on the Ministry's plans to ensure the safe recycling and disposal of electronic and electrical waste.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Chair, NEA reported that in 2014, less than 13% of food waste was recycled and over 680,000 tonnes had to be incinerated. This number is only going to grow with our increasing population and given the prosperity of the population and the Singaporean culture of eating out.
Recently, NEA announced the launch of a two-year onsite food waste recycling pilot at two hawker centres in Ang Mo Kio and Tiong Bahru. This is a good move. But for an urgent problem, it is insufficient.
I have two suggestions to accelerate food waste recycling. First, food waste recycling in hawker centres is a low-hanging fruit as NEA is in charge of the space. However, hawker centres do not seem to account for large amounts of food waste. The Ang Mo Kio and Tiong Bahru markets together produce an estimated 1,800 tonnes of food waste a year but the markets occupy a central place in the town centres and NEA could extend the pilot projects to a wider catchment area to cover nearby private coffee shops, food courts and grocery stores. This makes food waste recycling readily accessible at town centres.
In fact, NEA could also experiment with getting the surrounding HDB households to bring down their food waste to the recycling centres. This will gauge the readiness of households to adopt food waste recycling and allow NEA to test different methods to get households to recycle their food waste correctly and cleanly.
Second, NEA should begin simultaneous pilot projects to encourage food waste recycling at clusters of F&B joints, such as those in shophouse rows or shopping malls across the city. This may present more challenges than hawker centres due to diverse stakeholders and configuration of space. Therefore, the pilot should start earlier. There is more time to evaluate and test the recycling methods.
Miss Cheng Li Hui: Mdm Chairman, Singapore has long advocated the 3Rs – recycle, reduce, reuse. How prevalent is recycling in both our residential estates and commercial properties? Would the Ministry update us on our progress in the area of public education to get more Singaporeans to recycle consistently and the correct way to recycle to prevent contamination? What percentage of the collection is contaminated?
NEA provides a blue recycling bin at the common area next to every HDB block under the National Recycling Programme (NRP) to encourage more households to recycle. How successful is this programme and what is the average amount of recyclables collected per month island-wide?
The Chairman: Dr Chia Shi-Lu, you have three cuts. Please take them together.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu: Mdm Chair, waste not, want not. Food is a defining part of our identity as Singaporeans. But unfortunately, as a nation, a great deal of food wastage occurs daily. In 2014, Singapore produced 788,600 tonnes of food waste, which means that each person discarded about 146 kilogrammes of food over the course of a year. Food waste in Singapore has increased by 48% in the past 10 years.
Would the Ministry update us on its plans and public education programmes to reduce food wastage? What can be done to encourage diners to order less and our hawker centres and restaurants to give customers the option of choosing smaller portions? How do we improve our much beloved buffets, which will also help to reduce both wastage and our waist lines?
How can we also incentivise retailers to reduce food wastage, perhaps by selling food near their expiry dates at a discount and donating their unsold food to the needy?
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] As exercise is the key to health, hygiene is the assurance of health. If you want to live a healthy life, a clean environment is a prerequisite. Regrettably, in recent years, our cleanliness has not been as good as before. Littering cases have been on the rise every year. This will not only affect the image of our country, but also lead to diseases.
Some say Singapore is no longer a clean city but a cleaned city. We all know that cleaning itself cannot ensure environmental hygiene. Protecting our environment is the responsibility of each one of us. This is a pressing issue. I would like to ask the Minister: what is the effectiveness of our public engagement measures?
Can we run the \"Keep Singapore Clean\" Campaign again, like before? Why is the current \"Clean and Green\" initiative not achieving its desired outcomes? How do we educate Singaporeans to have the right hygiene awareness?
I would like to ask the Minister what is the progress of the Community Volunteer Programme and whether Corrective Work Order is effective in punishing the litterbugs?
Last cut, in English. Mdm Chair, many estates are, unfortunately, witnessing increasing rodent populations, which are becoming recalcitrant to vermin control measures. Rats are very intelligent and there is evidence that they could learn to avoid traps and even poison.
Recently, there have been several reports of rodent infestation in our heartland estates. In my constituency of Queenstown, despite the concerted efforts of our Town Council, the rodent population seems to be increasing. Improper disposal of food, improper food storage, littering, leftover food from the feeding of strays, all these provide rats with sources of food, allowing the rats to breed and multiply quickly.
In the Ministry's reply to my Parliamentary Question last year, I note that NEA implements an integrated rodent surveillance and vector control programme and that from January 2014 to November 2014, over 35,000 rodent burrows were detected and treated. I also understand that NEA has brought back the Rat Attack programme that is administered in partnership with the Town Councils. Can the Ministry provide an update on further measures to counter this distressing problem and if it could better assist the respective Town Councils in their efforts to control the rodent population?
The Chairman: Mr Gan Thiam Poh, you have two cuts. Please take them together.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh: Mdm Chair, what are the plans to improve our levels of public cleanliness and achieve the kind of standards achieved in Japan and Taiwan? We used to have campaigns to urge Singaporeans and residents not to litter and to cooperate in keeping our public spaces and common areas clean. Since the campaigns stopped, our level of cleanliness has worsened over the years.
We should seriously consider restarting the campaign in four languages. In Taiwan, the tireless public education efforts include ceaseless reminders in public areas not to litter and to keep clean. We can certainly learn from the effectiveness of the Taiwanese.
With the amendment to expand the Community Volunteer (CV) scheme to allow NEA to appoint individuals as CVs, we will have more people to assist with enforcement on the ground. Would the Minister give us an update on the CV scheme?
In addition, how many people have been caught for littering in the past year and what are the profiles of these typical offenders? How many had been fined and how many had to perform corrective work orders? Does the Minister think that corrective work orders and fines have been effective deterrents?
Next cut. I would like to ask if the locations of our new hawker centres in Sengkang have been confirmed. Can NEA look into plans to allocate hawker stalls to applicants from low-income groups and train and equip them with the skills to operate and manage the stalls successfully?
Providing Singaporeans who may have no other skills with a way to earn a livelihood and support their families by running a hawker stall was one of our social objectives in the early days of nation building. I think this is a valid and viable social objective today and we should continue to provide this means of earning a living to those who need it.
Miss Cheng Li Hui: Hawker centres are an essential part of heartland living and part of Singapore's unique national heritage. Many Singaporeans enjoy our hawker food, its convenience and affordability. As many of our hawkers are getting older, how can the Ministry help to preserve the hawker trade? How do we ensure that the stall rental prices remain reasonable and the prices of food in our hawker centres remain affordable?
Mr Liang Eng Hwa: Mdm Chair, two new hawker centres were completed since the Government resumed the building of hawker centres. They were Hougang Ci Yuan Hawker Centre operated by Fei Siong Food Management and Bukit Panjang Hawker Centre run by NTUC Foodfare.
These two hawker centres were run under the new \"not-for-profit\" model. Can the Minister update how the experience has been and whether there are good learning points to apply for the next 18 new hawker centres?
Building the hawker centres is the relatively easier part. The more difficult challenge is to find enough enterprising hawkers, especially young hawkers. It is important that we groom a new generation of hawkers so that our hawker culture and the good food can carry on.
Would NEA consider further lowering the barrier to entry for young would-be hawkers and have a new hawker assistance scheme or programme to help first-time hawkers? To keep our hawker centres vibrant and lively, would NEA consider studying overseas models and experiences, such as those at the Taipei night markets and Hong Kong street markets, to see if there are any good ideas that can be replicated in Singapore?
The Chairman: Mr Louis Ng, please take your two cuts together.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Madam, smoking prohibition in Singapore was first introduced in 1970 and has been progressively extended to cover virtually all indoor places and areas where the public congregate. This is to provide a clean, safe and healthy environment for the public and to safeguard their health against the harmful effects of second-hand smoke.
The last extension of the smoking ban was in 2013. The long-term policy goal of the Ministry is to prohibit smoking at all public places, except designated smoking points or areas. NEA's goal is to move the policy from a prohibitive list to a positive list.
While there are recent steps, such as the ban on display at point-of-sale, taken by the Ministry to reduce smoking rates in Singapore, does the Ministry intend to further expand the reach of the smoking ban to cover more places in order to safeguard the health of the public against the harmful and damaging effects of second-hand smoke?
The Active, Beautiful, Clean Waters (ABC Waters) Programme has been well-received by members of the public. I was at the launch of the ABC Waters @ Siglap Canal in December last year. Having seen the old canal before the implementation of the programme, I can see the amazing transformation it has undergone and how it has turned the area into a community space, which is well-used.
That is the goal of the ABC Waters Programme. \"By integrating the drains, canals and reservoirs with the surrounding environment in a holistic way, the ABC Waters Programme aims to create beautiful and clean streams, rivers and lakes with postcard-pretty community spaces for all to enjoy.\"
We are now in our 10th year of the programme and I understand that over the last 10 years, 32 ABC Waters projects have been completed across the island. Another 54 ABC Waters-certified projects were undertaken by private developers and other public agencies. Can the Ministry elaborate on the plans for the ABC Waters Programme in the next five to 10 years? And I have to add this: if possible, launch one in Nee Soon East.
Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): Madam, we are keenly aware of the scarcity of land in Singapore. Yet, we have to provide space for the increasing and much-needed social programmes and services.
I have received many such appeals. Typically, whenever we need more space, we boringly look to void decks and vacant lands. Yet, we simply do not have enough space to do so. I believe this challenge is not unique to MacPherson alone.
Faced with this reality, I wonder if we could be more creative and build above the canals?
By doing so, we can redesign the concept of space. We will also bridge communities on both sides of the canal and the new space created can be used for eldercare, childcare or for equally meaningful social purposes. With the canal and water flowing through, beneficiaries and residents can learn about water conservation, the surrounding ecosystem, reclamation of drain and, perhaps, even hydro-power. We will also be supporting the \"A\" in the \"ABC\", as the activities above and around the canal increase.
One can perhaps draw inspiration from the Lien Foundation project titled \"A Different Class: Pre-school Spaces Redefined\". Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister if MEWR will favourably consider such an endeavour for constituencies with canals, such as MacPherson.
The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mdm Chair, I have asked the Clerk to place an infographic for MEWR COS 2016 on the seats for the sake of Members.
Last year, we celebrated SG50 to reflect on our achievements of the past 50 years. Even in our early years, Mr Lee Kuan Yew was already clear that we needed to address poor sanitation, clean our dirty streets, detoxify our polluted rivers. His vision was of a clean and green Singapore.
It was because of this drive that Singapore became one of the earliest countries in the world to set up a Ministry dedicated to the environment in 1972. Mr Lim Kim San, the first Minister for the Environment summed up our environmental challenges well. He said: \"Singapore is getting so urbanised that if we don't take action now to keep our environment clean, it will be too late.\" So, he got to work, and he and the others that came after him, helped to build our City in a Garden that we see today.
My Ministry conducted a survey in December last year to better understand Singaporeans' perceptions of environmental issues. The survey shows, among other things, that most respondents continue to recognise that it is everyone's responsibility to deal with the environment and that most view aspects of the environment as important parts of Singapore life. That is heartening.
Mdm Chair, with your permission, I would like to show some slides, please.
The Chairman: Yes, please. [Some slides were shown to hon Members.]
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: When asked what were the top environmental challenges in Singapore, respondents identified air pollution, cleanliness of public areas and vector-borne diseases as the top three, understandably. As you can see, almost three-quarters of the respondents considered air pollution as a top challenge. That is what I will deal with first.
My Ministry, together with the Ministry of National Development, launched the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint (SSB) 2015 with a holistic vision of a Liveable and Endearing Home, a Vibrant and Sustainable City, and an Active and Gracious Community. It brings together all the things we need to do, so that all of us, whether we are Government, business or people, can work together as one towards a Sustainable Singapore.
Under SSB 2015, we have set air quality targets for 2020 and, as Assoc Prof Faishal pointed out, we need to press on with our efforts to reduce local sources of air pollution, as well as carbon, if we are to fulfil our local and international obligations. Studies by the World Health Organization and others have confirmed the harm that air pollution does to our health.
Therefore, we have systematically introduced policies to reduce air pollution from industries and vehicles. Last year, we tightened standards for emissions from industries and extended the Early Turnover Scheme to include Euro II and Euro III diesel commercial vehicles to incentivise the replacement of older and more pollutive commercial vehicles sooner. Emission standards for new motor vehicles are also being tightened – all new petrol motor vehicles will have to be Euro VI – compliant from September 2017 and all new diesel motor vehicles from January 2018. These are the latest international emission standards for petrol and diesel vehicles.
We are taking a step further. Motorcycles are significant contributors to carbon monoxide and ozone. We need to raise their emission standards in step with improvements in technology. We will, therefore, be tightening the emission standards for new motorcycles to the latest Euro IV standards. This will be done in phases: for large motorcycles above 200 cc from 1 January 2018, and for small motorcycles of 200 cc and below from 1 January 2020.
We are also concerned about emissions from diesel vehicles. Amidst their increasing popularity worldwide, there are increasing concerns about their health and environmental impact. In the wake of the recent Volkswagen scandal, regulators around the world are looking closely at the real world emissions of diesel vehicles, which have been shown to deviate significantly from what is measured in laboratory tests. We have to re-look at the widespread use of diesel technology carefully and minimise the public's exposure to risks in the future. To do this, we will conduct a study of pollution from diesel vehicles in Singapore. The results of this study will aid in the review of future vehicular emission policies.
Most Singaporeans are only concerned with air quality during haze episodes, especially the PSI shown on their phone apps or on television screens. There is actually a whole team of NEA officers working behind the scenes to keep tabs on the air we breathe in every day. Those of you who follow my Facebook page would know that since the start of this year, I have been featuring MEWR-family staff under #myMEWRkakis to highlight the work of staff and to show my appreciation to them.
Allow me to highlight two more officers here. Mr Heng Jiarui, a scientific officer, and Ms Fareena Abdul Rahim, a chemical engineer, are both officers in the Pollution Control Department who work closely with their teams to continuously monitor criteria air pollutants from some 22 ambient air quality stations island-wide. They also monitor 200 sources of industrial emissions for different types of toxic discharges and gases. If unusual emissions or discharges occur, a response team will have to investigate and stop the discharge. We can sleep easy at night knowing that these dedicated officers are watching our backs.
While we are on the topic of air quality and PSI, I thought it would be a good moment to talk about the haze. Unfortunately, we are increasingly affected by transboundary haze pollution, as Mr Louis Ng and several Members have highlighted. Last year, we experienced one of the longest haze episodes. There is no easy solution to this complex issue. We need concerted action by all stakeholders to overcome this problem. On the part of the Government, we actively work with our neighbours bilaterally and regionally. Let me give you an update.
First, we will actively promote regional cooperation because haze is a multilateral issue. As the haze is largely due to peatland fires, Singapore has facilitated the development of the ASEAN Guidelines on Peatland Fire Management with contributions from all member states. We also host the ASEAN Specialised Meteorological Centre, which helps to monitor the fire and hotspot situation in the region.
Singapore has led the development of the ASEAN Sub-Regional Haze Monitoring System which aims to increase transparency and accountability of errant companies responsible for the fires. This system will need to be supported by effective information exchange among governments. We will continue to participate actively in ASEAN initiatives to address transboundary haze and urge all member countries to implement their national action plans and work towards realising the Haze Monitoring System.
Second, we will continue to support Indonesia's efforts to tackle haze. Since 2005, we have been offering them assistance to fight fires and will continue to do so. We had also worked with the Muaro-Jambi Regency in Jambi Province on capacity building projects to deal with land and forest fires from 2007 to 2011. We have since offered to renew this collaboration under a proposed Memorandum of Understanding and are awaiting Indonesia's response.
Third, we are addressing the commercial roots of transboundary haze by pursuing errant companies and encouraging the agro-forestry industry to adopt more sustainable practices. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Assoc Prof Faishal and Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan have asked about the steps being taken under the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act (THPA) and other measures to deter errant companies.
Arising from the 2015 haze episodes, NEA sent Preventive Measures Notices under section 9 of the THPA to six companies based in Indonesia, requesting that they take immediate measures to mitigate fires and develop plans to prevent their recurrence. Two of them have responded so far. NEA is corresponding with them and verifying the information provided. In addition, NEA served a Notice under section 10 of the THPA on Asia Pulp & Paper Company Ltd (APPCL)'s office in Singapore to seek information on its subsidiaries in Singapore and Indonesia, as well as measures taken by its Indonesian suppliers to put out fires in their concessions. NEA is currently reviewing some information received from APPCL.
Of the four companies based in Indonesia that did not respond, NEA has recently served Notices under sections 10 and 11 of the THPA on a foreign Director when he was in Singapore. These Notices require him to provide information and attend an interview in relation to the on-going investigations. In accordance with the law, we will take what steps we can to enforce the THPA, bearing in mind that, outside of Singapore, there are limited possibilities. We will, of course, hold any Singapore-linked persons or entities to account. At the same time, even if the errant company's officers are foreigners, they will have to comply with the laws of the country, including the Notices under the THPA, should they come to Singapore.
Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan has also suggested having settlement agreements and engaging the Law Society for future haze episodes. We could consider these suggestions when we next review the THPA with the experience gained in operationalising it, to see how it can be strengthened to hold errant companies to account – so that people take what we are doing seriously.
Fourth, as consumers, each one of us can influence the agro-forestry industry through our purchasing decisions.
Last October, the Singapore Environment Council (SEC) suspended the Green Label of APP's exclusive distributor in Singapore and partnered with the Consumers Association of Singapore to advocate for sustainable business practices.
Consequently, the larger supermarket chains, such as NTUC FairPrice, Sheng Siong and Prime Supermarket, responded by removing all APP products from their shelves, while the Dairy Farm Group stopped the purchase of all APP products. Our consumers, and consumers all around the world, are rightfully indignant when companies here and abroad blatantly violate their health and well-being with unsustainable practices. They are sending the right signals. These actions demonstrate the significant power of a collective consumer voice.
The Government will do its part as a consumer as well. I am pleased to announce that from third quarter 2016, the Government will take the lead and procure printing paper products that carry the Singapore Green Label, an indication that the supplier practises sustainable forestry management.
Similarly, the Government will be taking the lead in fighting climate change and procure only electrical products that have been certified with high-energy efficiency. We will start with four electrical items − air-conditioners, lamps, televisions and refrigerators – and will gradually extend this to more items.
A silver lining is that civil society and the private sector have stepped up to raise awareness of the sustainability of agroforestry products. We are heartened that WWF-Singapore, PM.Haze and the Singapore Institute of International Affairs jointly organised the \"We Breathe What We Buy\" campaign to highlight the link between purchasing products made from palm oil from unsustainable sources and the haze episodes. SEC has also announced the expansion of the coverage of the Singapore Green Labelling Scheme to certify products made using sustainable palm oil.
In the financial industry, we saw the Association of Banks in Singapore launching its Responsible Lending Guidelines and the Singapore Exchange moving towards its \"Comply or Explain\" sustainability reporting regime. These are good steps, some maybe baby steps. I hope to see more and stronger ground-up initiatives that demonstrate the business case to embrace sustainability.
It is the sum of all these: regional and international agreements and cooperation, bilateral support, bringing errant companies to task, consumer action, including Government procurement, civil society advocacy, green financing. These will help us edge closer to years in the future without haze. We must press on with our efforts, not just during the haze season, but consistently throughout the year because this is a serious environmental disaster with wide-ranging impact for us now and for the future.
Irresponsible burning over the years has affected the health of millions of people, impacted regional economies and caused irreversible loss of biodiversity. Singaporeans are, therefore, rightfully outraged because of its health impact; but more than that, the world is rightfully outraged because it also contributes to global warming. As mentioned by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, based on the Global Fire Emissions Database, the fires in Indonesia produced more emissions per day than the entire US economy. The entire US economy − that is not a small number. This massive amount of emissions from a single source is a huge setback in our global efforts to combat climate change.
This is a good juncture to move on to talk about climate change, which Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Louis Ng and Miss Cheng Li Hui have talked about.
Indeed, while our pioneers were concerned with the environmental impact of urbanisation and dense population to health and hygiene, we are now faced with the impact of climate change. Climate change will have far-reaching implications on us and future generations. As an island state, we are most vulnerable.
Our delegation, therefore, worked hard to broker consensus on the Paris Agreement so that all countries will take concrete action for it to be effective. Although Singapore only contributes 0.11% of global emissions, we are no less serious and have an ambitious target to reduce emission intensity.
The Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change, under the leadership of Deputy Prime Minister Teo, is formulating our national response to fight climate change to meet our obligations and prepare for its impact. We have to look systematically at every area while continuing to ensure environmental sustainability, economic competitiveness and energy security. It also means consumers, households and industries, all of us, need to be prepared to make significant adjustments and trade-offs.
To reduce emissions, energy efficiency remains our key strategy − we will enhance existing policies and study the introduction of new measures to improve the energy efficiency of industrial equipment and processes, our buildings and transportation.
Although Singapore has limited alternative energy options, we can do more in terms of adopting solar energy. We have made progress towards increasing the deployment of solar energy to at least 350 megawatt peak by 2020. This will make up 5% of the projected peak electricity demand.
Mdm Chair, climate science is a complex subject that we need to understand more deeply so that we can better prepare ourselves for climate change adequately. We cannot over-build because this will incur cost; nor under-build because this will spell disaster. Therefore, the Meteorological Service Singapore has been building up expertise to understand tropical weather at a higher resolution because Singapore is so small that the results from global models would not be meaningful. We have to pioneer our own studies.
I would like to highlight another #myMEWRkakis at work. Mr Raizan Rahmat, a Senior Research Scientist from the Centre for Climate Research Singapore, and his team worked hard for two years to effectively simulate a hundred years of temperature, rainfall, wind and sea-level projections for Singapore and the region. Drawing on a range of disciplines such as physics, climate science and atmospheric dynamics, the team developed climate scenarios that were used by our agencies to conduct impact risk assessments and make more informed decisions on how we can bolster our climate resilience. I wish to share some projections that these studies have made.
By the last few decades of this century, the sea level is projected to rise by between 0.25 metres and 0.76 metres; temperatures may increase by 1.4 degree celsius to 4.6 degree celsius; and Singapore will experience more intense rainfall.
Mr Pritam Singh made a suggestion about the possibility of setting up a Climate Change Fund. The Government is taking concrete action to prepare for climate change. We have set aside funds for various sectors and agencies to build up capabilities in climate resilience and look at how we can develop more cost-effective solutions. For example, the Government issued a call for proposals, under the Land and Liveability National Innovation Challenge, for researchers to propose innovative solutions to reduce the ambient temperature in residential estates by four degree celsius, and that is not just by air-conditioning. The Government is mindful of the potential fiscal costs of implementing climate change measures. Therefore, we are working with the relevant agencies and MOF to determine the required adaptation plans and financing requirements so that we are well-prepared.
