1 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether vaccinations for COVID-19 will be incorporated into the National Childhood Immunisation Schedule; and (b) if so, whether parents will have a choice between mRNA and non-mRNA vaccines.
2 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health with regard to the current COVID-19 Omicron wave (a) whether the hospitalisation rate of 1.9% is expected to rise as more restrictions are removed; (b) what is the highest hospitalisation rate that our public hospitals can currently accommodate; and (c) whether the Government will look into mandating targeted vaccines against the Omicron variant.
\tThe Minister for Health (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I address Question Nos 1 to 2 for oral answer and Question Nos 21 to 23 for written answer on the Order Paper, please?
\tMr Speaker: Please do.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: I am very thankful that the number of questions on COVID-19 has decreased significantly.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about COVID-19 hospitalisation rates that our public hospitals can accommodate. As our society becomes more resilient to COVID-19 due to vaccinations as well as safe recovery from infections, we have observed that the incidence of hospitalisation has fallen in the most recent Omicron infection wave, compared to previous waves.
However, it is not possible to estimate a hospitalisation incidence rate which our healthcare capacity can handle, because it is also a function of the transmissibility of the variant and the number of people who get infected on a daily basis during a big wave. So, what we need to do is to continue to keep our vaccinations \"up to date\", prevent ourselves from falling severely ill if we are infected, we must exercise social responsibility, such as staying at home and self-testing when not feeling well, and do whatever we can to optimise our hospital capacity. We have been and will continue to re-allocate our healthcare resources on a dynamic basis to where they are needed most.
Mr Yip Hon Weng also asked about vaccines. We are bringing in bivalent vaccines into Singapore. It is provided for in our agreements with the pharmaceutical companies. The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) has completed the evaluation of the Moderna bivalent vaccine and a decision will be announced soon. The bivalent vaccines will target both the ancestral strain of COVID-19 and the Omicron variant. Our intention is to update our vaccines for the National Vaccination Programme as the formulations improve. We will share more details when the arrangements are confirmed.
Nevertheless, existing vaccines remain highly protective against severe disease, including for the Omicron BA.5 variant. If you are eligible to receive another vaccine dose, please receive your vaccination without delay and not wait for variant-specific vaccines, as COVID-19 is still spreading in the community.
I will now turn to the Member’s question about COVID-19 in children. As of 29 August 2022, amongst young people under the age of 18 who are infected with COVID-19, the incidence of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) was 5.7 per 100,000 for those fully vaccinated, versus 38 per 100,000 amongst those not fully vaccinated.
The Member also asked about children’s vaccinations for COVID-19, such as whether Novavax will be made available for those aged 18 and below and whether the vaccines have long-term effects on children. Currently, HSA as well as the Expert Committee on COVID-19 Vaccination (EC19V) are independently evaluating the Novavax vaccine for young persons aged 12 to 17. Novavax has not submitted the application for its vaccine to be administered to children under 12.
There is so far no evidence suggesting COVID-19 vaccines result in potential risk of toxicity to humans or developmental defects in children. There are no plans to include COVID-19 vaccinations into the National Childhood Immunisation Schedule at this point as the pandemic situation is dynamic and the recommendations continue to evolve with new data. MOH will review this when appropriate.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked about vaccination-differentiated measures. At the height of an infection wave, measures are taken to prevent our healthcare system from being overwhelmed. However, when cases are lower and steady, many of these measures, including mask-wearing, for example, have been removed. Others, such as vaccinations and vaccination-differentiated safe management measures (VDS), are kept in some form, in anticipation of another infection wave. This is the nature of crisis management – we stand down many measures when they are not needed but we need to keep some, in anticipation of something worse happening later.
While VDS is mandated for specific settings, such as events with more than 500 participants at any one time, business owners and employers also have the flexibility to implement conditions of service that are relevant to their settings, such as requiring the donning of masks, as well as adopting vaccination-related instructions for customers or for workers.
Nevertheless, as the Multi-Ministry Task Force (MTF) had explained in previous replies, we are reviewing vaccination requirements, from one of counting number of doses and boosters we are taking, to ensuring that our vaccination is \"up to date\". This will be a more enduring posture as we live with COVID-19 as an endemic disease. We expect to complete this review in the next couple of months and will review VDS at the same time.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for the reply. I have two supplementary questions. I note the Minister's response on adding COVID-19 vaccinations into the National Childhood Immunisation Schedule. It will give assurance to parents that the COVID-19 vaccination does play an important role to better protect children against severe complications, such as Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in children. What else is the Ministry doing to encourage more parents to vaccinate their children for COVID-19?
My second supplementary question is when will MOH allow children below the age of five to get the COVID-19 vaccination, since other countries, such as the US, have allowed COVID-19 vaccines for babies aged six months to toddlers aged four years?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: On the second question first, children under five, we have the supplies; it is part of our supply agreement. HSA has also approved the use of the Moderna vaccine, which is a two-dose vaccine, on children aged six months to under five years old. But because cases are now low and we also want to vaccinate children below five and give the booster for children aged six to 12 years at the same location, it is more convenient for parents to bring siblings often falling into both age groups together to the vaccination centre. But the older age groups, those in Primary schools, many of them are also getting into examination mode and given that the current situation is stable, the cases are relatively low, our intention, as we have announced at the MTF press conference, is to time it around end-October or early November, when examinations are over, so that, with peace of mind, parents can bring their children – those from six months up to 11 years old – either for their primary series or for their booster. That is our current plan. Details will be announced once we are ready.
As we open up vaccinations to all the children for booster or primary vaccination, we want to continue to disclose as much medical information as we can, for example, as the Member has asked, \"What is the MIS-C rate for children who are fully vaccinated and not vaccinated?\" We can tell there is huge difference. Therefore, it is through encouraging parents through transparent information that we hope more parents will bring their children to get vaccinated.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Sir, I understand the desire by the Ministry to allow the private sector to retain maximum flexibility in terms of VDS, but I am wondering if the public sector will move towards a complete removal. I ask, in part, because I believe many of us still have residents that – for religious, health or personal reasons – have chosen not to be vaccinated.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: I think it is difficult to adopt a blanket policy to say all in the public sector shall not insist on VDS. It all depends on the settings. For each setting, it depends on whether it is crowded, whether seniors are present in those settings, what is the risk of transmission. So, I think we always need to take a differentiated approach.
We must remember that as we increasingly treat COVID-19 as endemic, \"endemic\" does not mean that it is not there. Endemic means to acknowledge that it is there and we have to adjust to our normal life and normal procedures in order to live with the virus. And one of the principles to do so is to make sure that, according to the risk of different settings, we adopt the necessary measures to manage the risks. Therefore, it is in this spirit that we allow employers and building owners to impose their own VDS requirements should they need to.
Nevertheless, as I mentioned in my main reply, we are reviewing VDS together with the requirements for vaccinations and it should be completed in the next couple of months.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Special Review of Controls and Checks for COVID-19 Pandemic-related Procurement and Expenditure","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Government will consider commissioning a special review to comprehensively review controls and checks in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic-related procurement and expenditure.
\tThe Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, MOF has started its review of the controls and checks in relation to COVID-19 pandemic-related procurement and expenditure since earlier this year. Respective agencies are conducting their audits on COVID-19 pandemic-related procurement and expenditure to ensure transactions are bona fide and that there is no erroneous payment. This is on top of the Auditor-General’s thematic audit of the COVID-19-related procurement and expenditure. The AGO’s findings on HPB, MOM and SLA were published in its report for FY2021/2022.
Drawing lessons from our COVID-19 experience and from the Auditor-General’s report, MOF is reviewing our guidelines on procurement, contract management and payment, to ensure our control measures are appropriate for future emergencies. MOF will also be issuing an advisory to agencies to strengthen the adoption of good practices and minimise financial risks during emergencies.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har.
\tMs Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for her response. I have two supplementary questions. First, to enhance the preparedness for future emergencies, I would like to ask the Minister what are the key measures the Government intends to put in place to minimise financial risks and better manage contracts and payments during emergencies.
The second supplementary question is, I note that in the Minister's reply just now, MOF has started its review of controls and checks for COVID-19 procurement and expenditure. We are now in FY2022. I wonder if the Minister can give us an update of the actual total COVID-19 expenditure for FY2020 to FY2021, the period that has passed.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. With respect to the first supplementary question, for COVID-19, the Government had put in place a number of measures to mitigate fraud risks, such as pre-disbursement checks, anti-gaming framework, ex post analytics and post-disbursement audit checks, to identify potential abuse or conflicts of interest. These measures have been effective in managing the risks involved in large-scale crisis operations.
As mentioned in my main reply, drawing from the lessons learnt, MOF is working with agencies to strengthen the adoption of good practices and minimise financial risks during emergencies. These measures include:
(a) adopting system checks on grant eligibility, including data verification at-source, to reduce the risk of errors from manual processing;
(b) using practical methods to assess price reasonableness for crisis buys, such as applying a percentage mark-up from non-crisis prices or actual costs incurred by suppliers;
(c) ensuring proper documentation of key decisions, such as policy changes and approvals across the lifecycle of a transaction; and
(d) conducting ex post checks, for example, through the use of data analytics, to detect potential irregularities.
\t\tWith respect to her second supplementary question on what is the actual total COVID-19 expenditure for FY2020 to FY2021, our actual COVID-19 expenditure in FY2020 and 2021 was $72.3 billion. Of this, $13.4 billion was for our public health measures; $50.6 billion was to protect jobs through support for workers and businesses; and $8.3 billion was for direct household and social support. The total amount was lower than the $100 billion committed earlier due to two main reasons.
First, the Government had initially set aside the loan capital in FY2020 in anticipation of a tight credit market. But, eventually, the loan capital was not needed as MAS provided low interest capital to participating financial institutions for ESG loans through its Singapore dollar facility.
Second, we had some under-utilisation in public health spending. We had set aside resources for public health capacity to cater for potential downside scenarios but did not have to fully utilise these resources. The safe management measures and the cooperation of Singaporeans helped to avert severe public health outcomes. These under-utilisations were offset, however, by additional funding for the various support packages rolled out to support Singaporeans and businesses over the heightened alerts and stabilisation phases from May to November 2021. With these resources, we were able to save lives and livelihoods. Members can refer to MOF's occasional paper titled \"Assessment of the Impact of Key COVID-19 Budget Measures\" which was published in February this year. An interim assessment was also published in February 2021.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Salary, Workload and Progression Pathways for Early Childhood Educators ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the estimated timeline for completion of the salary review of early childhood educators under the Early Childhood Development Agency; and (b) whether the review will include implementing measures to manage the workload and provide pathways and progressions for career development.
\tThe Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Speaker, over the past three years, educators’ salaries in Government-supported preschools have increased by around 20% on average.
There is an ongoing salary review for early childhood (EC) educators which we expect to complete in the fourth quarter of 2022. ECDA intends to work with Government-supported operators to implement the changes from 2023 onwards. The review will ensure our educators’ salaries are commensurate with their contributions and professional skills, while being competitive enough to attract and retain talent in the sector.
Apart from the review, there is already an Early Childhood Skills Framework and a Continuing Professional Development (CPD) roadmap. Career pathways have also been expanded so that educators can aspire towards larger or new roles, such as Lead Early Years Educator, Deputy Centre Leader and Curriculum Specialist.
ECDA is also paying attention to educators’ well-being. The ongoing digitalisation initiatives help educators’ better manage their workload. ECDA is also working with preschools to adopt recommendations from the Occupational Health and Safety Assessment for the EC sector to ensure our educators’ physical and mental well-being are well taken care of.
ECDA will continue to engage and work closely with our stakeholders and pursue improvements in these areas.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.
\tDr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for sharing some good news for our preschool educators. I am pretty sure the last two and a half years have been difficult for them, especially with our children and the COVID-19 situation. Thanks also for sharing a bit on the mental health well-being plans the Ministry has. Could the Minister expand a bit more on the points that he raised earlier on digitalisation and how we can better support them in those terms?
They have also actually shared a bit on some ergonomic issues, for example, because they are sitting on really low seats and the tables are all smaller. Could we look into expanding this framework and see how we can provide ergonomically better or special equipment for all teachers as they teach, too?
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: I remember when I was in Primary school and all the way to Secondary school, my teachers used to collect fees in cash every month and then issue receipts one by one to all of us. I am not surprised that we have been doing this for a very long time. And we do need to help our teachers perform these administrative functions, whether they are doing fee collection, temperature-taking during COVID-19, for example, and, now, as it continues to be important; keeping in touch with parents; marking attendance. All these things today can be done through digitalisation efforts and we have been working with preschools to onboard them in applications that can be shared across the whole preschool sector.
We also take inputs from preschool leaders when there are new things that they want to do. For example, I saw applications that use e-learning that they transfer from book-type of recording into digital devices so that they can be reused again and again. Of course, it is also a very good sustainable effort. So, all these things are being done and will evolve. Actually, I am very happy to see, as I visit some preschools, that we are at the leading edge not only to digitalise for the purpose of education but also to help them with their productivity.
Of course, as I mentioned just now, we are always concerned for their physical and mental well-being, including their work environment. Some of the recommendations, as the Member mentioned just now, were to ensure that they have proper seats to sit on. Our teachers are very dedicated and they really connect with our children. They want to sit on the floor and, sometimes, on low stools so that they could connect at eye level with their children. It is not good for their back and their physical well-being in the long term. So, apart from encouraging them to basically take a proper chair or stool when they teach, we have also asked preschools to provide proper desks and seats so that, during their downtime, they can actually sit in an office environment where it is suited for them and not a classroom where there are only low stools and chairs where they continue to do their work.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
\tMr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Speaker. Can I ask the Minister how the EC educators' pay scale compares with that of the teachers now?
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: I do not have the numbers. Members who are interested can file a Parliamentary Question on it.
But, certainly, there is a relativity among all jobs and all job families that we want to maintain, not just between educators, but also across many other jobs families so that there is balance between what we pay for their skills and contributions and being competitive enough that they do not move across because they are portable across some skills. We lose them. So, this is the balancing that we have to make across them and to compare. Whether it is a good thing to compare between preschool and school teachers is a question that professionals can help us to answer.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Development and Retention of Special Education School Teachers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry will consider enfolding all Special Education school teachers to come under the Ministry so that they will be able to receive the benefits of being an MOE teacher; and (b) if not, whether there are any future plans to do so to help attract and retain talent in this sector.
6 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the current status of the supply and readiness of Special Education teachers to meet Singapore’s needs in the next five years; and (b) what plans does the Ministry have to attract talent to join the special education sector and to retain them in the profession.
\tThe Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 5 and 6 together, please?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me, first, set out where we are today before I share more with Dr Shahira Abdullah about my views on the way forward.
Today, in Singapore, Special Education (SPED) is supported by the Government, community funders and Social Service Agencies (SSAs). The SSAs have been delivering special education for children with moderate-to-severe special educational needs for decades. Today, we have 22 SPED schools led by 12 SSAs.
While full funding is provided for SPED, SSAs today retain substantial autonomy, including the hiring of staff for their respective SPED schools. MOE has been working closely and supporting SSAs to enhance the career proposition and professionalism of SPED teachers.
One major HR initiative, done in consultation and partnership with SSAs, was the Journeys of Excellence Package, in short, the Journeys Package, launched in 2020. The Journeys Package aims to strengthen the professionalism in SPED as well as recognise the years of experience and service of many SPED educators by placing them at the appropriate competency levels and raising the job size of senior SPED teachers to more closely align with those of equivalent MOE teachers. MOE has been working with SPED schools to put in place progressive HR frameworks to support teacher retention and career development, taking a leaf from MOE’s own frameworks. One example is increasing the number of key personnel positions in SPED schools to provide career advancement opportunities for good-performing SPED teachers.
To support these efforts, SPED schools will receive additional funding for manpower costs in two tranches: one, which was implemented in 2021, and another planned for 2024. To receive the second funding tranche, SPED schools will need to implement more progressive HR practices and the corresponding increases in SPED teacher salaries. SPED schools will determine the salary adjustments for their teachers at different levels based on performance and current salary structures.
Beyond funding and working with SSAs to provide competitive remuneration and meaningful career progression for the 1,600 SPED teachers, MOE funds SPED teachers’ pre-service training in the form of the Diploma in Special Education (DISE) offered by the National Institute of Education (NIE). Around seven in 10 SPED teachers have obtained DISE or joined the sector with other recognised teaching credentials. For the remaining 500 teachers, around half are either on the current course or will be enrolled in DISE in January 2023. MOE also funds in-service training for SPED teachers and invites SPED teachers teaching the national curriculum to attend in-service training alongside MOE teachers. In addition, MOE offers Masters Scholarships in Special Education tenable either overseas or locally.
MOE also works with partners to recognise and profile the important work of SPED teachers. The Outstanding SPED Teacher Award and the soon-to-be-implemented Promising SPED Teacher Award by MOE and SG Enable seek to identify and honour exemplary SPED teachers who are impactful and good role models in the fraternity.
In addition, MOE has seconded MOE educators who have the passion to serve as teachers and key personnel in SPED schools. This includes seconding experienced MOE educators to serve as SPED school principals and vice principals, upon the SSAs’ request. Currently, there are 14 principals and vice principals who are MOE-secondees out of a total of 47 SPED school leaders. MOE is committed to partner closely the SSAs in this journey towards professionalism.
Mr Speaker, Sir, Dr Shahira Abdullah has asked if we will consider enfolding all special education school teachers to come under the Ministry so that they will be able to receive the benefits of being an MOE teacher. My own personal views are as follows.
First, I am prepared to work with my staff, SSAs and the community to explore different and new models. But I would set out five conditions for us to consider as to whether a new model is better and more appropriate.
\t
First, the new model, if it comes about, must deliver better outcomes for our SPED children.
Second, the new model, if it comes about, must deliver better outcomes in terms of support for the SPED children's family.
Third, the model must provide better training opportunities and professional development for our SPED teachers.
Fourth, the model must be able to engage the community to participate and partake in the endeavour.
Fifth, we must also have a model that allows a better continuum of care and support from preschool to school and the post-school environment. So, we are prepared to explore new models with SSAs and the community, so long as we bear in mind these five criteria that I have just laid out. I will be happy to have this conversation with the SSAs and our community partners on how we can take the SPED education sector forward as part of our Forward SG exercise.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Shahira Abdullah.
\tDr Shahira Abdullah (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his response. I am very heartened to hear that they are ready to work with the relevant SSAs and organisations. I just have one supplementary question. They are still represented by the Singapore Manual & Mercantile Workers' Union – I understand it maybe because they may have been better adapted to handle this. How has that changed moving forward, so that MOE can better work with the SPED organisations and SPED individuals in this current moment to help retain and attract more SPED teachers to this vocation?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir. I shall not attempt to answer on behalf of NTUC, but as the ex-Secretary-General of NTUC, I will say that I will leave it to NTUC to decide which union best serves the interests of the SPED school teachers. MOE is agnostic, regardless of whether the SPED school teachers are with SMMWU, STU or any of the other teachers' unions. MOE will continue to work closely with them and also with their SSA organisations.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): I thank the Minister for the heartening responses and for being open-minded in looking at future models. I just want to ask the Minister to consider that the whole special education model does not comprise only of staff who are known as teachers. Actually, the holistic development of our students over in the SPED system especially, really includes individuals like the allied professionals, psychologists, therapists, occupational therapists (OTs), speech pathologists, social workers and other staff.
So, in considering and even publicising decisions on salaries and benefits packages of mainstream and other SPED school teachers, we need to consider that the other staff also play critical roles and to also include them as we design future models and future compensation packages for them. So, I would like to ask the Minister to consider that.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, we fully agree with Ms Denise Phua's comment that, indeed, the whole SPED sector includes both the people who take care of the education component as well as the care component and the therapy component. So, indeed, whenever we review any scheme of service or any benefits, we will certainly take into account all the stakeholders that are involved in taking care of our SPED children.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.
\tMs Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Thank you, Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister for addressing the question. But my Question No 6 is about whether we are right now meeting the targets of having enough teachers come forward to enter the SPED sector.
I am heartened to hear that there are training schemes and even sponsorships for a Masters programme and so on. But how are we, in terms of meeting the targets that are needed, in terms of the projections of the number of SPED teachers we will need in the coming years and does the Ministry look into what are the current pain points that are preventing people from coming forward, despite all of these very good incentives and training schemes provided?
The other thing is, I am seeing this disconnect, I am a little bit confused – so, I would appreciate the Minister's clarification. I understand that SSAs are coming under MSF, but MOE is now taking a proactive stance in terms of creating the frameworks and training for the SPED teachers. So, is there any kind of operational disconnect for SSAs that they have to navigate, because of this dual Ministry involvement in terms of the development of the sector?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me address the three sets of issues that Ms Carrie Tan asked. First, I think we have to deal with the quantity and quality of manpower; two, we have to deal with the pain points that the Member mentioned; and three, it has to do with the organisational structures that we have to deal with.
On the first issue, on the quantity and quality of manpower, certainly, we would need to do much more to increase the number of SPED school educators and support staff. We have laid out the plan together with MSF. We intend to increase the number of SPED schools in our system. But I must share this with the House. In planning for a SPED school, the manpower needs are not as straightforward as a conventional school. Because in a conventional school, the needs are perhaps more homogeneous whereas, in a SPED school, different SPED children have different types of needs and different degrees of severity. This is why the planning is not as straightforward. We do have certain planning ratios, but we, certainly, will need and would like to recruit more Singaporeans to join the SPED sector.