Currently, where it is practical, we have made hard structures to protect our coastline. We are raising a stretch of Changi Coast Road and Nicoll Drive to guard against sea level rise and we expect this to be completed by mid-2016. These are just some examples of the measures we have taken to safeguard Singapore against rising sea levels. We are confident that Singapore is adequately protected from coastal inundation in the immediate future. To prepare for the longer term, the Building and Construction Authority is conducting a coastal adaptation study which will inform us if additional protection will be needed in the future for our coasts.
Mdm Chair, the warmer temperatures are also of concern as they could lead to heat-induced illnesses, among other impacts. Government agencies have SOPs and safety guidelines on how to prevent and mitigate heat injury amongst vulnerable groups, as well as those involved in outdoor activities. The Government is also undertaking studies to see how we can reduce ambient temperature, whether it is through having more urban greenery, the use of different building materials or the design of developments.
As Er Dr Lee Bee Wah mentioned, rising temperatures also pose an increased and significant threat for vector-borne diseases, like dengue and Zika. We have had more than 6,300 cases in the first three months of this year – more than double that for the same period last year. The recent decrease in cases does not mean that we are safe. It is not yet time to celebrate. Similar to past years, cases may increase as we enter the traditional dengue season in June.
As Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Ms Sylvia Lim pointed out, unless immediate measures are taken together, the number of cases this year may exceed 30,000, higher than the record of 22,170 cases in 2013.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa also mentioned the threat of Zika. We have not seen any cases of Zika so far, but as Singapore is an open and globally connected city, Zika can eventually arrive at our shores. MOH and NEA have introduced additional surveillance measures. Zika, like dengue, is transmitted by the Aedes mosquito, so the same control measures that we take for dengue also apply to Zika. Hence, all of us need to step up efforts to eradicate mosquito breeding in our homes and neighbourhoods.
I am glad to see the strong community response in the effort against dengue – we have more than 5,800 Dengue Prevention Volunteers. We need more of them and will train 5,000 more volunteers this year.
Our 850 dengue inspectors have also been hard at work. I highlighted them in my previous posting in myMEWRkakis. In the first three months this year, they carried out about 350,000 inspections island-wide; just the first three months.
While we step up this effort by engaging another 250 temporary officers this year, we are searching for better ways to tackle dengue. Our trial to pilot Radio-controlled Aerial Inspection Crafts to aid inspections of roof gutters is expected to be completed in the second quarter of 2016.
In the longer term, we will need new tools. NEA is conducting a feasibility study on the use of Wolbachia-carrying male Aedes mosquitoes to suppress the Aedes mosquito population. NEA will conduct a small-scale study involving the release of male Wolbachia-Aedes at the end of the year at a few selected sites. This study will help us understand the behaviour of these mosquitoes in local conditions.
We are not embarking on this lightly. We have studied this for years and have taken all steps to ensure that public health and safety will not be compromised. Our comprehensive risk assessment has concurred with previous findings on the safety of this technology. The release of male Wolbachia-Aedes will not pose any risk of biting nuisance or disease, because they are male mosquitoes. We will engage residents and stakeholders to provide more information on the technology and the study in due course.
Mdm Chair, my personal worry from extreme weather patterns due to climate change is the new challenge it poses to our water sustainability. The drier weather these couple of years saw the water level in Linggiu Reservoir drop to historic lows, from about 80% at the start of 2015 to 36.9% as we speak, and decreasing when there is no rain. This has impacted the reliability of imported water that supplies half our current needs. Fortunately, because we have diversified our water supplies or sources, we have been able to mitigate the impact of the drier weather.
But we cannot be complacent. Last month, the MIT published a study, which cited that one billion more people in Asia may experience severe water stress by 2050 due to economic and population growth, on top of climate change.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Miss Cheng Li Hui have asked about our long-term plans to ensure water sustainability and drought resilience in the face of climate change. We will continue to plan and invest ahead of demand. PUB, the national water agency, has completed its Water Master Plan 2016 review.
Under this Master Plan, PUB will continue to diversify and strengthen our water supply inventory. A second NEWater Factory at Changi will be completed by the end of the year. This will be our fifth NEWater plant and will be able to produce 50 million gallons per day (mgd) of NEWater. PUB will also be building more desalination plants, on top of the existing two plants. Construction of the third plant in Tuas is underway and will be completed in 2017. The fourth plant is planned for in Marina East and, when completed towards the end of 2019, will also strengthen the supply reliability to the city centre. To further enhance resilience, PUB is exploring the development of a fifth desalination plant on Jurong Island.
PUB is also planning to harness more seawater as a resource and will work with companies on Jurong Island to meet cooling demand with seawater instead of freshwater supply. Mr Gan asked about new advances in water treatment technology. This is vital and PUB is working closely with the industry to develop and test low-energy desalination technologies, one of which is a demonstration plant with Evoqua using electrochemical processes to remove salt from water. This technology has the potential to halve the energy requirement for desalination.
While we ensure we have enough water, our drinking water must also be clean and wholesome. This is achieved through multiple treatment and control barriers and a source-to-tap water monitoring system, which is supported by a team of 80 water quality professionals trained in disciplines, such as water treatment, microbiology and water chemistry. Three of #myMEWR kakis are shown – Eunice, Yin Mei and Jia Lin. Each year, PUB conducts over 400,000 tests to ensure that our water is perfectly safe to drink straight from the tap. You do not need to boil nor filter it.
Mdm Chair, on flood management, paradoxically, with weather extremities brought about by climate change, we can expect more frequent but intense rainfall. As Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Louis Ng pointed out, this will pose challenges to flood management.
To prepare for this, PUB has been adopting a holistic \"Source-Pathway-Receptor\" approach. This addresses flood protection at all parts of the drainage system. We have an ongoing islandwide drainage improvement programme to increase the capacity of our \"pathway\" drains. There are ongoing projects at 101 locations islandwide to be completed in the next three years; and, this year, we start work at another 30 locations.
In addition, PUB requires property developers and owners to implement \"source\" measures, including detention tanks, to slow down the flow of storm-water run-off into public drains. Developers should also implement \"receptor\" measures, such as higher platform levels, to protect their developments from flash floods.
While PUB continues to find a balance between minimising flood risks and strengthening drought resilience of our water supply in the face of climate change, we must also minimise leaks and manage our water demand sustainably.
In response to Mr Gan, we are mindful of leakages in our water infrastructure and are required to report to Cabinet periodically on this. PUB has a comprehensive programme to inspect and promptly fix problematic pipes. Through these efforts, Singapore's unaccounted-for-water is maintained at around 5% and our leak rate is at about six leaks per 100 km each year. Both are among the lowest in the world.
More importantly, everyone has a role to play in preventing water wastage. Over the years, we have made some progress in water efficiency. In 2014, we used 150 litres per person per day, down from 165 litres in 2003. However, this rebounded to 151 litres last year. As we strive towards the SSB target of 140 litres by 2030, everyone would need to do our part to adopt more water-saving habits and making use of water-efficient technology.
Er Dr Lee and Mr Lee Yi Shyan asked about our plan to encourage efficient water use. PUB will push for the use of more efficient fittings and appliances. We will implement two measures in early 2017. First, we will introduce a 4-tick rating for washing machines. Today, washing machines are labelled with two or three ticks. The introduction of the 4-tick machines will enable households to select more water-efficient machines from among the current 3-tick models.
Second, we will phase out 0-tick taps and mixers and allow only taps and mixers with 1-tick or more to be sold or supplied. These are part of our plans to eventually phase out less efficient fittings and appliances by 2018. We will be consulting the industry on these plans.
Mr Lee also pointed out that we need to help our commercial water users to use water more efficiently. Singapore's water demand is projected to double by 2060 and the non-domestic sector will account for 70% of future water demand.
From January 2015, we have mandated the submission of Water Efficiency Management Plans (WEMP) by large water users. I am heartened that more than 600 large water users have submitted their plans to improve water efficiency and reduce water consumption. PUB will study the data collected from WEMP. We will develop water efficiency benchmarks and good practice guidelines, beginning with these big companies and, later on, we will move to the smaller companies.
In addition, PUB has been investing in industrial water solutions, such as used water recycling. Since 2006, we have been working with relevant agencies to promote water-related R&D and develop the water industry under the Research Innovation and Enterprise (RIE) plans. We will continue to leverage Government schemes where possible, including the RIE2020 plan and the newly-announced industry transformation roadmaps, to foster industry innovation and growth. Mdm Chair, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Over the past 50 years, our pioneer leaders have transformed Singapore into one of the most admired cities in the world. However, challenges, such as climate change, mean that what has worked in the past may not be sufficient for the next 50 years.
For example, how do we protect our coastal areas in the face of rising sea levels? How do we deal with issues like dengue, which can spread easily in an increasingly hotter climate? Similarly, the issues of flash floods are expected to become more critical, with more intense rainfall expected in the future.
We need to constantly assess how new global trends and actions of others will affect us. We cannot go about our daily lives as if it were business as usual. We have to work with our neighbours and international partners in order to address these problems together. Ultimately, all countries in the world have to ensure that development does not occur at the expense of the environment.
I believe that every Singaporean can, and should, step up to do their part to take care of the environment for the future − where our children can lead better lives because of the actions that we take now.
(In English): Mdm Chair, in conclusion, I would like to assure Members that my Ministry will strive to uphold the high standards of our environment and water resources we have inherited, even as we face new challenges like climate change. We are doing this not only to benefit Singaporeans now, but also provide a better environment for future generations and the world.
For each one of us, this means living out the beliefs and values underpinning our Sustainable Singapore Blueprint: (a) use only what we need and use it well; (b) care for the place we live; (c) leave something good for the future.
Mdm Chair, I now hand over to Senior Minister of State Dr Amy Khor to address other environmental issues.
The Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan): Mdm Chair, climate change has brought about new threats and challenges. At the same time, it is putting more strain on our already limited resources. It is, therefore, vital going forward that Singapore and Singaporeans embrace greater environmental sustainability.
I would like to first touch on my Ministry's work in waste management. With limited land, waste reduction is critical to prolonging the lifespan of Semakau Landfill and conserve our land for other uses. This is why we have set out a vision of becoming a Zero Waste Nation in the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint.
Part of our strategy in waste management is to increase the potential for the reuse of incineration ash, which will extend the lifespan of Semakau Landfill. To do this, we must first ensure our waste stream contains as little hazardous substances as possible.
Take the example of electronic waste, or e-waste for short. Singapore generates more than 60,000 tonnes of e-waste every year. This will only grow as electronic items become more common. As pointed out by Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Mr Louis Ng, e-waste may contain valuable materials, but also small amounts of hazardous substances which can cause pollution and affect human health.
We have studied the upstream controls of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment and I would like to update that, from 2017, we will restrict hazardous substances in six types of electrical and electronic equipment. They are mobile phones, mobile computers, refrigerators, air conditioners, panel TVs and washing machines.
I would also like to touch on a specific hazardous substance, mercury. The Minamata Convention on Mercury is a global, legally-binding instrument that seeks to protect human health and the environment from anthropogenic releases of mercury and mercury compounds. In 2013, Singapore signed on to the Minamata Convention.
While the vast majority of batteries sold in Singapore do not contain mercury, a very small number do. We plan to phase out mercury-added batteries, including button-cell batteries, which contain mercury exceeding five parts per million (ppm) by weight. The manufacture, import and export of all non-compliant mercury-added batteries will be prohibited by 2018. Going forward, we plan to extend the restrictions on mercury content to other products, such as lightings, switches and relays.
Another part of our waste management strategy is to work closely with the community and businesses to consume sustainably and reuse and recycle as much as possible.
Miss Cheng Li Hui asked about the National Recycling Programme (NRP). With the NRP, more than 70% of HDB residents, when asked, said that they practised recycling. However, about 30% to 50% of materials deposited into the recycling bins are not suitable for recycling. We will continue our efforts to educate the public on what can or cannot be deposited.
One area which requires attention is food waste, as pointed out by Dr Chia and Assoc Prof Goh. In 2015, Singapore generated almost 800,000 tonnes of food waste, or 10% of all waste. This is equivalent to two bowls of food per person, per day. This is why we launched a programme last November to encourage everyone to reduce food wastage.
We also want to encourage onsite recycling of food waste. We launched onsite food waste recycling projects in January this year at two of our hawker centres. At Hougang Ci Yuan Hawker Centre, Fei Siong Food Management has also voluntarily installed a food waste recycling machine there. These projects will assess the economic and operational aspects of on-site food waste recycling and, if feasible, we plan to roll this out to more of our hawker centres.
Many premises that generate significant volumes of food waste are already doing food waste recycling. I am heartened that about 30 premises, including Resorts World Sentosa, JEM and Singapore Polytechnic, have installed food waste recycling machines at their premises.
In another upcoming pilot project, we plan to start collecting food waste by the end of this year from multiple premises in the Clementi district, including army camps, schools, restaurant clusters, a hawker centre and a hospital. The food waste will be mixed with used water sludge to enhance energy recovery. If successful, this could be implemented at the future co-located Integrated Waste Management Facility and the Tuas Water Reclamation Plant.
Mdm Chair, I will now move on to talk about how we can ensure a high-quality living environment for Singaporeans, now and in the future.
As mentioned by Minister Masagos earlier, our Pioneers worked hard to realise the vision of a clean and green Singapore. Their efforts have not been in vain. In a recent public survey, 95% of Singapore residents agreed that a clean environment, free from litter, is an important part of Singapore's identity. This is something we should preserve.
Unfortunately, the standard of cleanliness in Singapore continues to be a concern. We spend as much as $120 million every year to keep our public spaces clean. Some places, like Orchard Road, have to be cleaned as often as every two hours.
Over the years, we have stepped up our enforcement against littering. We issued more than 26,000 tickets in 2015 – one-third more than in 2014 – and about 1,300 repeat offenders were issued with Corrective Work Order (CWO). While enforcement officers will continue to take action against such irresponsible behaviour, they cannot be everywhere all the time.
As Er Dr Lee, Mr Gan and Dr Chia have rightly pointed out, keeping Singapore clean requires greater community ownership, such that it becomes part of our local culture.
The very first \"Keep Singapore Clean\" campaign was launched by Mr Lee Kuan Yew back in 1968. This has continued through the years and eventually evolved into the year-long Clean and Green Singapore (CGS) campaign. The CGS continues to galvanise the community to keep Singapore clean and green, promote the right social values and instil pride in our environment.
I am heartened to see greater community action in keeping our environment clean. One example is the Public Hygiene Council's tie-up with MOE schools for students to spend five to 10 minutes cleaning their school areas daily, as mentioned by Er Dr Lee. This will remind the young to practise consideration and cultivate respect for our cleaners.
Last year, the Public Hygiene Council, with the support of NEA, led the \"Operation WE Clean Up!\". Ten thousand participants from over 80 community groups came together and picked up more than 7,000 kilogrammes of litter during that single day.
We want to continue this momentum of ground-up initiatives. I am pleased to note that the Public Hygiene Council, with the support of the Singapore Kindness Movement and NEA, will lead \"Operation WE Clean Up!\" 2016 on Sunday, 8 May.
My Ministry is also very grateful to the volunteers who are passionate about the environment and have stepped forward to help us raise awareness. Mr Gan and Dr Chia asked for an update on the Community Volunteers (CV) programme.
NEA's CV programme was started in 2013 to encourage the public to take greater ownership of the environment. Until recently, only members of a few environment-related NGOs can be part of this programme.
In response to feedback, we have passed a Bill to allow individuals who are not necessarily members of any NGO but meet the stringent selection criteria and fulfil the requisite training, to become a CV. These volunteers will also be able to take part in a broader scope of environmental education beyond anti-littering efforts.
Let me clarify that even with the amended legislation, we will only allow the CVs, like before, to use their authority card to request for the particulars of a non-compliant offender, for NEA's investigations and enforcement. The CV's primary role is to encourage the public to take responsibility for the environment and they do not issue tickets to offenders.
So far, our CVs have engaged more than 2,500 potential offenders and I am pleased to hear that more than 99% of them, in fact, heeded the advice of the CVs.
One of the most common pieces of litter is cigarette butts. Besides contributing to the litter problem, inconsiderate smoking practices also endanger the health of non-smokers through second-hand smoke. To protect non-smokers, we have progressively prohibited smoking in public places since the 1970s. The smoking prohibition was last extended in 2013 and today, there are more than 32,000 premises and locations where smoking is prohibited.
We will continue our work towards a smoke-free Singapore. I am glad to inform Er Dr Lee and Mr Louis Ng that from 1 June 2016, smoking will be prohibited in reservoirs and more than 400 parks, including neighbourhood parks within residential estates and those under JTC. At the same time, the SAF, SPF, SCDF, Prisons, CNB and ICA have, for many years, voluntarily and successfully implemented smoking or smoke prohibition policies within their premises. We will formally include SAF camps and bases and MHA premises to the list of places where smoking is prohibited by law.
Dr Chia spoke about the increased rodent population in many estates. In 2015, about 43,000 rat burrows were found. Some 85% of these were found in housing estates managed by Town Councils. We have also witnessed rat infestations in shopping centres and food establishments.
It remains a challenge for Town Councils in their rodent control efforts, due to the many bin chutes and bin centres and numerous food stalls in the housing estates. NEA has, thus, in late 2015, provided funding to support the Town Councils through a revamped Rat Attack programme.
In areas with multiple stakeholders, actions by one party may displace the rats to another location. Hence, we are taking a more coordinated approach involving multiple stakeholders in a few areas. Early results have shown a reduction of rat burrows and we will continue to monitor the situation.
Ultimately, the key to managing rat infestation is to remove food sources and areas of harbourage. Stakeholders have a responsibility to improve the housekeeping of their premises, such as bin centres and refuse chutes, and to deny rats easy access to food sources. This has to be a consistent and sustained effort by all parties.
Last year, we tightened the enforcement regime for shopping centres and food establishments with stiffer penalties for repeat offenders. I would like to update that, this year, we will also be stepping up enforcement for breaches in Town Council areas.
I will now move on to hawker centres. Looking back at the last 50 years, it is amazing how we have successfully turned some of our public health challenges of yesterday into new opportunities for tomorrow. Take the case of hawker centres. The first hawker centres were built in the 1970s to resettle street hawkers and improve hygiene levels by providing access to amenities, such as clean water and proper waste disposal.
Since 2001, over 100 hawker centres have been upgraded under the Hawker Centres Upgrading Programme (HUP). These second-generation centres came with improved ventilation and exhaust system and more dining seats with wider walking space between them. And they were well-received by both hawkers and customers.
Hawker centres are now associated with clean, affordable food and they have become a part of our culture and daily lives. Our recent survey found that three out of four respondents visit a hawker centre at least once a week.
My Ministry will strive to ensure Singaporeans can continue to have access to a clean environment and affordable food at our hawker centres.
We have announced that we will be building 20 new hawker centres by 2027. I am pleased to note that the hawker centres at Bukit Panjang and Hougang have been completed and the centre at Our Tampines Hub will be ready by the end of this year. Another four hawker centres at Pasir Ris, Woodlands, Yishun and Jurong West will be completed next year.
Mr Gan asked about the locations of new hawker centres in Sengkang. One of them will be located at the site of the old Fernvale Point; the location of the other hawker centre at Sengkang will be announced, once ready.
Miss Cheng highlighted the challenge of ensuring that rental remains reasonable and food prices in our hawker centres remain affordable. My Ministry had conducted a study on the drivers of hawker food prices, which former Second Minister Grace Fu shared at last year's Committee of Supply. Let me reiterate some of the key findings here.
The study looked at 1,000 hawkers and found that rentals made up only 12% of the hawkers' total cost. The larger components were raw materials and manpower at 59% and 17% of total cost respectively. The study also found that food prices are comparable between subsidised stalls and non-subsidised stalls. This implies that rental is not the main driver of food prices.
Nevertheless, we have made several changes to help relieve upward pressures on rentals, such as disallowing subletting. Since removing the reserve rent in 2012, about 45% of tendered cooked food stalls were awarded at below what the reserve rent would have been. Today, more than 85% of our hawkers pay less than $1,500 per month in rent. This is generally lower than those in coffeeshops or food courts in comparable locations.
Beyond rentals, we also want to bring in fresh ideas to ensure the sustainability of hawker centres and affordable food. Hence, we have started pilots on new management models at the two new hawker centres at Bukit Panjang and Hougang by appointing social enterprises to manage the centres on a not-for-profit basis.
We will evaluate the outcomes from these pilots to see how we can further enhance the model to achieve our objectives. Though it is still early days, there are some encouraging takeaways. For example, the managing agent at Hougang Ci Yuan Hawker Centre has introduced measures to improve productivity, such as self-payment kiosks. They have also introduced an entrepreneurship programme where aspiring hawkers would be given on-the-job training to gain the necessary skills and knowledge to run a hawker stall.
Mr Gan also mentioned a previous policy of allocating vacant hawker stalls to those experiencing financial hardship. We had, in the past, offered vacant hawker stalls to people experiencing financial hardship, but the take-up rate was low as most preferred to wait for a vacant stall in popular hawker centres. Due to its limited effectiveness, the policy was ceased in 1990.
Today, anyone interested and who meets the criteria can bid for vacant stalls. A successful hawker requires both passion and ability and, hence, it is better to let those interested bid for a stall instead of safeguarding them for the low-income. Those who are in financial hardship can be assisted through the various help schemes available, including employment assistance. Mdm Chair, with your permission, I would like to say a few words in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] At the Committee of Supply debate last year, my Ministry had announced that the Government would be building 20 new hawker centres by 2027. During a SGfuture dialogue in January this year, Singaporeans shared their views about the continuity of the hawker trade and the vibrancy of the hawker centres. My Ministry has, therefore, formed a Hawker Centre 3.0 Committee. The Committee comprises individuals from the community, businesses and Government who take an interest in preserving our hawker trade. The committee will look at four issues this year.
First, explore various ways to support new entrants, allow them to operate effectively, thus, sustaining our unique hawker trade in Singapore.
Second, propose ideas to improve the productivity in hawker centres to mitigate increases in operating costs and manpower constraints.
Third, suggest initiatives to enhance hawker centres as a social space for community bonding, which could also improve the vibrancy of hawker centres.
Fourth, see how there could be ideas to promote graciousness at hawker centres so that hawkers, cleaners and customers can all benefit.
(In English): The Hawker Centre 3.0 Committee has already met a few times since this January. Er Dr Lee, Mr Liang and Mr Gan asked whether my Ministry is looking to ensure that there are sufficient hawkers equipped with the necessary skills to run the new hawker centres. Indeed, with the median age of cooked food hawkers at 59 years old, we need to do more to attract new entrants and ensure the sustainability of the hawker trade. This is one of the areas that the committee is looking into.