Today, we do rely quite a bit on some foreign manpower and, just like any other parts of our education and care sector, we would like a significant core of Singaporeans to be there, so that we can take care of our own people, especially the vulnerable, even amidst possible disruptions in the manpower supply. So, we will want to step up on this and we do have a roadmap worked out on how we progressively increase the number of SPED school teachers and caregivers as we build up the infrastructure in the next few years.
The second issue is about the pain points. For many of us who have SPED children or have been involved in the SPED school sector, we would know that it is emotionally very demanding. It is not easy. So, I have given guidance to my staff that we cannot just plan on the basis of how many staff we need for how many children. We need to have a bit of a buffer, if you would like, for us to be able to roster our people to go for training and also, sometimes, for them to take a break. So, that is one part of how we try to address the pain points.
The second part is that we would also like to have a wider group of people who understand the SPED community. Even within the MOE conventional schools, we have our fair share of some special needs children where we would need to \"up\" the skills level of many of our teachers to take care of the higher needs of these children in our conventional schools. That is why we have a system to roster some of our teachers to the SPED schools to cross-share experiences, so that we can take better care of the SPED children in our conventional schools and yet, at the same time, allow some of the SPED school teachers some time to go for their own training and perhaps to be rostered out for a break in their long journey with the SPED sector. So, these are, indeed, some of the things that we need to do.
On the third point about the structure and organisations, rest assured that the two of us work closely together. We sit side-by-side on many committees. We have this model before and we started this model between MSF and MOE, not just for SPED, but we did this for early childhood education. ECDA is an agency that jointly reports to Minister Masagos and myself.
And, of course, I have a secret weapon, to make sure that nothing falls between the cracks. That is my Permanent Secretary, Wan Yong. She is both the Permanent Secretary in MOE and MSF. And I have personally asked her to oversee the continuum to work out the models required to support our SPED community in terms of infrastructure and manpower. I would say that between infrastructure and manpower, infrastructure is the easier of the two. The more difficult of the two is for us to recruit the number and quality of people.
Having said that, we are both working closely now to deal with the most difficult challenge which we want to take a crack at and which we think we need to do much better at as a society. That is the continuum of care from preschool to school and the post-18-year-olds' care and work arrangement for our SPED community.
If anybody can do this well, it must be Singapore, because when the SPED children come to us in the preschools, we have the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC); we have the SPED schools for them. With the data that is available, it enables MOE to forward plan the school system requirement. And from MOE's data, we should be able to forward-plan the post-18 requirement and we really want to do this much better.
Our current gap, the biggest gap, in my view, is not so much the preschool and the school system in which we have invested a lot of effort over the years; we can still do better. In our next lap, the biggest gap will be how we provide a continuum from the school system to the post-18 arrangement so that we can better support the SPED community, including the caregivers, who will always be worried about what will happen to their special needs children when they are no longer around.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. Just a quick question for the Minister in regard to his original reply where he stated that there were 1,600 SPED teachers, if I heard him correctly. Can I just confirm with the Minister whether that number includes the allied educators, who are an integral part of the SPED system? As the Minister also shared, in certain cases where there is a gap, a cognitive gap for certain children, the allied educator could be as, if not more important than the SPED teacher, depending on where the child is developmentally.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, the short answer is no. As what Ms Denise Phua has said, beyond the SPED educators, we have another group of people, which includes the allied educators, physiotherapists and so forth who form the entire community.
And I can get the Member the number that he had asked for.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Public Transport Subsidy Amount and How This Compares with Other Government Subsidies and Support","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport (a) how does the Government determine the current annual amount of public transport subsidies; (b) in light of rising costs, whether the Government will consider reviewing this amount; (c) what intrinsic values does the Government derive from the provision of public transport subsidies; and (d) how do public transport subsidies compare with other areas of subsidies and support provided by the Government.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr S Iswaran): Mr Speaker, pre-COVID-19, Singaporeans took about eight million trips every day on public transport for work, school, social purposes. A reliable, convenient and affordable public transport system is essential to ensuring connectivity in our densely populated city. It also boosts economic activity, reduces road congestion and emissions and contributes to sustainability and the liveability of our city.
Over the last decade, we have steadily enhanced the public transport system with attendant increases in cost. Commuters have benefited from a 40% expansion of the rail network, 80 new bus services, reduced peak-hour waiting times for basic bus services from 30 to 15 minutes, as well as significant improvements in rail reliability from 67,000 to over one million mean kilometres between failures.
From 2012 to 2021, operating costs for public transport increased by 7% per year on average. This was not matched by revenue growth. Consequently, Government subsidies have been increasing. The Government, currently, subsidises public transport services by more than $2 billion a year, or about $1 for every journey. In addition, we have committed over $60 billion to expand and renew the rail network over the next decade.
As with other subsidised services, the Government has to consider how best to share the cost between users and current as well as future generations of taxpayers. There are three key aspects.
First, the Government continues to fully fund the expansion of public transport infrastructure as these are large lumpy expenditures.
Second, we must find ways to economise and get value-for-money. This requires a comprehensive approach – from efficient procurement by LTA and productivity-focused operations by public transport operators, to optimising the provision of bus and rail services even as we grow the overall network to serve new residential areas. Ultimately, we have to deploy our finite resources in a manner that best serves all Singaporeans.
\tAnd third, we have a fare formula to ensure that commuters pay a fair share of the costs, by accounting for key cost drivers for public transport, in particular, wages, energy and inflation. The Government is also mindful that we have to support those with greater needs and fewer means. We keep fares lower for concession groups, such as seniors and students, and provide Public Transport Vouchers to low-income families.
We will continue to work with public transport operators to ensure judicious cost management. The fare formula is being reviewed to ensure robustness and relevance, in light of changes in the industry and in commuting patterns. As we continue to expand the public transport network and operating costs rise with inflation and other cost drivers, we will continue to seek an optimal balance between the fiscal sustainability of Government spending on public transport and ensuring affordability of public transport fares, especially for the vulnerable segments of our society.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Thank you, Sir. I thank the Minister and also commend MOT and LTA for the significant build-up of public transport connectivity. It is, indeed, money well-spent and value-for-money, I would say. The Minister mentioned about the upcoming fare adjustment formula review and, of course, in every fare review, we wait with bated breath on the outcome. Can I ask the Minister how he sees the fare adjustment formula being improved upon and what can the public expect?
Also, it would appear that, under the current formula, the balancing item to square up the costs versus the revenue is the fare adjustments. Can I ask the Minister if this is, indeed, the case and whether the Public Transport Operators (PTOs) as well as the subsidies from the Government can also help to take a bigger share of any cost increases?
My final point is whether the Public Transport Vouchers can also be part of the household support or GST Offset Package.
\tMr S Iswaran: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. First, just so that we are all having the same frame of reference, there is a Fare Review Exercise. This is really the annual exercise conducted by the Public Transport Council to decide whether there is a need for an increase of the public transport fares and, if so, by how much, based on the current formula. This should normally come out sometime in the fourth quarter.
Separate to that is the Fare Formula Review. In other words, the formula itself needs to be reconsidered, taking into account the changing commuting patterns, the cost drivers and other factors, so that we can ensure that any fare formula we use in the next cycle is one that is robust and relevant to the circumstances within which our public transport system operates.
So, how will it be improved upon? I think, by that, the Member refers to the fare formula. We ought to give the Public Transport Council the time to go through the process and come up with these recommendations. But we can also be quite clear that it is apparent that there are many factors that are at play at this point, not least of which are, for example, commuting patterns, which may have changed – in fact, we already see some changes because of work-from-home and so on – the energy costs, whether that is a pattern that we expect to sustain inflationary pressures and so on. So, we should allow the Public Transport Council the space and time to do a proper job and come back with its considered recommendation. But clearly, the intent is to ensure that whatever formula we use is one that is relevant and applicable, given the circumstances within which we will find ourselves over the next three to five years.
On the fare adjustment itself and Government subsidies, well, in some ways, it is arithmetic. There is a cost to providing public transport. There is revenue that comes from the fares that commuters pay. And if the two do not meet, then somebody has to pick up the slack. And the slack, in general, has been picked up through Government subsidies. And as I have said, today, the Government subsidy is of the order of the magnitude of $2 billion a year, about $1 billion each for our train and for our bus services. And we will have to see how the formula works out, what the specific recommendations are going to be and then, we have to take stock from there.
But, the fundamental point – one that I made earlier in my response but which I wish to re-emphasise – is that we do need to strike that balance between on the one hand, having a public transport system that is reliable, efficient, accessible and, at the same time, affordable because the reliability, efficiency and availability of public transport do come at a cost and the costs are increasing. So, we need to decide how that cost burden is to be apportioned, not just between the commuters and taxpayers of this generation but also the taxpayers of future generations because liabilities that we take on today will also be imposed on future generations of taxpayers. So, we have to keep that in mind in making the decision.
Finally, the Member's question on Public Transport Vouchers to help mitigate the impact, in particular, on vulnerable segments. This is something that we take very seriously. Members may recall that, last year, when the fares were increased, we also announced about 600,000 Public Transport Vouchers would be made available. That is about the third decile in terms of income earners – in other words, up to the 30th percentile of income earners. Or if you include those who have no income, it is up to the 40th percentile or the fourth decile, so, up to 40% of Singapore households would be able to benefit from those Public Transport Vouchers. And we will make sure that we continue to address the needs of these vulnerable segments through an appropriate provision of such Public Transport Vouchers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Benefits and Challenges of Four-day Work Week","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry is aware of any ongoing studies being conducted by third parties to examine the feasibility of a four-day work week in Singapore; and (b) if not, whether the Ministry will consider this as a core issue and prioritise the commission of its own study to examine the benefits and challenges of a four-day work week.
\tThe Minister of State for Manpower (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, the Ministry is not aware of any ongoing studies conducted by third parties to examine the feasibility of a four-day work week in Singapore.
We have noted reports of four-day work week pilots in other countries, such as Ireland, Japan and Spain. Elsewhere, such as in Belgium, employees have the right-to-request for a four-day work week, but with daily work hours extended so that the total number of hours worked per week remains the same. So far, results appear to be mixed. Some of the key concerns that stakeholders have include the impact on productivity, business costs and employee well-being. While productivity improvements have been reported in some cases, this depends on sector and job type. In some instances, reduced work hours have had to be compensated by hiring more labour. At the same time, employees are concerned that their salaries could be reduced due to fewer hours worked, while some could face increased stress when they work more hours than usual in a day to complete their work.
As with any work arrangement, a four-day work week may work well for some employers and employees but not others. We should adopt a flexible mindset. A four-day work week is one of many types of flexible work arrangements, and the Ministry, together with the tripartite partners, strongly encourage employers and employees to be open to flexible work arrangements in all its various forms to identify and adopt those that best suit their unique business needs and those of the workers.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Sir, I thank the Minister of State for her reply. I have one supplementary question. First, let me state that the Labour Movement is heartened to hear about the Government's commitment to continue promoting flexible work arrangements. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown all of us that a variety of flexible work arrangements, once thought impossible, can work.
To better understand the impact of a four-day work week, would the Ministry be open to conducting a small-scale trial among some of its employees or perhaps within segments of the Public Service? This way, we can better understand and study the pros and cons, benefits and challenges. For example, how a reduced work week can possibly better facilitate and encourage employees' continual training and upskilling because setting aside one day a week for training and upskilling can be a win for both workers and the companies. And with better work-life balance, perhaps, a win also for Singapore, with possibly more babies.
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: Mr Speaker, different sectors and roles have diverse needs and may not be able to adopt the same type of flexible arrangement in the same manner. A four-day work week has worked in some companies, places and jobs, but not others. So, we welcome employers and employees out there, whether in the private or public sector, to try the type of flexible work arrangement that they think best suits their workplace. MOM does not intend to specify any trial or rigidity or impose any of these formulas on the public sector.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":" Consultation for Singapore’s Climate Targets to be Announced at UN Climate Change Conference 2022","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what are Singapore’s climate targets that will be announced at the UN Climate Change Conference 2022 in November 2022; and (b) whether the Ministry have held consultations with civil society on the climate targets to be announced and, if so, what are they.
\tThe Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, as announced at Budget 2022, Singapore will raise our climate ambition to achieve net-zero emissions by or around mid-century. We are also reviewing our 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). Under the Singapore Green Plan 2030, we have been consulting closely with industry and citizen stakeholder groups, including more than 1,200 youths and civil society representatives from green groups and NGOs, through various engagement sessions.
Building on these efforts, the National Climate Change Secretariat has launched an online public consultation on Singapore's climate ambition via REACH. Members of the public are invited to contribute views on their vision for a low-carbon Singapore and how the Government, businesses, communities and citizens can work towards it.
We are taking into consideration the views received from these ongoing consultations as we finalise our climate targets later this year.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. I thank the Minister for the reply. Could I just ask whether we can do a follow-up dialogue with the climate activists so that we can close the loop in terms of the feedback and concerns that they have raised?
Second, I am very glad we have done a public consultation on our climate ambition but could I ask, maybe for next year, whether we could do it a bit earlier? Because, by the time we end the consultation, it will be less than two months before we announce our NDCs at the UN Climate Change Conference 2022 (COP27).
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Member for making this request on behalf the green groups. Please be assured that the Government will be reaching out and we are in constant dialogue, whether it is on NDC or our ongoing Green Plan initiatives.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rebound of Retail and Hospitality Sectors since Start of 2022","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how much have the retail and hospitality industries rebounded since the start of 2022; (b) what is the Ministry's forecast for the growth in these two industries for the next 12 months; and (c) what are the adaptations made to the respective Industry Transformation Maps for these two industries to incorporate resilience against future pandemics.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, Sir, total retail sales, excluding motor vehicles, in July 2022 were about $3.4 billion, which is an increase of about 18% year-on-year. Hotel room revenue in July 2022 was about $319 million and this is an increase of four and a half times year-on-year. So, both sectors, the retail and the hospitality sectors, have recovered to comparable levels in 2019 before the COVID-19 pandemic, with retail sales even exceeding 2019 levels.
The recovery was bolstered by the healthy rebound in travel, with 1.5 million visitor arrivals in the first half of this year, which is nearly 12 times more than the same period in 2021. We expect the recovery to continue, though global geopolitical tensions and economic slowdown may slow this recovery.
The pandemic has been a severe stress test for many sectors. The 23 Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) are being refreshed and updated to incorporate insights gleaned from the pandemic and to address new challenges and also to seize opportunities arising from it.
Specifically, the retail and hotel ITMs will need to ensure that the sectors' manpower, supply chains, operations and revenue streams become more resilient against pandemics and other disruptions. The ITMs will also aim to boost the abilities of our companies to seize new opportunities in the digital and sustainable space. More details will be announced when we launch the retail and hotel ITMs later this year.
Mr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines): I would like to thank the Minister of State for her reply. I have two supplementary questions. It is very encouraging to see the recent improvement in these two sectors. Will the Minister of State be able to share more on the depth and quality of the improvements? Second, while these two sectors are doing better, they still struggle with manpower. So, what will be the plans to attract more workers into these sectors?
\tMs Low Yen Ling: Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Member, Mr Desmond Choo, for his two supplementary questions. Indeed, both the retail and hospitality sectors, like I mentioned in the answer earlier, have experienced a rebound and recovered to pre-pandemic levels. Of course, we still have to monitor the global development and situation, especially the very volatile geopolitical tensions.
I mentioned earlier that, this year, we had 1.5 million visitor arrivals in the first half of 2022. STB projected that we should welcome four to six million visitor arrivals for the whole year in 2022. This augurs well, not just for the retail and hospitality sectors, but also food services sector.
The Member asked for some numbers. Let me share that we asked the hotel sectors and, in July this year, we understand that the average room rates for hotels reached higher than pre-COVID-19 levels at $259, compared to $94 in 2019 before COVID-19. And the average occupancy rate of hotels has risen to about 79% in July 2022 verses 58% a year ago.
For the retail sector, we track the numbers very closely. The total retail sales this year from January to July, over seven months, have averaged about $3.3 billion per month. What is very noteworthy is that $3.3 billion per month is comparable to the per month average of about $3.2 billion dollars in 2019, which was pre-COVID-19.
So, like what Mr Desmond Choo has mentioned, the retail, hospitality and food services sectors were the sectors hardest hit by the pandemic, including the aviation sector as well. The retail and hospitality sectors have shown incredible resilience and grit. The improvements that we are seeing today are really hard-won by the retail and hospitality sectors – and to a certain extent, the food services sector – in terms of their determination to adapt, transform, press on with digitalisation and do things very differently.
Allow me to use this platform to thank the trade associations and chambers (TACs). We have been working very closely with the TACs – for the hotel sector, it is the Singapore Hotel Association; for the retailers, it is the Singapore Retailers Association and, for food services, the Restaurant Association Singapore – to press ahead with productivity gain initiatives, with raising the innovation capacity and business transformation.
Having said that, having seen this rebound, it is important for companies in the retail and hospitality sectors to press on in their business transformation journey to be more productive, more competitive and more cost-efficient. And like what the Member had mentioned, not forgetting to upskill and reskill the workforce to stay resilient against disruptions.
To the Member's second question, how do we attract more Singaporeans to these sectors, we speak very regularly to the companies in the retail and hospitality sectors. We have tried different manpower and talent attraction initiatives. In order to attract more Singaporeans to the hospitality and retail sectors, we have been encouraging companies to redesign the jobs. And we do, in partnership with MOM, Workforce Singapore, e2i, create roles with larger, more meaningful work scopes, which can then offer better wages, higher salaries and very clear progression pathways.
In addition, they can also complement the job redesign with technology and digitalisation, to be more manpower-efficient.
We will continue to work with the companies in the retail and hospitality sectors to ensure that, moving ahead in the post-COVID-19 era, we are able to future-proof our companies and also workforce in these two sectors to be industry-relevant, future-ready and market-relevant.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Business Costs in Singapore and Measures to Help Businesses Remain Competitive","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Mr Seah Kian Peng –
11 To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether he can provide an assessment of the cost of doing business in Singapore; (b) what is the trend of business costs over the last five years; and (c) what measures are being taken to ensure Singapore and local businesses remain competitive in the light of significant increases in costs for all businesses.
\t
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Question No 11, please.
The Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, a confluence of external and domestic factors have contributed to higher costs for businesses in Singapore. Notably, the global prices of energy and other intermediate inputs have risen sharply from a year ago and are expected to remain elevated amidst the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war and protracted global supply disruptions.
This has, in turn, raised the cost of utilities, fuel and transportation, amongst other costs, for Singaporean businesses. Domestically, the tight labour market will continue to exert upward pressure on labour cost. Reflecting these cost pressures, the unit business cost (UBC), which refers to the business cost incurred to produce a unit of output in each sector, has risen for the manufacturing and service sectors.
Specifically, the unit business cost of the manufacturing sector rose by 5.2% on a year-on-year basis in the second quarter of 2022, extending the 4% increase of the previous quarter. This is a reversal of the 7% per annum decline in the five years between 2017 and 2021. Similarly, the UBC of the overall services sector rose by 7.2% year-on-year in the first quarter of 2022, following the 7.9% increase in the previous quarter.
This was faster than the 1.9% per annum increase between 2017 and 2021. Nonetheless, businesses have remained profitable, with their gross profits increasing by 9.8% year-on-year on average in the second quarter of 2022, extending the 10.1% rise in the first quarter.
The Government is monitoring business costs closely and will continue to provide targeted support to businesses where needed. For example, under the Small Business Recovery Grant (SBRG), over 40,000 businesses in the sectors most badly affected by COVID-19 restrictions were eligible for a total of about $132 million in payouts. We are also helping businesses cope with higher electricity prices through the Energy Efficiency Grant (EEG) and alleviating their cashflow challenges through the Enterprise Financing Scheme (EFS).
In terms of labour costs, the Government will co-fund the wage increases of lower-wage workers for five years from the year 2022 to the year 2026 under the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme (PWCS). As part of the $1.5 billion support package announced in June, the Government's co-funding share for 2022 PWCS support was enhanced from 50% to 75% for wages up to $2,500, and from 30% to 45% for wages above $2,500 and up to $3,000. In addition, the Government has extended the Jobs Growth Incentive (JGI) until March 2023 to support employers that hire vulnerable workers.
As we provide short-term relief to help businesses cope with rising costs, we will also not let up on our long-term efforts to raise productivity, build capabilities and transform our businesses to seize new opportunities. This is really because the only sustainable way for businesses to cope with cost pressures over the long run is to become more productive and more competitive.
The Government will continue to provide support to businesses seeking to strengthen their capabilities and scale new heights through schemes, such as the Enterprise Development Grant (EDG) and the Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG).
Mr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
\tMr Desmond Choo: I would like to thank the Minister of State for the update. Just one supplementary question. As we transition to a higher cost economy, how do we intend to balance between supporting companies in the short run and maintaining our competitiveness in the longer run? And would being a higher cost economy make us more vulnerable to external shocks, causing disruptions to the local workforce?
\tMs Low Yen Ling: Mr Speaker, I want to thank the Member Mr Desmond Choo for his two supplementary questions. This has been a very atypical year, where a confluence of external and domestic factors has contributed to higher costs for businesses in Singapore. Notwithstanding that, businesses have remained profitable. The gross profit increased by 9.8% year-on-year, on average, in the second quarter and this extends the 10.1% rise in the first quarter.
I just read that Minister Josephine Teo graced a Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce & Industry (SCCCI) conference this morning and, if I remember correctly, the conference is a two-day conference that is organised by SCCCI.