I recently spoke to Mr Fabian Toh, a third-generation hawker who left his previous job after working for 13 years to take over his family business to sell traditional Chinese dessert at the Chinatown Market.
Like many other new entrants, he faced challenges, such as the need to hone his cooking skills and the need to operate during weekends. But many new hawkers also shared that there were some perks, such as having some degree of flexibility in working hours as well as the satisfaction of being commended for their food. We will continue to engage these hawkers to find out their motivation for joining the hawker trade, as well as the challenges they face.
The committee will explore ideas on how we can attract and, more importantly, support new entrants to the hawker trade. One idea is through the provision of structured training programmes. Individuals who decide to enter the hawker trade can be taught how to cook and to maintain proper food hygiene and skills in business management.
This may be complemented by measures to help hawkers improve productivity and mitigate cost increases, for example, through centralised services for dishwashing, or bulk buying and preparation of raw ingredients.
Some of our hawkers already have innovative ways to improve productivity. Mr Tan uses a creative but simple machine to automate the frying of traditional Chinese biscuits or 耳朵饼 at his stall in Smith Street Food Centre.
There have also been some ideas on how to enhance the vibrancy of our hawker centres. One interesting suggestion is to encourage communities to adopt hawker centres and use these spaces for social activities. We will also learn from overseas models and experiences.
Hawker centres have the potential to become great community spaces. As a continuation of the SGfuture conversation, we will be engaging members of the public for their views.
Let me now turn to our drains and canals, where we have seen an amazing transformation over the years. This year marks the 10th year since our ABC Waters Programme was launched. To date, 32 projects have been completed.
Ms Tin asked if we can build above our canals. In fact, we have already done so. An example is the ABC Waters project at Siglap Canal near Kampong Kembangan Community Club, where a 150-metre section of the canal was decked over to increase accessibility to the Community Club (CC) and to provide communal space for social enjoyment. Where there are opportunities, PUB will work with the relevant stakeholders to add value to the community, without compromising the canal's drainage functions.
Er Dr Lee and Mr Louis Ng have asked about our plans moving forward. I am pleased to share that we can look towards the completion of about 20 more projects over the next five years.
These are exciting times as we continue to improve our living environment and transform our urban landscape. While we see new challenges in the water and environmental space, these also bring about new opportunities and possibilities. We have a lot of work ahead of us to build a greener and cleaner Singapore. We will work hand-in-hand with the community and all stakeholders in this journey together.
The Chairman: We have a bit of time for clarifications. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: Thank you, Mdm Chair. I have three clarifications, two on haze. I would like to ask the Minister: have all the companies that have businesses in Singapore detailed maps of all concessions in their supply chain? And is there any company which takes the easy way out by exiting their businesses in Singapore? Senior Minister of State mentioned about 20 more ABC Waters projects. Is it time for her to announce where those projects are and is there one in Yishun?
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: I would like to thank the Member for the clarifications. We get the detailed maps currently from different sources, like from World Resource Institute (WRI), but we cannot proceed on these maps alone. We have to ensure that these maps are official and they delineate where these occur and who owns these concessions.
In the case of one of the companies that we have given the Notice, Asia Pulp & Paper Company Limited (APPCL) particularly, they have published their maps. Therefore, based on where the hotspots were found, and the plumes we calculated that would have gotten to Singapore, we have served them Notices. And because of that, we are working on them. As for the others, we are still working with the Indonesian authorities to make sure what we see on the map, what we see on the satellite, match well with what they have in their records.
Secondly, it does not matter if these companies wrap up and go, because, if they have done something wrong, they will be taken to task. The directors who are named in these companies will be taken to task.
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: From the speeches on the cuts made by the Members, you can see that hawker centres and ABC Waters projects are much coveted. Unfortunately, desires are many but resources are limited.
Having said that, first, let me say that, actually, the 20 projects to be completed in the next five years are already confirmed. Nine are already on-going and there are 10 new upcoming projects. They have been announced over time. Nee Soon has got two ABC Waters projects: the Seletar Family Bay and Yishun Pond. Er Dr Lee probably has more than some others. [Laughter.]
Dr Chia Shi-Lu: Mdm Chair, I have just two clarifications for the Senior Minister of State. The first is concerning food wastage. I appreciate her answer regarding food recycling. But my second point was how do we reduce the wastage of food, perhaps by redistributing the food? I suggested things like incentivising retailers to maybe sell them at a discount or maybe to distribute excess food to charities or similar VWOs. That is the first.
The second was, could I have some idea of the efficacy of the Corrective Work Order programme? I note 1,100 were repeat offenders. Could I find out, of these 1,100, how many actually went into a second repeat? What was the recidivism rate of these CWO offenders?
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. First, regarding excess food or unsold food, our strategy towards food waste, first, is not to produce it in the first place. That is the reason why in November last year, we launched the Food Wastage Reduction Outreach Programme. Under this Food Wastage Reduction Outreach Programme, we were working with many stakeholders to develop good practice guides for food manufacturers, food retail establishments and suppliers to reduce food wastage at source through the supply chain.
We are also working on a set of food safety guidelines for the safe handling and distribution of unsold and excess food. We are very grateful to NGOs, for instance, Food Bank Singapore and Food from the Heart, who collect and distribute these unsold food to the needy. We are coming up with this set of guidelines to support this effort. We also have materials for individuals, to tell them, educate the public that they should only buy or purchase what they can consume. And there are tips and cooking recipes on how to use leftover food.
Regarding CWO, there were 1,300 CWOs in 2015; that was for repeat offenders. Not all the 1,300 recorded in 2015 will tally with the 26,000 because Court orders will take a while so it may be cumulative. Based on what we have, our analysis is that enforcement, as well as CWOs, are effective because the number of repeat offenders from CWO is very, very small.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Madam, I have three clarifications for Minister Masagos – one concerning the haze and two on dengue.
First, concerning the haze, the Minister mentioned that we had this earlier collaboration with Jambi province which has ended and we are waiting, I think, for the last four or five years for it to be renewed. Could the Minister share what is holding this up?
Next, regarding dengue, he touched on Radio-controlled Aerial Inspection Craft (RAIC). Yes, we are aware that the trials are going to end soon. My question is whether there is an intention to deploy this on a wider scale and if he can give some information on that.
Lastly, I do not think the Minister touched on the issue of the dengue vaccine in his speech earlier. This Dengvaxia vaccine, I think, has already been registered in a few countries. Experts deem it as 60% effective. I am not sure what is holding the Government up in clearing this vaccine for use in Singapore. Is it because it is considered, in a sense, a lower priority strategy when compared to vector control?
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: I thank Ms Sylvia Lim for the questions. Firstly, about the haze, about the MOU that had ended. We are as disappointed that we cannot continue with the MOU. So, it is not our move that terminated the MOU. For some reason, within the Indonesian administration, in fact, the last administration terminated that MOU. Now that we want to resume it, they also have different structures, different people. Despite promises that they will want to resume it, we have yet to hear from them when and in what form.
On our part, we are very keen to do this because that will put people on the ground, their people on the ground, to be trained in fire mitigation, in reporting the onset of haze. It will help everybody. And if it works well, together with the possibility of even working with our Malaysian counterpart who has successfully suppressed peatland fires, this can be replicated across Indonesia. It is, indeed, unfortunate that as enthusiastic as we are to help out our friends, we are not being well responded to.
On the RAIC, the trial is promising. If it works well, we would be able to deploy it much more widely. I would like to urge property owners to not take this as the solution to solve their problems because many of the designs that I went to see together with my staff require owners to take steps to repair and make good where mosquitoes can breed. And, of course, this may not be able to be seen. Sometimes, we need the RAIC to see them. Just because we can see them and can drop Bti, we should not be doing this every year. We should not be doing this every time, because this, basically, is taxpayers' money. What owners should do is to take ownership of the problem, repair the problem, solve the problem and prevent the mosquitoes from breeding again.
Next, on the dengue vaccine, we have been closely tracking the development, MOH particularly. We need to carefully evaluate whether it is safe. This is new, so we do not know yet whether the quality is what they have promised it to be. In any case, the company responsible for this vaccine must submit a proposal to HSA. So, I think if Members are keen to understand better, best to ask HSA about the vaccine.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh: The Senior Minister of State shared that there will be a new hawker centre to be built in Fernvale, Sengkang. May I know whether it will include a wet market, as requested by the residents there?
She also shared that since the removal of the reserve price, 45% of those who bidded to rent the hawker stalls got the stalls at $1,500 and below per month. I have heard before that some cases got the stalls for single-digit rental; how many of them were there? And two-digit rental, how many of them? Would NEA consider reviving the scheme to allocate hawker stalls to help those in the low-income group who wish to be a hawker to run a hawker stall using all these vacant stalls?
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: With regard to the Sengkang hawker centre, if I remember correctly – and I stand corrected – there may be a wet market, but I will have to check up and confirm.
Regarding the rentals, I said that 45% got the stalls below the reserve-market rent. There are actually stalls with rental of $1 but I do not have the figure of how many are single-digit. So, I can follow up with the Member. But because we have removed the reserve rent, 45% is actually below what it would have been if there was a reserve rent.
Regarding the scheme to help people in financial hardship by safeguarding some stalls, as I have said earlier, we had done this previously. Based on the experience, what happened was that many of them preferred to wait out for a hawker stall in a popular centre. I understand that some could wait for a year, two years or so, and the take-up rate was slow because they only wanted popular locations. So, the scheme was ceased.
Now, anyone who qualifies can bid for a stall, including people who may be interested but are in financial hardship because we have removed the reserve rent. Hence, he could bid according to what he thinks will be viable for him.
The other thing which is important is that we now give very targeted assistance to people in financial hardship and there are counsellors who will counsel them and identify what their talents, interests and skills are and help them with employment assistance. If, indeed, they are keen to take up hawking, this is also something that the Hawker Centre 3.0 Committee could look into in terms of having some kind of structured training for people who are interested. You need to give them the right skills so that they can then go and bid for a stall because hawking is not that simple. It is not just about financial hardship. We do want to help all these people, but we must help them in a targeted manner. It is also about skills, capabilities and business acumen. That is important and I think that is the better way to go. I think these are the three.
I just want to correct an earlier point. About Er Dr Lee's query on new ABC Waters projects. No, Nee Soon does not have one. I said just now there are 20 new projects; nine are ongoing and there are 10 more. We have put it in the media factsheet. So, Members will be able to see it but it has not been publicly announced so I stand to be corrected. Most of them are in the heartlands and there is actually one project which involves rain gardens in schools.
PUB is working with the schools to encourage the schools to have rain gardens to use it for educational purposes, as well as to encourage the students to appreciate water and learn how to measure water quality, about habitat creation and so on. So, the 20 new projects will be: nine on-going, which will be completed over the years; and another 10 new upcoming projects, and one project is the rain garden in schools.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Two points of clarification. First is that with the smoking prohibition, does it also cover the parks and public housing estates that are managed by NParks and not just those by the Town Councils?
The second clarification is still on ABC Waters. I think the projects you listed are in Nee Soon, but the two are actually not in Nee Soon East. So, I am still hoping the Senior Minister of State will consider Nee Soon East, followed by MacPherson.
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: The vision of ABC Waters projects is to make the concept and design pervasive in Singapore. PUB is also looking at a framework to work with developers, land agencies and so on − a framework of guidelines on the ABC programme design and concepts to encourage private developers, as well as land agencies, to incorporate these designs and concepts into their development. For instance, integrate it with the adjacent water bodies or have these ABC design features within the development in terms of rain gardens and so on.
If the hon Member has any idea as to where he thinks it is feasible to have an ABC Waters project, he can always propose and we can always look at it. Obviously, resources are limited, but we will look at it with an open view.
Regarding smoking prohibition, there are already about 30 parks under NParks where smoking is prohibited. The additional 400-odd parks which will be covered by the extension of the smoking prohibition include neighbourhood parks within Town Council-managed areas, parks under JTC Corp and NParks-managed parks in private residential estates.
The Chairman: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, would you like to withdraw the amendment or do you have more requests to make?
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: More requests; well, clarifications.
The Chairman: This is the last request, please.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: I have two clarifications. Just now, the Senior Minister of State mentioned about Sengkang wet market. I would like to ask is there a change in the policy, because not too long ago, we heard that NEA will not build any more wet markets because people do not go to wet market nowadays, especially the younger generation.
The other clarification is with regard to \"no smoking\" in the parks. Why is it not extended to all the parks of Singapore? Because it can be very confusing; certain parks, you allow smoking, certain parks, you do not allow smoking.
And, of course, I support Mr Louis Ng's request for an ABC Waters project in Nee Soon East.
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Regarding parks, we will work with the relevant agencies. For those parks where smoking is already prohibited, there are \"No Smoking\" signages put up and we will be working with the land agencies, Town Councils and so on to get them to put up the proper signages so that people know that it is a \"No Smoking\" park.
We will continue to work with relevant stakeholders, land agencies, Town Councils and so on, as well as based on public feedback, to look at progressively extending our smoking prohibition to beyond what we already have, but please remember there are already 32,000 premises plus the additional ones where we will be extending our smoking ban.
Regarding markets, it is true that many existing wet markets, unless they are regional and they serve not just the neighbourhood but the region, do not do well. Cooked food stalls will be the priority. Where there are existing wet markets and we are redeveloping or developing a new one, then there may be a basis for incorporating a wet market to relocate the stalls.
The Chairman: Well, I would also like to request one for my constituency, since a lot of requests are made today. But anyway Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, do you wish to withdraw your amendment?
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: I would like to thank all my parliamentary colleagues who have filed their cuts, either voluntarily or otherwise. [Laughter.] I would like to thank the Minister and everyone in the Ministry for their hard work and their continuous effort in making our living environment cleaner and greener. And with that, Mdm Chair, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $1,221,826,400 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $704,088,300 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]
The Chairman: Order. I propose to take the break now.
[(proc text) Thereupon Mdm Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House. (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.50 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.30 pm until 4.50 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.50 pm
[Mdm 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":"Committee of Supply – Head I (Ministry of Social and Family Development)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Debate in Committee of Supply resumed. (proc text)]
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mdm Chair, I beg to move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head I of the Estimates be reduced by $100\".
I welcome the policy change to allow for fathers to take two weeks' paid paternity leave. First, let me declare my interest as a board member of the Centre for Fathering. I have been there for over 12 years now.
Within the recognition of the importance of supporting working mums, will the Minister consider allowing fathers to take leave at any stage within weeks of their baby's birth and not just within the first 16 weeks? This reinforces shared parenting responsibilities and the increasing role that fathers play in families.
Singapore has been on a trajectory to increase the provision of maternity leave and, sometimes, this can be perceived to be at the expense of the women's career prospects.
Can the Minister tell us how it intends to recalibrate existing policies to keep up with changing realities on child-rearing? I know that in asking this question, I am posing this \"having the cake and eat it\" scenario. But I do think that it is a false choice that we present to women today – between leaning in and keeling over at work, as one recent mother wrote in the papers. To do this, we need more support for fathers.
The presence and active involvement of a father leads to children more likely to do well in school, have healthy self-esteem and avoid high-risk behaviours, compared with children who are raised without a father. While society has prepared women for the workforce, we have not prepared fathers to be involved with their children. I have four suggestions.
First, fathering education. As a nation, we need to consider fathering education as a core support to prepare men to be fathers. While NS training prepares them for national defence, their future role as involved fathers prepares them for social defence, in making homes a safe haven for children. When these men become first-time fathers, a basic course on fathering can make a significant difference in raising awareness of the crucial roles they play and provide some basic tools for involved fatherhood.
Second, supporting fathers and teenagers in distress. Young children with fathers who are incarcerated are deprived of the important bonding they could have. The longer they are apart, the harder it is to regain the bond and that increases risk of child neglect. Such fathers need to be given a chance to bond with their children through special programmes for incarcerated fathers. Such bonding, though necessarily limited because of circumstances, is not only precious in itself, but also increases the motivation of these fathers to stay out of trouble for their family. It is time to recognise the difference fathers can make in teenagers who are at a crucial stage of transition into adulthood. We need to encourage better fathering for these teens.
Third, strengthening men in their marriages. Many research studies indicate that the quality of the relationship between the child's parents is the central engine governing the healthy functioning of the family system. We need to consider funding marriage enrichment training for couples during crucial times, such as just before the arrival of the first born, just before the teen years, and when parents are incarcerated.
Fourth, supporting fathers at work. We need to provide incentives for fathers to be involved with their school-going children by giving them time-off to be at school. We must recognise companies who are father-friendly, companies who consider involved fathering as a leadership quality that will positively impact their team.
Parenting and working is a balance that each one of us – mothers or fathers, men and women, sisters and brothers – we all have to decide for ourselves. This decision, however, is made in a context and within societal and national norms. The Government has a big role in the formation of these norms.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): Madam, I am heartened that the Government is working hard at increasing the supply of quality infant care and childcare centres, so that young working parents can focus on their careers with less to worry about at home. But I am concerned about the manpower adequacy in these centres.
In his parliamentary reply earlier this year, the Minister shared that a projected number of 1,500 more early childhood personnel over the next two to three years is needed to meet the demand. This is a significant number. I am also aware that the Ministry has expanded student intakes, introduced Professional Conversion Programmes and enhanced career progression opportunities in a bid to attract and retain early childhood educators.
I would like to ask the Minister.
Firstly, with the measures and programmes in place, as shared, are we on track to meeting this projected demand?
Second, what is the Ministry's contingency plan if the manpower supply still falls short in two to three years' time, bearing in mind that we are near full employment and there is a manpower shortage across all sectors?
And, lastly, would the Ministry consider complementary measures, such as drawing in retired teachers, not necessarily retired preschool teachers, or \"aunties\" who do not have the papers but are experienced enough to help at the centres, as an interim supply-side solution; or work with the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) to promote flexi-work that will, as part of the demand-side solution, enable mothers, fathers and grandparents to have more time to care for their children?
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Madam, the Ministry has made substantial investments in the childcare sector in the past few years.
One particular development which I must commend is the greater number of childcare centres set up at workplaces. This has increased by 50% from 2012. The 390 childcare centres at workplaces were also well spread out. This means greater convenience and peace of mind for more parents.
Could the Minister share with us the key areas where improvements in the childcare sector have been made? How does MSF intend to build on these achievements in the next few years?
Ms Sun Xueling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mdm Chair, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] There are many young parents living in Punggol. Many of the young mothers would like to return to work as soon as possible after giving birth. However, in order to return to work, they have to send their children to childcare centres. The problem is, one needs to queue on a waitlist for a place at the childcare centre. This is because the development of childcare centres has hit a bottleneck: it is difficult to recruit teachers.
Why is it difficult to recruit teachers? Because the Government has laid out many requirements for early childhood educators. However, for a preschooler, what she needs most is to learn through real-life experiences, to learn through play. She does not necessarily need a sophisticated learning system. What she needs is love, companionship and encouragement. Therefore, can we consider lowering the criteria for childcare teachers, so that more caring individuals with experience in taking care of children can be recruited? In this way, we can increase the number of teachers and more children can receive care.
In addition, can we consider setting up community-based parent support centres at the RC centres and allow housewives with experience and time to take care of children in need? Can the Government draw up relevant safety standards and establish a feasible model based on mutual support within the community?
In the past, when there were big families, children could be taken care of by relatives after they were born. But, nowadays, couples only have each other within the family, and raising children becomes more difficult. However, as the saying goes, \"远亲不如近邻\", meaning that a neighbour who is near is better than a relative who lives far away. In terms of early childhood education, can we take in more caring individuals, promote mutual support within the neighbourhood and lighten the load of young parents?
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Mdm Chair, all children are unique, as are the methods that are most effective for them. They are naturally eager for knowledge and some children require a very structured teacher-led style of learning while others learn better in a child-led environment that emphasises individuality and creativity. It is the responsibility of parents to assess the temperament and learning abilities of their children and to select the most appropriate school and curriculum for their children's growth and development. However, the unevenness of KiFAS means that the choices that they make for their children's education are limited, especially for the less well-off.
Kindergarten education is extremely important as it sets the foundation for skills that they will build on later in life and plays an important role in the social and emotional growth of the child. KiFAS can currently only be used in about half of all registered kindergartens which are in the centres run by anchor operators and MOE. This stifles competition with other operators that provide quality education but are not KiFAS-eligible and limits parents' choices.
Madam, I am repeating my earlier calls for KiFAS to be expanded to all kindergartens so as to create more quality choices of learning and development.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mdm Chair, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA)'s cap on the fees for 23 Partner Operators seeks to keep childcare affordable by stabilising market rates from the supply side. This will impact 169 childcare centres and help 16,500 children. But many families are still subjected to escalating fees. I would like to offer two suggestions to ensure fees are affordable.
To defray child-raising costs, all Singapore citizen children enrolled in centre-based care are eligible for a basic subsidy of up to $300 for childcare per month. In April 2013, additional subsidies were introduced to help families with gross household income of $7,500 or per capita income of $1,875. This is approximately the 40th percentile group. From 2011 to 2015, the median full-day fees rose 25%, yet the subsidies for those families in the sandwiched group, which is those above the 40th percentile, remained unchanged at $300 since 2008. Will the Ministry increase the amount of basic subsidy given to these middle-income parents?
To further enhance the supply side stabilisation of fees, could ECDA also ensure that we have enough anchor or partner operators to cater enough childcare places to at least half of each cohort? In fact, if we plan for a childcare place for every Singaporean child, we can reduce competition for places that drives up fees.
I would also like to ask if the Ministry can review its subsidies based on the \"true cost\" of childcare services. Besides childcare fees, most centres offer enrichment programmes as options. Many parents feel pressured to also enrol for these classes, lest their children are left to play on their own while their peers pick up additional skills.
Could the Ministry do a nationwide study to find out what percentage of parents are taking up these enrichment courses for their children at such centres? If most of the children are already doing so, are these options truly \"optional\"?
We have to be mindful not to introduce inequality into the education system to the very young children. We can only imagine the impact on the child who has to sit out enrichment classes because his parents are not able to afford them.
While the childcare fees of the centres are stated on the ECDA website, could the Ministry consider mandating that childcare operators do state the full cost of their services, including enrichment or optional classes, online on their websites or in publicity materials, so parents will know what they are in for?
Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Mdm Chair, we all know that it is not easy to be parents. The situation gets even tougher when both parents are working. Many parents are faced with the delicate balance of managing both work and family. For those who are single parents, the stress they are facing is even greater. Sometimes, they are emotionally affected due to problems at work or in their family. There are surveys and reports that suggest that there is a correlation between single motherhood and depression.
A 2007 study by Crozier, Butterworth and Rogers found that single mums are significantly more likely to have a moderate to severe mental disability. In fact, the study shows that prevalence of mental health issues in single mums is almost 30%, compared to partnered mothers, which is about 15%. The study cites decreased household income, increased financial hardship and a perceived lack of social support as the main reasons for single mums to have an increased risk of poor mental health.