It released findings from a survey. It is very heartening. The SCCCI survey polled SMEs. The survey findings indicate that most businesses expect to be profitable; that is one. And the second takeaway from that survey is that the SMEs in Singapore that SCCCI polled said they will embrace digitalisation efforts to overcome manpower constraints.
Therein lies, in a way, the answer to the Member's supplementary questions, the key to supporting our businesses, not just in the near term, but also medium term and long-term.
In the near term, as I have mentioned earlier, not just MTI and our economic agencies, but we work very closely with MCI, IMDA, especially in terms of supporting our SMEs with digitalisation initiatives. We will take a whole-of-Government effort to support our companies, to make sure they are well-placed to seize the opportunities in the digital economy and also in the sustainability space. And, for example, the various schemes that I have talked about, just taking the example of EDG and PSG.
A few years back, the support level for EDG and PSG was pegged at 50%. We increased it to 70%. But because the two sectors, the retail and food services sectors, were hit hard by the pandemic, this year in March, we announced that under the Food Services and Retail Business Revitalisation Package, we would increase the support level to 80% for companies in these two sectors.
We will keep our eyes and ears very close to the ground to continue to see how we need to improve and refine our existing initiatives or even roll out new initiatives. For example, we have improved and refined the Enterprise Financing Scheme – Trade Loan. We have increased it from $5 million to $10 million, from 1 July this year to 31 March next year, because we heard feedback from SMEs that some of the raw material costs have increased since the first quarter of this year.
Similarly, we have also increased the SME Working Capital loan from $300,000 to $500,000. This increase would take effect from 1 October this year to 31 March 2023. To help our companies address utility costs, we have also just rolled out EEG, targeting the companies in the three sectors that are most affected, that is, the food services, food manufacturing and also the retail sector. The support level is at 70%. In a way, the Government is co-funding the investment in energy-efficient equipment to help them bring down the cost of electricity and utilities.
So, I want to assure Mr Desmond Choo that all hands are on deck, not just from MTI, but the whole-of-Government, to support our companies to tide through this challenging period and to ensure their long-term competitiveness.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact on COE Prices Exerted by Car Rental Companies that Lease Out Private Hire Cars ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether there is any evidence to suggest that car rental companies, particularly those leasing to the private hire vehicles (PHVs) market, have affected Certificate of Entitlement (COE) bid prices in the past year; (b) if not, whether a study on this will be conducted; and (c) whether such rental cars and those used for PHVs can be removed from the COE bidding process.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Transport): There is no evidence that private hire car (PHC) companies have caused the increase in COE bid prices. LTA has been monitoring the market closely and, over the past year, the demand for COEs from PHC companies as well as the overall PHC population have been stable.
Recognising the role which shared point-to-point (P2P) transport plays in our land transport system, from 2012, taxi operators did not have to bid for a COE to register their taxis. Instead, they draw from the pool of Category E (Open) COEs and pay the Category A COE prevailing quota premium. Taxi availability standards were also introduced and taxi operators can grow their fleets by up to 2% per annum, subject to meeting the standards.
Unlike taxis, PHCs are, essentially, privately-owned cars that have the flexibility and autonomy to take passengers, thereby augmenting our supply of P2P vehicles. Hence, PHCs are treated like privately-owned cars under the vehicle quota system. Removing PHCs from the bidding pool and creating a new category with specific requirements, such as a minimum number of trips to prevent abuse, would be difficult to enforce and add to the compliance cost for PHC operators, drivers and, ultimately, consumers.
LTA will continue to monitor the P2P sector and study schemes for further enhancement.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just have a supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. As she has mentioned, in 2012, taxis were removed from the COE bidding system and I think, in July 2016, then Transport Minister Mr Khaw Boon Wan shared that, on PHCs, the Government will monitor its rate of growth and uptake of COEs to see if a similar move will be appropriate.
If you look at the point-to-point transportation sector today, the number of PHCs are about 70,000 versus about close to 14,000 taxis – about five times more. So, in terms of the relevance of PHCs within this P2P sector, it is now much more than that for taxis. So, I am just wondering if the Senior Minister of State and the Ministry will consider having a similar treatment when it comes to COEs for both PHCs and taxis.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: As I have explained in my reply earlier, for PHCs, essentially, they have the autonomy and they have the flexibility to decide if they are going to pick up passengers. So, basically, they are like privately-owned cars and if they do take up passengers, it means it helps us supplement the P2P sector in terms of the vehicle population.
But if you are going to put them like taxis into a separate category, as I have mentioned, first of all, there is an additional difficulty because we will then have to have specific requirements like ensuring that they comply with minimum number of trips and that is actually very difficult to enforce. It will add to compliance cost which will, eventually, trickle down to consumers.
But in addition to that, this call or request to review COE categories is actually quite a perennial suggestion.
Essentially, there is a trade-off between having specific categories to meet specific requirements versus ensuring that there is sufficient COE quota for that category. Actually, whether you have a specific category for PHCs or something else, the fact is that it is going to lead to further fragmentation and volatility, particularly when COE supply is low. So, if you are looking at COE premiums and so on, basically, it is, fundamentally, demand-and-supply for vehicles that determines COE premiums.
As I have also said, we will continue to monitor the situation. For PHCs, we have been closely watching the market and there is really no evidence that the PHC companies have caused an increase in COE premiums. The population of PHCs is stable and the demand for COEs has also remained stable. And, in fact, the PHC entities have actually not submitted bids or reserved prices which are higher than non-PHC entities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lower-income's Access to Schools in Higher-income Estates After Change in Primary 1 Distance-based Allotment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked \tthe Minister for Education with the new distance-based allotment process for Primary 1 registration, how is the Ministry ensuring that popular schools in higher-income residential areas remain accessible to families from lower-income and social brackets.
The Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, Sir, changes to the Primary 1 (P1) Registration Framework was introduced this year to enable more children to enrol in a school near where they live, even if they have no prior connection to the school. The changes benefit children living in all parts of Singapore, including those from lower-income and social brackets.
If there are more registrants than vacancies in any phase, children will be admitted based on citizenship and home-school distance. This is in recognition of the convenience for a child to study in a nearby school as it reduces travelling time, allowing the child and family to spend time more meaningfully.
We will continue to monitor the developments and review the need to change our P1 Registration Framework in the future.
Mr Speaker: Dr Shahira Abdullah.
Dr Shahira Abdullah (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Minister for the response.
Recently, there is a study from Harvard University that published the fact that social capital was the strongest predictor of upward income mobility; basically, that those with friends of higher socioeconomic status (SES) actually have better income mobility.
So, I am also aware that there are a lot of measures that MOE has which allow a lot more social interactions between those of lower- and higher-SES. But I am also concerned that for these social interactions, there must be a focus that the students internalise that the low SES ties are also valuable, as compared to only thinking that high SES ties are valuable. So, I was wondering whether there is a focus on those social interactions, whether it is curated for them to learn that particular lesson.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Sorry, Mr Speaker, can I have Dr Shahira Abdullah to repeat the last three sentences?
\tDr Shahira Abdullah: Okay. Basically, there are a lot of measures. I am aware that MOE has to ensure that there is social mixing between students of different backgrounds – high SES, low SES and many other different backgrounds. But I think the mindset may be that if you form ties with those in higher SES, you actually have better social capital, you move up better.
So, I just want to know whether in these interactions that are curated, there is a focus to ensure that they understand that these ties even with people from different backgrounds that are of lower SES are actually valuable to them, as compared to just having friends in higher places.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: I thank Dr Shahira. Yes, indeed, MOE agrees with what Dr Shahira says. We do encourage all our students to interact meaningfully across different backgrounds and, perhaps, especially across different backgrounds. That is what makes Singapore special – not just in terms of family backgrounds, occupations, where they stay, what race, language or religion they come from. That is part of our social fabric.
Indeed, we also acknowledge the challenge that has been highlighted, not just in Singapore but across many societies, that, over time, there is always the danger that society will stratify by different backgrounds, different socioeconomic backgrounds, different race, language or religion. And it is always a work-in-progress that we have to consciously make sure that our children have the opportunities to interact with people beyond their own background and we do have some good efforts by some communities and we hope to see more.
For example, there is one particularly popular school that has decided to have a combined sports team with another school that is not from the same background. And I thought it was a beautiful effort by the alumni of this school to reach out; not so much to benefit the students from this less popular school, but I think the students from this so-called more popular school also benefited by having the chance to interact with people from different backgrounds, understanding the challenges, the perspectives of people who are different from them.
That is important when, ultimately, they come out to work, to be able to appreciate that the workforce, the people they work with are all very diverse. And the more we appreciate one another, the more we appreciate each other's strengths and weaknesses, the more we can bring out the best in the team. So, we will continue that effort.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Further Measures to Address Labour Crunch and Reduce Dependence on Foreign Labour","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Manpower whether there are further measures to encourage higher labour force participation to address the labour crunch and reduce dependence on foreign labour.
\t
\tThe Minister of State for Manpower (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, the overall resident Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR) in Singapore has increased steadily, from 66.1% in 2011 to 70.5% in 2021. This is comparable to the top five OECD countries. In particular, more women and seniors have joined the workforce, even during the pandemic. From 2019 to 2021, the female resident LFPR increased from 61.1% to 64.2%, while that of residents aged 55 to 64 increased from 69.9% to 71.1%.
While the LFPR in Singapore is already relatively high, we can, potentially, increase it further. One key strategy is to make work more flexible, so that more can participate. We are working with the tripartite partners to promote flexible work arrangements (FWAs) and build HR capabilities to implement FWAs successfully. We will also be establishing a set of Tripartite Guidelines on FWAs by 2024 to require employers to consider all requests for FWAs fairly and properly. This will allow more workers to remain in the workforce or return to the workforce while meeting other needs, such as caregiving.
The Government is also committed to improving access to affordable and quality preschool services, which enables parents with young children to go to work with peace of mind. Overall, the Government’s annual spending on the early childhood sector is expected to more than double over the next few years, from around $1 billion in 2018.
In addition, we have increased the retirement and re-employment ages to 63 and 68, respectively, on 1 July 2022. In line with the recommendations of the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers in 2019, our eventual aim is to increase the retirement and re-employment ages to 65 and 70, respectively, by 2030. This will support more senior workers who wish to continue to work to do so.
MOM further encourages employers to hire senior workers through the Senior Employment Credit which provides up to 8% wage offsets for Singaporean workers aged 55 and above and earning below $4,000 a month. The Part-time Re-employment Grant supports employers in providing part-time re-employment opportunities to senior workers who may prefer a lower work intensity.
To further promote local employment, Workforce Singapore offers SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways Programme (SGUP) through which employers can take in mature candidates on attachment programmes. Employers can also tap on career conversion programmes which provide higher support levels for mature hires.
Fundamentally, to cope with the manpower crunch, our businesses need to continue to transform, increase their productivity and improve manpower efficiency. The Government remains committed to supporting businesses and workers to achieve this. Sector agencies are working closely with industries across the 23 Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs).
Workforce Singapore has rolled out Job Redesign and Reskilling Programmes to support employers to upskill their employees to take on enhanced job roles. Other schemes, such as the Enterprise Development Grant and the Productivity Solutions Grant, are also available to help our businesses strengthen their capabilities.
\tMr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix, unless Members had asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Debt Collection Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The number of Police reports made against the conduct of debt collection businesses and debt collectors has remained high. From 2018 to 2021, an average of 367 reports were lodged each year. The reports were mainly against debt collection tactics aimed at pressuring debtors into payment by causing public embarrassment and inconvenience to them.
Such tactics have attracted significant public attention and affected the public's sense of safety and security. Let me share two examples.
In 2019, a debt collector made multiple visits to a debtor's home and workplace within a month to collect a debt. On three occasions, he wore a traditional Chinese funeral outfit to the debtor's workplace, while carrying accessories, including a banner with the debtor's face, a funeral lantern and incense paper, and engaged in actions, such as shouting loudly, chanting, kneeling and blowing a whistle. He refused to leave even when told that the debtor was not present. On one such occasion, he even shouted at the debtor's colleague.
Some Members might also recall that back in 2015, six debt collectors visited a debtor at a food stall in Funan Mall to collect a debt. They unfurled a large banner stating that debt recovery was in process and proceeded to disrupt the stall's business, including harassing the staff and damaging the stall's equipment.
Such debt collection conduct is unacceptable and causes unnecessary alarm to members of the public. The debt collectors in both cases were successfully taken to task under existing legislation, such as the Protection from Harassment Act and the Penal Code. However, we need to ask ourselves, can we do more to prevent such problematic debt collection conduct from occurring in the first place?
Debt collection is a legitimate economic activity that facilitates the fulfilment of financial obligations. However, individuals and businesses should not be subjected to debt collection methods that clearly exceed what may be considered reasonable pressure for payment, especially if these methods also affect the public's sense of safety and security.
There is thus a case to institute a regime to regulate the debt collection industry and to address problematic debt collection conduct.
Such an approach is not new. In countries like the United States and Australia, legislative levers have been put in place to regulate the conduct of debt collectors and take action against problematic conduct.
We seek to achieve two objectives through the introduction of the Debt Collection Bill.
One, to regulate the debt collection industry and prevent problematic debt collection conduct by setting standards of entry into the industry and imposing appropriate licensing requirements on debt collection businesses and debt collectors; and two, to reduce problematic debt collection conduct by putting in place appropriate levers to take errant debt collection businesses and debt collectors to task.
Today, businesses that carry out debt collection activities are not regulated. There is no legal definition for what constitutes a \"debt collector\", nor is there an enforceable legislative framework.
Without a regulatory framework, it is challenging to definitively assess the number of debt collection companies and debt collectors in Singapore. This is partly due to the variety of corporate structures that debt collectors can use for their operations. For example, some debt collectors exclusively collect debt on behalf of others, whereas others operate in-house as part of a parent business, such as debt collectors employed by licensed moneylenders, banks and financial institutions.
There is a wide spectrum of companies operating within Singapore's debt collection industry. At one end, there are debt collection companies which have consistently maintained high professional standards and pristine reputations. Some such companies service institutional clients, such as banks, which, in turn, hold them to similarly stringent and auditable requirements. At the other end of the spectrum, however, there are debt collection companies that operate within less-established corporate structures and are willing to adopt a wider range of debt collection practices. These companies mainly serve small-scale enterprises or individuals. Most of the companies that are featured in Police reports hail from this end of the spectrum, in part, due to their more aggressive debt collection practices and tendency to skirt around the boundaries of the law.
To improve oversight of the debt collection industry, the Bill will regulate: one, debt collection businesses, which collect debt from a debtor either on behalf of another person or where the businesses themselves had acquired the debt and their debt collectors; and two, entities carrying on a business which is primarily in the lending of money and collecting of money owed to their own business and which are already regulated by other Government entities today, such as banks and licensed moneylenders. For this reading, I will refer to them subsequently as \"already-regulated businesses\".
In order to reduce regulatory burden and costs for businesses, the licensing requirements for each type of entity will be calibrated based on the law and order risk posed by its debt collection activities.
In assessing the law and order risk, we considered indicators, such as the number of harassment reports made against such businesses over the years.
Clauses 6(1) and 7 to 13 set out a licensing regime for debt collection businesses which collect debt from a debtor either on behalf of another person; or where the businesses themselves had acquired the debt, for example, factoring companies that provide cash or financing to other companies in exchange for the debts owed to the companies. Clauses 17 to 21 set out an approval regime for the deployment of their debt collectors. The business models of such entities lend themselves to higher law and order risk.
Under the licensing regime, a business must apply for and obtain a licence to carry out debt collection activities. An individual who is deployed as a debt collector by a licensed debt collection business must make a joint application with the debt collection business and must obtain an approval to be so deployed, before he or she can carry out any debt collection activity.
There is no restriction on the number of debt collection businesses for which a debt collector can work. A debt collector can be granted multiple approvals to work for various debt collection businesses at any one point in time.
All debt collection businesses, including their key appointment holders and the debt collectors, will be screened by the Police and must be assessed to be fit and proper before they are granted a licence or an approval.
In assessing whether an individual is fit and proper, the Licensing Officer will take into consideration, among other things, prior offences committed by the individual that are relevant in determining the propensity of an individual to engage in problematic debt collection conduct. Generally, these could include offences involving harassment or violence. The severity of the offence and the length of time that has passed since the commission of the offence will also be considered. Applicants who fail to meet the fit and proper criteria will not be allowed to carry on a debt collection business or carry out debt collection activities.
The fit and proper criteria will be set out in subsidiary legislation. The Police will also publish the criteria and requirements on their website.
To deter debt collectors from engaging in problematic debt collection conduct and causing disamenities to members of the public, clauses 10 and 21 allow the Licensing Officer to impose conditions on licensed debt collection businesses and their approved debt collectors. Clause 45 allows the Minister to make regulations to guide the conduct and stipulate the duties and responsibilities of debt collection businesses and their debt collectors.
Regulations that we intend to introduce include: one, requiring debt collectors to verify that the person from whom they are attempting to collect debt is, indeed, the debtor; as well as, two, prohibiting debt collectors from continuing to collect debt from a debtor, if the debtor has informed the debt collection business or collector by any verifiable means that the debt is in dispute or that the debtor has initiated a process to settle the debt through other means, which could include mediation or Court proceedings.
We also intend to introduce regulations stating that a debt collector must not engage in certain conduct when carrying out debt collection activities, such as displaying or engaging in any behaviour that threatens the physical safety of the debtor or any other third parties like the debtor's family members, or affixing notices in relation to the debt on a property that does not belong to the debtor or at any public place.
Let me give three examples of prohibited conduct when carrying out debt collection activities.
First, a debt collector brandishing his fist to the debtor or threatening physical harm to a debtor or his or her family.
Second, sending text or social media messages to the debtor threatening physical harm to the debtor or his or her family.
Third, pasting a notice with the debtor's identity information on the door of the debtor's neighbours.
For such cases, where a contravention of regulations is made out upon investigations, the offender will be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both. For repeat offenders, the punishment will increase to a fine not exceeding $20,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both.
Regulatory action can also be taken against the offender, including revocation or suspension of licence, or cancellation or suspension of approval under clauses 22, 24, 25 or 27.
Debt collection conduct involving the commission of criminal offences and which do not fall under the regulations will continue to be dealt with under existing legislation, such as the Protection from Harassment Act and the Penal Code.
Next, we will be class licensing already-regulated businesses, such as licensed moneylenders and banks. They are assessed to pose lower law and order risk, compared to debt collection businesses that are not currently regulated.
Clauses 6(2), 14 and 15 set out a class licensing regime for already-regulated businesses whose core business includes lending and collecting money owed to their own business. They will be allowed to carry out debt collection activities if they comply with the class licensing conditions and they do not need to apply for an individual licence. This will minimise regulatory compliance costs.
The list of regulated businesses is set out in Part 2 of the First Schedule.
Under the class licensing regime, an already-regulated business need not apply for or obtain an individual licence to carry out debt collection. An individual who is employed by a class licensed debt collection business to collect debts will not need to be approved by the Licensing Officer. Businesses and individuals under the class licensing regime also need not be subject to screening by the Police to assess if they are fit and proper.
Notwithstanding the above, clause 22 allows the Licensing Officer to take regulatory action against individual class licensees, including disapplying a class licence, if the Licensing Officer finds that the class licensee has contravened any class licensing conditions. This serves as a safeguard against class-licensed businesses that may engage in errant debt collection conduct.
Persons and entities, other than debt collection businesses and already-regulated businesses that collect debts owed to themselves that were not acquired from another party, will not fall within the scope of the Bill. Examples include individuals collecting personal loans owed to them, or retail companies with in-house credit control departments collecting debts owed to the company, and, for the avoidance of doubt, the conduct of such collections will still be governed by other laws.
Entities, whose activities have been assessed to pose minimal law and order risk, will be excluded from the scope of the Bill.
These entities are set out as excluded persons under Part 1 of the First Schedule.
They are: one, individuals who conduct Court-administered debt collection activities, such as the Official Assignee or the Official Receiver; two, law practice entities and insolvency practitioners that are already regulated under the Legal Profession Act 1966 and the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, respectively; and three, entities which acquire a debt or debts through acquiring or merging with a business, other than a debt collection business, in a transaction that includes the transfers of accounts receivable, or through the seizure of accounts receivable under a security agreement.
This list of excluded persons will be reviewed periodically. If it is assessed that there is a need to regulate any of the excluded persons in the future, we will do so.
The Bill also introduces other offences and penalties.
Clause 6 sets out offences for: one, the carrying on of a debt collection business without a valid licence; and two, the conduct of any debt collection activity by an already-regulated business without a valid class licence.
Such offences will attract a fine of up to $20,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both. For repeat offenders, the punishment is a fine of not less than $20,000 and not more than $100,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or both.
Clause 17 sets out offences for: one, individuals who act as debt collectors for debt collection businesses without approval; and two, individuals who act as debt collectors for entities carrying on already-regulated businesses where the entities are not class licensees or where the individuals are not employed by these entities.
Clause 18 sets out the offence for licensees who deploy individuals to act as debt collectors where such deployment has not been approved. Offenders will be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both. Repeat offenders will be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $20,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both.
The Bill provides powers for the Police to administer the regime. These include: one, powers related to the administering of the licensing and approval regimes; two, powers of entry into premises used for a debt collection business or already-regulated business and other powers following such entry; three, powers of investigations, including powers to require relevant persons to provide information or attend before the Police; and four, powers to appoint non-public officers as compliance officers who will assist with inspections of regulated parties. These powers are similar to those accorded to Police under other regulatory regimes, such as the Massage Establishments Act.