During an interview in 2014, Harry Potter author JK Rowling talked about how, when she was a single mother, she was so depressed that she considered suicide, but was saved by thoughts of her daughter.
Mdm Chair, I think much more can be done to help single parents, both at the workplace and in society, for example, by providing emotional support through counselling. Perhaps, it would be worth exploring the possibility of linking every company within a geographical location to the social service network, such as Social Service Centre or Family Service Centre.
With such collaborative efforts, companies can assist the worker with the appropriate help which may not be available at the workplace. Such small but meaningful effort goes a long way for the individual worker's mental and emotional stability.
Mr Chen Show Mao (Aljunied): Madam, many Singaporeans provide regular care to family members or friends who are disabled, elderly or physically or mentally ill. Our dependence on this group of Singaporeans is real, substantial and often unacknowledged. In many ways, informal or unpaid caregivers enable other Singaporeans to carry out the economic activities reckoned in our GDP, while their own caregiving is not. As of now, the burden of informal caregiving falls disproportionately on women.
As noted in this House before, it is well-documented that caregivers often suffer declines in their own financial circumstances and mental and physical health. If they work, their performances suffer, too. Often, these caregivers pass up opportunities, stay at home and can find themselves with little support and resources for their own retirement or care.
In recent years, we are starting to acknowledge and provide assistance to these informal caregivers, with several Members of this House having spoken on the issue.
I hope the Government will look into CPF top-ups for full-time informal caregivers in low-income households to reduce the pressure of being under-employed and under-prepared for retirement, as a result of taking on their informal caregiving responsibilities.
Other examples of a much-needed acknowledgement and support for caregivers could include the leave for caregivers that several Members of this House have called for, or greater support for working informal caregivers when they exercise their rights to ask for flexible work arrangements.
Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar): Mdm Chair, may I urge MSF to give more assistance to the less-advantaged children, in order to give them a better chance in levelling up in life?
Education and home environment are important for such upward socio-economic mobility. Whilst we have a good education system in Singapore, we need to help the less-advantaged children benefit fully from it. Sadly, a home environment – where there is non-parental involvement, poor home literacy and unmotivated parents who do not send their children to school – sets the children back. We need to improve the home environment for these families.
Studies have shown that a less-advantaged family background or socio-economic status affects the likelihood of students graduating from high school or college. Thus, there is a need to identify this group for early intervention. Maybe MSF's SSOs can pick out such families and provide a holistic approach in helping them with more lasting solutions.
Most times, these families have low skills and low-paying jobs and may have a slew of needs, such as in housing, income, childcare or ill-health of family members. The parents of such families need to acquire long-term capabilities, such as upgrading of skills and job placement. The mothers have to move away from prejudices and mental barriers to employment. Their children should be assisted with their well-being, daily care, healthcare and education.
More social workers and MSF staff are required to undertake such a hands-on personalised approach to solve the various needs of each family. Most times, many of their issues cannot be solved overnight and these families may require long-term follow-up.
Mr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Chair, in my Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS), I have encountered cases whereby, after a married Singaporean passes away, the non-Singaporean spouse suddenly becomes the main caregiver of their Singaporean child or children.
Sometimes, the foreign spouse may also have a non-Singaporean child from a previous marriage who is here on a Student Pass. This parent has to make a decision whether to stay in Singapore or to move back to his or her home country. This is a huge struggle that they have to grapple with when their spouse passes away.
There are increasingly more marriages between Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans. Some went on to start a family with their child born in Singapore. For some, the Singaporean spouse is usually the sole breadwinner. The issue becomes complicated when the spouse passes away, becomes handicapped or critically ill, is jailed, or when the couple undergoes divorce. The foreign spouse suddenly has to take on the responsibility to support the family and their young children.
Recently, several media reported on the plight of a Chinese national who gave birth to triplets after her Singaporean husband reportedly walked out of their marriage. Her children, who were previously stateless, were granted citizenship recently, with the aid of a helpful lawyer. I am not sure of the residential status of the mother, but I am sure it is a challenging circumstance for the family.
For such families, it is most unfortunate that they have to be put through such difficult circumstances. Many of these foreign spouses are here on social visit passes, Long-Term Visit Pass or Long-Term Visit Pass-Plus (LTVP or LTVP+). For some of them, they can work if they have a Letter of Consent. If not, they may have to leave the country with their children back to their home country.
Does the Ministry have figures on the number of children who are impacted under such circumstances? What assistance can we offer to ensure that the children grow up in a supportive environment?
Can we provide emotional support for the spouse, as well as education needs for the children and their childcare needs? For such spouses, can we give exemption to allow them to work and to bring up their children here in Singapore?
Mr Seah Kian Peng: Mdm Chair, I have spoken on the needs of single-parent households for some 10 years now. Families of all shapes and sizes – they are a key part of my mission, both in Parliament and in my work in the community, especially in the Centre for Fathering, where I serve on the board.
Single-parent families are already socially stigmatised and face more challenges than nuclear households. Our policies should not create more barriers for them when they seek assistance. We should offer the same level of support to families of all kinds. Hence, I would like the Minister to consider extending Government Paid Maternity Leave (GPML) to children of unmarried parents. That will give a clear signal that the Government does not consider their claim to national spending to be any less because of their circumstance, willing or unwilling.
How can the Government reduce the vulnerabilities that children from single-parent households face? In particular, for children of unwed parents – almost always mothers – can we extend GPML to them?
Whilst we have progressed and started in recent years to provide more for single parents, certain benefits, such as Baby Bonus and housing priority schemes and grants for families, are not extended to unwed parents.
I note the Finance Minister's earlier announcement that the Child Development Account (CDA)'s First Step grant is for all Singaporean children and I share the concerns of many other Members who have also asked if this will also include children of unwed parents.
I have only mentioned GMPL, co-matching for CDA and the CDA First Step grant to benefit single-parent families. Of course, there is a myriad of policies, not limited to housing or Baby Bonus, that are out of scope for this group but who definitely need them the most.
The Government is encouraging parenthood. Single parenting is often not a choice but a result of circumstance. I, therefore, repeat my call and ask the Minister to review the current differentials in policies and to recalibrate them.
Ms Tin Pei Ling: Madam, I am heartened by the continued investment in the children of Singapore. We must continue to give all our young a good and more equalised start in life. Because by doing so, we are also making sure that the future sons and daughters of Singapore start on a good footing.
In Singapore, while all children are precious and should enjoy equal opportunities, some are still \"more equal than others\". I feel very much for one group of children and they would be children of single parents, mainly unwed mothers.
Firstly, children are innocent and, since they have been given life, we must cherish and nurture them. Give them opportunities and help them blossom into responsible and capable citizens of Singapore and of the world. Hence, we must focus our policies and efforts on their well-being.
Secondly, having to grow up in single-parent households would mean that they can only rely on the resources of one parent, instead of two. This situation is exacerbated if the responsible parent is of lower income. Therefore, I hope the Ministry will consider the following.
Firstly, reaffirm that every Singaporean child is a precious member of our society.
Secondly, grant the full period of maternity leave to unwed mothers, up from the current period of eight weeks. This move is to allow the mother to have sufficient time to bond with the newborn. The child, from the point of birth, was already disadvantaged, having only one parent to rely on. It is all the more important for them to have enough time to develop the emotional attachment essential for a stable mother-child relationship.
Thirdly, allow the child to benefit from the Child Development Account. This was meant to be a special savings account for children's healthcare and educational expenses. It is not a normal bank account which parents can frivolously tap on. Hence, if it is meant to benefit the child, why not allow children of unwed mothers to enjoy it as well? First, it encourages the mother to save money for the child. Second, it allows the child to also enjoy the First Step Grant of $3,000. We should prevent an unnecessary widening of the gap between Singaporean children, just because of their parents' marital status.
Lastly, ensure that children of divorced or unwed parents are included in the KidSTART programme. Given their relative disadvantageous start in life, I sincerely hope that KidSTART will help equalise the learning, developmental and health support these children can receive from the state.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Madam, currently single parents are not entitled to certain benefits or Government schemes which may be available to other parents. I would like to urge the Government to consider allowing single parents and their children to have the same benefits. I will discuss three examples.
One, same maternity leave as married mothers. It is important for a mother to recuperate physically and emotionally from child bearing. The time a mother can share with her child is especially precious and, when managed well, can strengthen the psychological and emotional bond that a mother shares with her child. Working mothers often have to quickly get back to work while they are still struggling to find infant care assistance for their child. At the end of the day, a mother's marital status is irrelevant when it comes to the struggles I have just described.
Two, Baby Bonus and CDA support. The Baby Bonus Scheme was designed to help families defray the costs of raising a child. It comprises a cash gift and a Child Development Account (CDA). Children born out of wedlock are not entitled to this. The CDA account will certainly come in handy to help the single parent manage early childhood expenses.
Last week, I asked the Minister for Finance during the Budget debate to confirm whether CDA First Step Grant is available to children of single unwed parents. The Minister did not answer this question, preferring to leave this to MSF to deal with in the Committee of Supply debate this week. Perhaps, the Minister can clarify.
Three, shelter. A single parent below the age of 35 and their child do not form a family nucleus when applying for a new HDB flat or rental flat. They are also not eligible for housing subsidies. Single parents need to provide themselves and their children with a roof over their heads, too. The current housing policy puts a heavier burden on single parents. They are often compelled to rent or purchase from the open market. With hefty rental rates, they may have to cut back on other expenses. Or they have to stay in an over-crowded flat with other relatives. The children suffer when there is less money for their own well-being or a less desirable environment for them to grow and learn.
May I ask the Government to look at this issue from a new angle? The Government may think that they are just penalising single parents. But actually, the Government is making life harder for the innocent children of single parents for they have to grow up with more challenges and fewer resources.
This should be about ensuring better and fair support for their children. These children are Singaporeans, sons will serve National Service and daughters will continue to bear and nurture future generations for Singapore. See the value, not the cost. We should acknowledge the value that these children will bring to our country, our people and our economy. When one sees the value, then the cost becomes insignificant, the stigma becomes unnecessary. Give these children the same opportunities as others, without the stigma.
The Government allows singles, whether men or women, to adopt children. If MSF thinks that it is fine for singles to adopt children, then these adoptive parents and their children should be entitled to the same relevant benefits as married adoptive parents and their children. I would like to urge the Ministry to seriously consider equalising the benefits for all children.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, I join Members of this House in urging MSF to review the support for single parents. There are some benefits that single parents currently do not enjoy, such as the full 16 weeks of maternity leave. Unwed parents also do not get perks, such as the Baby Bonus and parenthood tax rebates, and have to wait until they are 35 years old to buy a HDB flat under the singles scheme.
Single parents have a difficult time bringing up their child or children single-handedly, compared to families with two parents. As an inclusive society, we should be providing equal rights to single parents and ensure they do not feel alone in their journey. We should help rather than penalise them.
Will the Ministry, for a start, consider helping single parents by extending the length of maternity leave given to single mothers? Will the Ministry consider providing any other support for single parents?
Mr Desmond Choo: All Singaporean sons and daughters should have equal opportunities to succeed, regardless of their origin or birth. It should be an inalienable right of every Singaporean baby. Yet, for the children of single unmarried mothers, they are not equals.
First, their mothers are not covered under the Child Development Co-Savings Act which entitles lawfully-wedded mothers to 16 weeks of maternity leave. For the single unwed mothers, employers pay them for the first eight weeks, with the next four weeks subjected to employment terms. Thus, they may have four to eight weeks of paid maternity leave less than their lawfully-wedded peers. These four to eight weeks make a difference. Women are more likely to breastfeed with the full 16 weeks of maternity leave – bringing with it long-term health and development benefits for the child.
Second, because these children do not have a Child Development Account, they would not be able to enjoy benefits, such as the CDA First Step Grant of $3,000 which would have been very handy for the financially-strained single mothers. For the same stated benefits that the children of lawfully-wedded mothers enjoy from these grants, these children are denied.
In 2014, there were 446 children born without the father's name. I understand the need for policies to be signposts of the inclinations and views of the larger society. Yet, would it not also be the societal view that we should support those who are in need? It will be difficult to find Singaporeans who do not believe in equal opportunities for our Singaporean sons and daughters, as what many of my fellow Members of Parliament have pointed out.
Therefore, I urge the Government to review if it can extend full maternity benefits to all Singaporean children, regardless of the marital status of their mothers. I also urge the Government to allow unwed mothers tax reliefs under the Working Mothers Child Relief and Foreign Maid Levy Relief – so that the child can benefit from the money saved from paying taxes, and have the support of a domestic worker.
As lawmakers, let us look into any child's eyes and be filled with love that we have done our best to ensure that he is, indeed, equal amongst peers.
Mr Seah Kian Peng: Based on statistics released by the Ministry, there has been an increase in the number of child abuse investigations since 2009. In 2014, there were 158 cases where there was clear evidence of abuse, with another 47 cases lacking evidence but needing assistance.
Of the 158 cases, physical abuse was the most common, followed by sexual abuse, physical neglect and emotional abuse.
I understand that the Ministry has a Child Protection and Welfare Service that coordinates the protection and welfare plans for the child, as well as providing assistance to the family. In addition, the Ministry works with VWOs, such as the Singapore Children's Society, TRANS Centre and other Family Service Centres (FSCs), in providing holistic support for the child and the family.
Together with these VWOs, the Ministry has worked to provide and coordinate supportive services that build parenting capacities, alternative care arrangements, early identification of abuse and neglect, as well as substitute services, such as foster family care, adoption and residential care, for the children.
For example, within the Ministry, there is also the Positive Parenting Programme that teaches positive parenting skills for families. There are also recovery programmes for children and adolescents who have experienced sexual abuse, as well as for their non-offending parents and caregivers, to provide them with skills to help their children.
All these are not piecemeal efforts. Yet, there still remain a substantial number of child abuse cases, as seen from the statistics that I mentioned earlier. Beyond public education and early identification of suspected abuse cases, what more can the Ministry do to improve support to this vulnerable group? How has the Ministry been supporting these children? How does the Ministry intend to improve the support to such children?
Also, it is known that children with special needs are at a higher risk of experiencing abuse. Does the Ministry have any statistics for this group? Also, what is being done to address the higher risk for this subgroup?
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Amrin Amin): In my interactions with residents at my Meet-the-People-Sessions, I have found more Singaporeans with complex social needs as our demography and family structure change. What is MSF's strategy in supporting them in light of our physical and manpower constraints?
I welcome the completion of the network of 24 SSOs across Singapore. This is an important step in strengthening the social safety net for the vulnerable in our community. Since the first SSO was set up in 2013, how has MSF measured the effectiveness of SSOs in meeting the objectives and what are the plans going forward to enhance the effectiveness of SSOs?
Finally, our frontline staff in SSOs work very hard to help fellow Singaporeans. However, I understand that some of them are subjected to abuse, especially when those who seek help react emotionally. What are the steps MSF has taken to protect our frontline staff from such abuse?
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]
Ms Tin Pei Ling: Currently, there is a wide range of income criteria applied to public service applications from different agencies, ranging from financial assistance to public housing to foreign spouse immigration. The variation can be in the form of gross versus nett, aggregated versus per capita and varying qualifying income ceilings for different but possibly similar schemes. This is confusing.
Hence, could the Government consider applying net per capita income as the criterion across the board? This is a fairer assessment of a household's true earning and spending power. Also, could the same income criterion be imposed on applications involving a similar group of beneficiaries, even if the administering agencies differ?
Finally, if not already, would the MSF consider taking the lead in a whole-of-Government income criteria review?
Mr Chen Show Mao: Sir, my experience with families in financial need seems to suggest that quite a number of them would have benefited from financial assessment and counselling at the time of selling their HDB flats.
I would like to suggest that the Government look into instituting at some point in the selling process, mandatory checks to ensure that certain groups of sellers, say, those aged 55 or above, are fully aware of the specific respective amounts of proceeds that will be used to pay off outstanding mortgage loans, HDB resale levy, required CPF refunds and all the restrictions relating to the transfer and use of monies in and out of their CPF accounts, including the Retirement Account, and to provide them with related financial counselling if assessment so warrants.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Chairman, Sir, the Ministry's ComCare Annual Report reported that the number of recipients of ComCare Short-To-Medium-Term Assistance increased from over 11,000 beneficiaries in Financial Year 2012 to over 27,000 beneficiaries in Financial Year 2014. I believe this is due to the expansion of the eligibility for Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance in 2012 and 2014 and also the greater outreach effort by the SSOs.
It is good that ComCare is reaching more Singaporeans in need. Nevertheless, all else being equal, the effectiveness of Government's efforts to help Singaporeans in need should be reflected in a decline of the number eligible for assistance. We should be worried if the number of beneficiaries continues to climb when the eligibility criteria stay the same.
I would like to propose the Ministry set up a Mentoring Programme for the recipients of ComCare Short-to-Medium Term Assistance. Recent studies show that asset and cash transfers to the poor are more effective when the recipients receive two years of counselling and training to use the assets and cash in ways that will help them to graduate from poverty.
In the Singapore context, it could be to enrol in skills training, so that the person could land a decent job or to leverage existing skills to start micro-businesses. The Mentoring Programme would also encourage recipients to persevere and break out of the poverty cycle.
We should not be so judgemental as to tell the recipients what they should consume with their cash assistance, but the little mentoring advice and encouragement will go a long way, especially with the needy who find themselves socially isolated.
This Mentoring Programme need not and should not be as intense as the handholding for the Fresh Start Housing Scheme, but the underlying principle is the same. The ComCare Annual Report should also show the number graduating from ComCare through the Mentoring Programme, not just the number of beneficiaries, so that we can be confident our fellow Singaporeans are being uplifted out of poverty.
Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin (Nominated Member): The story of the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) is a very powerful signpost of what can be achieved when the Government matches culture with strategy.
In 1988, SPS faced wicked problems – overcrowded prisons, a severe manpower shortage, overworked and discouraged prison officers and lousy public perception. The recidivism rate back then was high, at 44.4%. That means half the ex-offenders were back into prison within two years of release.
There was also a vicious intergenerational cycle – children of inmates were becoming offenders themselves. So, a small group of SPS leaders dared to ask themselves: how was Singapore Prisons creating security for all if it did not do anything to reduce repeat offences? These early adopters pushed through a progressive idea that perhaps the primary job of a prison was not to keep \"bad\" people in but to get them out forever.
At the heart of SPS' culture transformation strategy was the repositioning of prison officers as Captains of Lives with a mission to rehabilitate, renew and restart. And prisoners were repositioned not as problems to control but people worthy of support on a historic quest for redemption.
The prison officer was no longer a gate-keeper that worked on minimising the cost of \"bad\" people but repositioned as a guide that worked on maximising possibilities for people wanting to do good again. The public were no longer empathetic bystanders but repositioned as vital participants who could unlock a systemic second prison.
MHA was sceptical at first and worried that this soft \"culture-first\" approach would not produce results and waste public money. But 16 years later, results still hold. The recidivism rate has dropped from 44.4% to the mid-20s from 2011 onwards. Public perception of ex-offenders and morale of prison officers remain high and our innovative approach has actually gone on to inspire similar experiments in prison systems from Nigeria to Australia.
I speak at length about the Singapore Prison story because I see important parallels of the on-going struggles we face in the social sector in the struggle against the poverty cycle. I also see new possibilities in adopting the \"culture-as-first-resort\" approach pioneered by Singapore Prison.
Right now, many FSCs feel similarly overwhelmed by demand and strained for resources. Many social workers feel burnt out, especially when they see people sunk in poverty, relapsing back into impoverishing behaviours despite intervention after intervention. Many of the poor also expressed demotivation when they − wrongfully or not − perceive their social workers acting more like gatekeepers, working for the good of the system rather than guides working for the good of the people.
So, I have three questions. First, do we know how many of our people relapsed into poverty two years on despite our interventions? What is our recidivism rate for poverty? Second, are we experimenting with any broad-based \"Yellow Ribbon\"-like culture intervention to meet our strategic goal of disrupting poverty? Third, what if Fresh Start was not just a housing scheme but the beginning of a whole-of-Government, whole-of-society movement that engaged all stakeholders to work as one to disrupt poverty together? For instance, what would SkillsFuture for a Fresh Start or Public Broadcasting for a Fresh Start look like?
As we work on the transformation of how we help our working elite, let us also transform how we help our working poor as well.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Chairman, at my Meet-the-People sessions, I see many elderly residents requesting financial assistance. Some of them are still working, some are retired, some have children but do not get any financial support from their children. The common issue they face is that they do not have enough monies for their monthly expenses. I would typically refer them to SSO and, usually, some form of assistance is given to them.
I am, therefore, heartened that one of the key initiatives rolled out in this year's Budget is the Silver Support Scheme. Through this scheme, additional assistance will be given to the elderly from the lower income group, on top of any other forms of assistance that they may already be eligible for. This will definitely help lessen the burden for this group of senior citizens.
There will, however, be seniors who may not meet the criteria set out for the scheme and will not be entitled to the payout. I can still refer such cases to SSO or extend ComCare assistance where appropriate. However, a typical problem I encounter is one which involves elderly residents who have working adult children. These elderly residents are usually asked about their children's contribution and typically indicate that their children are unable to assist them. Some are also uncomfortable about seeking help from their children.
I have seen cases where SSO will extend some support but there are also several cases where assistance is not given on account of the fact that there are children who should be able to support their parents. Could the Minister elaborate on the current approach when dealing with such cases?
I believe it is important that the family continues to be the first line of support for those who need help. This is a value that our society should embrace and adhere to.
In looking at various approaches to resolve the issue, would the Ministry be looking to enhance the engagement with the children of these senior citizens? I understand that some cases are referred to the Maintenance of Parents' Tribunal. I note that the families are usually asked to attend mediation. This is definitely very helpful. Is there any need to re-frame or review the role of the Maintenance of Parents' Tribunal in assisting families to understand the role of children in helping to support their parents?
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Chairman, a critical measure of our successes as a society is social mobility. This is the part of the glue that binds Singapore. I have heard from a friend in the social work profession that he has begun seeing clients in need of social work help who are the children of the clients that he saw 20 years ago. So, no one is cheered by stories like these.
MOF's Occasional Paper published in 2012 and updated in 2015 suggested that the 1978-1982 cohort and 1974-1978 cohort saw an inter-generational mobility measure of around 0.2, which is relatively good by international standards. Other studies suggest different results. For example, Prof Irene Ng's study based on 2002 data concluded that 58% of the income advantage of Singapore parents was being handed down to their children – a level similar to the USA at that time. And there are methodological limitations to both these studies, as both authors have acknowledged.
I suggest that we commit to at least one social mobility study every 10 years to the best available global standards. If we cannot measure how well we are doing, we cannot know how to make things better.
Mr Seah Kian Peng: Mr Chairman, Enabling Masterplan 2 comes to fruition by the end of this year. Notwithstanding its plans and progress, there is a sense on the ground that the majority of the public are still largely unaware of its achievements and undertakings, even the existence of the five-year Plan itself.
A friend told me that in her evening walks with her husband, she sometimes sees a person on a wheelchair at the bus-stop, where he would alight from a double-decker bus. He would wait patiently to ask for help from random passers-by to wheel him home. My friend's husband wheeled him one particular evening and, even for a young man in his 30s, it was not the easiest task. The 20-minute journey, gradually uphill, and made longer due to detours made inevitable by steps. Imagine the man on a wheelchair having to ask for this favour almost every night. This story makes two points.
First, let us do help each other along, whether it is a man on a wheelchair or an old neighbour with dementia.
Second, I would like to sound a note for practical help. Too often, the term \"community help\" means the Government leaving us to our own devices. This is great for those of us who have devices, but the Government needs to help those who cannot help themselves and to do so without eroding their dignity and self-worth. In this case, can the Minister update us if we are close to the forecasted 400 beneficiaries taking up the Assistive Technology Fund?
Can the Minister also recap what are the key areas of progress made under Enabling Masterplan 2 and how the Government plans to build on these achievements? Beyond continuing work on early intervention, I think we need to also give more support to families in caregiving for such groups and improving the service delivery and quality. Can the Minister spell out the key focus areas of Enabling Masterplan 3?
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Sir, I will use the term \"special needs\" with the commonly used term \"disabilities\" interchangeably in this speech.
Those of us who have been following the development of the special needs landscape in Singapore know that much has been achieved in the last decade.
The first salvo to include those with disabilities was launched by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong when he was inaugurated. His inauguration speech set the tone and momentum of things to come.
There were a few breakthroughs. MediShield Life which covers persons with congenital conditions and/or pre-existing conditions; universal base funding on top of means-tested fundings for Early Intervention, and the immense MOE support for Special Education schools. These are some of the positive breakthroughs.
Singaporeans should visit the SG Enable Village to see the dignity and support given to persons with special needs who might be suitable to work.
Today, we have amongst us in Parliament, a respected Nominated Member of Parliament, Ms Chia Yong Yong, a lawyer with peroneal muscular atrophy. I have personally witnessed the quiet, commendable efforts made by the Parliament staff to ensure this Chamber and even our restroom facilities are accessible to Yong Yong. Kudos to them.
The third five-year Enabling Masterplan for Persons with Disabilities in our country is now underway. These are exciting times for the special needs community. But they are also alarming times, judging from the fast pace and ways by which technology can disrupt our world.
The directions laid down in Budget 2016 are just as relevant to this special community. We must, as a country, address the community's near-term challenges. At the same time, the special needs community, comprising Persons with Disabilities, their caregivers, the professionals, VWOs and other agencies, must be future-prepared. They must acquire skills mastery in what they do. They must attain innovation capability and learn to form enlightened partnerships in order to survive and, hopefully, thrive in the world of the future.
Dream big, dive deep, dare to deal with the difficult. I believe that is the way to go.
Dream big. Singapore signed and ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2012 and 2013 respectively. The Convention advocates the important view that Persons with Disabilities should not be simply objects of charity, medical treatment and social protection. The Convention sees them as full and equal members of society with rights to such important things as education, healthcare, housing, justice, mobility and safety.
Singapore must dream big and cast the vision of fully embracing the special needs community as its rainbow to chase. In every key aspect of life, Persons with Disabilities must be included, by default, in the main chapter of policymaking and not as an after-thought; or, worse, forgotten.
A Smart Nation is not so smart if it creates a digital divide between those who can and others who cannot or are not included to partake.
The SkillsFuture movement does not promise much of a future if it does not tangibly provide for those at risk of being left behind – the vulnerable, including Persons with Disabilities. If lifelong learning is the way to go, then there is nothing to say that MOE's special schools cannot be resourced to become lifelong learning hubs so that persons with special needs can learn and contribute for life.
In the special needs sector, we can leverage on our nation's advantage in technology to be the game changer to develop, scale and spread excellence so that more can benefit. Go for excellence. Dream big.
Dive deeper. To truly embrace the special needs community, the Government and other stakeholders must go beyond the usual general public consultations with focus groups in developing policies and programmes, especially for the upcoming Enabling Masterplan.
There are several key disability types – intellectual, physical, developmental, sensory, learning – and groups with multiple disabilities. Persons with Disabilities and their caregivers are not all the same in the issues they face. There are different levels of challenges, commitment, abilities and excellence amongst the service providers and agencies supporting them. We need to do more than ground sensing. The usual general frustrations and disappointments will surface, but dive deeper we must, if we wish to excel. Encourage each major disability group to study their own terrain and derive a mini Enabling Masterplan that highlights the pivotal needs of their charges, prioritise them, identify the gaps and recommend solutions.
The Government must invite and study these plans. We know that not everything can be addressed by the Government, but it can surely play the role of Integrator and Facilitator to identify partners who can co-source or co-develop innovative solutions to address this area of growth or pains.
The Singapore Association for the Deaf has attempted a mini-Enabling Masterplan highlighting the needs for effective early intervention. Other deaf activists have raised the need to make captioning and sub-titling a default feature for all key national communications.
The adults who are visually impaired need a greater variety of jobs so that more of them can find work. More must be done upstream to train them and find jobs beyond the respected traditional professions like masseurs and buskers.
The autism community has organised itself, formed the Autism Network Singapore and is in the process of developing its own Enabling Masterplan. Their worry is also for the adults in their midst.
Administrators and policy writers must themselves dive deeper, too. It is old-school to only use a person's ability or inability to perform physical Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) as the eligibility criteria to schemes, such as the Foreign Worker Grants for the disabled. Just because someone is able to physically dress himself and go to the toilet independently does not mean he does not need supervision in other key aspects of life.
To achieve excellence, the Government and all of us in the sector need to go beyond threading water and dive deeper.
Lastly, we must dare to deal with the difficult issues confronting the special needs community. There may be no easy solutions for some of these issues and that is precisely the reason why we need to surface them, alert the relevant agencies and tap on the rest of the Singapore family. I would like to highlight a few.
Regular health screening and consultations by doctors, dentists and even optomologists capable of treating Persons with Disabilities. This is a real need. Dr Chen Shiling from the Happee Hearts Movement has a vision of starting a specialised health centre for People with Disabilities (PWDs). Check her out.
Children with rare diseases whose medical costs can chalk up to $300,000 per year. Although MediShield Life, thankfully, does not exclude them, the needs are still high and this group needs help.
Centres for adults with more severe disabilities, receiving only means-tested financial support and insufficient for long-term viability. They need the support of the rest of us.
Parents who are in urgent need of legal assistance as they are no longer able to make decisions for their adult children deemed as lacking mental capacity; decisions, such as on surgeries and housing – they need help.
Family caregivers who are emotionally at risk of taking their own lives and those of their children with special needs – they need help.
How can the Government and the rest of Singapore support them? We cannot pretend they do not exist. We need to dare to confront these difficult challenges.
Persons with special needs are more than their diagnosis. They are not simply the objects of our charity. Someday, many of us may join this club when we lose our sight, our hearing and our mobility. Some of us may even lose our mental capacity. The only way to predict the future is to help create it.
Let us dream big, dive deep and dare to deal with the difficult.
The Chairman: Ms Chia Yong Yong, you have two cuts. Do you want to take them together?
Ms Chia Yong Yong (Nominated Member): Thank you, Sir. I understand that, to date, around 140 companies have applied for funds under the Open Door Programme (ODP) and the average claim per company was $3,000. Whilst we have made progress in reaching out to employers, we are clearly still short of desired levels of outreach.
In what ways can the Government create greater awareness of the assistance funds available and encourage more companies to apply under the ODP? Also, has the Open Job Portal been an effective platform for job seekers with disabilities and employers?
Sir, second cut. We worry about our children, our parents and our loved ones. All the more, when such children, parents or loved ones have special needs, disabilities, illnesses or are in other ways vulnerable. We worry for them, even when we are here to look after them. When we are not here anymore, what will happen to them?
With smaller families and an ageing population, there are fewer family members to share the caregiving role. Many caregivers of persons with disabilities are elderly parents, who, in no time, will no longer be able to continue in their caregiving roles. Caregivers of elderly parents, spouses or siblings with disabilities will also grow older. In the vicissitudes of life, some of us will not survive the ones that we take care of. We do not want to leave our loved ones to charity; neither do we want to burden the state unnecessarily. It is, therefore, important that caregivers be equipped and guided to make arrangements for continued, qualitative care for our loved ones when we are not around anymore. We are referring to \"permanency planning\".
We should try to do this ground-up. VWOs look after their beneficiaries, they understand the needs of the beneficiaries and the caregivers. VWOs also have an understanding of assistance schemes and the care options provided by institutions that can be matched to the needs of the beneficiaries.
If we can equip VWOs with the necessary financial skillsets to help the families of such beneficiaries plan for care arrangements when they are no longer around, plan for the anticipated care arrangements and help to prepare the beneficiaries for such future living arrangements, that would be ideal. Permanency planning can be taken into account in the beneficiary's current customised care plans to enable caregivers and VWOs to have regular conversations on how to review and update such permanency planning.
Therefore, I urge the Government to consider providing funding support for social service professionals to undergo structured training for the purposes of undertaking permanency planning. We will be spending a little bit now for a longer future.
Mr Seah Kian Peng: People in the social service and early childhood fields often experience challenges in their day-to-day work. The Government is now trying to develop a larger pool of skilled social service professionals through agencies, such as ECDA and the Social Service Institute.
We announced recently that in addition to the SkillsFuture Credit, social service professionals will also be eligible for the SkillsFuture Study Awards for the Social Service Sector, providing each recipient with $5,000 for attending course-related training.
Besides these efforts, how else is the Government investing in the professional capabilities of this very special group? Are these professionals currently accorded the opportunity and time by their organisations to pursue professional development?
How else is the Government also looking to give greater support and recognition to other social service professionals? In particular, can we continue to raise the salaries of social workers and other social service professionals to give them greater parity with their peers in other professions?
Meanwhile, the Government has also been increasing support as well for VWOs. With these investments, has there been an evaluation of outcomes? How have the VWOs benefited from the support?
I know the plan to develop the Social Service Net (SSNet) is already underway. How has the progress of the implementation of SSNet been and what is the next phase of its development? How has the social service sector been leveraging on technology to improve its work and service delivery?
Assoc Prof Randolph Tan (Nominated Member): In Singapore, almost all sectors compete for manpower from the same limited pool. Ironically, even as the economy slows, many organisations still cannot fully meet their hiring needs.
Social spending has been rising steadily for a number of years now and it has required sectors, such as social and family services, to increase their demand for manpower at a time when the supply is tight. From childcare centres to old-age care, the rate of increase in Government spending and the urgency of meeting certain performance targets are occurring at a pace faster than we had seen in the past.
I would like to urge the Ministry to temper the rush to compete for manpower and other scarce resources and ensure that the increases in growth in spending be achieved at a more measured pace. Please allow me to point to three specific areas of concern.
Even if manpower were more readily available, proper training and deployment take time. Has the Ministry monitored if the pressures imposed by the increases in social spending over the last few years are leading to problems with the quality and fit of manpower in the sectors under its purview?
The volume of work under the Ministry's purview has also expanded. Take ComCare as an example. The number of cases under ComCare has been growing, with that under ComCare Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance expanding about four times from 2007 to 2014.
For the many organisations in the social and family services sector that are not-for-profit and affected by the manpower crunch, what is the impact on their service standards? How do they cope with the competition for manpower with for-profit organisations? What is the outlook for the manpower supply in this sector in the face of such challenges?
Finally, the number of volunteers has also expanded. Managing a large pool of volunteers is a challenge and requires high-level skills in coordination. Volunteers have to be organised within a coherent administrative framework in order to maximise their contributions. A disorganised and fragmented approach to managing volunteers can result in confusion or, worse, negative outcomes. A growing pool of volunteers can, therefore, also strain already tight resources. How does the Ministry plan to manage such a challenge?
The Chairman: Ms Jessica Tan. Not here. Ms Chia Yong Yong.
Ms Chia Yong Yong: Thank you, Sir. Before my involvement in the social services sector, I took the view that social service professionals served out of passion and therefore, should expect a pay cut, compared to their peers in other sectors. I also took the view that my donations, however paltry, should go to direct services to beneficiaries and not towards the administration of the charity.
I did not realise then how wrong I was. We should not penalise anyone for serving out of passion. We should remember that they have families to feed, children and loved ones whom they wish to provide for. They have aspirations and, if they leave the sector to fulfil those legitimate aspirations, our beneficiaries will suffer.
I did not realise that for a VWO to help their beneficiaries effectively, it must run well as a whole organisation. Corporate support functions and good governance are important. We need good professionals and staff to manage and operate corporate support, to implement good governance, in order for our therapists, social workers and counsellors to serve and support our beneficiaries effectively. So, we need to engage, develop and retain competent staff within the VWO sector.
In recent years, the Government has increased funding support for VWOs to make sure that VWOs are able to remunerate their staff better and granted funds to help improve the corporate capabilities of the social service sector. However, VWOs encounter challenges in some of this funding and I would like to share some of them.
Challenge in putting up funding proposals. Most VWOs do not have resources to put up proposals to access the funding.
Restrictions on grant usage limit the usefulness of some of such grants. An example would be the Innovation and Productivity Grant.
Short-term grant support for programmes or corporate functions. The difficulty is that VWOs cannot stop a programme or terminate staff just because the funding has ended. Therefore, we often hesitate before we undertake a programme. Ultimately, the beneficiaries suffer.
Having stated the above, I do want to acknowledge that the current two-year Corporate Development Fund Scheme is a good start. Moving forward, I hope that the Government will provide more sustainable and recurrent funding or allow VWOs to explore more creative revenue models to sustain their own operations.
Specifically, for this debate, I would like to ask if the Government would be able to streamline and simplify the criteria and the process for the application of Government grants. Secondly, would the Government provide greater and more sustained support to VWOs in their corporate funding, so that their operational capabilities can be strengthened to better support the delivery of good social programmes?
The Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Tan Chuan-Jin): Chairman, I would like to start off my speech by providing an overview of my Ministry's focus in Mandarin before resuming in English.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The continual progress and prosperity of a country depend not just on a strong economy; it is equally important that we build an inclusive society and help Singaporeans build a caring home. MSF will be working on three priorities moving forward.
Our first priority is to make Singapore a good home for the family and for every child to have a good start in life, regardless of family background. Strong and happy families are the basic building blocks of our society. Our families are what make life meaningful for us. This will not be just an MSF effort, but a whole-of-Government priority.
For each of our families and for Singapore as a whole, our children are our future. We want them to grow up in strong families and a safe and nurturing environment. For children who have less, we will give them an extra leg up, so that they, too, will have the opportunity to live to their potential and to chase rainbows.
Hence, we are providing greater support to families with young children. MSF will continue to expand accessible, affordable and quality early childhood education. MSF will also provide greater financial support to young children through the new CDA First Step scheme.
The children's early years are essential to their physical and mental development and will have a long-term impact on their future. There is a small group of parents who, for various reasons, are unable to provide the best support to their children during this crucial stage. Hence, we will be piloting a new scheme targeted at vulnerable children aged six and below, called KidSTART. This new initiative will proactively identify vulnerable families and children through various indicators, so as to provide them with early access to the necessary health, learning and developmental support. We will also provide parents with the knowledge and skills to care for and support their children's development.
Our second priority is to continue to strengthen our social safety net and improve the lives of the low-income and more vulnerable amongst us. We are aware that the cost of living is high in Singapore and that our low-income households have to grapple with it every day. As the Minister for Finance has mentioned in his Budget speech, we are increasing the cash assistance for those on ComCare long-term assistance.
The ComCare Long Term Assistance scheme is a package of assistance for those who are permanently unable to work due to reasons, such as old-age or disability, and have little savings and family support. Most of the beneficiaries are elderly.
From July this year, a one-person household will receive $500 per month, up from the current $450. The assistance will also be increased for larger households. Besides cash assistance, they will also continue to receive free medical care and additional assistance. Many of them are also allocated heavily subsidised HDB rental flats.
At the same time, we will also do more for Persons with Disabilities. Much progress has been made under the current Enabling Masterplan. We will build on these efforts and have started work on the Enabling Masterplan for the next five years to explore how we can better assist Persons with Disabilities to integrate into mainstream society and live a meaningful life.
However, I would like to stress that to be a truly inclusive society, relying on Government subsidies or policies alone is not enough. We would need the wider community to step forward and play a part in improving the lives of those among us who are weaker. This would be MSF's third priority − building a caring society.
We will continue to support VWOs to raise their capabilities and help social service professionals develop themselves. At the same time, NCSS will also work with our VWOs to expand volunteerism opportunities, so that Singaporeans and businesses who are keen to contribute to society can do so. Over the next three years, the Government will provide dollar-for-dollar matching for additional donations raised through ComChest's \"Share as One\" programme. This will encourage corporations and the communities to contribute to society.
Singapore is our home. Only by caring and supporting one another can we march towards the next 50 years. I hope that in 50 years' time, Singapore will not be successful just economically, but equally outstanding in having a more cohesive and caring society. This is a vision worth striving for. It is a vision that needs each and every one of us to realise.
(In English): Chairman, when we speak of people being Singapore's only resource, many think we are just referring to the Singaporean worker, how educated he is, how hard-working, how skilled. In short, how he can contribute to keeping Singapore going for the next bound. But in reality, the Singaporean is no less a father, husband, son, mother, daughter or wife. The Singaporean lives within a delicate web of human ties, a network which I know each of us in this House seeks to help make stronger and more meaningful.
As we begin our journey over the next 50 years, it is important for us to take stock and remember what we aspire for Singapore – a land of opportunity where citizens can realise their dreams. Dreams take root and have meaning only within the precious network of meaningful relationships and bonds, of strong families and good friends, of an inclusive and caring society, across all races and all religions.
Families come in all forms. For individuals, it can be by fiat of birth, by force of circumstance, by exercise of rational choice or by a chance chemistry of mutual attraction. On a larger scale, we all know our population is ageing. Our family structures are changing. Ours is an economic age of volatility and uncertainty, and social needs, therefore, are becoming more varied, complex and multi-faceted.
Our family laws are changing to reflect these new realities. For example, alimonies for divorced men who become incapacitated during marriage and cannot support themselves, or maintenance and care for aged parents; laws which will have to continue to evolve.
Unfortunately, today, we are more likely to divorce each other than before. We also have more working mothers. We have a more diverse architecture in life choices even as parenting becomes a constant battle of school stresses and social media temptations and distractions. Against these social facts, what cards do we have to play? We are only as strong as the values we hold dear. And they are: that everyone − rich or poor − should have the same shot at success. That we value individual effort and strong families. And last, that we are all in this together: Equal Opportunities. Strong Families. United Country.
These are enduring values which my Ministry will seek to uphold in our work for this term of Government. And in terms of how we intend to carry out our work, I hope to go upstream where we can. We want to proactively and positively shape the environment and to prevent problems from developing where possible. We conceive of our work in three ways − firstly, a strong start; secondly, a network for the vulnerable; and, lastly, a collective effort towards improving social welfare.
Firstly, a strong start: building our home for family and a good start for our children. Clearly, Singapore is our home for family. Strong families are, and must remain, the basic building blocks of our society. Strong marriages form the foundation for strong families. We do want to create a pro-family environment, which supports couples' decision to settle down, have children and enjoy family life. We will strengthen marriages and families so that family members maintain strong ties with one another and with the community.
For each of our families and our society, children are our future. With strong families and good support from society, our children can have a good start in life. For children who have less, we will give them an extra leg-up so that they, too, have the opportunity to live life to the fullest.
Secondly, it is about caring for the vulnerable. We have increased support for vulnerable groups. We have helped persons with disabilities to lead more independent lives and realise their potential. But, clearly, the work is not done. We will build stronger safety nets to identify and support the more vulnerable in our society. We will improve our systems and measures. We will calibrate our assistance so that those in greater need receive more. We will work with different Ministries to deliver more coordinated help to those with varied needs.
My Parliamentary Secretary will speak on how we will help the low-income, the vulnerable seniors and youths-at-risk. He will also outline how we will continue to support and empower persons with disabilities.
Thirdly, it is also very much about enabling Caring Communities. Building an inclusive society with a strong sense of \"we\", as opposed to \"me\", is very much our collective aspirations. This came across strongly during Our Singapore Conversations and even in the present ongoing SGFuture series of dialogues. To be a truly inclusive society, we need more than strong Government safety nets. We need a wider community which has the heart and the will to play a part in improving the lives of those among us who are weaker, have less or have fallen on hard times.
So, one of MSF's priorities is also to enable and empower caring communities where individuals, businesses and VWOs can come together, work together, to build a Singapore where everyone plays a role to make sure that no Singaporean is left behind. When we talk about an inclusive society, it is not just about including those who need help or who need the support. It is about all of us being included in that whole journey. The positive outcomes of such actions are not, and I repeat, are not limited to the beneficiaries. The change also occurs for those who give of their time, energy and resources. Helping others brings out our humanity as individuals and strengthens our common identity as Singaporeans.
For this first speech, let me share some of our upcoming work in building our home for family and to provide a good start for our children.
Our families are what make life meaningful for us. They are our pillar of support in good and bad times. Strong family bonds need to be nurtured and forged through the quality and quantity of time spent together. We all know that when both parents are involved at home and with their children's lives, marital relationships are stronger. Children thrive when parental relationships are positive, when they are loved by their parents, grandparents and other family members. Ageing parents also thrive when their adult children, their siblings and other family members are supportive.
In the coming years, my Ministry will continue to strengthen these fundamental family relationships. Where relationships are intact, we work towards reinforcing them further. Where relationships have problems, we try to help repair and preserve them. Where they have invariably broken down, as it tends to happen sometimes, we will try to minimise the negative impact. Central to our work here are the interest of the children and their development.
Let me talk briefly about strengthening marriages. My Ministry supports and provides marriage preparation programmes and counselling through our network of partners. We equip couples with skills, such as communications and conflict management, to prepare them for the ups and downs of marriage life.
Since December 2014, MSF has worked with community partners to offer the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Programme (PREP) at the Registry of Marriage and in the community. The response has been positive. Nine in 10 participants told us the programme has been helpful in enhancing their marriage.
We also work with the Families for Life Council on bonding activities for families to promote family time among extended families and on the Marriage Convention which also provides useful tips for couples to enrich their marriage.