The Bill allows persons, including applicants and licensees, to appeal to the Minister against an appealable decision made by the Licensing Officer. Appealable decisions include the refusal to grant or renew a licence and the refusal to grant an approval for an individual to be deployed as a debt collector.
The Minister's decision on an appeal is final. Unless otherwise directed by the Minister, the decision appealed against must be complied with until the determination of the appeal.
Lastly, the Bill provides saving and transitional provisions to ensure that sufficient time is provided for existing debt collection businesses and debt collectors who wish to continue operating their debt collection business or acting as debt collectors to transit into the new regime.
To conclude, this Bill seeks to introduce a regulatory framework to improve the conduct of the debt collection industry and better address disamenities that may arise from problematic debt collection conduct.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I would now like to conclude in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Debt collection is a legitimate economic activity that facilitates the fulfilment of financial obligations. However, debt collectors should not resort to extreme debt collection methods to collect debt from individuals or businesses, especially if these methods also affect the public's sense of safety and security.
Hence, to prevent disamenities to members of the public, we will regulate the debt collection industry, set standards for entry into the industry and impose appropriate licensing requirements on debt collection businesses and debt collectors. This is to prevent problematic debt collection conduct.
Meanwhile, we will also put in place appropriate levers to take errant debt collection businesses and debt collectors to task.
In order to reduce the regulatory burden and the costs for businesses, the licensing requirements for each type of debt collection entity will be calibrated based on the law and order risk posed by its debt collection activities.
Specifically, under this Bill, a debt collection business must apply for and obtain a licence to carry out debt collection activities and be responsible for the conduct of its debt collectors. The debt collector must obtain an approval from the Police before they can carry out any debt collection activity.
An already-regulated business that lends and collects money, such as a bank and a licensed or exempted moneylender, need not apply for an individual licence. Its in-house debt collectors will also not be required to apply for approval.
I believe the introduction of this Bill will help to better regulate Singapore's debt collection industry and deter problematic debt collection conduct, while also preserving the public’s sense of safety and security.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, debt collection activity is often a necessary and important part of any credit ecosystem. But debt collection must be performed in a regulated and civil manner.
The number of Police reports made against debt collection harassment has remained high in recent years. Licensing debt collecting companies is a step in the right direction. This is to stamp out problematic debt collection activities. Nevertheless, I wish to seek some clarifications.
Firstly, Mr Speaker, Sir, are there specific offences that are given more weight when taken into consideration in approving the licence of debt collectors?
I understand that a range of offences under the Organised Crime Act, Vandalism Act and Protection from Harassment Act would be given more weight against the approval of licence. Is this an exhaustive list? Would the Licensing Officer also take into consideration the age of the debt collector at the time of the offence, the frequency of the offences and the interval between the last offence and the time of licence application?
Secondly, Mr Speaker, Sir, there must be clearer and accessible guidelines on what constitutes proper and improper debt collection. This is not merely for the benefit of the licensed debt collectors. It also benefits potential victims of improper licensed debt collectors.
There was a very recent case of a resident who started with legitimate intentions to get a $30,000 loan from a purportedly licensed moneylender. However, she ended up losing even more cash in a loan scam. She also got harassed by loan sharks and even got duped into being a money mule. As such, having clear guidelines would help residents not fall prey to dubious debt collectors.
Another area of concern is the coverage of communication channels. Does the Bill cover online correspondences, such as email, social media platforms and instant messaging apps?
These channels have become increasingly common means for debt collectors to badger the debtor, so much so that the US' Consumer Financial Protection Bureau had in 2021 approved a set of rules which dictate how debt collection agencies can email, text or contact debtors on social media to seek repayment of unpaid debts. Among these rules, collectors must allow debtors to opt out of being contacted online. Any messages that they send also have to be private. They are not allowed to post on the debtor's social media pages if it is public or visible to contacts. Are there plans to adopt similar rules here in Singapore?
I also wish to ask how the Bill applies to the guarantors of debtors. I support the move to disallow debt collectors to collect money or attempt to contact persons who are not the direct debtors. However, can the Minister clarify whether this is also extended to guarantors of the debtor? Are guarantors bound by law to repay the debts on behalf of the debtor? Some people may have involuntarily agreed to become guarantors without expecting to be responsible for the loan. This could happen when the guarantor did not have full understanding of the implications or they did it out of friendship or family obligations. Does the Bill deem guarantors to also be debtors? Would the Ministry also consider enhanced penalties for debt collectors who harass family members or other persons?
Clear guidelines have to be followed through with compliance. Clause 16 of the Bill mentions that the Licensing Officer sets out the code of practice. How will this code of practice be determined and how will compliance be enforced? Should debt collectors be required to wear body cameras? Do they also have to produce their licence to the targeted debtor before embarking on their debt collecting activities?
Thirdly, Mr Speaker, Sir, we also want to ensure that the guidelines and regulations are not too restrictive to the point of hampering legitimate debt collection work.
There is some concern that under the new licensing, with a list of guidelines on what debt collectors cannot do, the pendulum may have swung to the other extreme. In order to reduce the ambiguity of what constitutes improper debt collection, would the code of practice to be introduced via clause 16 of the Bill provide a list of best practices and guidelines with relevant explanatory notes on what debt collectors can or cannot do?
In Australia, the relevant government and public agencies worked on a debt collection guideline for collectors and creditors. Its purpose is to assist creditors, collectors and debtors to understand their rights and obligations. It is also to ensure that debt collection activity is consistent with consumer protection laws.
Do we intend to set out similar guidelines? If a debt collector is found to have breached the regulations, what are the avenues for victims to lodge a complaint? Should a specific hotline or body be created to address these complaints? My concern is that the finite resources of the Police may be clogged up by such complaints, which are often less urgent. What action will be taken against the collector? Will they be suspended, pending investigation? How do we avoid situations where a recalcitrant debtor makes frivolous complaints to hamper the debt collector's job and avoid paying their debts? Who will manage and investigate the complaints? Would it be the Police or the Licensing Officer?
Fourthly, Mr Speaker, Sir, how are Licensing Officers selected? The Police and Licensing Officers have a significant role to play in enforcing the regulations of the Bill. Debt collectors are screened by the Police and debt collecting companies are licensed by Licensing Officers. Can the Ministry clarify whether Licensing Officers are recruited from the Police or would they belong to another department under the Ministry?
Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to share two points on reducing the need for aggressive debt collecting.
Firstly, we should limit the over incentivising of debt collection companies. I am concerned that some of these companies, especially those that are paid on a commission basis, may resort to hard-handed measures to collect debt, especially if it means that they earn more in return. Will the Ministry consider implementing a cap on the total amount of incentives that a debt collection company can earn from a particular assignment? Are clients of debt collection agencies required to pay a base compensation to these agencies even if the agency fails to achieve the target?
More importantly, we should strive to solve the problem upstream by reducing the incidence of overdue debts. This would require more public education about borrowing money from different types of sources, be they individuals or licensed moneylenders.
Companies in the business of providing loans should always impose credit checks before granting loans. This is to prevent debtors from overleveraging.
Debtors, too, are responsible for learning and practising good financial management. This is to ensure that they can repay their debts in a timely manner. They should also be aware of their legal rights pertaining to overdue payments and debt collection laws.
Are our community legal clinics adequately equipped to help residents who have relevant concerns?
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have spoken to some residents who have shared with me about their experiences with debt collectors. They shared that the way some of these debt collection agencies work is no different from how some loan sharks or \"Ah Longs\" operate. Some have no qualms about using tactics, such as public intimidation, shaming using vulgarities and, sometimes, even using violence to get the work done.
As we move Singapore forward, we absolutely cannot condone any individual or organisation to harass or harm someone even if it is done with the objective of fulfilling their job responsibilities. Any eventual failure to reclaim debts should be resolved through legal means.
I am confident that the new laws would greatly reduce the number of harassment cases and, in doing so, help build a safer and secure Singapore. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, my speech today will focus primarily on the increasing visibility of debt collection activities in the eyes of the broader public and how this prevalence is now intensifying as such activities are captured and spread on social media by either third parties or the purported debt collectors themselves.
Credit is essential for the functioning of modern economies and the availability of credit can support growth, improve convenience and facilitate transactions on both the business and personal front.
The danger of that is, of course, the resultant implications when debt owed is not repaid when it comes due, whether through one's unwillingness or inability to pay.
In the earlier days of our nation's history, unlicensed moneylending activities and their intimidating and violent means of debt collection are perhaps much more prevalent.
While I confess that I have not witnessed such activities first-hand, I am sure we have all come across stories of physical violence and intimidation by unlicensed debt collectors, known colloquially as \"Ah Longs\", or seen first-hand the words \"Owe Money, Pay Money\" and the alleged debtor's name and contact details painted on the walls of our housing estates to name and shame these individuals.
I believe it is not in the interest of Singapore's debt collection agencies to be identified in the same vein, given how they could play a significant and professional role in the recovery of non-performing loans.
Yet, as MHA pointed out, there has been a high number of Police reports made against debt collection companies and debt collectors for conducting debt collection activities in a manner that caused alarm and nuisance to members of the public.
I am thus supportive of the introduction of this Bill to institute regulations to better manage the disamenities arising from such activities and I believe that there is a need to elevate our nation's stance towards debt collection and rehabilitation and hold these companies accountable for the conduct of their debt collectors. With this as a guiding principle, I have three clarifications in relation to the enforcement of this proposed regulation.
Firstly, the Debt Collection Bill has defined the scope of debt collection to mean any activity undertaken in Singapore which ranges from the finding of the debtor, to requesting, demanding or collecting of monies due. Section 45 highlights that the Minister may make regulations for restricting the manner or methods by which a licensee or any of its debt collectors, collect, or attempt to collect, any debt.
However, I wonder if the Minister can share any guidelines that will result in a debt collection infringing on the intended principles of preventing alarm and nuisance to the public and whether there are clearer regulations prescribing the methods which are deemed unacceptable for debt collection agencies. For example, we would have seen videos showing men in uniform creating a ruckus outside a debtors' home or office. In a September 2021 article by TODAY, a particular debt collection agency even publicly shared that they livestreamed themselves demanding debt repayment and uploaded such videos showing the debtors' faces as so-called evidence to protect themselves.
Where such encounters can be an emotional one, it is all the more important we clearly demarcate the out-of-bounds (OB) markers to better help guide their actions towards a less socially disruptive manner, which then fulfils the objective of this Bill. We should not let demeaning, disruptive and intimidating debt collection tactics take root in our society and our laws need to make clear that such tactics and behaviours are not acceptable.
Second, I note in section 8 of the Bill, in determining whether to grant a licence, the Licensing Officer may have regard to, and give any weight that the Licensing Officer considers appropriate to, any criteria and requirements that are prescribed, but may take into account any other matter or evidence that may be relevant. Similarly, in section 20 of the Bill, there is also significant discretion in determining whether an individual is a \"fit and proper\" person to be deployed as a debt collector.
Will the Minister make clear what are some of the current criteria, requirements and weightage that are under consideration when this Bill is operationalised? It is important that we provide regulatory clarity on this matter and ensure that individuals are not unfairly discriminated against, or perceive to be unfairly discriminated against, when seeking out employment in the debt collection industry, no different from any other regulated industry.
Finally, while I understand that there are public education efforts on indebtedness and borrowing, such as those by MoneySENSE, I wonder if we can intensify efforts to ensure individuals avoid the pitfalls of excessive debt and the dangers of compound interest and excessive hidden fees and charges associated with not servicing one's debt. Even for the well-educated and well-informed, this may not be straightforward. To cite a recent similar but unrelated example, a particular new bank lauds itself for transparency and simplicity and proudly proclaims that there are no cash advance fees for its card. However, there will be an effective interest rate of 26.9% per annum charged from the date of the transaction until the date of full repayment. If left unchecked, these charges could continue to snowball inadvertently.
While the intent of the Bill is to regulate this industry, I cannot help but wonder if this is equally an opportunity for us to explore how the debt collection effort can further evolve to become one that operates on a more holistic philosophy, as opposed to a zero-sum game, where debt collectors win by forcing debtors to cough up monies to pay down their debt. This could be through empowering or even requiring debt collection agencies to provide their debtors with referrals to means of assistance focused on facilitating debt repayment arrangements.
For example, Credit Counselling Singapore (CCS) has been a recognised organisation which works with The Association of Banks in helping the debt-distressed individuals manage their debt obligations. However, I understand that credit counselling and the creation of a debt management programme are voluntary and not mandatory programmes. In this case, education on how to manage debt and restructuring one's debt, where possible, can go a long way in preventing occurrences where debtors pay a seemingly infinite number of minimum payments that only service the interest charges. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill empowers MHA to regulate debt collection activities in Singapore and provides the Police with necessary levers to stem problematic debt collection conduct. I applaud MHA for proposing to institute upstream regulatory interventions to manage the disamenities from debt collection activities. I also thank MHA for conducting a public consultation in June this year to gather public feedback in preparation for this Bill. I have clarifications on three areas.
My first clarification relates to the qualifications of compliance officers. The new section 4 provides for the appointment of compliance officers. A compliance officer's enforcement powers are significant. For instance, they can enter premises and question individuals, similar to Police officers. Given their significant powers and that they can be as young as 18 years old, it is important that compliance officers are fully ready for their role.
Can the Minister share what qualifications, experience and training will be required for compliance officers? Given that compliance officers have some powers similar to those of Police officers, will they be required to follow rules similar to the procedural rules under the Police General Orders?
My second clarification relates to the protection of compliance officers. Compliance officers are not public servants. This means that they are not protected by sections of the Penal Code that set out offences for obstructing public servants in discharging their public functions, for omitting to assist a public servant and for threatening injury to a public servant. This lack of protection is despite the fact that compliance officers do exert enforcement powers markedly similar to public servants, as I previously noted. The occupational risks are thus similar.
Will the Ministry consider extending the Penal Code to protect compliance officers? If not, how will it ensure that compliance officers are protected to the same extent as public servants when exercising similar powers?
My third and final clarification relates to the appointment of individuals as debt collectors. Section 20(2) allows the Licensing Officer to decline to allow an individual to be appointed a debt collector if the individual is not a \"fit and proper person\" to be deployed as a debt collector.
Section 20(3) allows the Licensing Officer to consider any prescribed criteria and requirement. Section 20(4) goes even further in allowing the Licensing Officer to take into account \"any other matter or evidence that may be relevant\". These provisions are broad. Can the Minister provide examples of what factors may be used to deem if someone is fit and proper to be deployed as a debt collector? Can the Minister also share if the approval to be deployed as a debt collector will be time-limited and subject to renewal? Notwithstanding these clarifications, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. According to MHA's media release for this Bill, there has been a high number of Police reports against debt collection companies and debt collectors for carrying out debt collection activities in a manner that caused alarm and nuisance to members of the public and MHA is instituting regulations to better manage these disamenities arising from such activities. I am glad that with this Bill, more is being done to regulate the operation of debt collection businesses and the conduct of debt collectors. I support this Bill but I do wish to seek some clarifications.
Mr Speaker, it is not uncommon to hear of reports of enforcement actions by private debt collectors, especially on social media and tabloids. I have also heard anecdotes of enforcement actions from my residents. Sometimes, we wonder whether certain actions taken by certain debt collectors have crossed the line as far as harassment and intimidation are concerned. With this in mind, I am, certainly, hoping that the new proposed regime under the Bill will be effective in regulating the conduct of debt collection companies and their staff.
Mr Speaker, we read in clause 45(2) that the Minister may make regulations in respect of the duties and responsibilities of debt collectors: under (f), the duties and responsibilities of licensees; under (g), the conduct of the class licensees and their debt collectors in collecting debts; and under (h), restricting the manner or methods by which a licensee or any of its debt collectors collect, or attempt to collect, any debt.
I also note from MHA's consultation paper to the proposed new regulations that there are eight rules of \"dos and don'ts\" pertaining to debt collection enforcement and activities by both debt collector individuals and the debt collection companies included at Annex B to the consultation paper. I presume that such rules will be listed in the subsidiary legislation and they must, of course, clearly stipulate what acts are allowed and what are not allowed, so that proper debt collection efforts can be carried out with the personnel involved knowing what is allowed and that debtors are not being subject to harassment, intimidation or abusive or unreasonable acts.
May I seek an update or confirmation from the Minister as to what other rules would be incorporated into the final regulations pertaining to conduct and acts allowed or disallowed during enforcement or collection, besides the five rules in the Annex which apply to individual debt collectors and the other three rules that apply to the debt collection companies?
May I also clarify whether the regulations expressly prohibit conduct, such as making contacts with debtors at late hours or early hours of the day, or communication with neighbours or colleagues about a debtor's debt situation, without affixing of a physical notice, or pursuing debtors on social media without making any threats as such, or even, generally, the carrying out of any acts embarrassing debtors in public?
Will the regulations provide debtors with a method for disputing and/or obtaining validation of debt information? These are arguably beyond what are stated in Annex B.
Next, may I ask how would the Government ensure that the regulations will allow for effective and reasonable debt collection methods that make sense commercially, whilst still able to draw a line to ensure that there is no undesirable intimidation, harassment or conduct?
Next, Mr Speaker, I would also like to ask what are the Government's plans to educate the public and enable the public to understand the requirements of such regulations, in order that as many members of the public will be able to discern for themselves what acts are allowed and what are not allowed. Public awareness will also reduce the chances of unnecessary intimidation and harassment. It may better enable the public to report meritorious cases of errant practices to the Licensing Officer so that proper action can be taken against the debt collection company and/or its staff under Part 4 of the Bill. If there are no public education plans as yet, may I urge the Government to look into an appropriate public education campaign to educate the public?
Next, I would also like to ask that the Government make it clear in its rules and public education materials the contact details and procedure for referring complaints of any acts or conduct by a debt collector which fall afoul of the requirements of this Act or its subsidiary legislation.
I would also like to ask the Minister what are the Government's plans to assist existing players to adjust to the new requirements and the new enforcement culture under the new regulation. Will the Government be giving them more time and, if necessary, any help they need in order to fulfil the new requirements?
Besides the conduct of debt collection activities, this Bill also serves to regulate the operation of debt collection businesses generally and sets up the regulatory framework for debt collection businesses. Having a proper regulatory framework for all debt collection businesses is good as it should help to ensure that the industry and personnel working in it work within a clear regulatory framework. This, in turn, creates certainty and allows regulatory action if businesses or personnel involved fall afoul of the same and we see this in clauses 17 to 18, 22 to 28.
May I ask the Minister for an indication of what is the size, in terms of revenue, employment and number of firms, of the debt collection industry in Singapore, both today, and, say, five or 10 years ago? Is the industry comprised mostly of small players or larger ones? Does the Government anticipate a consolidation of the industry following the new regulatory framework? Does the Government collect data on how many Singaporeans are affected by legal debt collection and/or enforcement activities at any one time or in the past two years?
Mr Speaker, before I end, I have some concerns regarding the eligibility of persons who can qualify to work in the industry under this Bill. I hope the definition of \"fit and proper persons\" has taken into consideration the current make-up of the industry's employees and its traditional and likely sources of recruitment. The exact eligibility criteria are not yet spelt out in this Bill but will probably be done in the subsidiary legislation.
Nevertheless, I hope that it will not seek to exclude persons permanently or for long periods of time from the industry merely on account of past misdemeanours. Equally, for those who are currently in the industry, instead of excluding them from future employment, could the Government consider a flexible plan to engage and provide training for these employees to ensure that they will be trained and prepared for future deployment in the industry?
May I also ask the Government whether there are any plans to help any of the existing businesses which may have an issue with the criteria of \"fit and proper persons\" during the transition period? Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my concerns, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Raj Joshua Thomas. Not here. Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, I view this Bill as a step in the right direction and do not object to it. My speech will focus on several suggestions to improve our debt collection and management regime.
I shall focus my speech on four major points. Firstly, proposals to simplify the regulation of debt collection. Secondly, suggestions to provide transparency and accountability to members of the public. Thirdly, highlighting some risks associated with leaving debt collection activities to be regulated by private actors. Fourthly, ideas to strike a balance between inclusivity and encouraging robustness in the licensing regime regulating debt collection.
Apart from these major points, I would like to also briefly touch on a few wider social issues regarding debt. Before I proceed, I declare my interest as the chairman of an international research consultancy that has undertaken work in the field of debt management and related fields.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my first point is on the powers which the Bill gives to compliance officers who are private actors. To begin with, I note that the Debt Collection Bill grants powers to public officers, who may issue various different codes of practice. Such public officers may then appoint private actors, known as compliance officers, who would enforce and apply these codes of practice when examining the conduct and licensing status of debt collectors.
Such compliance officers are empowered to grant and renew licences to debt collection firms and to conduct investigations on such debt collection companies. This role would require sufficient training and familiarity with possibly multiple codes of conduct on the part of compliance officers.
Sir, this Bill empowers private actors to act as compliance officers, to take investigatory and enforcement action against debt collectors. Clause 4(1) of the Bill specifically provides that an individual who is appointed as a compliance officer cannot be an employee of a public authority or a public officer. As such, neither the debt collector, nor the compliance officers who oversee them, are public officers with statutory powers, vis-à-vis the public.
Privatisation of this regulatory mechanism may hold potential complications for both the debt collectors and members of the public. Given that debt collectors will have frequent touch points with members of the public, it is of importance that the powers, rights and identities of such debt collectors should be easily understood by the public.
However, the public will face significant challenges in verifying whether such debt collectors are legitimate. Furthermore, members of the public may not know the multiple codes of practice that may be proposed which pertain to debt collectors. An example of an existing Code of Practice is the Credit Collection Association of Singapore's Code of Conduct and Practice, and there may also be other new codes of practice which are proposed and implemented under subsidiary legislation by the Licensing Officers under this Bill.
As such, members of the public may struggle in the following three areas. Firstly, to know whether people who claim to be debt collectors are, indeed, genuinely licensed debt collectors. Secondly, to know when debt collectors have crossed the line when collecting debts. And thirdly, to find avenues of recourse or feedback pertaining to any potential abuses of power by debt collectors.
It is for this reason that I propose the following. Firstly, that individuals from the debt collection companies should be required to show identification and their licence before they engage in debt collection activities. This would mirror the Bill's proposed requirement for compliance officers to carry \"at all times\" their identification card when examining the compliance of debt collection activities of regulated businesses.
Secondly, in line with clause 13 of the Bill, there should be an online directory available to the public to freely search and verify the licence status of a debt collector. This would be consistent with current Government resources, such as the moneylender's directory, which serves to inform the public as to who the licensed moneylenders are, for example. This would bolster and strengthen the legitimacy of the debt collection industry by improving accountability.
Thirdly, as the Bill allows for the existence of multiple codes of practice which may apply to debt collectors, I propose that the various codes of practice, which may be enacted in legislation and subsidiary legislation, be unified, harmonised and given legal effect. This would ensure certainty and help members of public to have a common, clear understanding of the powers which debt collectors are allowed to exercise.
Furthermore, this ensures transparency and minimises potential abuse of power. Taking the United States as an example, their Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is a federal law that prescribes one singular, unified and legally binding piece of legislation. This legislation draws a clear distinction between legitimate debt collection and harassment or otherwise unlawful behaviour.
Fourthly, public education and awareness campaigns should be conducted among members of the public so as to educate them on what constitutes unacceptable debt collection behaviour by debt collectors. Furthermore, in order to deter errant debt collectors, perhaps the Minister could consider a reporting hotline or a platform on a Government-created app, which could be set up to enable members of the public to report errant debt collectors.
This would help to shift some of the burden of enforcement against errant debt collectors away from the compliance officers and licensing officers, and to directly empower members of the public to raise issues regarding errant debt collectors, without overburdening the general Police line.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my next point is on the need to strike a balance between inclusivity and encouraging robustness in the licensing regime for debt collection. I note that clause 8 of the draft Bill provides that the Licensing Officer can only grant a licence if the Licensing Officer is satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence, and clause 20 provides that the Licensing Officer can only grant approval for an individual to be a debt collector if they are satisfied that that individual is a fit and proper person.
However, the concern is that this might prevent existing individual debt collectors who are exemplary in their current work performance, but who have had some past involvement with the criminal justice system in respect of non-violent offences or existing debt collection firms who are managed by individuals with such a background, from obtaining licences under the proposed regime.
For instance, in a CNA article, one debt collection company raised concerns that \"the proposed law would put a lot of us out of business because most of these debt collectors are ex-inmates\" and also because \"both of our directors have a chequered history\". Of course, this does not mean that the granting of licences should be oblivious to a person's past record. But there are different types of past offences and it would seem fair that, for certain types of past offences, after a certain period of time, this should not count against the individual entering this debt collection profession.
Such an approach is consistent with the spirit of unlocking the second prison, and my Parliamentary colleagues, Mr Louis Chua and Mr Dennis Tan, have also made similar arguments.
In terms of determining whether individuals are fit and proper people to be debt collectors, I suggest that companies be allowed to send in testimonials on behalf of their existing employees who might otherwise fail the approval process due to their previous convictions and that adequate resources and a proper process be put in place to hear such appeals.
Furthermore, when considering whether an applicant for a licence is a fit and proper person, I would urge the Government to take into account factors, such as the company's record, years of experience and complaints record, in deciding whether or not to grant the licences.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to conclude my speech by sharing some observations and making some points on wider issues regarding debt.
Firstly, I note that, currently, credit counselling services in Singapore are largely administered by private not-for-profit bodies, for example, Credit Counselling Singapore (CCS). CCS facilitates a debt management programme to help suitable borrowers repay their loans in manageable instalments.
However, for such debt management programmes provided by not-for-profits, not every borrower is eligible and credit counsellors are not obliged by statute to define, prescribe, apply or enforce any eligibility criteria. I hope the Government can look into how such credit counselling and debt restructuring services can be made more widely available, as well as for the eligibility criteria for various debt repayment schemes or debt management programmes to be expanded.
I also want to suggest that the Government work with not-for-profits and researchers to collect data on the reasons for which individuals experience debt management issues, so that financial literacy programmes, like MoneySENSE, can be focused on addressing precisely those issues and common mistakes. I would also like to call for more attention in financial education programmes to be given on risky retail financial products, such as some kinds of cryptocurrency products, which, anecdotally, have attracted many young retail investors.
Secondly, Sir, a 2019 study was reported in The Straits Times, which showed that chronic debt hurts the ability of the poor to make good decisions. A private charity, the Methodist Welfare Services (MWS) developed the MWS Family Development programme, where for every dollar of debt cleared by clients on their own, MWS will match with $2. This programme is targeted at low-income families living on a per capita income of less than $850.
As another reference point, in the UK, borrowers who are unable to repay their debts are, generally, eligible for Debt Relief Orders if they meet criteria, such as owing less than £30,000, having less than £75 a month in spare income and having less than a certain threshold of assets. In exchange for accepting certain restrictions for one year, these borrowers will be free from their debt after that one year.
In view of these reference points, would the Government consider launching similar debt reduction programmes for low-income families, with the aim of enabling them to escape the poverty trap, perhaps tied to participation in financial literacy programmes. This could be part of the holistic support provided by the social care sector to the poor, which includes many chronically indebted persons.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.20 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.56 pm until 4.20 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.20 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I join the hon Members who spoke before me in expressing support for the Bill. I have trimmed my original speech – you may be happy to know, Sir.
Mr Speaker: I am very happy. Thank you.
Mr Murali Pillai: Yes, because a number of questions that I originally intended to pose have already been asked, so, I only have two questions to pose to the hon Minister of State.
First, what would be the approach when staff of debt collection agencies deal with persons who dispute their debts?
The assumption for a debt collection agency when it is engaged by its client is that there is a genuine debt to be collected. In most instances, it would be a relatively straightforward matter through an acknowledgement by the debtor or as a result of a judgment issued by the Court. There are, however, occasions where the debts are disputed.
I have come across cases involving people who dispute the debts. For example, they may claim they are victims of impersonation or that the goods and services received are not within the quality expected under the respective contracts. Alternatively, they may not dispute the debts in principle but raise issue with the quantum instead.
In such situations and in the absence of a Court judgment, can the alleged debtors require the staff of debt collection companies to stop engaging them and refer the case back to the creditors?
In practice, the debt collection companies usually ignore the protestations of the debtors and continue to insist that the debts should be paid purely on the strength of the instructions of their principals, in this case, their creditors. This may be unfair.
In my respectful view, there should be clear rules of engagement where there is a potential for debts to be disputed. We may have to weave in requirements, such as the debt collection companies being personally satisfied that the debt collection assignments are genuine, before proceeding with the engagement. What guidance will the Ministry provide to deal with such circumstances?
Second and finally, I seek clarification on what will be the remit of the debt collection companies under the licensing regime. Will they be limited to collecting unsecured debts against principal debtors or guarantors or is it intended they may also be involved in the recovery of secured debts? Can they, for example, exercise the creditors' rights of repossession of assets that are charged in favour of creditors or subject to hire purchase agreements? If so, what safeguards will be introduced to ensure that such activities are done strictly within the bounds of the law and having regard to debtors' rights?
Mr Speaker: Mr Derrick Goh.
Mr Derrick Goh (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, against the backdrop of debt collection harassment as a cause for concern, this Debt Collection Bill is apt and timely. I would, first, like to commend how MHA has considered debt collection to be a legitimate activity that facilitates the fulfilment of financial obligations.
The proposed regulatory framework, in my opinion, achieves a fair balance between stemming undesirable conduct and avoiding being overly burdensome for the debt collection industry. It is on this premise that I have some comments and clarifications.
Firstly, I welcome the class licensing regime set out in clause 14 of\tthis Bill, which minimises the regulatory conditions on lower-risk groups. However, the group of businesses under the class licensing regime is a very large category with organisations which vary in terms of their sophistication and debt collection processes. This category includes banks or credit card companies at one end and moneylenders or the smaller outfits on the other.
Given that moneylenders are, generally, less sophisticated, with fewer resources than banks, which are highly regulated, will MHA consider differentiating the class licences, for example, between the institutions that are MAS-regulated versus those that are not, so that licensing conditions are appropriate to the risk profile of the two groups?
Next, as part of the approval regime under clause 20 of this Bill, prospective debt collectors for licensed debt collection companies will have to undergo a fit and proper assessment by the Police. While criminal records are a relevant factor, it is also a vital information for the debarment tenure to be well-calibrated. This is so that it will be consistent with the principle that all ex-offenders deserve a second chance, as championed by Yellow Ribbon Singapore as well as Members in this House.
Referencing the security industry, I have engaged with my residents at the Meet-the People sessions, who were keen to be security officers but were repeatedly rejected by SPF in their application for a licence. One claimed to have had a dated conviction of 15 years ago, has since stayed crime-free and has been proactive in equipping himself with the relevant skills but still was not successful in getting a licence.
Therefore, can the Minister clarify whether ex-offenders who have turned over a new leaf will be given a chance to work as security officers and, specifically to this Bill, as debt collectors in this new regime? If so, can the Minister be clear on the parameters of what turning over a new leaf means, that they can be reconsidered to work in such jobs?
Moving on, in recognising that debt collection is a legitimate activity, I am also cognisant that some debtors can make malicious or frivolous complaints against well-behaved debt collectors to frustrate the debt collection process. However, the truth of each complaint can only be established after investigation, which draws on Police resources and potentially allows the debtor to delay the fulfilment of his or her financial obligations.
Can the Minister share if there would be further safeguards against such complaints, in addition to levers in the Penal Code relating to the provision of false information, to be fair to debt collection companies or collectors who conduct themselves well? In this case, as the Minister of State has earlier mentioned, complaints against debt collection companies will also be taken into account in the measurement of their behaviour.
Lastly, as communications and collection strategies shift to the digital realm, can the Minister explain if the Bill will regulate undesirable debt collection activities conducted on online platforms, such as through messaging or social media? What are other levers available to counter online harassment by debt collectors to ensure that such digital means will not be exploited as a regulatory gap for harassment of debtors?
Sir, in conclusion, I believe the regulatory framework introduced by this Bill will better address the law and order concerns, protect the general public as well as to professionalise the debt collection industry in the long run. I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a segment of our population which struggles to get loans from banks. Part of their demand for money will be met by moneylenders in return for higher interest rates.
As the Ministry has stated, debt collection is a legitimate activity and the borrower has legal obligations to meet the terms of the loan repayment. When the debtor is unable to do so, ideally, both lenders and borrowers should discuss and renegotiate the schedule of repayment.
Unfortunately, not all attempts for revised arrangements will work out smoothly. Some borrowers avoid communicating with their creditors altogether or disappear. Others even made false accusations of harassment against their creditors.
On the other hand, there are valid complaints, such as against increasingly strange, or some might say, creative methods used by the debt collectors. They are invariably unpleasant, often disturbing and, sometimes, outright alarming.
Some collectors do harass their targets and those around them, such as family members, neighbours and co-workers, in attempts to get the attention of the borrowers and pressurise them to pay up. We need to put a stop to these wrongful practices. Hence, I welcome the proposed legislation to set up a licensing regime and specify what the acceptable debt collection methods will be.
I would also like to take this opportunity to request that MHA look into the moneylending activities involving foreign workers, including migrant domestic workers. They are a vulnerable segment and susceptible to marketing attempts by lenders keen to exploit their need for loans. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the new Bill to regulate debt collection activities in our country through a licensing system which empowers the Police to stop inappropriate debt collection practices. Some debtors, unable or unwilling to repay the borrowed money, refuse to contact their lenders. They should discuss and negotiate to reschedule their debt repayments.
In order to recover the money, the debt collectors use all kinds of methods to collect the money. But some collectors go overboard and take extreme measures, harassing the borrowers' families, neighbours, colleagues and so on, or cause members of the public to panic, which is unacceptable to us.
Recently, I heard that some lenders, after learning that some people are facing financial difficulties, obtain their bank account numbers and directly remitted sums of money to them and then try to collect the debts and charge very high interest. I would like to ask whether the authorities have investigated such cases. Is this a serious problem? And is there a rising trend?
(In English): In conclusion, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har.
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the course of my work as a Member of Parliament, I have experienced first-hand the devastating impact of debt collection harassment on residents, their families and their neighbours. Affected parties live in constant fear that the debt collectors may harm them and/or their loved ones. Some dread returning home or even picking up the phone for fear that the debt collector is after them. The stress and anxiety arising from debt collection activities have caused some of my residents to contemplate suicide.
There were cases where the outstanding debt owed is grossly overstated, with no basis. There were also incidents where residents were tricked into borrowing and then subjected to exorbitant interest charges and their repayment refused; and cases where the wrong parties are mistakenly identified and pursued by the debt collector.
So, Sir, the Debt Collection Bill is, therefore, timely to improve visibility and oversight of the debt collection industry and deter problematic debt-collecting behaviour. The licensing regime introduced under the Bill, to ensure that those involved are fit and proper, would go some way to hold those involved in debt collection accountable for their debt collection activities.
However, it is unclear what specific criteria the Police would use to assess the applicants as fit and proper. I would like to ask the Minister to elaborate on the key considerations for approval. Beyond screening for records of previous offences, how will the Police evaluate the suitability of the applicants to engage in debt collection activities, before granting the licence?
Sir, I would like to raise a query pertaining to the code of practice, as indicated under section 16. The code of practice under the Bill is intended to cover the conduct, duties and responsibilities of licensees. This is a critical component of the Bill to enable clear lines to be drawn on what specific actions would constitute unlawful activities and provide clarity on previously grey areas surrounding conduct of debt collection.
So, it would be useful to prescribe a clear set of lawful practices. It should contain clear rules on what is and what is not allowable, in order to provide debt collectors with a clear framework within which to operate, as well as to educate debtors on their rights. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister if such a list is available and where this sits under the Bill.
Mr Speaker, I would also like to request that the Ministry consider incorporating a requirement that all debt collection firms' management and staff undergo an accredited training programme covering the rules and regulations around debt collection, including the code of practice. The training may also cover relevant rules around the Moneylenders Act and the Protection from Harassment Act.
As part of the licensing programme, debt collectors should be required to pass a test on their understanding of the debt collection rules and regulations before being granted the licence. This will ensure that all parties involved are not only screened, but they are also adequately trained to understand and uphold the code of practice in carrying out their duties as debt collectors.
Sir, some countries have put in place schemes to give debtors in problem debt the right to legal protections from their creditors. One such example is the Debt Respite Scheme, or Breathing Space, in the United Kingdom. Under this scheme, debtors can access legal protection from their creditors and debt collectors for a specific duration of time to seek temporary relief from debt collection activities, including a provision to tend to mental health crisis.
Sir, I would like to ask the Minister if such a debt respite scheme may be considered, that might apply only to those with exceptional circumstances. This will go some way towards giving struggling debtors breathing space to get their financial and mental state in order.
Mr Speaker, Sir, let me end by recognising that debt collection is a legitimate business activity that facilitates the fulfilment of financial obligations. The Debt Collection Bill, when implemented well, has the potential to professionalise debt collection.
All borrowers should recognise that borrowing money is a huge responsibility. They are expected to repay in full and on time, according to agreed repayment terms. A loan is a legal obligation and the creditor has the right to take Court action to recover the debt. It is important that anyone considering a loan should fully understand their borrowing terms and the reasons for doing so. Notwithstanding my requests for enhancements, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Sun Xueling.
Ms Sun Xueling: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken on the Bill. Mr Dennis Tan asked about the state of the debt collection industry. As mentioned in my opening speech, we are not able to definitively assess the number of debt collection companies and debt collectors in Singapore because, currently, we do not have a regulatory framework.
Mr Murali Pillai asked if the Bill will regulate the collection of both secured and unsecured debts. The Bill defines debt as a monetary obligation owed by a debtor; the collection of such debts, whether secured or unsecured, will be regulated. However, the collection of non-monetary assets, including those used to secure a debt, will not be regulated for now, as such activities have been assessed to pose minimal law and order risk. Nevertheless, the Police can still rely on existing legislation like the Penal Code or Protection from Harassment Act to take errant collectors of non-monetary assets to task.
Mr Louis Chua, Ms Foo Mee Har, Mr Derrick Goh, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Leon Perera and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the criteria used by the Licensing Officer to assess whether an applicant is fit and proper to be granted a licence to operate a debt collection business or approval to be deployed as a debt collector.
As mentioned in my opening speech, the Licensing Officer will consider factors deemed relevant in assessing the applicant's propensity to engage in problematic debt collection conduct, such as past offences involving harassment or violence, as listed in the Second Schedule of the Bill. The Licensing Officer will also consider the severity of the offences and the length of time that has passed since the commission of the offence. The considerations used to assess whether an individual is fit and proper to work as a debt collector are similar to those used for security officers. The approval to be deployed as a debt collector is not time-limited. However, the approval may be revoked or suspended should the Licensing Officer assess that the debt collector no longer meets the fit-and-proper criteria.
We appreciate Mr Leon Perera's suggestion to provide opportunities for ex-offenders who may wish to join the industry. The Licensing Officer will consider their circumstances on a case-by-case basis.
Mr Derrick Goh asked if there will be differentiation among the class licensees, based on their respective risk profiles. Given that class licensees are already regulated by other Government entities, they are assessed to pose lower law and order risk, compared to debt collection businesses that are not currently regulated. As such, we assess that there is no need to further differentiate the class licences for now. Nevertheless, we will monitor the situation and recalibrate the class licensing framework if the need arises.
Mr Murali Pillai asked if there would be rules of engagement when debts are in dispute, including dealing with instances of debt collectors collecting debts from victims whose identities have been misused by impersonators to borrow money.
During my opening speech, I mentioned that we will be introducing regulations to guide the conduct of debt collection businesses and their debt collectors. For example, debt collectors will be required to verify that the subject of the debt collection from whom they are attempting to collect a debt, indeed owes the debt, such as verifying the subject's identity against the signatory to a debt contract.
The Debt Collection Regulations will also prohibit debt collectors from continuing to collect debt from a debtor if the debtor has informed the debt collection business or collector that the debt is in dispute or that the debtor has initiated a process to settle the debt through other means. The acceptable process for this will be prescribed in subsidiary legislation. This could include mediation or Court proceedings.
Debt collectors will also be required to ensure that there is a proper contract detailing the terms of appointment by the creditor, the debt to be recovered, the payment schedule and the debtor's identity. These will minimise potential disputes between the debtor and debt collectors.
I will also add that for instances of debt collectors collecting debts from victims whose identities have been misused by impersonators to borrow money, cheating by personation is punishable under section 419 of the Penal Code. If such cases are reported, the Police will investigate the matter. However, the Police do not investigate civil disputes about the debt.
Mr Louis Chua asked if there will be clearer regulations proscribing unacceptable debt collection methods and Mr Derrick Goh, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if problematic debt collection conduct on online platforms will be prohibited under the Bill. As mentioned in my opening speech, we will introduce the regulations prohibiting any behaviour that threatens the physical safety of the debtor or any other third parties, such as the debtor's family members. This includes sending text or social media messages to the debtor, threatening physical harm to the debtor or his or her family. Livestreaming of debt collection activities, in and of itself, is not an offence unless it crosses the threshold for other criminal offences, such as the Protection from Harassment Act.
Mr Dennis Tan asked if we will be introducing any regulations on prohibited debt collection conduct other than the ones we have announced in the public consultation paper. We, currently, do not have these plans.
Mr Leon Perera asked whether levers under various legislations could be unified and harmonised. Today, legislation, such as the Penal Code and Protection from Harassment Act, apply to everyone. Taking into account our observation of the debt collection activities, we are introducing additional levers that are more specific to the debt collection industry.
Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about issuing a code of practice and putting in place measures to ensure compliance with the code. Given that there will be regulations to guide the conduct of debt collection businesses and their debt collectors, we do not intend to issue a code of practice for now.
To address Mr Leon Perera and Mr Yip Hon Weng's question about how debtors may verify the legitimacy of debt collectors, we will require debt collectors to show proof of the Licensing Officer's approval, when asked to do so.
Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the potential avenues for members of the public to lodge complaints against errant debt collection activities. Members of the public may lodge a Police report online via the i-Witness Portal or Police’s e-services website. They may also do so in person at a Neighbourhood Police Centre or Neighbourhood Police Post. If immediate Police assistance is required, they should contact the Police at \"999\".
Mr Leon Perera and Mr Dennis Tan asked about educating the public on the regulations under the Debt Collection Bill. Information on the debt collection regulatory regime will be published on Police’s website. Mr Dennis Tan also asked if the Government can conduct a public education campaign. We thank the Member for the suggestion and we will study this.
Mr Derrick Goh and Mr Yip Hon Weng have voiced their concerns over debtors who make malicious or frivolous complaints against debt collectors to frustrate the debt collection process and asked if there will be safeguards against these debtors. As the Member rightly pointed out, furnishing false information to cause Police to act against debt collectors is punishable under section 182 of the Penal Code. Police will investigate and take action against the debtor if an offence is disclosed.