For couples who may face more stresses in their marriage life, we have put in place many other targeted programmes, like those for couples who married young and those for marriages involving a foreign spouse. We do encourage Members in this House to encourage others to take on-board all this range of programmes.
Let me talk about supporting new parents. We all know, as new parents, we will face anxiety and stress. Will we be able to handle the sleepless nights when baby comes? Will our home be ready? Who will take care of our little one when we are out at work? What are the major expenses involved in raising a child? These are very valid and practical questions that I think all of us have asked. I remember asking them myself when I first became a parent.
Today, we have a suite of support measures covering various life stages – from getting married to having and raising children and providing support for working parents. I, for one, do not believe that couples have children just because of campaigns or to benefit from the grants and schemes. But I do believe that our policies, collectively, can help create a conducive environment and climate to support couples who do want to become parents, who do want to settle down and who do want to have more children.
Going forward, we want to do more to facilitate early bonding between parents and newborns. We also want to give new parents greater support and encourage more to get into the habit of saving for their children's future. You may already have heard about plans to enhance paternity leave. The Minister for Finance has also announced the new CDA First Step. These initiatives are part of our support for marriage and parenthood. And I will leave it to Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo to give you details of these and other initiatives during NPTD's Committee of Supply.
As a parent myself, I know that parenting is more challenging today. In this age when social media and the Internet bring outside influences straight to our young children in a very unfiltered fashion, we need to be even more vigilant and play a more active role to ensure that our children are exposed to the right values. This is where we, as parents, must play our part.
To help parents, we have implemented two parenting programmes in schools – the Positive Parenting Programme and the Signposts programme. They are meant to help parents become more competent in parenting, reduce parenting stress and to help them manage difficult behaviour in children. We have rolled out these programmes to 50 schools since 2014, benefiting 2,000 families. We will expand the outreach of these parenting programmes to 120 schools this year and up to 175 schools by 2018.
A local study in 2010 found that first-time fathers who were more involved in caring for the young infants, adjusted better to fatherhood. Yet, in many families, as Mr Seah Kian Peng pointed out, mothers continue to carry the greater responsibility in child-raising.
We need to encourage fathers to step forward, but I think times are also beginning to change and I see fathers getting more hands-on. Naturally, we see fathers carrying their babies, feeding them and, especially in the libraries, you see them reading to their children. A 2016 MSF survey of mothers with infants found that close to three in four mothers agreed that fathers are as good as them in caring for children. So, fathers, do be encouraged! The children are quite safe with you, so do step forward.
In 2009, my Ministry started the Dads for Life movement. The Centre for Fathering is now driving the effort, with our support, to expand outreach to the community, schools and workplaces. Dads for Life ambassadors are also reaching out to childcare centres and Primary schools to encourage fathers to be more active dads through a strong network of father support groups. The response has been very positive.
A 2013 MSF survey showed that six in 10 men polled responded that their job kept them from spending more time with their families. In recent years, we have introduced paternity and shared parental leave to give fathers more time with their children right from birth. Fathers are also eligible for childcare leave which applies to older children, too. We encourage fathers to take this up.
But we need supportive employers. We have talked about this in previous Committees of Supply. And with most of us being working parents, Mr Christopher de Souza and Ms Thanaletchimi were right to point out that the workplace needs to be pro-family as well. Today, the Work-Life Grant co-funds lactation facilities in offices. It also incentivises employers to provide flexible work arrangements, which are sought after by men, too, as shown by a 2014 survey conducted by The Straits Times and the Employer Alliance. I call on employers to embrace these measures to support fathers and mothers as well.
Let me talk about personal commitment. We can pass all the policies, initiatives and incentives but, ultimately, we need to walk that last step. While we are committed to working with the community and employers to support active fathering, the final step has to be taken by the fathers themselves.
Many of you would agree with me that time is precious. As a father myself, I find that time is fleeting. It is not quite sufficient. Sometimes, I will pop into their rooms to chat with them before they sleep. Where we can, we play board games or, sometimes, sit in front of the computer to share our favourite Jimmy Fallon episodes or Saturday Night Live. This is not very strategic but I think we have a great time together just joking and laughing and I think whatever we can do, let us just take the effort to try to be there and to be present. For fathers, particularly, our presence is a lot more critical than we realise in terms of the long-term impact on our children.
As we support active parenting, it is also important for us to help parents provide a good start for their children. The early years, we all know, are when our children develop language competencies, habits and socio-emotional skills that provide the foundation for their future.
Let me talk a little about what we did in the whole early childhood sector. What we want is for parents to have access to affordable and good quality early childhood services. We have made significant investments to level up the early childhood sector.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about our progress and our next steps. In 2013, under our five-year Childcare Master Plan, we set a target to add 20,000 more childcare places, to have one place for every two children by 2017. We have already surpassed this target. Today, we have over 125,000 childcare places, an increase of over 30,000 places, compared to three years ago.
I am very aware that demand remains high in certain estates with concentrations of parents with young children, a point which Ms Sun Xueling has raised. I would like to assure Members that meeting the needs of these parents is and will continue to be an important priority.
Just to share, childcare places in Punggol and Sengkang have increased by more than 60% in just the last three years, to 13,000 places today. Five large childcare centres will be completed this year, adding another 2,000 places in high demand estates like Punggol, Sengkang, Jurong West, Woodlands and Yishun. Altogether, by 2017, about 10,000 more childcare places will be added in Singapore, of which about a third will be in Punggol and Sengkang.
But as we expand capacity, it is important for us to assure parents that their children are well-looked after. First, there are now more centres certified by the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) under the Singapore Preschool Accreditation Framework (SPARK). This helps parents choose a quality preschool for their child. One in four preschools are SPARK-qualified today. We expect more to come on board.
Second, we will introduce a new Early Childhood Development Centres Act later this year. This Act will regulate kindergartens and childcare centres under the same framework to ensure higher and more consistent standards across the sector.
ECDA has consulted parents and the sector extensively. Overall, there has been strong support to better safeguard our children's interests and to raise the quality of services rendered. ECDA has received many useful feedback and suggestions and we will take them into consideration.
Committed and passionate educators, clearly, are the foundation of our early childhood sector. We agree with Ms Tin Pei Ling and Ms Sun Xueling that we need sufficient manpower to support our ramp-up in childcare capacity. This remains one of our major priorities.
To attract more educators, we have introduced training awards and scholarships for ITE and Polytechnic diploma students. We have also enhanced professional conversion programmes for mid-career entrants. A new Place-and-Train Programme for educarers was introduced last year.
We have expanded continuing professional development opportunities to develop and retain educators in the sector and this is an important effort. Late last year, I launched the Professional Development Programme to help teachers deepen their competencies and to take on larger job roles. Over 100 teachers are in the first batch and I expect many more to benefit in future runs.
We are also building a pipeline of preschool teachers to support children with mild development needs. Ngee Ann Polytechnic will offer a Specialist Diploma in Early Childhood Learning Support from April this year.
The manpower situation for this sector will remain tight. I would like to thank Members for their many suggestions. ECDA will continue to study how to make it easier for those with the passion to work with young children to join the sector, while continuing to assure parents that the safety and welfare of our children are looked after.
Let me talk a bit about affordability, which is an important consideration for many parents. We do want to ensure preschool remains affordable to families, a point raised by Members Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Muhamad Faisal Manap. To achieve this, we have done two things. Firstly, we have implemented the Anchor Operator and the Partner Operator schemes. Today, over 40% of Singaporean children are enrolled in childcare centres under these schemes. This is a significant increase from 20% in 2012. And in the next few years, we will reach 50%. The schemes have helped to moderate fee increases. Similarly, kindergartens run by MOE and Anchor Operators are also widely accessible, comprising about half of all kindergartens.
Secondly, we have enhanced means-tested childcare and kindergarten subsidies in recent years, benefiting 44,000 children last year, which is more than the 17,000 in 2012. After subsidies, a median income family could pay about $350 per month for childcare, while lower-income families who attend centres run by Anchor Operators could pay as little as $3 per month. For kindergartens, our means-tested KiFAS subsidies are targeted at these operators to support lower- and middle-income parents with the cost.
Beyond these broad-based measures, it is important to do more for vulnerable children. There is a small group of parents who do need support to give their children a good start. There are many reasons why families and parents may end up in those situations.
We all know that a strong parent-child relationship is key in the development of the child. But when the relationship has broken down and the child has to be temporarily separated from the parent, we must do what we can to rebuild and to reunify the relationship.
Let me talk about children affected by divorce. I will explain how we translate this principle into practice. When a marriage breaks down, children, more often than not, become the vulnerable party. It is especially important for parents to improve their parenting capacity and skills to prevent the parent-child relationship from breaking down and to take active steps to improve it. The parent-to-parent relationship has broken down. But we should not see the parent-child relationship break down. We all know that in acrimonious divorces, sometimes, the children get dragged into the battle.
With the amendment of the Women's Charter in February this year, divorcing parents, with minor children, who are not able to agree on all matters of the divorce will have to attend a mandatory parenting programme before they can file for divorce. This will help them make an informed decision on divorce matters. Hopefully they may even reconsider divorce itself. But if they were to proceed, hopefully, they proceed in an informed fashion so that they can work on a sustainable co-parenting plan, post-separation. This programme is one of the many divorce support programmes offered by the four MSF-appointed Divorce Support Specialist Agencies.
Let me talk about vulnerable children who grow up in weak family circumstances. Mr Leon Perera talks about social mobility and it is important to measure it and to spur policy innovation. We agree that it is important. Indeed, Singapore is a very good example of how social mobility has benefited many of us. I think for many of us in this House, our grandparents were not rich. Our parents had a difficult time. Yet, within a generation and a generation and a half, many of us in Singapore have been uplifted. It is not something that we ought to take for granted because, as society matures, as the economy matures, it does become more difficult and, in every society, Singapore included, there will be families and individuals who will find themselves in difficult circumstances.
We have been monitoring our social mobility indicators. And there are many. We track housing, education and income. By and large, while there are different definitions and ways of looking at it, we have done relatively well. The most recent publication by MOF in 2015 shows that mobility for Singapore's lower income children is higher than in Denmark and almost twice as high as in the United States. Among Singaporean children who start off with parents in the bottom 20th percentile, 14% of them end up in the top 20% of their peers. For the US, UK and Denmark, the shares are 8%, 9% and 12% respectively. The same study, which is an update of their study in 2012, also found that our mobility has remained fairly stable.
While the findings are encouraging, what is more important is we need to understand what have we got right, what are the areas that we need to continue to improve and how do we sustain this. As I have mentioned, as we mature as an economy, as a society, it will become more difficult. Some children, possibly because of complex family circumstances, already lag behind developmentally even in their early years.
Mr Leon Perera talks about stories which his friends shared. I can share with you more stories because we do see individuals, children, who have somehow not broken free from the cycle in which the parents find themselves in. We must break that cycle. In order to help these children, we must go upstream and provide additional support. Dr Lily Neo and Mr Ang Hin Kee have illustrated some of the circumstances that these families face. I think many of us in this House would have encountered individuals who face those difficulties.
Today, we have a range of services to promote the health and learning needs of young children. They include immunisation, health checks, Development Support Programme and the Focused Language Assistance in Reading (FLAiR), which supports language and literacy development in preschools.
We will build on these existing efforts and pilot a new system of support called KidSTART. This new initiative will proactively identify low-income and vulnerable children aged six and below, to provide them with early access to health, learning and developmental support and monitor their progress during their early years.
This is not meant to be a discrete programme; it is meant to be a holistic approach to intervening in these earlier years. These children face multiple challenges. Their parents may be unable to provide a supportive environment for a host of reasons. For example, they could be young, unwed or incarcerated. There could be a combination of all these various factors, coupled with limited or no extended family support. These families would benefit and they do need additional help. I am heartened to hear that many Members are supportive of this initiative.
To implement KidSTART, ECDA will set up a Programme Office and work with Government agencies and selected SSOs, hospitals and community partners to identify, reach out to and provide coordinated support to these children and their families.
Let me elaborate on how this will work. Take, for example, a young, single, unwed, first-time mother with a three-month-old infant. She has gone to SSO for financial assistance as she is unemployed. She came forward to seek help. As a first-time mother, while she wants the best for her child, she has limited knowledge, resources and, perhaps, not having the extended family support to nurture the child.
Through KidSTART, this mother will be supported and, if possible, even as early as the antenatal stage. During my recent visit to KK Hospital, a doctor told me how early intervention even at this stage is important for the development of the child. It could help the child to be brought to term healthily, at a good birth weight. We will continue to support the parent beyond this stage, with home visits, parent education, family support programmes and, depending on their needs, she may be linked up to support groups and existing community resources. But she also has to play a part. This is where we endeavour to do as much as we can to reach out.
Through these, we will work with the parent to create a supportive and nurturing environment for the child. The parent may also be assisted to place the child in an affordable and good quality preschool or childcare centre, with the appropriate development programmes to make sure that they are receiving the right kind of exposure.
For a start, we will pilot KidSTART in Bukit Merah, Kreta Ayer, Boon Lay, Taman Jurong and Geylang Serai. We expect to reach out to about 1,000 children in the first three years. We will start small and focus so that it allows us to make sure that we are able to help effectively. The intent is there and we need to do this well. I want this model to work because I want to be able to ramp up and help more children.
Let me talk about children of unwed parents. Many of you here have spoken up for unwed parents – Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin, Mr Muhamad Faisal Manap, Ms K Thanaletchimi, Ms Tin Pei Ling, Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Desmond Choo all talked about extending benefits, such as maternity leave and the CDA First Step to unwed parents and parity for all Singaporean children regardless of their parents' marital status. I want to recognise Mr Seah Kian Peng, in particular, who has been urging the Ministry for a very long time to give more help to single parents, particularly, unwed parents and their children.
Before I address Members' concerns, I think it is important to say a few things.
First, single parents are not, I repeat, are not, a uniform group. Divorced and widowed single parents who form the bulk of single parents are already eligible for the same parenthood benefits as married parents.
Secondly, today, Government benefits that support the growth and development of children are given to all children, regardless of the marital status of their parents. Like all other children, children of unwed parents have access to social assistance, education and healthcare subsidies. They are also eligible for infant care and childcare subsidies, MediSave grant for newborns and the foreign domestic worker levy concession, to date.
But I do understand where Members are coming from, which is why when I first joined MSF, I wanted to review this policy because I do meet unwed mothers, particularly when they come to see me at the Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS). They are vulnerable usually, because they are younger and lower educated. Some may have been rejected by their own families. It is difficult enough to bring up children, but to do so single-handedly, without family support, is really tough. Some may have hoped to have a child within marriage but, due to circumstances, ended up as unwed parents.
I feel that we can do more to support their efforts to care for their children and reduce the disadvantages that their children may face at birth. In fact, as in the earlier example when I talked about KidSTART, I think the children of unwed mothers, especially those in the more vulnerable situation, will be those that we are reaching out to help. Hence, this is what we will do.
Unwed mothers will benefit from Government-Paid Maternity Leave (GPML). We will equalise it. We will need to amend the legislation to make this happen and this should be able to come into effect for children born from early next year.
Children of unwed parents will qualify for the Child Development Account (CDA), including the $3,000 CDA First Step. We are in the process of working on the legislation to get it in place, as well as the system enhancement; and this is likely to kick in for children born from the third quarter of this year.
These benefits are useful in the child's developmental or caregiving needs. They also support the unwed parent's efforts to provide for the child. At the same time, the extension of these benefits to unwed parents does not undermine parenthood within marriage, which is something that we do encourage and it is still the prevalent social norm. These are the reasons behind this particular decision.
On top of this, MSF and NCSS will also work with the relevant VWOs and agencies to strengthen support for families with vulnerable, low-income unwed mothers. This is to enable them to make better-informed decisions to improve their financial and family stability and, ultimately, to enhance their child's outcomes.
Mr Seah Kian Peng highlighted the concerns about children who are maltreated by their families or caregivers, especially those with special needs. We have been working with the community to improve early detection and to better protect these children. Where needed, we provide a safe place and therapy to help them heal and recover. This includes foster care which provides these children with a caring and stable family environment.
We are expanding our fostering capacity and have made encouraging progress. More than 100 families have joined the scheme in the past two years, bringing the total number to about 370 today. We aim to recruit another 130, especially for older children and those with special needs. Two fostering agencies were set up last year to support foster parents; providing parenting advice, counselling and connecting them to relevant community resources.
I do ask for your support to encourage more families to step forward to consider fostering. Fostering is always a better option than institutional care for some of these children.
Now, there are children with higher needs that will benefit from very intensive, very specialised care in smaller residential home settings. I visited one such home. The childhood trauma contributed to the challenging behaviours of these children. But I also saw how smaller care ratios, training and therapeutic skills allowed the staff to better address these behaviours and to begin to help the children to heal. We will set up more small-group homes and strengthen the intervention to help these children.
As far as possible, such out-of-home care should be temporary arrangements. Where it is safe and possible, children should be reunited with their own families. We should also go upstream to strengthen the family and preserve the parent-child relationships, to prevent these children from being placed in alternative care in the first place.
With this in mind, we will be introducing a pilot called Safe and Strong Families and the focus is on improving the families' overall parenting skills and family functioning, so that the children can remain safe in their families. This pilot will include two main services, namely, the Family Preservation Service and Family Reunification Service.
Through this pilot, we hope to provide time-limited, intensive support, which is important to help parents overcome their challenges in providing a safe and nurturing environment for their children. This will include counselling, improving parenting capacity and family functioning. We will also connect them to the community resources if they need additional support. For a start, we hope to reach out to 400 families and their vulnerable children.
Let me talk about caregiving. We all know that more and more Singaporeans have caregiving responsibilities, not just for young children, but also for the elderly, the ill and the disabled among us. Mr Chen Show Mao asked about what we can and ought to do to support such informal caregivers and enhance caregiving.
We all acknowledge that the family must continue to be the first line of support in Singapore. The question is: how best to support them? It is heartening that in Singapore's case, we have a report on Ageing Families in Singapore that was released in November last year which showed that close to nine in 10 elderly residents expressed confidence that they were able to rely on their children for financial support in times of emergency.
But what about those without children and those who are single? With shrinking family sizes, the role of the extended family becomes even more important. I hope those of us with single or childless uncles and aunts will begin to think about how we ought to also consider our responsibilities to them as they age.
Today, various Government policies in housing, CPF, healthcare and the employment of foreign domestic workers already help immediate families care for their loved ones. While extended family ties still remain strong, one of my Ministry's long-term priorities will really be to look into how we can help make it even easier for extended families to support their loved ones.
Mr Chairman, I have located our Ministry's spending within a larger idea of what Singapore is, and of what the Singaporean is. Even as we spend on our economy, defence, housing and healthcare, we know the key ingredient that makes our country special is our people. Our social spending contributes towards making Singapore our home. It helps us build strong families and give every child a good start in life. We will foster social mobility and we will give additional support to children from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Equal opportunities, strong families, a united country – these are our enduring Singaporean values that will guide us in all that we do. [Applause.]
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim): Sir, allow me to start my speech in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Strong families are the basic building blocks of society and strong marriages form the foundation for strong families. Children are our future. With strong families and good support from society, our children can have a good start in life.
In MSF, we aspire to make Singapore Our Home for Family, where every child will have a good start in life.
We prioritise the strengthening of marriages and families through various educational programmes and support for marriage and parenthood. This will help couples to make adjustments when they enter married life and parenthood. For couples who have divorced, we will help them to learn how to undertake co-parenting effectively. As for their children, we will help them cope with adversity and help to increase their resilience.
We can now see positive outcomes. For example, divorce rates involving Muslim couples who have recently married have shown a downward trend. We have also received positive feedback about the changes and new programmes introduced for couples who are contemplating or undergoing divorce.
We will continue to expand and improve our educational programmes and support for marriage and parenthood.
One of our other main efforts is the support for young children and their parents. We will continue efforts to ensure that parents and children are able to access quality childcare and kindergartens.
As announced by the Minister for Finance, MSF will administer the new CDA First Step, in which the Government will deposit a $3,000 grant to the Child Development Accounts for newly born Singaporean children. Senior Minister of State Mrs Josephine Teo will also announce several enhancements to the leave scheme for parents. I am sure that many couples who will be embarking on their parenthood journey will welcome these initiatives.
We agree that children from vulnerable groups will require more help. There is a small group of parents who need more support in order to give their children a good start in life. We will enhance our support to them by piloting a new system of support called KidSTART.
This new initiative will proactively identify low-income and vulnerable children aged six and below. It will provide them with access to health, learning and developmental support and monitor their progress during their early years.
We will also provide parents with the knowledge and skills to care for and support their children's development.
Several Members have voiced their concern about the support provided to unwed parents. At the moment, support for unwed parents is already available, especially for the low-income, for example, childcare subsidies and financial assistance.
MSF has carefully reviewed what other types of support can be provided to children of unwed parents. We can do more to support their efforts to care for their children and reduce the disadvantages that their children may face at birth.
Hence, we have decided to extend the benefits of the Child Development Account (CDA), including the CDA First Step, to children of unwed parents. We will also allow unwed mothers to benefit from GPML. This will be implemented as soon as we amend the legislation and carry out system enhancements.
These benefits are most useful in the child's developmental or caregiving needs. They will also support the unwed parents' efforts to provide for their children. At the same time, the extension of these benefits to unwed parents does not undermine parenthood within marriage, which is the prevalent social norm that has already been accepted and is highly valued by our society. These reasons are the basis for our decision.
Sir, the Government will continue to implement policies, schemes and initiatives to build strong families and give every child a good start in life. We hope to work even more closely with the community. All of us can have a role to play, especially in reaching out to families and children who require support and assistance.
We can connect them to the available schemes of assistance. We can also help them in our personal capacity. We can spend time as volunteers for the Voluntary Welfare Organisations, as well as self-help groups, to help these families.
Together, we can make Singapore Our Home for Family, where every child will have a good start.
(In English): Sir, over the past few years, MSF has strengthened social assistance policies and delivery to better serve those in need. This was not just about increasing the level and range of assistance available. It was also about how our touch-points and officers could deliver help more flexibly and effectively. We are also making greater efforts to link up different help services to better serve families with complex needs.
Mr Amrin Amin asked about the effectiveness of SSOs. Since we started developing the network three years ago, we have improved the accessibility and delivery of help. Today, some nine in 10 SSO beneficiaries living in HDB towns can access an SSO within two kilometres of where they live or work.
With better accessibility, the SSOs have also helped more Singaporeans. The number of households who received ComCare short-to-medium term and long-term financial assistance increased from 24,000 in financial year 2012 to more than 31,000 in 2014. A recent 2015 MSF survey showed that nine in 10 SSO users were satisfied with the service, regardless of whether they eventually received financial assistance.