There are also safeguards within the Bill to avoid penalising innocent debt collection businesses and debt collectors. Before regulatory action can be taken against the licensee or debt collector, the Licensing Officer must first give a written notice to the licensee or the debt collector and provide at least 14 days after the written notice is served, for written representations to be made to the Licensing Officer with respect to the proposed regulatory action.
On the questions raised by Mr Yip Hon Weng on regulating the remuneration structure for debt collection businesses, the Bill allows the Minister to make such regulations. However, we have assessed that there is no need to do so currently. Nevertheless, we will monitor the situation closely.
Ms Foo Mee Har suggested for the management and staff of debt collection businesses to undergo accredited training programmes covering the debt collection regulations and for debt collectors to pass a test before they are approved by Police to be debt collectors. Mr Dennis Tan asked about training for potential debt collectors. We will require licensees to put in place measures, such as proper training, to ensure that their debt collectors understand and comply with the Debt Collection Bill and other written laws. However, the Police will not be administering tests for debt collectors.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the selection of licensing officers and Mr Louis Ng asked about the appointment and protection of compliance officers. Compliance officers will be suitably trained before they carry out their duties. Unlike licensing officers who are Police officers, compliance officers will not be authorised to detain or arrest any individual, to search any place or individual, or to seize any property.
There will be audit checks on compliance officers to ensure that they are proficient in carrying out their duties and these safeguards are similar to other regulatory regimes under the Police’s purview.
On Mr Louis Ng’s point on protecting compliance officers, they will be deemed to be a public servant for the purposes of the Penal Code and will receive the same protection as public officers when exercising powers under the Bill.
Mr Dennis Tan asked how we will assist existing players to transit into the new regulatory regime. As mentioned in my opening speech, the Bill provides saving and transitional provisions to ensure that sufficient time is provided for existing debt collection businesses and debt collectors who wish to continue operating their debt collection business or acting as debt collectors to transit into the new regime.
Mr Louis Chua, Ms Foo Mee Har, Mr Leon Perera, Mr Don Wee and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked a few questions which are beyond the scope of the Bill but have close nexus with debt collection. For example, whether there will be guidelines to help residents not fall prey to scams, whether the community legal clinics are sufficient for residents to seek legal advice, whether there will be measures to protect vulnerable segments of the population from excessive borrowing and making debt counselling and restructuring more widely available, as well as whether we can consider introducing a scheme for debtors to seek temporary relief from debt collection activities, similar to the Debt Respite Scheme in the UK. We will pass this feedback to the relevant agencies to study separately.
On Mr Don Wee’s question regarding unlicensed moneylending syndicates that resort to depositing unsolicited amounts of money into the bank accounts of ex-borrowers and forcing them to make payments for the unsolicited loans, there have been such cases reported since 2011. The Police will continue to monitor them closely. Members of the public who wish to take up loans should only borrow from licensed entities, such as banks, financial institutions and licensed moneylenders. We also encourage members of the public to be vigilant and exercise due care before furnishing personal particulars and banking credentials for any purposes.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope I have addressed the Members’ concerns. The Bill will help improve the conduct of the debt collection industry and better address disamenities that may arise from problematic debt collection conduct. Once again, I thank Members for their strong support for the Bill. Sir, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Any clarifications? None.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Sun Xueling]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"National Symbols Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Culture, Community and Youth (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Sir, the National Symbols Bill seeks to repeal and replace the Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Act 1959. It will declare the national symbols and Presidential symbols of Singapore and regulate the use of these symbols. Related amendments are also made to other Acts.
More than 60 years ago, our three national symbols were unveiled on the steps of City Hall at the inauguration of our first Malayan-born Yang di-Pertuan Negara (Head of State) Encik Yusof Ishak. They were the state crest, the national flag and the national anthem. It was a significant moment in Singapore’s history – the birth of a new national consciousness.
With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I display some slides on the screen, please.
Mr Speaker: Yes. [Slides were shown to hon Members.]
Ms Low Yen Ling: These three national symbols gave the people of Singapore our first tangible representations of nationhood – that we are one people – united by a single anthem, identifying with the same state crest and joined by one national flag; we are fellow Singaporeans, fellow citizens forging a shared future together.
Our founding fathers understood the role the national symbols played in unifying the fledging nation. Mr S Rajaratnam, the then Minister for Culture, laid out how the symbols expressed, and I quote, \"the sentiments and aspirations, not of any particular group, party or section, but of the people of Singapore as a whole\". He emphasised what each national symbol stood for, like our distinctive Singapore values of \"equality\" and \"progress\", and how these symbols represented our \"identity and personality\".
The national symbols represented Singapore and the stirrings of a young nation-state. We had gained self-governance and were no longer subject to – in the words of Mr S Rajaratnam – symbols of \"dominance\". Instead, the national symbols set us apart as a people with our own set of values, beliefs and ideals.
Given their gravity and significance, our pioneering leaders ensured that the symbols were accorded the proper respect.
The Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Act 1959, also known as the SAFNA Act, was enacted to govern the use of the state crest, the national flag and the national anthem. Since 1959, there have been several important developments in our nation’s journey. Between 1966 and 1986, we introduced three more national symbols outside the SAFNA Act: the national pledge, the national flower and the lion head symbol.
As our nation developed, Singaporeans also grew in our pride and expression of love for our country. Increasingly, Singaporeans seek to use the flag and its image to show our national pride and solidarity in ways that were not anticipated back in 1959.
When it was enacted, the SAFNA Act and Rules deliberately restricted the use of the national flag to preclude the possibility of misuse. For instance, the use of the flag as a means of adornment, of advertisement or for any commercial purpose was prohibited. Unrestricted use of the flag was limited to National Day and occasions of national rejoicing.
The SAFNA Rules were amended over time to accommodate wider usage, but many restrictions were maintained.
Today, Singaporeans wish to express our love for Singapore in many creative ways. For example, many interest groups like cycling clubs want to have an image of the flag on their cycling jerseys, for instance.
During the National Day period, it is very common to see the Singapore flag mounted on the side mirrors of motor vehicles. Temporary Singapore flag tattoos are also popular with the public and among National Day Parade participants. Technology has also created new uses for the image of the flag. Many people now have access to devices and apps that allow them to easily manipulate images and transmit them digitally. Likewise, the wide use of social media has increased the modes of reproduction and communication of different forms of media, like music and audio clips.
Hence, the Government undertook a review to relook at the national symbol rules. MCCY started engaging citizens on the legislative framework and guidelines governing the use of our national symbols in September 2020, done over a two-year period. This involved the participation of citizens across several public consultation exercises in the last two years, including polls, focus group discussions and feedback sessions. The Citizens’ Workgroup for National Symbols was convened in 2021 to discuss and recommend ways to improve the regulation and promotion of the symbols. The public feedback and recommendations called for greater flexibility in the use of the national symbols, as well as greater clarity on appropriate use and higher safeguards against misuse. This feedback has guided our plans for the revised legislation.
Sir, the Bill seeks to address the changes and developments in our current context and landscape of rapidly proliferating technology and media. It will also provide more comprehensive protection of the national symbols from misuse.
The Bill proposes three key changes. One, the inclusion of the symbols like the national pledge, flower and the lion head symbol, which were introduced after 1959, as well as the Presidential symbols and public seal. Two, the provision for a prescribed person to permit or prohibit uses of the symbols under the regulations, and three, an update on the maximum penalties for infringement of the Act.
The Bill will extend statutory recognition and protection to these familiar symbols which were not covered by SAFNA and they are the national pledge, the national flower, the lion head symbol and the public seal. They will now be regarded as national symbols under the Bill.
The national pledge, the national flower as well as the lion head symbols are synonymous with Singapore and evoke immediate recognition and pride among Singaporeans. The public seal represents the Republic, and the public seal is affixed to important documents of the state, so, it is befitting for it to be recognised as a national symbol of Singapore under the Bill.
The Bill will also grant statutory recognition and protection to the Presidential standard, the Presidential crest and the Presidential seal as Presidential symbols. This is appropriate as the President is the Head of State and the symbol of national unity.
The existing SAFNA Rules already regulate the use of the state crest, the national flag and the national anthem. The Bill will enable the President to make regulations to control the use of Presidential symbols. The Bill will also enable the President to make regulations to regulate the use of the other national symbols under the Act. We will extend statutory safeguards to the national pledge and the public seal. We do not intend to make any new regulations for the lion head symbol or national flower, as these are intended as less restricted symbols for people and organisations to use.
Their inclusion in the Bill is meant to confer on them statutory recognition. The Citizens' Workgroup for National Symbols, for instance, had suggested that such icons could be recognised as a \"tribute to their place in Singapore's history\". We will continue our practice today of allowing any individual, organisation or company to use the lion head symbol for purposes of identifying with the nation, following prevailing guidelines. Individuals, organisations and companies are also free to use the image of the national flower.
Sir, over the past two years since COVID-19, we have seen how Singaporeans used national symbols like the flag as an expression of our solidarity in challenging times. All of us in the House will remember, in April 2020, two and a half years ago, the Government responded to calls by Singaporeans to fly the flag as a show of unity and support for one another. The SAFNA Rules were amended to allow the flag to be displayed outside the typical National Day period, which is from July to September.
To allow for greater flexibility in future, regulations under the Bill can enable a prescribed person, such as the Minister, to permit the use of a national symbol in appropriate situations. This could entail, for example, permitting the display of the national flag outside the National Day period, if warranted by circumstances.
We also intend to make regulations to enable a prescribed person to prohibit certain uses of the symbols, subject to appeal. This is to prevent disrespectful uses of the symbols. With these new regulations, we can respond more nimbly to legitimate requests to use the national symbols under pre-specified conditions, while also protecting the national symbols from indiscriminate or inappropriate use.
To provide greater flexibility in the use of the national symbols, we will also review the circumstances and manner in which the symbols may be used. For instance, we envisage that the new regulations could take a more permissive stance to allow greater artistic and creative use of an image of the Singapore flag; and to permit the use of images of the national flag on attire outside the National Day period without requiring approval, provided that such use is non-commercial and such use is respectful.
Nonetheless, we must balance the introduction of greater flexibility with proper safeguards against the misuse of our national symbols. As Mr S Rajaratnam had pointed out, we need to respect the national symbols for the values, sentiments and ideals they represent. Rules are critical to ensure that the symbols are not wilfully brought into contempt, ridicule or hatred because such disrespect for our symbols will be an affront to the people of Singapore and the values they represent.
During the public consultation, many Singaporeans underlined the importance of ensuring that the dignity of the national symbols is upheld even as more flexible use is allowed. Hence, the third major change we will be making in the Bill is to update the penalties for offences relating to the national symbols and Presidential symbols.
The current penalty for offences under the SAFNA Act is a fine of up to $1,000 – a maximum fine of $1,000. This sum will not be as effective to serve as a deterrent today as the amount was set in 1959 and has not been updated since. Taking into account the maximum penalties that are set for similar offences, we will update the penalties for such offences to a maximum fine of $30,000 or a maximum imprisonment term of six months or both.
The penalties for individual offences will be calibrated in the new regulations. More egregious offences would attract higher penalties. An example is the burning or desecration of the national flag.
Sir, the national symbols represent the nation and the Head of State. Respect for the symbols is part of the civic and public morality of the nation. Any affront to our national sovereignty and pride as represented by our symbols must be dealt with seriously. We should not allow the symbols to be wilfully brought into contempt, ridicule or hatred. Furthermore, their unauthorised use by private individuals or entities can create false or misleading impressions of links to, or endorsement by, the President or the state. Such uses could lead to public order issues. There is, therefore, a need to regulate the use of the symbols to uphold public morality and order.
Finally, any prosecution under the Bill may only be instituted by or with the consent of the Public Prosecutor. This ensures that prosecutions under the Act are brought in the public interest.
The Bill will also make the following amendments to related legislation – section 59(1)(f) of the Evidence Act 1893 will be amended to require the Courts to recognise the public seal and the Presidential seal. The National Emblems (Control of Display) Act 1949 will be renamed the \"Foreign National Emblems (Control of Display) Act 1949\" to make clear that its role is in regulating foreign national emblems.
Sir, this Bill reflects what our citizens have expressed in our engagements and public consultations over the past few years. Singaporeans feel a strong sense of ownership of our national symbols and agree that these symbols encapsulate the ideals of what it means to be a Singaporean and what it means to be a member of the Singapore community.
We pay special attention to these symbols because they remind us of who we are, our journey as a nation and the values and aspirations we espouse. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill declares our seven national symbols and three Presidential symbols and to regulate their use.
National symbols are an important part of our national identity and a common rallying point for Singaporeans. I welcome this Bill, which recognises and protects these symbols. I thank MCCY for allowing Singaporeans to be a part of the process in deciding what our national symbols mean to us by convening a citizens' workgroup and public consultation for this Bill. I have three suggestions and clarifications on the Bill.
My first point is on pre-approval requirements. I am glad that MCCY listened to feedback from the citizens' workgroup and is allowing a wider use of our national symbols by loosening approval requirements. This gives Singaporeans more freedom to express their identity and love for Singapore. However, there are still some situations where the Government's pre-approval is needed. This includes the commercial use of our symbols outside of the National Day period or for using the National Anthem.
Can the Minister share how the Ministry will ensure that the pre-approval process is accessible, low-cost and simple to navigate for well-intentioned individuals who wish to use the national symbols? Independent creatives, in particular, may not have the administrative knowhow to navigate the process. We should ensure that the bureaucracy of it all does not deter them from innovative, respectful uses of our national symbols.
My second clarification relates to the prohibitions under the regulations. Will the Minister consider creating enhanced punishments for those who misuse the national symbols to mislead others? Our national symbols are not only a source of identity. They also carry the Singapore brand, signifying the trust and reliability we are known for. Almost every day, we are seeing new attempts to scam Singaporeans or spread false information, with a large variety of creative tactics. Earlier this year, investment scammers tried to pass off as GIC and used its logo to try and trick Singaporeans into transferring money to them. I can easily imagine that other scammers might try to use our national symbols, to fake official Government communications, or give a sense of reliability and trick victims into letting their guard down. Enhanced penalties will deter such fraudulent behaviour and help protect Singaporeans from harm.
My last clarification relates to the President's powers to amend the symbols. Section 13 allows the aspect or description of any symbol to be amended by notification in the gazette. Amendment by notification in the Gazette which does not require approval of Parliament appears to be incongruent with the sacrosanct nature of the symbols.
Can the Minister clarify in what circumstances is it anticipated that such an amendment may be made? Will public consultation be sought before any amendments? When the President exercises her or his powers to amend the symbols, on what basis and on which entity's or individual's advice will the President be acting? Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, the National Symbols Bill makes several important changes. It provides formal statutory recognition to our national symbols and seeks to clarify and broaden the use of the national symbols by Singaporeans to express national pride and solidarity.
Sir, I support the Bill in making meaningful and necessary changes. I shall focus my speech on the posture which I hope all stakeholders will take towards this law, not only in Government, but also those in political parties, civil society groups and citizens at large. And that posture should be to use this law as a reference point for the work of galvanising awareness and respect for our nationhood amongst all citizens. All of us can and should be ambassadors and role models for this work, in ways both large and small.
Sir, this Bill is about national symbols. When people speak of something as symbolic, it sometimes means that it is less valuable and less important. Less important, perhaps, than material things – money, resources, healthcare, the proverbial bread-and-butter issues. The bread-and-butter issues that, in some narratives, Singaporean public life is fixated on.
Yet, symbols matter. I will say that again – symbols matter!
The symbols of our nationhood should be viewed by all Singaporeans as precious. Why? Because they symbolise our hard-fought Independence and our national sovereignty. And why is our national sovereignty important? It is important because it is equivalent to our national freedom – our freedom to choose our destiny, as a people, through the institutions of our democratic society, the democratic society that our pledge enjoins us to build.
Sir, it is my hope that our schools and other institutions educate the public about the meaning of our national symbols with this in mind. That these symbols are about our freedom. For example, it is said that Pak Zubir Said, when he composed the national anthem, thought of it as a kind of prayer to be uttered when Singapore attained Independence. And here, I would like to call for more efforts to be made to educate our people on the meaning of the national anthem. It is sad that many citizens do not know the words or even what the words mean, simply referring to our anthem as \"mari-kita.\"
Sir, our pledge calls on all of us to be one people, regardless of race, language or religion. Today, I would like to talk about how we should be one people, regardless of political views and affiliation as well. Some may find this an uncomfortable subject to talk about in the context of a conversation about national symbols. But I think this is an important point to make and expand upon.
Sir, in my conversations with Singaporeans as a Member of Parliament and previously as a Workers' Party volunteer and, before that, a civil society activist, I have come across the view that displays of national symbols are associated with support for the ruling party, the \"establishment\", the \"status quo\", however you want to define it. It is a view that has some currency, though much less today than it did in the past, from what I can tell.
[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]
In truth, I encounter this view less and less. And I can quite confidently say, from many conversations with Singaporeans, that displaying the flag is not associated with any particular political leaning. My Workers' Party colleagues and I are incredibly proud to give out flags on National Day, as are Members of this House from all parties. And I have met many wonderful Singaporeans, who are true patriots, who belong to multiple political parties.
I have also encountered the view in some quarters that, if one is a Singaporean who disagrees intensely with some aspects of Government policy or the design of political institutions, one, therefore, will find the symbols and institutions of this nation alien and unrepresentative.
The people who harbour such sentiments, I would argue, should not be condemned in a very judgemental way. But it is the task of all of us who care about our country and value our democracy to win over such people, to persuade such people to identify with our national symbols.
In fact, many of the people who are disinterested in the symbols of the nation for such reasons do so precisely because they care passionately about certain principles, ideals and values. And that is a good thing. And that is what we need – citizens who care about the greater good and want to play their part in defining it, rather than citizens who do not care about politics or the wider society.
We should, Mdm Deputy Speaker, recognise that the greater danger for our country may not lie in people who are passionate about particular political ideals, but rather people who do not care about politics or anything else going on in the wider society, only bothering to form an opinion when something affects them personally and materially.
Madam, sometimes, in my house visits, I meet people, and this is more and more rare nowadays, but I meet people who say, \"I don't care about politics.\" I typically give them a jokey reply, \"But politics cares about you.\"
Madam, I have met some Singaporeans over the years who disagree with certain aspects of policies and politics in Singapore and have decided that they want to migrate for that reason. My reply to them has always been, \"Please, let us stay and fight to change things in our country\". A people who care about politics only in the personal and pecuniary sense, a people who are not invested in the greater good, in what society is and should be, will be a people who are doomed to disappear in the long arc of history.
So, we should recognise that people who are suspicious of our national symbols may have the best of motives. They may be passionate idealists and that should not be dismissed. Rather, I would like to argue today that all of us who value our democratic society, including all of us in this House, should work towards galvanising respect for our national symbols among our fellow Singaporeans, of all views and all shades of political opinion.
It is possible for reasonable citizens to disagree about the design of our national institutions. For example, some facets of our electoral system or the design of national practices. For example, some citizens may disagree that the public expense incurred for the National Day Parade is fully justified. I would argue that there can be reasonable points of view on all sides of these questions. And that is exactly how we should resolve such questions – reasonably, respectfully, democratically.
But when it comes to our national symbols, such as our flag, our pledge, our anthem and so on, it is my hope, and I am sure it is the hope of all Members here, that all of us who believe in this democratic society would serve as advocates and role models for the view that our national symbols should be respected by all citizens, across the political spectrum and across the spectrum of views on other matters as well.
Government policies, political ideas, political practices, institutional design – all of these things are subject to the immutable law of change. All these things will evolve with time and will be decided democratically now and, one hopes, by future generations of Singaporeans. The ideas that future generations debate, the technologies and economic arrangements, the big public questions, all of these will evolve and change, probably in ways that we cannot completely foresee now. But it must be our collective hope that the symbols of our nation endure, along with our nation's sovereignty.
And we should seek this respect for our national symbols, not primarily through heavy-handed legal means, though that has its place. At this point, I would like to express the hope that the authorities take a light touch in enforcing the provisions of this law, show compassion and take cognisance of the individual circumstances associated with each offence, for example, where ignorance, mental illness or momentary emotions come into play.
Rather, we should seek this respect for our national symbols primarily by inspiring citizens with what Singapore is and what it can be, not primarily through law enforcement – though the latter, inevitably, has its place as well; I do not disagree with that.
Madam, how do we inspire citizens in this way? How do we ourselves ensure that we remain inspired by this Singapore story and this Singapore cause, so as to be able to inspire others? Not mainly through prioritising outward, ostentatious displays of national symbols devoid of the real feeling, the heart, the passion. Not that way. It is possible to fall into the trap of ritualistic homage to the symbols, while the real passion for what those things symbolise atrophies and dies away.
So, we should not fall into the trap of saying, for example, that certain HDB blocks are more patriotic because they display more flags and others less so because they display fewer. That may not be the case and there could be various reasons why some blocks have more flags than others.
Madam, we should not inspire love of our symbols and our country by counterpoising our nation against another and cultivating resentment towards other countries. For it is said – that patriotism is the love of one's people, nationalism is the hatred of others. I hope that ours can be a patriotism that does not seek to validate itself through juxtaposition against some \"other\" nation. Hatred is a form of energy that can bind a nation, but to the wrong end. Rather, we should show the world that Singaporeans want to better ourselves and the world without putting anyone else down.
So, how do we inspire our fellow Singaporeans to respect and love our national symbols? I would like to conclude my speech with a humble attempt to answer this question, in the spirit of encouraging every citizen to find their own answer to it.
I think we inspire our citizens and ourselves to respect these precious national symbols by showing the world, through our deeds and words, that these symbols represent, not a perfect country in its finished form, not a creed set in stone, as many ideas that govern public life will evolve over time. Rather, these symbols represent something far more precious. And that something is hope. The hope that lives in our hearts.
What sort of hope is that? Hope that this place, this land, this people will always strive to get better and better and better in achieving the high ideals of our pledge, one of the symbols being protected by this Bill, even if those ideals never become perfectly embodied in our national life. Like how, in mathematics, the line of an asymptote infinitely approaches the axis, but never quite touches it.
Hope that we, as a people, will always be free to choose our destiny. Many Singaporeans would argue, and I include myself here, that aspects of our democratic system are in need of reform. But that is why we stay and fight to make things better. Our pledge does not say we already are a democratic society. Our pledge calls on us to build a democratic society. It is a work in progress, this building and defending of what has been built. It is a work that will never end. And it needs all of us to be builders.
So, while we may disagree and debate robustly over what the ideals of our pledge concretely mean in day-to-day policies and practice, while we may disagree about many things unconnected to the ideals of the pledge, we should strive to nurture this hope in our own hearts and the hearts of our fellow Singaporeans, all of us – as teachers, colleagues, members of political parties, co-religionists, social media practitioners, opinion leaders, artists, scholars and as parents, as children, as members of families. This striving should infuse our writing, our social media posts, our scholarship, our words and deeds.
For at the end of the day, while our nation will never be perfect, these symbols represent our hope that the Singaporean people, in this land, will always strive to honour the angels of our better nature.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, in our national language, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Madam, I support the National Symbols Bill in making meaningful and necessary changes. When we say something is symbolic, sometimes, it means that it is less valuable or less important, compared to everyday bread-and-butter issues. However, symbols matter. The symbols of our nationhood should be viewed by all Singaporeans as precious.
Why? Because they symbolise our hard-fought Independence and our national sovereignty. And why is our national sovereignty important? It is important because it is equivalent to our national freedom – our freedom to choose our own destiny as a people, through the institutions of our democratic society, the democratic society that we all pledged to build.
Madam, our pledge calls on all of us to be one people, regardless of race, language or religion. Today, I want to talk about how we should be one people, regardless of political views or affiliation.
I can confidently say that from many conversations with Singaporeans, that displaying the flag is not associated with any political leanings. My Workers' Party colleagues and I are incredibly proud to give out flags on National Day, just like other Members of this House from all parties. And I have met many Singaporeans who are true patriots, who belong to different political parties.
It is my hope that all of us who have faith in this democratic society would serve as advocates and role models as citizens who believe that our national symbols should be respected by everyone, regardless of their political leanings. This can be achieved by inspiring our citizens about what Singapore is and what it can be, not through law enforcement, even though this, inevitably, has a role.
So, how can we inspire our people?
It is not through outward displays of national symbols devoid of real feelings, heart and passion. It is also not through associating and cultivating hate towards other countries.
To me, we inspire our citizens and ourselves to respect these precious national symbols by showing the world that these symbols represent hope.
I hope we, as a people, will always be free to choose the life that we desire. Our pledge calls on us to build a democratic society. It is a work in progress and we must continue working on it and defending what has been built. And it needs all of us to build it together.
While we may disagree and debate robustly over what the ideals of our pledge concretely mean in day-to-day policies, we should strive to nurture this hope in our hearts and the hearts of fellow Singaporeans.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, this Bill is a welcome move. Many Singaporeans when travelling abroad would have seen how national flags are quite freely used on apparel and luggage bags. Hence, some of them would question why other countries can be liberal with the use of national symbols whilst what is permitted in other countries may not be allowed in Singapore.
As such, I welcome the overarching objectives of clause 14 of the Bill, which allows the President to create such regulations relating to our national symbols as the President deems fit. However, I have some clarifications on the Bill and the proposed regulations.
Firstly, Mdm Deputy Speaker, there should be more clarity on the use and design guidelines for national symbols. I believe this will be met with the flexibility of making the regulations pursuant to the Bill.
One problematic area is that of commercial advertisements. There were instances in the past where the lion head symbol was used to promote products and services which had no relation with the Government. Often, the symbol was used for innocuous purposes, such as to highlight that the product was made in Singapore. However, such usage may have created the misimpression that the products and services had some form of official endorsement.
Under the current circumstances, what if the users were to use part of the symbol or, for example, to use the symbol in different colours as they try to circumvent the rules?
We also need more comprehensive guidelines for the use of the flag's image without requiring official approval on attire, decoration and products. Without clear guidelines, businesses may misuse our national symbols to give the impression that the product or service is authorised by the Government. For example, if security guards who do not work for Government services or public agencies have been spotted with the flag emblem on their uniforms, would that or should that be an offence?
It is pertinent to reduce ambiguity. This is to ensure that the rules can be properly endorsed but without the need to constantly consult the relevant bodies or burden them with onerous approval processes.
Secondly, Mdm Deputy Speaker, how specific will the proposed regulations be with regard to the use of national symbols? Also, as equally important, how will penalties be enforced? The interpretation of designs can be highly contentious. Something that is considered disrespectful to someone may be interpreted in an entirely different manner by another. Will there be a framework to provide guidance to our designers? Does the Government intend to get experts to provide views on its assessment? If a notice is served on an offender, what is the timeline given to remove the offending act before enforcement action is taken?
How many cases were prosecuted under the Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem (SAFNA) Act and Rules for such offences in the past? Related to this, should there be a need to define \"use\" and what offences can carry a prosecution? Is the Bill also intended to cover the use of the national symbols in documents, for example?
Thirdly, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I wish to share some concerns specifically with regard to our national flag. A question I would like to raise is whether social groups are allowed to use the national flag and other national emblems in their activities. While this could ostensibly be perceived as a patriotic gesture, it could, in fact, be an attempt to gain wider public support for their activity and their causes. These groups may be locally registered as a society or as a Singapore chapter of a global organisation. They could also be simply a group with a common cause.
Next, there are buildings where you have several flag poles lined up in a row. May I ask the Minister when our national flag is flown on the flag pole, can a social group fly its flag at the next flagpole alongside our national flag? I raise this because it could mislead the public by giving the impression that the Government stands alongside a social group and its beliefs.
Flag desecration is a serious offence. We have read of instances where people have burnt decorations put up for National Day and arrests have been made by the Police. Last year, a 24-year-old man was charged with cutting and damaging multiple National Day Parade banners and, most recently, a 39-year-old man set a flag on fire, and he was arrested.
May I ask whether it is an offence for the image of our flag and national emblems to be put on paraphernalia which are used for offerings for religious activities, say, during the Hungry Ghost Festival or any other festivals? A person can also use this as an anti-Government gesture under the pretext of practising his or her religious belief.
Lastly, Mdm Deputy Speaker, Singapore is a young nation. As we journey along, there may be new symbols being introduced. Does the new legislation cover the addition of new symbols? How will the National Emblems (Control of Display) Act 1949 be amended?
In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, our national flag and emblems are more than just visual representations. Our national flag, especially, represents the values and ideals that we hold dear. When we were children, we were taught to stand and put our hands over our hearts, facing our national flag and say the national pledge in school. We stood to sing the national anthem. Our children, including my children, continue this practice today.
Respect for our national symbols is consistent across economic, racial and religious grounds. Our national symbols are emblems of our unity, thoughts and purpose as a nation. These symbols are not mere pieces of decoration nor objects to be honoured for themselves. They are honoured for what they represent. The use of our national flag and symbols thus offers opportunities for Singaporeans to express our patriotism and such patriotism is more important now than ever before.
After 57 years, we are at a crossroads in our nation's journey. Our social compact must evolve and respond to both opportunities and challenges. Through the Forward Singapore exercise, we must come together, examine our values and aspirations, build consensus and, in doing so, refresh our social compact.
Our national symbols play an important and unifying role. It allows us to demonstrate our patriotism and express pride in our unique multicultural and multi-religious society. I support the Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Mark Chay.
Mr Mark Chay (Nominated Member): Mdm Deputy Speaker, Singapore is a young nation, as are our national symbols. These representations of our nationhood were developed because these visible, identifiable symbols are necessary in defining and unifying Singaporeans. As a multicultural and diverse nation, our national symbols have been instrumental in creating and cementing our identity.
Therefore, I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to promote appropriate use of national symbols while allowing for their wider use by Singaporeans to express national pride and solidarity. This will give Singaporeans the clarity and flexibility in their use whilst preserving the honour and respect that our national symbols deserve.
The significance of our national symbols cannot be understated. Our national athletes compete, often overseas, in packed stadia. When they compete, they do not just represent themselves but the very best of Singapore and what Singapore stands for.
I can tell you, when you are behind the blocks, looking up at stands filled with tens of thousands of spectators and you see a Singapore flag, it fills your heart, and you dig deep to give off more for our country. When our athletes win, we often see them take their national flags to the podium to show their patriotism and to acknowledge the support from home which enabled them to achieve greatness and do Singapore proud.
I would like to share a personal story 22 years ago when I was an athlete. In 2000, I represented Singapore at the FINA World Cup in Australia. I swam well enough to make the finals, just two lanes away from the world record holder. When I watched the replay on TV that night, I was disappointed to see that next to my name where the Singapore flag should have been was a grey box. For reasons I do not know, the TV production crew did not have the graphic of the Singapore flag. I felt very sad at that instance. Sad because I felt, in a way, deprived of the ability to share my glory with Singapore. So, to me, this underscores the significance of our national flag and our national symbols.
As a former national athlete, I would like to say that every call to the national team is a moment of immense pride. It is a privilege which our national athletes do not take lightly. It is an honour to wear our national flag emblazoned on the jersey, track suit or swimming cap.
On the matter of wearing the national flag on the team kits, I would like to ask two questions. One, what is the process for National Sports Associations (NSAs) and other organisations to seek approval for the national flag or symbols to be on the team uniform? Two, are there guidelines for the type of national teams that can have the national flag or symbols on the uniform? For example, can a youth team wear the national flag on the kit?
To conclude, our national symbols evoke immense pride. They facilitate opportunities to build solidarity during both challenging times like COVID-19 and during celebratory occasions like international competitions. They stir up the national spirit and stimulate civic duty in the elements and colours that remind us of the values Singaporeans should embody.
Most importantly, too, Mdm Deputy Speaker, these symbols are an immediate point of connection, camaraderie and respect amongst our people across the world. These are positive things that we, as Parliamentarians, should encourage and I am firm in my support of the Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the proposal in the Bill to enable the Minister to allow the national flag to be flown outside the National Day period. Having these displays during significant occasions, such as the Olympics, would be a wonderful way for Singaporeans to express their national pride and unity.
In my constituency, there is a group of citizens who face some challenges if they wish to express their patriotism. They live in public rental flats where their units face each other. They have neither available space near their front doors nor at the back, outside the kitchen windows, because that is where they hang their laundry.
I hope we can facilitate the good intent of these Singaporeans and help them to showcase their national pride. While the Residents' Committees do hang the flags on parapets or railings of stairwells at these blocks, these are projects by group committees. For individuals who want to do so on their own initiative, they need some help and support. Would the Ministry share what alternatives there are for these residents?
The Bill states that offenders may be fined up to $30,000 or jailed for up to six months, or both, for an offence under the regulations. Offenders must be given the chance to explain why they made their mistakes. It should be explained and communicated very clearly to all what constitutes the misuse of national symbols.
Public education is very important. What measures has the Ministry planned for to educate members of the public?
The enforcers should also be understanding and not penalise offenders straightaway. While there will be a minority who intentionally misuse national symbols, more likely than not, these are genuine mistakes. I hope they would be advised accordingly instead of being fined. Madam, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In my constituency, there are residents who live in public rental flats where their units face each other. They have no available space to hang the national flag either near their front door or outside the kitchen windows because that is where they hang their laundry. Would the Ministry share what alternatives they have to showcase their patriotism?
The Bill states that offenders may be penalised for misuse of national symbols. MHA should give the offenders a chance to explain because it could be a misunderstanding. I hope the authorities will educate the public on what constitutes misuse of national symbols.
(In English): Madam, I support the Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Darryl David.
Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Deputy Speaker, national symbols of a country represent the collective identity of the nation, the values that a nation subscribes to and the aspirations of its people. For example, the five stars on our national flag represent the ideals of Singapore and our national anthem captures the enduring hope and spirit of Singaporeans for progress.
Since the Singapore Arms and Flags and National Anthem Act (SAFNA) was adopted, other symbols, such as the lion head symbol and Vanda Miss Joaquim, which are closely associated with the Singapore identity have also been listed as national symbols. Although these symbols have come to represent us, they are not accorded the same level of protection from misuse as our state crest, national flag and national anthem because these additional symbols are not covered under SAFNA.
The introduction of the National Symbols Bill to replace SAFNA is thus timely and appropriate and will also help to provide greater flexibility and clarity to the use of national symbols.
Notwithstanding my support for the Bill, I wish to seek clarifications concerning how the national symbols will be regarded and managed after the Bill has been introduced.
First of all, the issue of flexibility. Under the proposed National Symbols Bill, seven additional national symbols like the Presidential standard, Presidential coat of arms, Presidential seal, national pledge, public seal, lion head symbol and national flower will be accorded protection status alongside the three national symbols that are originally protected under SAFNA.
Some symbols like the Presidential standard, Presidential coat of arms, Presidential seal and public seal would largely not be very commonly used and displayed by the public, unlike other symbols like the national flag, national anthem, national pledge or even the lion head symbol or national flower.
These latter five symbols are those that the public would be most familiar with and are also likely to be the ones that are most used in our everyday life, especially during national occasions. I hope that the Government will consider allowing members of the public more flexibility in using them so that these symbols can be part of our everyday lives and are close to our hearts instead of being abstract concepts or displays that we occasionally see. Greater flexibility to access and display these symbols will foster familiarity but still keeping the sense of respect while having the sense of national pride and collective ownership of these symbols that are, essentially, part of our Singapore identity.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, in the past, we had amended the rules for when the national flag could be flown. In 2007, the National Day period was extended from 1 July to 30 September, and, in 2020, the rule was amended to allow the flag to be displayed from April to June 2020 as a mark of solidarity during the COVID-19 crisis.
I would like to propose for the Government to consider extending the period of when the national flag could be flown, without a flagpole and night illumination, from 1 January to 31 December every year. Or, from a different perspective, to abolish having a fixed period when the flag can be flown. If the aim of extending the period from July to September in the past was to allow for a greater display of patriotism, then why not allow Singaporeans and residents to display their love and patriotism for the country all-year round?
On the issue of clarity, the disrespecting of national symbols in some cases, such as the willful and intentional defacing of the flag, for example, is quite clear and such cases must be dealt with accordingly. However, as more symbols get designated as national symbols and come under the proposed new laws, it would be good if the Government could provide some guidance as to how the symbols should be used respectfully and just what constitutes an offence regarding the treatment of a national symbol under the new law.
The guidelines of use must be explicitly communicated to prevent members of the public and merchants from contravening the use of those symbols. This was mentioned earlier, I believe, by my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Yip Hon Weng and, at present, I do believe that several companies and merchants have used the lion head symbol on their product packaging to publicise that their products are made in Singapore.
Would such usage of the lion head symbol be allowed under the National Symbols Bill? If yes, would there be an application process to use national symbols on product packaging and publicity collaterals, such as company brochures and banners? Would there be an office set up to process such applications and assess the merits of using national symbols on commercial platforms?
Of course, it would be impossible to capture everything under the law or to have prescriptive guidance for all possible use of the symbols. Many of us would agree that exercising common sense and good judgement in how we should treat our national symbols would suffice on most occasions when the symbols are used. However, there could be some instances where it might not be clear as to just what constitutes \"disrespecting a national symbol\".
For example, if you search for \"Singapore national anthem on electric guitar\" on the Internet, which some of us might be tempted to do that right now on our devices, you will find a mellow, reggae-inspired version of \"Majulah Singapura\" on YouTube. Personally, I did not find that remix or that version of our national anthem offensive or disrespectful. In fact, the comments on the remix were all largely positive. However, would such a remix or interpretation of our national anthem be considered disrespectful under the new law and lead to a financial penalty or some measures taken against the artiste?
Similarly, if parts of, or even the entire Singapore pledge were fused into a performance piece, would that be okay, or would the performer be taken to task if he or she did not get prior clearance from the authorities? There was also the case of a migrant worker who loved Singapore so much that he got the lion head symbol tattooed on the back of his neck. Would this be allowed under the new proposed laws?
Again, I understand that one cannot have detailed prescriptions for everything, but it would be good if the Government could provide some clear guidance in this area.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, our national symbols are quintessential to the Singapore identity. Many Singaporeans, and even foreigners, have come to associate the national symbols as synonymous with Singapore and the Singapore brand and what Singapore stands for. The national symbols are also cultural symbols, each capturing a unique portion of Singapore's history and the aspirations of our country and people.
Singaporeans should thus be more acquainted with the history of the symbols and what those symbols stand for. One of the approaches to increasing Singaporeans' awareness of the symbols is to allow them to come into contact with these symbols more freely and more spontaneously in their everyday lives and to conduct more public education on what the symbols mean. Safeguards, of course, notwithstanding, I end my speech in firm support of the Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Low Yen Ling.
Ms Low Yen Ling: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank all Members – Mr Louis Ng, Mr Leon Perera, Mr Yip Hong Weng, Mr Mark Chay, Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Darryl David – for their speeches and their views on the Bill.
The national symbols belong to Singapore and all Singaporeans. They represent our state and people. They embody our most cherished ideals, values and aspirations. They are a manifestation of our shared identity. As our founding Prime Minister, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew believed, the symbols have and I quote, \"every reason to endure as the emblems of the state\" and \"will evoke loyalty and unity in our people\".
The Bill reflects our intention to uphold and cultivate this unity and patriotic sense of collective ownership of the national symbols, like what Mr Leon Perera mentioned earlier.
We have consulted citizens and fellow Singaporeans widely over the last two years for this Bill, which reflects the wishes and suggestions of what we have heard and learned from Singaporeans. Singaporeans are proud of the national symbols and recognise the duty of respect we have towards them.
As we seek to replace the SAFNA Act with the National Symbols Act, Members Mr Louis Ng and Mr Yip Hon Weng have asked for greater clarity on possible changes to the symbols.
Let me first address the points raised by Mr Louis Ng regarding clause 13 of the Bill, which seeks to empower the President to amend any aspect or description of a symbol, by Proclamation in the gazette. Mr Louis Ng observed that the Bill allows the aspect or description of any symbol to be, and I quote, \"amended by notification in the gazette without requiring the approval of Parliament\" and \"appears to be incongruent with the sacrosanct nature of the symbols.\" He wishes to know the circumstances in which such amendments may be made and if the public would be consulted before any such amendments.
I would like to state that we do not envisage amending or altering the symbols in any significant way. As Mr Louis Ng pointed out, the national symbols and their official meanings are well-established and widely recognised by Singaporeans. Clause 13 of the Bill will likely only be used to make minor and technical updates when needed, for example, the enhancement of the digital file quality of the official images of the symbols. We do not envisage this clause to be used frequently or in any significant way.
Under the SAFNA Act, the description of the national anthem, state crest and national flag are all already set out in the subsidiary legislation. In exercising the power of amendment under clause 13, the President will be acting on the advice of the Cabinet. In the event that any significant amendment to a symbol is being considered in accordance with the wishes of the people of Singapore, we will take the public's views into consideration and, if significant changes are needed, Parliament will be consulted.
Mr Yip Hon Weng raised a related point, namely, whether the legislation would cover the addition and inclusion of newer symbols. I wish to clarify that Parliament will need to amend the Bill to add a new national symbol.
For now, we do not foresee the need or wish to add any new national symbols. The Citizens' Workgroup for National Symbols had studied this matter and had polled Singaporeans for their views in March 2021. Most respondents had \"reflected a preference for no new additions to the current set of national symbols\".
I want to assure Members that any significant changes to the symbols will not be undertaken lightly. There will be ways, apart from the law, that we can recognise and appreciate significant symbols and images that may evolve in the future as we continue to build our sense of national identity.
I want to thank all the six Members who spoke passionately, who spoke with a lot of conviction for their support to do more to let Singaporeans express their national pride through our national symbols, such as Mr Leon Perera and also Mr Darryl David.
Let me now address the questions related to giving Singaporeans greater flexibility to use the national symbols to express their national pride.
Mr Darryl David asked if we could consider extending or even abolishing the fixed period when the flag could be flown. I would like to share with him that in our public consultations held over 24 months, greater flexibility was very much welcomed. However, those we engaged also consistently raised the concern that over-liberalisation would diminish the stature of the symbols and lead to more incidences of misuse. Some of the respondents and participants also highlighted that hanging the flag, when the National Day period – July, August, September – comes around every year, is a form of national ritual that affirms our patriotism and love for Singapore, not unlike the daily pledge-taking or singing of the national anthem in schools.
We have, therefore, taken a calibrated approach towards liberalising the use of the national symbols by trying to lower the barriers to the most common uses, whilst putting in checks and balances, safeguards to protect the dignity and stature of our national symbols.
Mr Louis Ng, Mr Mark Chay, Mr Darryl David and Mr Yip Hong Weng asked about the guidelines on the use of the national symbols and the process by which permission for their use can be sought.