We will continue to improve the effectiveness and impact of the SSOs. They will take on a larger role in coordinating service delivery for families with more complex financial and social needs. At Taman Jurong and Kreta Ayer, we are experimenting with bringing together social assistance, family services and employment services under one roof at the SSOs. Elsewhere, SSOs will actively coordinate with Government and community partners to integrate help, particularly in the areas of employment, family services, housing and healthcare.
Mr Amrin was concerned that the tight labour supply will affect our ability to deliver help services. This is a challenge faced by the social sector and, indeed, all other sectors in Singapore. We will do more with our partners to uplift image, professional development and career prospects in the sector. My Minister will share some examples later.
Our officers also need support to do their job well. I, therefore, thank Mr Amrin for raising concerns about the abuse of frontline SSO officers. While they have a good working relationship with most of those who seek help, they do encounter a few who may be verbally or physically abusive. We have installed CCTV and duress alarms at all SSO interview rooms. We are training SSO and selected frontline officers in de-escalation and self-defence. Some of our SSOs have security officers deployed. We will continue to take steps to protect our officers.
Let me emphasise here that MSF will not tolerate any form of abuse of our officers. We will not hesitate to bring the perpetrators to task under the law, as we have done on a few occasions.
One strategy to tackle the manpower challenge is to be more productive and coordinated in how we deliver services. Here, one important enabler is technology. This was why we decided to develop SSNet. With this electronic backbone, we can share information and streamline work processes which will, in turn, reduce the administrative burden on both our beneficiaries and officers and improve the efficiency and quality of case management.
Mr Seah Kian Peng asked about the progress of the implementation. Since we launched the system early this year, it has been rolled out at all 24 SSOs and 46 FSCs. We are now addressing the teething problems and making improvements. We have also started planning for the next phase, to extend the system to other social services.
Sir, in the Budget speech, the Minister for Finance announced that MSF would be increasing the ComCare Long Term Assistance rates. The ComCare Long Term Assistance scheme, also commonly known as the Public Assistance (PA), provides a package of assistance to persons who are unable to work, with no means of income and limited or no family support. Most of our beneficiaries are elderly persons.
The package of help includes, firstly, cash assistance to meet basic living expenses; second, additional assistance where necessary for other recurring expenses like medical consumables and one-off purchases, such as household appliances; third, free medical treatment at polyclinics and public hospitals; and, lastly, befriending and social services in the community.
Many of the PA households are also allocated heavily subsidised HDB rental flats. Starting this July, we will increase the cash assistance rate for one-person households from $450 to $500. The rates will also increase for larger households. This is to keep pace with the cost of living.
ComCare also provides short- and medium- term assistance to low-income families and children in need. Each household is different. Our approach is to provide appropriate assistance to meet each family's needs and work with them so that, where possible, they can improve their lives and regain self-reliance.
To answer Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin's concerns, besides financial needs, we also look at their food, shelter, caregiving, employment, family support and healthcare needs. Our SSOs would typically work with them to formulate action plans to guide them towards improving their circumstances in the different areas. Such assistance is also available to foreign spouses in vulnerable transnational families, a point raised by Mr Ang Hin Kee.
For example, SSOs work with the Singapore Workforce Development Agency to help train ComCare recipients and place them in employment. SSOs may also link them up with financial literacy classes for proper budgeting, or with other social services if they have family or socio-emotional issues. CPF and HDB do give advice when home owners buy or sell their flats. Mr Chen Show Mao and Assoc Prof Daniel Goh had asked about this.
An example of a person or family who have graduated is the case of a male Singaporean aged 37 who approached the SSO in Chua Chu Kang in September 2014. He was also the sole breadwinner for the family and was not on full-time employment. He and his spouse have three young children, youngest being two years old. We provided the necessary assistance to the family. Together with our partners, we helped him secure a full-time job with a basic income of $1,800 a month in September 2015. Our assistance ended in September 2015 as the family was able to cope with their lives. However, given the complexity of cases and variety of needs, there is no single definition of graduation.
Ms Tin Pei Ling asked if agencies can adopt a consistent definition of \"income\" in the criteria for different schemes. The Government has been making efforts to streamline income criteria and simplify processes where appropriate and we will continue to do so across schemes that target similar groups. For example, MOH's subsidy schemes for outpatient and long-term care and MSF's residential subsidy schemes for adults with disabilities make use of a common set of income information.
However, there are also schemes that focus on fairly unique beneficiary groups or needs. It is more appropriate for these to adopt different income bases. We will continue to partner other Government agencies to review this, so as to make our assistance schemes more citizen-centric.
Some vulnerable adults may not be able to care for themselves and may lack family support. This could result in them having to fend for themselves or being abused by their caregivers. So, later this year, my Ministry will enact a new Vulnerable Adults Act. This will allow us to intervene earlier to protect them from harm. Our social workers, especially those from the family violence specialist centres, have given us useful feedback for the Bill.
There are also caregivers who are themselves elderly and face the real concern of loss of mental capacity. We appreciate the public feedback and suggestions raised by Members, such as Ms Tin Pei Ling and Mr Seah Kian Peng, that have helped us streamline the application process for the Lasting Power of Attorney and the appointment of deputies.
As Ms Rahayu Mahzam has pointed out, we have also come across some seniors who are unable to provide for themselves and are unable to receive financial support from their children. The Maintenance of Parents Act provides a legal recourse for these elderly to claim maintenance from their children. The Act was amended in 2011 to strengthen its conciliatory aspects. Since then, more than 80% of cases have been resolved through conciliation. Of the remainder, four in 10 were successfully settled out of court after further mediation. If mediation is unsuccessful, the Tribunal may, as a last resort, make a maintenance order if it considers it just and equitable for the children to maintain their elderly parents.
Where the children themselves may be struggling financially, the elderly parents are referred to the SSOs. The elderly can also turn to the SSOs on their own. Our officers will assess the case and work closely with partners, such as FSCs, to reconcile the family and provide assistance to the elderly.
From the elderly, let me now turn to youth-at-risk. MSF already funds youth-at-risk programmes to ensure that youths have opportunities to be meaningfully engaged and not go off onto the wrong path. Later this year, MSF will work with two appointed social service agencies to pilot a suite of youth programmes. Through these, we aim to improve the quality and consistency of service delivery for our programmes.
We plan to provide booster grants to help appointed agencies develop their organisational capability and train youth workers to become more competent in managing youths with varying levels of risk. These enhancements will support our programmes to deliver better outcomes for youths-at-risk.
Let me now turn to persons with disabilities, who are among the most vulnerable in our society. Sir, the Enabling Masterplan is a five-year roadmap to support and empower persons with disabilities to realise their full potential and lead independent lives as contributing members of society. We are now in our final year of the second Enabling Masterplan.
Mr Seah had asked for an update. MSF, together with various Ministries and VWOs, have brought about substantial progress under this second Masterplan. We have prepared a booklet that summarises how the support for persons with disabilities across their life stages and how their quality of life have improved. With your permission, Sir, may I ask the Clerks to distribute it to the Members of the House?
The Chairman: Yes, please. [Copies of the booklet distributed to hon Members.]
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: This booklet will also be made available on MSF's website. As the booklet is fairly comprehensive, I will just highlight a few areas of progress and share some new initiatives and improvements.
First is in the area of training and employment, key enablers to help persons with disabilities lead independent lives and realise their potential. Between 2012 and 2015, $44 million of Special Employment Credits were given to employers who hired 9,200 eligible persons with disabilities. Over the same period, the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme supplemented the income of more than 7,400 low-wage persons with disabilities. From 1 January 2017, persons with disabilities aged below 35 will also be able to tap on the Workfare Training Support Scheme to improve their skills.
Ms Chia Yong Yong asked about the efficacy of the Open Door Job Portal. The job portal is part of the Open Door Programme launched in April 2014 to support employers in hiring and integrating persons with disabilities. In 2015, over 500 job vacancies were posted and more than 200 persons with disabilities registered in the portal. SG Enable, an agency set up by the Ministry to enhance employability and employment options for persons with disabilities, is working closely with employers to further raise awareness.
Overall, SG Enable and its partners – Autism Resource Centre, Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore and SPD – have collectively placed more than 750 persons with disabilities into employment over the past two years. Recently, I met some employers at the Enabling Village and was impressed by Uniqlo's commitment. They aim to hire at least one person with disability in each of their Singapore stores. In fact, they hired over 40 persons with disabilities in 2015. I believe we can help even more persons with disabilities. We will expand efforts to support the hiring of persons with disabilities in the public sector. We will identify job opportunities, especially where their skills sets and disposition give them an advantage and, where needed, redesign work processes and improve workplace accessibility.
Second, let me talk about adult care. I know many caregivers are concerned about the accessibility of adult care services. In the last five years, we have increased the capacity of Day Activity Centres by 40% to 1,200 places in 2015.
By 2018, we will add another 600 places. Half of these new places will cater to the rising number of adults with autism. From April 2016, we will vary our funding support in these centres based on level of needs. This means that those with more severe needs will be given more Government support. We will also equip service providers with skills to better manage clients with challenging behaviours.
Ms Chia asked about end-of-life issues and whether the Government can help parents and caregivers with permanency planning. This is, indeed, a concern amongst the many parents we speak to. It is also why my Ministry had set up the Special Needs Trust Company (SNTC). SNTC works with caregivers to develop care plans and set up Trust accounts to ensure that the long-term financial and care support of persons with disabilities are met. Three hundred and ninety families have benefited thus far. Parents can also nominate their children to receive monthly disbursements from their CPF savings after their demise, through the Special Needs Saving Scheme. More than 330 parents have done so. We will also continue to extend outreach. We will also look into building up the capability of social workers and other professional staff working with persons with disabilities, to better support long-term care planning.
Third, I should cite our efforts to raise public awareness and celebrate the achievements of persons with disabilities. The ASEAN Para Games was a milestone event that showcased the abilities of our para-athletes. Team Singapore fielded 156 athletes in 15 sports. Sixty percent were debutants. Many of us who watched the events were inspired by their spirit. I am proud of how well our para-athletes did, winning medals in 10 sports.
The Games' impact goes way beyond the week of competition. The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth and SPORT Singapore are now working with MSF to increase accessibility to sports for persons with disabilities.
Sir, what I have covered are just some examples. There are many more areas – in healthcare insurance coverage, education, transport and built environment, in support of the use of technology and improving sector capability – where we have made progress over the past five years.
Mr Seah asked about the Assistive Technology Fund take-up since it was enhanced in August last year. In the past seven months, more than 500 persons with disabilities have benefited from the enhanced funding. This is five times more than in the past.
I thank all the Ministries and VWOs, social service professionals and volunteers, employers and funders and, most of all, persons with disabilities and their caregivers, who have worked with us to bring this about.
With the Enabling Masterplan 2 in its final year, we have started work to develop the next Enabling Masterplan. This will guide the development of policies, programmes, services and other support for persons with disabilities from 2017 onwards.
We have formed a steering committee that will develop this plan. It has 22 members from the people, private and public sectors. Mr Seah has asked what the Masterplan will focus on. The Committee will be studying a wide range of areas, including: first, enabling persons with disabilities to reach their potential through further efforts in early intervention, education, employment, lifelong learning and health; second, improving service delivery and quality by harnessing data and organising services; third, supporting their families and caregivers; fourth, smoothening transitions across different services at different life stages; and, fifth, fostering an accessible and inclusive community through public education, technology, disabled-friendly spaces, as well as sports and community integration.
The Committee will examine where and how we can \"mainstream\" the support given to persons with disabilities. Just like what we have done with the public transport system, we should see how key national infrastructure and initiatives, including SkillsFuture and Smart Nation, can be just as relevant to persons with disabilities.
I thank Ms Denise Phua for her many thoughtful and useful suggestions. Indeed, we will encourage the Committee to dream big, dive deep and dare to deal with the difficult. I, therefore, assure Mr Seah, Ms Phua and Ms Chia that the Steering Committee will look into the issues that they have raised today. My Ministry and partners are holding a series of focus group discussions as part of the SG Future series. I hope that every one of us will take part in this.
Sir, while we have made significant progress, I believe we can do more as a society to create a safer, supportive and more inclusive environment for persons with disabilities.
The important role that Singaporeans play in this cannot be overstated. Caregivers have shared with me that they are sometimes over-protective of their loved ones with disabilities because the larger public is unable to empathise with the challenges they face. Occasionally, we hear of indiscriminate use of wheelchair accessible parking lots at the expense of persons who need them. We hear about onlookers' lack of understanding when a person with autism is having a meltdown in public.
As Ms Chia had so eloquently put it last week, there are disabilities that are real even if they are not visible. We need every part of our society to understand, be considerate and help support the integration of persons with disabilities in everyday life.
Likewise, to effectively help the low-income, vulnerable elderly, at-risk youth and other groups with less, we will need the support of everyone in our community to identify who may need help, to reach out and understand what they are going through and what they need and to render support − big or small. Building a caring and inclusive society requires all Singaporeans to play a part. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mr Chairman, I would like to start, if I may, with a continuation of the earlier ideas about the Singaporean. In the first part of my speech, I spoke about Singaporeans, the strengths of our beliefs in key values of equal opportunities, strong families and a united country and how we design our policies around these key ideas.
But of the last, we believe that unity exists when we have a people that care for one another. Caring communities are characterised by people with: firstly, awareness – which is the head − recognising that there are those among us who are disadvantaged, who are vulnerable; secondly, empathy − our heart − tying ourselves to our countrymen, recognising where they are in life and what they may need; and, lastly, action – our hands – contributing in practical ways to make lives better, to make things easier for them, lending them a helping hand to live their lives well and with dignity.
Many Members in this debate have spoken on the need for the community to be involved. When a Singaporean in need receives help from a fellow citizen, he knows that someone else out there cares for him. In the process of helping others, those who lend a hand are themselves transformed. So, in the act of mutual help, we become more than ourselves and our immediate families. We become a better people, a closer community, we become a united country.
VWOs and social service professionals are really at the forefront of this. And the social sector really is the vehicle for change. VWOs and social service professionals will continue to be key in helping people overcome their difficulties. They work with and complement the role of the Government. They are also indispensable in generating awareness, fostering empathy and channelling the contributions of our fellow Singaporeans. So, I expect many and encourage volunteers to continue to come through the VWOs.
But the reality is that each of us can also put these values into action in our own ways − as concerned neighbours or friends, as volunteers and participants in schools and informal groups, as socially responsible companies or inclusive employers, or simply as an individual. These are things we can do and we do not need legislation or policies to make it happen.
In the coming year, MSF will have three priorities: firstly, support VWOs to raise their capability and provide better volunteering opportunities and experiences; secondly, help social service professionals develop themselves through SkillsFuture; and, thirdly, work with the wider community towards these ends. We will find more ways to encourage companies and other groups to form meaningful and complementary partnerships with VWOs.
Mr Chairman, our VWOs need to be strong and they need to be healthy. Against the landscape of an ageing population and slowing labour growth, our VWOs need to be adept and nimble to be able to do more; to attract, develop and retain good people; and to marshal and mobilise resources well.
Mr Seah Kian Peng and Ms Chia Yong Yong asked about support for VWOs as they build up their corporate functions and their operational capabilities. We are making significant investments in these areas. In addition to the VWO-Charities Capability Fund, the Government and Tote Board have set aside half a billion dollars in matching grants under the Care & Share movement. ComChest and VWOs can draw on this half a billion dollars to build better capabilities and better prepare themselves for the future. For VWOs that can scale up services, the Government has also provided additional funding for them to hire senior corporate staff under the Corporate Development Funding Scheme.
In addition, MSF has also secured the Tote Board's support for an injection of $350 million into the Tote Board Social Service Fund over the next three years. This funding will support more than 300 programmes, including essential flagship programmes that benefit families, children and persons with disabilities.
So, funding is available through various sources and grant schemes. But I agree with Ms Chia Yong Yong that we should also regularly review scheme criteria and improve the grant application process. Later this year, NCSS will also centralise the information on grants and schemes for VWOs on their website. They will make it easier for VWOs to understand and navigate the range of grants available. In fact, it is a happy problem that we have so many grants that we cannot figure out which grants are applicable and relevant. But grant administrators will continue to advise and guide VWOs on their application and streamline the processes.
Besides providing resources, we will also help VWOs tap on external experts and consultants. NCSS will soon launch a three-year HR consultancy programme that will support up to 100 VWOs. This will help the VWOs diagnose needs and improve their HR capabilities in recruitment, compensation and benefits, performance management and career planning.
Assoc Prof Randolph Tan asked about the manpower supply outlook. The Government and NCSS will continue to plan the supply pipelines and training places and NCSS' career centre will continue to help VWOs source for suitable candidates. But how well VWOs cope with tight manpower will also depend on how they strengthen their organisational capabilities, innovate and deploy resources. I hope VWOs will make full use of some of the schemes that I have just mentioned.
Mr Seah Kian Peng asked about how we are investing in and supporting the professionals in the social service and early childhood sectors. Assoc Prof Randolph Tan also asked about how we will help the sector cope with competition for manpower.
We intend to make a strong push in tapping on SkillsFuture. The Social Service and the Early Childhood sectors will be priority sectors under SkillsFuture. We will be developing SkillsFuture Sectoral Manpower Plans for both sectors in the coming year.
These plans will map out ways in which professionals and organisations can acquire skills and capabilities to meet evolving social challenges in a manpower-lean future. The plans will also look at how our sectors can close existing skills gaps and develop new skills that professionals will need in the future; how do we utilise manpower better and work in a manpower-efficient way, similar to what is needed in the private sector as well; and map out career progression and professional development opportunities for professionals.
To spearhead this effort, we have set up two separate tripartite committees – one for the social service sector and another for the early childhood sector. Members will include professionals, VWOs and preschool operators and unions. They will be our key partners in bringing these plans to fruition.
Mr Chairman, a strong social service sector needs the support of the wider community and the public. It needs organisations and individuals to volunteer and contribute their time, skills and resources.
To expand volunteering opportunities and experiences, NCSS will provide more support to VWOs in building up volunteer management capabilities. Recently, for example, NCSS started a pilot with Care Corner and Thye Hua Kwan Moral Charities to redesign jobs in a youth centre and a Senior Activity Centre respectively to better tap on volunteers to complement the centres' staff. I have asked NCSS to expand such efforts and make a stronger push in this important area.
The Minister for Finance spoke about boosting Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and making it easier for employees to contribute through their workplaces. Let me elaborate on the SHARE as One programme, which aims to increase regular giving through the ComChest SHARE programme.
There are a few reasons why SHARE is so significant and impactful. Every Singaporean and every organisation can contribute regularly, even in modest amounts, through SHARE. The donations go to a pool that supports a big group of 80 VWOs, including smaller VWOs that lack the scale to fund-raise effectively. They also support lesser-known programmes that may not attract sizeable donations.
A large part of SHARE contributions come through payroll deductions at the workplace. One SHARE donor, Mr Abraham Tan, started donating $1 from his monthly pay 20 years ago when he was earning $500. As his pay increased, he raised his monthly contribution. Today, he donates $30. Mr Tan told us: \"Everyone should play a part if we want to live in a caring society. The little that we contribute may help another to achieve their dream\". Every additional dollar, if all of us participate, makes a tremendous amount of difference if it is regular. That is important.
We want to encourage more Singaporeans like Mr Tan, and more employers like those Mr Tan works for. So, the Government will match additional donations made through SHARE from 1 April 2016. Donations above levels in financial year 2015 will be matched dollar-for-dollar for the next three years, until end March 2019.
We will allow half of the matching grant, up to a cap of $10,000 per year, to support SHARE participating companies with their CSR efforts. And the rest will be used to help VWOs improve their volunteer management.
Chairman, I would like to end off by reiterating that MSF's efforts contribute towards our goal of building the society that we aspire to be – a land of opportunity where citizens can realise their dreams, with equal opportunities, strong families and a united country.
Members of the House, what I have presented to you today started a decade ago to improve the way we provide help to the weaker among us, to provide this help with respect for the dignity of those who need it; not treat them with suspicion, that they may be free riding, not make it hard to get help with bureaucratic hoops and hurdles; and even as we promote a strong work ethic and social mobility, we have in this time recognised that all of us have the same place in society. Weak or strong, fast or slow, we are all sons and daughters of Singapore. And, together, we are only as strong as the values we hold dear.
Our Government will continue to make help systems more comprehensive and effective, but it is not about the number of programmes we churn out, or the amount of money we spend, or even the number of people we help. It is not about what the Government can do, or what the community can get the Government to do. It is about how we, as a small country, can make us count for more as a nation than all of us as individuals.
The Chairman: Minister, are you ending soon?
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: The sum of our resources, time, skills and energy, that sum must count enough to make sure that vulnerable groups are taken care of, that no Singaporean is left behind. That is the measure of us all.
This is the true Spirit of Partnership, the spirit that the Minister for Finance mentioned in his Budget speech. The spirit that will show us how we can, together, create the society that we wish to see 50 years from now, for SG100. [Applause.]
The Chairman: Thank you, Minister. We have time for a few clarifications before we start our debate for the next Ministry. Mr Seah Kian Peng.
Mr Seah Kian Peng: Chairman, I have two clarifications to make. First, I want to thank the Minister for his very strong support and for his strong advocate for fathers to be active.
For divorced families, however, I think this can be quite challenging when the father does not live with or does not see the children often. Minister, what can we do for this group of fathers?
My second clarification is for the Parliamentary Secretary. Indeed, there has been much progress that has been made to make Singapore more inclusive for people with disabilities. How we treat people with disabilities is important because they are a cornerstone in building an inclusive society. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what efforts can we put in to raise the awareness of people with disabilities. I would appreciate clarifications on these two points.
The Chairman: Minister Tan, can you keep the reply short?
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Chairman, clearly, the role of fathers is important, especially in divorce. Children growing up under those circumstances do face a lot of challenges. But I think the responsibilities of fathers do not change. That is where, in terms of the support programmes we have put in place, are to help the parents themselves. The relationship may have soured but we want them to understand the continued impact that they can have on their children. Hopefully, through these programmes, they begin to understand how they can continue to carve out roles for themselves – even though in a divorced state – that each of them can continue carrying out their responsibilities.
Ultimately, it is very important for the individuals to want to put in that effort. We will do what we can to support it but, like many of our policies, the very last mile needs to be walked by the individuals. We will do our utmost best to support them.
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: I thank Mr Seah for the supplementary question. I am very happy that many organisations and individuals have played a part in increasing the awareness of this sector.
For example, in 2015, NCSS carried out two public education efforts. One is about being gracious. Members may remember the parking lot. The other effort is being socially enabled, that relates closer to the ASEAN Para Games. The NCSS is working closely with people with disabilities, as well as the public, as to how we can do a baseline study and also have a multi-pronged effort in public education in the years to come.
As I have said earlier, we are fortunate to have partners. One very clear example is the Purple Parade, and Ms Denise Phua is a very strong supporter. We work with the Central Singapore CDC, VWOs, Manpower Groups Singapore and so on, and the number of participants has increased from 4,500 in 2013 to 6,000 in 2015. If you look around this month, you will see structures and also buildings going blue. This is a symbol of the autism movement. Buildings like the National Gallery, Helix Bridge, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital and St Andrew's Cathedral. We want to really make it pervasive. What we have seen is that we have done a lot as a society.
In the words of my Minister in the Enabling Masterplan 2 progress report, he said, \"The direction is clear and there is no turning back. We will keep up the momentum.\" So, we will do more together as a society.
Ms Chia Yong Yong: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I have two clarifications, the first for the Minister and the second for the Parliamentary Secretary. Minister, I am heartened to know that assistance will be extended to vulnerable single unwed mothers. I would like to know if there would be also any differentiation between single unwed but not vulnerable, in other words those who could be supported by the father of the child, for example. Will there be a policy differentiation and whether that will be reflected in any ensuing legislative change?
Second clarification, Sir, will be for the Parliamentary Secretary who mentioned the special needs savings scheme. I understand this scheme applies only to parents of children with disabilities. It does not apply to caregivers of charges with disabilities, so will that be extended? Secondly, in relation to the Special Needs Trust, it only provides for the provision of trust services. In my cut, I was referring to permanency planning which extends beyond financial provision to other caregiving options, so could the Ministry also be looking further into broadening the scope?
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mr Chairman, for the areas of change for single unwed moms, it applies to all single unwed moms, regardless of their degree of vulnerability.
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: For the first question, we will take it back. For the second one, with regard to the Special Needs Trust Company Limited (SNTC), beyond the trust relating to the financial aspect, we also look at other aspects in terms of accommodation and in terms of some of the social requirements. These are the things that we will continue to improve on as we move along. I would like to assure the Member that we are looking at this seriously to see how we can bring in permanency planning with regard to their lives.
Ms Sun Xueling: Regarding the Minister's desire to promote a caring community and to empower volunteers to step in and to devote their time and resources, I would like to clarify for community-initiated programmes to provide informal childcare services, will the Ministry be able to provide some broad-based guidelines so that safety considerations can be addressed in such informal arrangements?
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mr Chairman, we do endeavour to provide as best support as possible to parents. We do recognise, especially at the infant stage, that it is challenging because it is very labour-intensive. We do also recognise that many different groups are exploring the possibility of informal arrangements. Informal arrangements already take place today.
We are in the midst of exploring what are the various possibilities, so if there are community groups that have ground-up initiatives, do let us know and we can take a look at how we can extend support if possible. We are also working our way around this together with NPTD in terms of how best to approach this particular space.
Mr Leon Perera: Thank you, Sir, just a brief clarification to the Minister for MSF. Has the Ministry given any thought in relation to KidSTART that since the children will be proactively identified by the ECDA, what will you do in cases where parents are reluctant to release their children to take part in these activities or are even resistant to co-operate with the programme? How will such cases be handled?
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mr Chairman, that is an important question because, as I have mentioned, in many of these various initiatives, whether it is KidSTART or in other ideas in terms of supporting families and individuals, it really does depend on the individual responding. We do know from our experience that not every individual responds.
The children are usually innocent in the process. Parents, sometimes, may not be very cooperative for a host of reasons. We endeavour to try to understand, which is why a lot of this work is very, very labour-intensive. Some of the work that we do is almost one-to-one. Some of our social workers are spending almost sometimes five to seven days a week on the job, because they are not only just spending time with the child, they are spending time with the family.
In cases where families do not respond, this is where we also need to take a look at whether it falls into the realms of neglect for the child. If the family is in a particularly vulnerable situation, children are not going to school for a host of reasons when they should be, and we are working with the parents and they are not responding, would this be a situation where Child Protection needs to be activated and it needs to come in?
As I have mentioned earlier, we do recognise, philosophically, it is always best to be with the birth family even though it may be imperfect. There are circumstances that we take children away as well and that is why fostering becomes important. This is why institutional care, sometimes, also becomes important.
It is frightfully difficult and very emotive, but it is something we are struggling with. It is a very difficult area of work for our officers but we are working very closely to see how best to address this. It is a valid question. Where parents are not cooperative, we will work with them to, hopefully, turn them round. Where they still choose not to work with us, then we will have to see whether the children are being neglected and further measures need to be taken.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: Thank you, Chairman. I also thank the Parliamentary Secretary. Many advanced countries have a clear definition of graduation from relative poverty because they have a relative poverty line and they check the progress of their welfare schemes. I would like to ask what is the Ministry's working definition of self-reliance since that is the objective of ComCare assistance. Does the Ministry track how many beneficiaries become self-reliant at the end of the assistance?
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: As I have said earlier in my answer, realistically, due to the complexity of the cases and the different needs, you realise that each individual and family's graduation refers to different forms of graduation. Our approach is actually to uplift everyone, whether someone is poor or in need of help, to better their lives. As Members of Parliament, we have come across many cases whereby we have helped them and seen their lives improve, day after day.
Nevertheless, if you go back to the notion of having a clear, clean definition, you realise it does not work that way on the ground. You realise that there are people, even though you have helped, who seem to be able to do better now, but they still need help, because they need the support not only for themselves but also for their families.
That is why in my answer earlier, I shared that there is no clear definition of graduation because, on the ground, we see the different complexities, the different needs of families. I am very passionate about this because, to me, what is important is that each and every one of us plays a part. We are all touchpoints of the people around us.
If you see any of them having difficulties, be it financially or socially, please find ways to get them to the SSOs for help. If you cannot find where the SSOs are, remember this number: 1800 222 0000. This becomes very handy. I am very serious here because when it comes to issues like these, it means a lot to our residents who need help.
Dr Lily Neo: Mr Chairman, I would like to have one clarification on KidSTART. Intervening for disadvantaged children is crucial and the earlier the assistance is given, the better it is. Thus, may I ask the Minister whether he will consider flexibility on the age criterion for existing cases on a case-by-case basis beyond the six years of age?
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Chairman, right now, we are looking at those aged six and below. If there are particular cases that Dr Lily Neo would like to raise for consideration, we will take a look at them. But KidSTART is just a particular programme. It does not preclude the whole series of different outreach efforts that we have that are already on-going. Some of it may be eligible. Perhaps, to reinforce the response given earlier to Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, the whole idea with the set-up of the SSO is to forward-deploy a lot of our SSOs upfront, especially to deal with complex cases.
If I may also add, we do not have one definition of poverty per se and many of us encounter them in many, many different circumstances. If you use the analogy of social safety nets, what we have is a series of safety nets at different levels for different groups. What you want to make sure is, within each net, it is interwoven enough so that it is tight. And between the nets, you make sure that the gaps are not there. And especially, using the analogy of a trampoline, these nets are also to help you to be able to stand. That is really important.
In the cases where they fall outside of that particular definition of, say, aged six and below, we will look at them. If there are needs, I think we will endeavour to see how best to address those needs.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam: Chairman, I have a clarification for the Parliamentary Secretary. I had earlier highlighted the situation where elderly parents refuse to claim from their children if they need assistance. What is the Ministry's position or approach with regard to this matter and what more can we do to help this group of elderly citizens?
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: I thank the Member for the question. As I have mentioned in my answer earlier, we also look at the option via the Tribunal. Nevertheless, we understand there are parents who are elderly who do not want to go through the system. Firstly, it is because they love their kids. Secondly, it is also because some continue to work because they have a sense of purpose in their lives.
Our position is this: every case that you come across as such, we would like you to share with us and see how the SSO can help in the process. We will look at the scenarios and the circumstances that the family and the elderly face. And we will also see how the community network can be part of it. We have strong community networks in Singapore and this is an area where we can help them.
I have met cases like that in my area where, sometimes, we think that they need help. I asked them and they tell me, \"No, I am happy, I do not need help\". What I do is I get my community volunteers to come and partner them and be part of the process. So, we keep a look-out for them, so that they do not really fall into whatever difficulties.
Mr Ang Hin Kee: I have a short clarification for the Parliamentary Secretary. Earlier, he mentioned that ECDA will work with SSO for families with vulnerable children. My question relates to children in the care of a foreign spouse due to the Singaporean spouse either passing away or in a state of divorce or in prison. Will ECDA also work with ICA and MOM on employment opportunities and long-term staying rights for this foreign spouse?
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Like the SSOs, ECDA will also work with other Government agencies to see how we can help fellow Singaporeans.
The Chairman: Mr Gan Thiam Poh, last clarification.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh: I want to credit the Ministry for the tremendous effort made in providing childcare services for the residents. I have one question on this. May I know if the Ministry is on track to meet the projected demands for manpower and, if not, what is the contingency plan to meet the demands?
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: As we increase the number of places in terms of capacity in the schools, we do need to recruit more teachers. We have put in place a wide range of initiatives. We are tracking that carefully. It is predicated on people responding. The response has been positive thus far, but we are tracking it very closely.
If, for whatever reason, the response is not as strong as we would like it to be, we do have various levers to adjust and to make sure that we will be on track to meet the demands of the people in order to make sure that their children are educated.
The Chairman: Mr Seah Kian Peng, without speeches, would you want to consider withdrawing your amendment?
Mr Seah Kian Peng: A few remarks. Sir, much progress has been made over the years in our journey to build a more caring and inclusive society. On behalf of all Members, I want to thank the Minister, Parliamentary Secretary, Permanent Secretary Mr Chan Heng Kee and his team at MSF and also all the social service professionals, workers and volunteers for ensuring that the heart-beat of our country remains one which is strong, compassionate, caring and assuring to all Singaporeans. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $2,400,490,300 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $99,920,900 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Head O (Ministry of Health)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head O of the Estimates be reduced by $100.\"
Sir, I would like to declare my interests, both as a medical doctor practising in a restructured hospital, as well as the Advisor to a facility providing day care for seniors and people with disabilities.
It is a well-known aphorism that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link and, by the same token, a healthcare system is only as strong as its least amenable portions.
The past few years have been marked by a remarkable remaking of the foundations of our medical system: the Pioneer Generation Package, MediShield Life, a rejuvenated and expanded CHAS programme, increased flexibility of Medisave usage and increased subsidies across the board for all manner of medical services.
In fact, many of the concerns that were raised in a White Paper drafted by the Government Parliamentary Committee for Health some years ago and, indeed, raised by many Members of this House, both past and present, have been addressed, to varying degrees, by these bold initiatives.
But it may surprise many that most of these measures benefit the outliers rather than the majority, as those who are manifestly sick represent the tip of the disease iceberg, the apex of the healthcare pyramid. A truly comprehensive and robust healthcare system must look beyond treating the sick and look beyond medical treatment alone.
First, we have to focus on preventing disease and reducing the disease burden. I have previously remarked that the key to a healthy society is that, in the long run, it depends less on how well you treat sick people, but more on how you keep people from falling sick.
Managing the healthy is probably one of the biggest challenges facing healthcare workers. How does one go about convincing people to continue making the right lifestyle choices, day after day, over one's lifetime? The lure of just that one more cigarette, that extra helping of char kway teow, that one extra can of soda, that extra piece of cake, is often just too difficult to resist. Similarly, making the decision to eat more fruits and vegetables, to exercise more, always seems just that one day away.
Two worrying reports have recently surfaced: the first is that obesity rates in Singapore are rising and, in particular, amongst our children; the second, unsurprisingly given the first report, is that Singapore has the second highest prevalence of diabetes amongst developed nations. This is certainly not something which Singapore would like to be on the leader board! The WHO has also reported that, globally, there is a frightening rise in the incidence of diabetes.
Last year, during the Budget Debate, I remarked that much can be done to nudge Singaporeans to take greater ownership of their health. Anti-tobacco measures should be stepped up even further and, while some may argue that unhealthy behaviours should be penalised, by the same token, healthy choices can be incentivised. I will speak later on how we can encourage healthy eating through fiscal levers. Foods that are available in schools, for instance, could be more closely regulated to help stem the menace of childhood obesity.
Singaporeans who participate regularly in approved wellness programmes or can demonstrate that they adhere to a healthy lifestyle with regular exercise, for instance, could receive tax rebates or pay discounted rates at public healthcare institutions.
Similarly, patients with chronic diseases who adhere to their treatment programmes and clinical pathways could receive extra credit for their medical expenses.
I would like to ask what else the Ministry can do to promote good health and prevent disease in our society. Can the Ministry provide an update on the Healthy Living Masterplan? What is being done for young Singaporeans to cultivate healthy living habits? For the elderly, I am heartened by the announcement of the setting up of Community Health Networks for Seniors and I hope the Ministry can shed more light on this initiative.
I am a strong believer in the one-patient-one-family doctor concept, as the formation of a strong patient-doctor bond provides a singularly effective and efficient way to good health for life. The Ministry has enunciated this principle in years past and I would like to hear from the Ministry what progress has been made on this front.
I also appreciate the various health screening programmes that have been implemented over the years, with many at little or no cost to the individual. For instance, community health screening activities are held regularly in my constituency of Queenstown, as they are all over Singapore, but concerns have been raised on how we can ensure that screen-positive patients do follow up on their follow-ups. Has the Ministry been looking at ways in which the transition from community health screening to follow-up in clinics can be made more seamless and accessible?
Second, a strong healthcare system also needs to look after those who have undergone treatment but continue to have residual incapacity. In a rapidly ageing society like ours, we need to bolster measures to ensure that our seniors remain healthy and active and are able to age gracefully and to do so in the community where they have lived most of their lives.
Medical care in Singapore is among the best in the world but, often, even with the best and most dedicated treatments, patients are left with residual disabilities. What is broken can sometimes not be made whole and the sick cannot always be made well again. For seniors, the ravages of age alone can lead to increasing dependence.
I welcome the moves made by the Ministry to expand the capacity and capability of our Intermediate and Long-term Care (ILTC) sector under the Healthcare Masterplan and am encouraged by the principles that have been embodied in the Action Plan for Successful Ageing.
I would also like to ask the Ministry if they are looking at new models of assisted living in the community, apart from the more traditional avenues like nursing homes and day care centres. The reason I ask this is both from personal experience and also from interactions with my residents and patients. It is, sometimes, a difficult choice to make. Some loved ones may need extra help in their daily activities, but to consign them to a nursing home may take away too much of their liberty and many scientific and medical articles have shown that such restriction of liberties may actually do more harm for the individual than good. I would also like to ask how we can better support community caregivers.
Last year, it was announced that we were working on a home and community care plan, to facilitate ageing-in-place. How does the Ministry intend to ensure that our seniors receive holistic and seamless care? Are there plans to utilise technology for care delivery? If this is not feasible, can we assist patients with disabilities, seniors and their caregivers with transport arrangements or subsidies from their homes to the various healthcare institutions?
My ward of Queenstown is already what would be classified as a super-aged community, the definition of which is that over one in five residents are over 65 years of age. A significant number live alone, or with a partner or spouse who is dependent on them. A recent article in The Straits Times noted that there were 41,200 households made up of residents aged 65 or older who live alone and that this number was expected to rise to 83,000 by 2030.
In Queenstown, for example, we have several initiatives to meet this challenge. We have a home monitoring trial; we have a community guardian network; we also have things like a charitable free funeral service for those who pass on alone without kin. Can I ask if the Ministry has plans to manage this demographic challenge?
My final concern lies in a slightly sensitive topic, but one which we should discuss as a community. Despite being ranked as one of the healthiest countries in the world and one of the best places to be born in, Singapore was only ranked 12th in the Quality of Death Index released by the Economist Intelligence Unit last year. This is a wake-up call that we should pay greater attention to improving end-of-life care. What plans does the Ministry have to improve palliative services and end-of-life care for Singaporeans?
I would like to conclude on a cautionary fiscal note since this is after all a Budget debate. Just as this year's Budget has been expansionary in the service of economic transformation, our healthcare policies have likewise been inclusive and expansionary over the past decade to meet changing and increasing healthcare demands.
But even as we increase national spending on healthcare, we should be mindful that the spending should be prudent and sustainable and that the relationship between healthcare spending and health outcomes is not always linear, as many countries have found to their detriment. I am concerned about the strain on the public purse and whether future generations can sustain such spending.
I would like to renew my call that the Government continue to rigorously assess new policies and new treatments for value based on clear outcomes. What else is the Ministry doing to ensure sustainability of our healthcare system as we hit from SG51 towards SG100? I beg to move.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Chairman, in business where the target is surpassed by a wide margin, sometimes, it is due to good performance; sometimes, it is due to good fortune; and sometimes, it is due to the target being set too low.
In the 2016 Budget Book, the KPI for polyclinic waiting time was set at a maximum of 100 minutes. By this standard, over 95% of cases consistently met the KPI for the last few years. I urge MOH to review this performance indicator. One hundred minutes or 1 hour and 40 minutes is not an acceptable time for our patients to wait, especially the elderly. I suggest that we change this time to 45 minutes to provide a more meaningful KPI for good performance.
MOH publishes the median and 95th percentile waiting times for polyclinics. In February 2016, total waiting time for registration plus consultation was roughly half an hour for the median, which is not bad, but closer to a shocking two hours for the 95th percentile. It was 2 hours and 16 minutes for the 95th percentile at Bedok Polyclinic, for example.
This points to what is probably the huge difference in waiting time between those who make appointments and those who walk-in. I suggest that waiting times be published separately for those who had made appointments and those who walked-in.
I am aware that Internet phone and mobile apps are available for making polyclinic appointments. However, in SMU's recent customer satisfaction survey, satisfaction with polyclinic waiting times fell in 2015. What is the reason for this? Is there more we can do to cut waiting times for those elderly Singaporeans who tend to walk-in? I suggest we explore several options.
Firstly, can we provide real-time data for the expected waiting time, not just on the Internet but also by on automated phone, as well as on digital signboards outside the polyclinic? I believe this is done at some polyclinics but not all. Secondly, can we deploy staff fluent in different Singaporean languages to engage walk-in patients and convince them to try to use their phones or other means to set appointments in future?
Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Sir, normal waiting time for appointments and medical investigations at Specialist Outpatient Clinics (SOCs) for subsidised patients has been a long-standing problem.
I asked about this during the COS debate three years ago and was assured by the Minister that MOH adopts a multi-pronged approach to address the queue at our SOCs. However, three years have passed and the situation does not seem to have improved. I have received feedback from a patient who needed to wait for six months to see a lung specialist and another three months for the biopsy result.
During this long wait, a patient's condition could deteriorate and he could develop complications which will be harder and more expensive to treat. Can the Minister share, from the time an appointment is made to the consultation with the specialist, what are the average range, median and 95th percentile waiting times for consultation at SOCs for subsidised patients? After the consultation, what are the average range, median and 95th percentile waiting times for the conduct of investigations and tests like MRI or CT scans and for elective surgery? How do these numbers compare with three years ago? Has there been any improvement?
Moving forward, to help benchmark SOCs' performance, will MOH publish SOCs' appointment waiting times regularly on its website for the median and 95th percentile, like it does for waiting times for admission to wards and registration and consultation at polyclinics?
The long waiting times seem to affect subsidised patients much more than unsubsidised patients. Are these long waiting times the way SOCs regulate subsidised patients' demands for their services or are they due to insufficient resources being made available to meet subsidised patients' demands?
The Chairman: Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, not here. Mr Dennis Tan
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Chairperson. I understand that, currently, there are two ways for patients to upgrade their outpatient status from private tertiary care to being patients in public care at SOCs at the restructured hospitals. The first is by being referred to a medical social worker who will do a financial assessment for the patient. Second is for patients to get a referral letter from the doctor at the hospital which they are instructed to take to the polyclinic. This letter will provide that the polyclinic should refer the patient back to the hospital.
The first method may not be suitable for patients who do not need a financial assessment from a medical social worker to justify a downgrade. For the second method, the patient needs to see the doctor at an SOC first to get a referral letter to the polyclinic. The patient then sees another doctor at the polyclinic. At the polyclinic, such patients have to wait in the same line as other patients, who are genuinely sick, to see the doctor. The polyclinic doctor then directs patients to the referral counter for a letter referring them back to the same hospital. The polyclinic doctor may charge the consultation even though the patient did not actually require a medical examination for the referral.
What is the basis for requiring two consecutive referral letters from doctors both at the SOC and at the polyclinic? Does the polyclinic doctor really have to do any medical consultations since he will know from the specialist's referral letter the purpose for the visit?
From my description of the typical scenario, it would seem that much time is wasted on the part of the patients by way of waiting and transport and on the part of the polyclinic doctors having to attend to what seems essentially an administrative task. The whole process becomes unnecessarily inefficient and bureaucratic.
It also involves unnecessary expenses on the part of the patients. One would have thought that their request to transfer from private to public care can be dealt with adequately by an administrative staff at the hospital. At most, perhaps the patient only needs the attention of the doctor at the SOC who can even handle this outside his clinic hours as an administrative task done without requiring the presence of the patient. The doctor can always ask to see the patient if he has some questions for the patient.
I have described the details of the process to try and highlight inefficiency and the endless bureaucratic process. Will MOH consider allowing patients to downgrade from private to public tertiary care to avoid having to seek a medical social worker to recommend the downgrade, or to skip the step of obtaining a polyclinic referral if patients are willing to go to the back of the queue and having their appointments pushed back to the end of the doctor's appointment schedule?
The process could be done in a hospital itself. This would help to relieve some of the workload on the polyclinics and the medical social workers and reduce unnecessary waiting and travelling times for patients. It will also reduce queues at hospitals as well as the polyclinics. It will be a win-win situation for patients, doctors, hospitals and polyclinics.
The Chairman: Minister Gan Kim Yong, would you want to report on progress?
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply Reporting Progress","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for Health (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Mr Chairman, may I seek your consent that progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow?
The Chairman: I give my consent.
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow\". – [Mr Gan Kim Yong.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House. (proc text)]
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2016/2017 and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.
Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it. Deputy Leader Desmond Lee.
","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.\" – [Mr Desmond Lee.] (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at \t7.58\tpm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":1614,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Chia Shi-Lu","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20160412/vernacular-Chia Shi Lu(1).pdf","fileName":"Chia Shi Lu(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1615,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20160412/vernacular-Masagos(1).pdf","fileName":"Masagos(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1616,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20160412/vernacular-Amy Khor(1).pdf","fileName":"Amy Khor(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1617,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Sun Xueling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20160412/vernacular-Sun Xueling(1).pdf","fileName":"Sun Xueling(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1618,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Tan Chuan-Jin","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20160412/vernacular-Tan Chuan Jin(1).pdf","fileName":"Tan Chuan Jin(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1619,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20160412/vernacular-Muhammad Faishal Lbrahim(1).pdf","fileName":"Muhammad Faishal Lbrahim(1).pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}