Mr Louis Ng highlighted the need for the approval process to be \"accessible, low-cost, and simple\" enough for well-intentioned individuals, such as independent creatives.
On a related note, Mr Mark Chay asked about the approval process for NSAs to use the national flag or other symbols on their sporting attire and whether there are guidelines under which national teams can use the flag or other symbols on their uniforms.
Mr Darryl David, in his speech, also asked about the approval process for using the lion head symbol on product packaging and suggested that the guidelines be explicitly communicated to prevent the public and merchants from contravening the use of those symbols.
Similarly, during his speech, Mr Yip Hon Weng asked for more clarity on the usage and design guidelines for the national symbols, including (a) their uses in commercial advertisements; (b) how detailed the proposed regulations will be; (c) clearer examples on how the image of the national flag could be used on attire, decoration and products in cases where no official approval is required; and (d) if a guiding framework will be developed to help designers navigate this process.
Madam, I thank the Members for highlighting all these important considerations because the symbols belong to our people. We wish for fellow Singaporeans to have more opportunities to display and celebrate their national pride. As we allow for more flexibility in the use of the symbols, we will also ensure that the guidelines on their usage are easily accessible and easily understood, especially for cases where no prior approvals will be needed.
Presently, we have in place a simple process for anyone wishing to seek approval for the use of a national symbol. Depending on the context of the nature of use, this process will continue after the Bill comes into effect. This process will also remain free for users.
As pointed out by Mr Mark Chay, there are specific administrative processes required to use the national symbols in some cases, like in the instance of the attire for Team Singapore athletes. This is to ensure the accurate and dignified representation of our country outside Singapore by our sporting ambassadors.
For example, currently, approvals for use of the image of the flag on the team attire for national athletes are channelled through Sport Singapore, the public body providing recognition and support for NSAs. Approvals for other organisations that wish to use the national flag on their attire, including youth teams that may not belong to any NSA, is granted through MCCY on a case-by-case basis.
Under the Bill, we plan to further streamline this process by having a simplified set of guidelines in place to facilitate the respectful and non-commercial use of the image of the flag on attire, including sporting attire, where users are not required to obtain any prior approval. However, Sport Singapore will continue to work closely with NSAs to advise them on the respectful use of the image of the flag on their team attire.
All updates and changes regarding the use of the symbols will be clearly shown on the National Heritage Board (NHB)'s website when the subsidiary legislation has been enacted.
Madam, let me now turn to the guidelines to ensure respectful use of the national symbols as we expand their usage.
We agree with both Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Darryl David that clear and accessible guidelines on the use of the national symbols are important to give the public and users the assurance that the national symbols are treated with due respect. Currently, those who wish to use the national symbols can find on the NHB website the background, guidelines, FAQs and requirements for use of each symbol. Individuals or organisations can seek clarification or report prima facie misuse of a national symbol by submitting a simple enquiry form via the NHB website.
The question of how we ought to define disrespectful use is an important one which had come up in our public engagements, including those with the creative industry. Some clear examples of disrespectful use which we have encountered and dealt with in the past include works with the image of the flag alongside images featuring nudity and violence. These are considered disrespectful use. Using the design of the flag on undergarments is considered disrespectful use. Displaying images of a damaged or a torn flag in the context of denigrating the nation is considered disrespectful use. Mr Yip Hon Weng's example of applying an image of the flag on paraphernalia to be burned as religious offerings would fall into this category.
Very often, and in many cases, the context, nature of use and intent behind the use of the symbols have to be carefully considered to determine if the usage of the image was disrespectful or inappropriate – the context, nature of use, intent of the use.
Mr Darryl David brought up several examples, such as remixing the national anthem, using the pledge in a performance, or getting a tattoo, a permanent tattoo, not a temporary one as I had mentioned in my opening speech, getting a tattoo image of the lion head.
To reduce ambiguity, I want to assure Members we intend to develop more specific guidelines based on clearly articulated principles to establish common standards of what might constitute respectful and what might constitute disrespectful treatment of the national symbols. For instance, whether on attire or decoration, any use of the image of the flag should avoid it being easily soiled or stepped upon.
For other symbols like the national anthem, guidelines would include using the complete official lyrics and music when rearranging the anthem and ensuring that the anthem is not incorporated into any other medley or composition. For both the anthem and the pledge, the guidelines would also address questions on potential commercial uses of these symbols.
We also intend to make provisions under the Bill for a stop order to be issued against disrespectful use of the national symbols. Failure to comply with a stop order would constitute an offence. So, if you think about it, the use of the stop order would reduce uncertainty about what constitutes an offence. This will also help to clearly address cases of misuse.
Like what Mr Darryl David mentioned in his speech, it is really not possible for the guidelines to cover all possible scenarios. Earlier on, I cited some examples. I think it is clearer to everyone.
We are also very mindful that the guidelines should not be too rigid or too prescriptive, as this might inhibit creativity and greater use of the national symbols. I want to assure all Members in the House that MCCY will carefully consider the points which have been raised by Members in our next steps of development. I want to assure everyone that we aim to provide as much clarity on the usage and design guidelines for the national symbols as we can. The updated guidelines will be published once the regulations under the Bill are enacted in 2023.
We will also continue to keep open channels for the public to feed back or seek clarification on their intended use of the national symbols or to report any potential misuse. I also want to assure the Members that we aim to strike a good balance between giving Singaporeans the latitude to use the national symbols creatively and ensuring due respect for them.
Madam, the third group of questions I would like to address pertains to safeguarding the symbols. Mr Louis Ng, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Leon Perera and Mr Yip Hon Weng raised questions about penalties for those who knowingly, or unknowingly, misuse the national symbols under the Bill.
These questions are, indeed, important. Before I address them in detail, I would like to reiterate the principles underpinning the proposed legislative framework. The objective here is to provide greater flexibility for members of the public to use the national symbols to identify with our nation.
I think Members would agree with me that with greater flexibility comes greater responsibility. Sounds familiar? This really means that stronger safeguards are necessary to ensure that individuals and organisations use the national symbols in a respectful manner. Penalties should be reasonable and commensurate with the severity of the misuse.
We envision that the broad categories of offences under the new regulations will include, for example, using a national or Presidential symbol that conveys state sanction or authority without permission; using a national or Presidential symbol outside the prescribed manner; and failure to cease disrespectful use when ordered to do so.
So, the questions raised by Mr Louis Ng, Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Yip Hon Weng pertain to each of the three categories I have just mentioned.
In response to Mr Louis Ng's question whether the Government would consider creating an enhanced punishment for those who misuse the national symbols to mislead others, I would like to state that egregious offences like the desecration or deliberate burning of the flag, as well as the intentional use of the state crest, flag or Presidential symbols to misrepresent the Government or deceive the public, would attract higher penalties.
On the other hand, as Mr Leon Perera mentioned, minor infractions, such as the inadvertent failure to remove the flag after a designated display period, will not incur such penalties.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if an image of the flag on the uniforms of security guards would be viewed as an offence. I want to assure him and all the Members who spoke that, in practice, MCCY and NHB do not impose penalties as a first course of action. Our approach for these cases would be to educate and inform the public on the guidelines and request that the flag be removed.
For other similar cases of misuse, such as inadvertently hanging the flag the wrong way, we also find that this approach of public education and raising public awareness works very well.
We agree with Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Leon Perera about the importance of public education and public awareness to prevent any unintentional misuse of the national symbols. Individuals who have inadvertently misused a symbol should be given a chance to explain and not be penalised for an honest mistake.
In addition, we note Ms Joan Pereira's observation about the lack of a suitable area to display the flag for certain residents, such as those in public rental housing flats. Ms Joan Pereira will be happy to note that MCCY will take this into consideration and address this in our engagements with other public agencies as part of our plans to promote respectful use of the flag.
We share Ms Joan Pereira's view on the broader point of ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to demonstrate their love for the country, through the display of the national flag from their homes and with the rest of the community.
The precise offences and maximum penalties for these offences are still being deliberated and will be carefully calibrated to ensure that they are proportionate. Depending on the facts, misuse of the symbols could also amount to offences under other legislation.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the number of cases prosecuted under the current SAFNA Act and Rules. To our knowledge, there have been Police investigations, but not prosecutions or composition of offences under the SAFNA Act and Rules. For example, in 2018, a social media user posted an image of our national flag being torn apart to reveal an image of another country's flag. The user was issued a stern warning for contravention of the SAFNA Rules.
While there has not been any prosecutions and composition of offences under the SAFNA Act and Rules, certain misuses of the national symbols were dealt with under other legislation, such as the Penal Code 1871, where some of the offenders were punished with imprisonment. Singaporeans have, generally, treated the National Symbols with respect and we are confident that they will continue to do so.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the time given to an offender to cease disrespectful use of a symbol before enforcement action is taken after a stop order. I want to assure him that we will provide a reasonable timeframe that would give the user sufficient time to explain his or her position and use. Further details, such as the prescribed person and the appeals authority and processes, will be set out in the subsidiary legislation.
The National Emblems (Control of Display) Act 1949 governs the display of foreign national emblems in Singapore. Mr Yip Hon Weng raised a question about this Act, how it would be amended. Under the Bill, that Act will be renamed the Foreign National Emblems (Control of Display) Act 1949 to make the distinction that it deals with foreign national emblems.
Madam, in closing, I would like to underline what Ms Joan Pereira had highlighted earlier in her English and Mandarin speeches on the importance of public education. I agree with her that most people do not set out to intentionally misuse the symbols. More often than not, it is likely due to genuine mistakes. This has, generally, been our experience.
We have also received feedback through the Citizens' Workgroup and in-depth consultations with stakeholders that public education would be key to the success of this Bill – public education and raising public awareness. As such, while the proposed legislative changes, such as the stop order, aim to address concerns on possible misuse of the symbols, I want to assure Members that we will focus on public education to ensure that members of the public are aware of the guidelines and do not inadvertently use the flag or other symbols disrespectfully.
We will, likewise, increase public awareness of how to suitably display national symbols like the flag, at relevant junctures, such as the National Day period.
Madam, I thank all the six Members for their passionate speeches, their questions, their inputs to the Bill that is before us today.
The National Symbols belong to all Singaporeans because they represent the values and ideals that we hold dear. We hope that the Bill will foster greater pride and the use of the national symbols among Singaporeans. As we give expression to the love we have for Singapore, we affirm our identity as a nation, as one united people, as one Singapore. The symbols, under the National Symbols Bill will serve as visual reminders of our aspirations and obligations as Singaporeans and inspire us to greater unity and purpose. On that note, I thank all the six Members for their support of the Bill. Madam, I beg to move.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Are there any clarifications? None.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Low Yen Ling]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Housing Needs of Singles and Singaporeans are Met","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to first declare my interest as an equity research analyst in a financial institution, covering the real estate industry.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, the adequacy of HDB housing for singles has arisen in public and Parliamentary discussions ever so often, showing this remains an important and evolving issue in Singapore. Over the years, public housing options for singles have gradually expanded ever since the introduction of the Single Singapore Citizen scheme in 1991. However, since the scheme’s inception almost 30 years ago, one key policy requirement has remained unchanged – that singles must be at least 35 years old to be eligible to purchase public housing.
At the same time, recent headlines reporting record high HDB resale prices, suggest that something is amiss in public housing provision, even for couples.
As set out in the Workers’ Party manifesto, and as reiterated by Leader of the Opposition Mr Pritam Singh in the MND Committee of Supply debate earlier this year, we believe this threshold can and should be lowered and we propose to lower the BTO eligibility age for singles to 28 years, which is when most Singaporeans would have been in the workforce for a few years and have begun to lead more independent lives.
This proposal would be a critical change, yet a continuation of the Government’s efforts over the years to expand HDB options for singles, while still allowing HDB to give priority to providing for families. In fact, we believe lowering the threshold for owning HDB flats to 28 years would go a long way towards HDB’s stated aims for Singapore’s public housing to be “inclusive” and to “reflect the diversity of our society”.
The objective of today’s Adjournment Motion is two-fold: to ensure that the housing needs of not just singles, but those of all Singaporeans are met. Before I move on to state my case on why singles should be allowed to apply for a BTO flat at an earlier age, I would like to touch on the most pressing issue in my view and, that is, housing supply.
I would like to implore the Government to take urgent and decisive steps to increase the availability of public housing and address the current demand-supply imbalance, to ensure that the housing demand of all Singaporeans, not just singles, can be met.
In response to my Adjournment Motion last year on \"Supporting Diverse Aspirations Through Rental Housing\", Senior Minister of State Sim Ann shared that home ownership has been and will continue to be our key housing strategy for Singapore. Since this is the Government’s position, I hope that the Government can take steps to deliver on this strategy.
I acknowledge that compared to last year, housing supply is set to increase by about 35% over the next two years, at about 23,000 BTO flats per year in 2022 and 2023. Moreover, the HDB stated that it is prepared to launch up to 100,000 flats in total from 2021 to 2025, if needed, subject to prevailing demand.
These numbers, however, need to be put in context.
Even if HDB decides to launch the whole 100,000 flats in total from 2021 to 2025, this implies that BTO supply falls 20% to about 18,400 flats in 2024 and 2025. Moreover, while the average of 20,000 BTO flats between 2021 and 2025 is an increase, compared to an average of 17,000 flats between 2016 and 2020, this is still 13% below the average of 23,000 flats in 2011 to 2015, during the time when Mr Khaw Boon Wan was the Minister for National Development and sought to address the backlog in the supply of HDB flats.
We have already seen BTO application rates climbing steadily over the past decade to new highs. For 3-room and larger flats, this increased from 2.8 times in 2012 to 6.1 times in 2021. Similarly, 2-room Flexi flats, whose buyers are more likely to be the elderly or singles, also saw application rates rise, albeit at a more moderate pace from 2.8 times in 2012 to 3.6 times in 2021.
What is of greater concern is that despite the supposed ramp-up in supply this year, application rates have reached new record highs, suggesting that the level of demand-supply imbalance remains a critical concern.
Following the February, May and August BTO exercises this year, application rates for 2-room Flexi flats and 3-room and larger flats have increased even further and reached new record highs, at 5.1 times and 7.2 times respectively this year. This is worrying, especially when we look at the recent August BTO exercise, where the overall application rates are seeing no signs of letting up, with that for 2-room Flexi flats at 5.5 times and that for 3-room and larger flats at 8.3 times.
While I acknowledge that our proposal on singles’ BTO eligibility could increase marginal demand for 2-room Flexi flats, it does not detract from the fact that there appears to be serious imbalances in the housing market, the spillover effects of which is evident for all to see in the secondary market, where HDB resale prices have increased by 25% in the last three years, with prices today 12% higher, compared to just one year ago, and prices showing no signs of slowing down, increasing by 2.8% in just the last three months alone.
So, I hope the Government will seriously prioritise its resources to support Singaporeans in achieving their home ownership aspirations.
Moving on to reducing the BTO eligibility age to 28 for singles. By the age of 28, the average Singaporean male and female would have finished their tertiary studies and had some amount of time in the workforce. In that sense, they would have some chance to lead independent lives and steady their financial footing.
As shared by Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh earlier this year, in the National Youth Council’s 2021 publication on the state of youths in Singapore, when it comes to aspirations or goals in life, the top choice selected by our youths was to maintain strong family relationships while the second choice was \"to have a place of my own\".
Our proposal looks at reducing the BTO eligibility age to 28, and not that for the resale market. While opening the resale HDB market to singles below 35 is a possibility worth exploring, we think it is important to first enable singles to access the BTO market, to ensure that incremental demand is met through new supply and not through existing supply and via the currently buoyant HDB resale market.
Moreover, with a waiting time of up to 5.7 years as of the August 2022 BTO launch, assuming one is successful in balloting for a flat on the first attempt at age 28, he or she would already be close to 35 years old by the time the flat is in a move-in condition. No different from purchasing a resale HDB flat anyway.
Affordability is also a key consideration when it comes to meeting singles’ housing needs. While first-timers can access various financial support grants from the age of 21 to aid in their purchase of a flat, this is, at this point, not available to singles. That said, I recognise that single buyers, too, have access to housing grants and can buy smaller BTO units in non-mature estates.
Should the eligibility age be reduced, I believe singles can avail themselves of such grants, too, thus supportive of singles’ home affordability.
If the Government has budgetary concerns or believe that younger singles should not be incentivised to buy a place of their own, the level of housing grants accorded can be on a graduated scale, where grants provided for 28-year-olds are at a discount to the full enhanced CPF housing grants, with an annual step-up to the current eligible age of 35.
Yet, singles aged below 35 who wish to have a place of their own today would have to either purchase a private residential property, which, needless to say, is significantly more expensive than public housing, or rent a flat in the open market.
However, even in the HDB rental market, many singles would be priced out of the market if they wish to rent a place of their own. Median rents for a 3-room HDB flat are, currently, about S$2,000 a month, which is, essentially, the entire take-home salary of a Polytechnic graduate today.
The purchase of a BTO 2-room flexi flat, on the other hand, is a lot more affordable. Based on indicative prices of close to S$100,000 for a 2-room Flexi flat in non-mature towns in the latest August BTO launch, the monthly repayment amount over a 25-year period is only around $400 a month, a fraction of what it costs to rent in the open market.
So, while it is abundantly clear that many Singaporeans who may be single for various reasons before the age of 35 would like to have a place of their own, many simply cannot afford to do so. Should we not look into further enabling single Singaporeans to meet their housing needs and aspirations?
Mdm Deputy Speaker, when we look back at the time before the introduction of the Single Singapore Citizen scheme, the original rationale for excluding singles from owning HDB flats was: first, to prioritise BTOs for families as the use of space in land-scarce Singapore was not optimised; and secondly, that home ownership by singles was supposedly inconsistent with the Government's social policy of encouraging marriage and preserving the traditional family unit.
The change in policy came about in 1991 by allowing singles over 35 to buy resale HDB flats but limited to 3-room flats in selected locations. The rules were further relaxed over the years, but the next big break came in 2013 when singles over 35 were, for the first time, allowed to buy new, subsidised 2-room flats directly from HDB.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, the introduction of the Single Singapore Citizen scheme and the developments that followed showed that the Government can be responsive to the changing demographics of society.
In fact, Minister for National Development Desmond Lee recently reassured Singaporeans that the Government cares about housing for singles, when he said at the Singapore Economic Policy Forum on 29 October 2021: “Some Singaporeans remain single for a variety of reasons, including obligation to family and parents, or a matter of choice, or a matter of life course. But many still want or need their own living space. They may wonder if we care about their housing needs. To these Singaporeans, let me assure you: we do. We recognise your needs, your aspirations and your sacrifices. That’s why we’ve in fact been expanding housing options and grants for singles over the years.”
However, 30 years on from the introduction of the Single Singapore Citizen scheme, singles below 35 remain largely precluded from owning their own HDB flat. While there have recently been welcome exceptions carved out for certain special situations, such as for single parents, the general threshold of excluding singles below 35 years of age seems to have been retained by default since 1991, despite changing demographics and societal mindsets.
This rule has serious implications on the growing number of singles under 35, depriving them of the security of home ownership if they are priced out of the private market, the private and HDB rental market and not having a place to call their own and build their own lives. More importantly, current policy signals to single Singaporeans that their marital status, whether by choice or due to factors beyond their control, is somehow viewed as undesirable and undeserving of Government support for home ownership.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, implicit in HDB's exclusion of singles under 35 is the expectation that Singaporeans should get married before turning 35 years old and that, up until that point, single Singaporeans will live with their parents. While this traditional life progression might have been more relevant back in 1991, we know now that Singaporeans are staying single for longer for myriad reasons and not necessarily moving straight from their parents’ home into a matrimonial home.
Contrary to popular belief that the younger generation are eschewing marriage, surveys have shown that many single Singaporeans still want to get married. In fact, over the last 20 years, the general marriage rates for resident males and females have been consistent at 43.3 for males and 40.2 for females. The latest data point on general marriage rates in 2021 is even higher on a year-on-year basis for both males and females, at 45.3 and 44.2, respectively.
What has changed is that Singaporeans are staying single for longer and getting married later in life. Based on data from SingStat, the proportion of singles among citizens in the 30 to 34 years age group is now at a record high of 42.2% in 2021, increasing steadily from 27.6% in 2000 and 36.9% in 2010.
A 2013 survey conducted by IPS sheds some light on why Singaporeans are getting married later in life. The IPS found that, among respondents who wanted to get married, the key reasons for their getting married later in life than their ideal age were “the delayed acquisition of the markers of adulthood” and “not having a suitable partner.”
At the same time, data shows that more young people are moving out of their parents’ home even before marriage. DOS data shows that between 2017 and 2020, the number of persons aged below 35 and living alone has almost doubled from 12,300 to 25,000. There are, of course, those who are neither living with their parents nor living alone. But there are also a considerable number who, while still living with their families, do not have the financial ability to live on their own, as much as they desire to do so.
While it can be argued that some singles might have needed to move out given working from home requirements during the pandemic, many others have expressed a yearning simply to lead more independent lives in their early adulthood.
The data and trends highlight the negative effects of excluding those under the age of 35 from owning HDB flats and, considering these developments, it behoves the Government to revisit the issue and assess the validity of the main arguments against HDB flat ownership by singles under 35.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, one of the key arguments for limiting singles’ ability to buy HDB flats relates to the allocation of resources: that in land-scarce Singapore, flats should be prioritised for families over singles. To this point, I am comforted by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s comments during the National Day Rally earlier this year, where he shared that, and I quote, “We have done our studies and planning. We will have enough space for future generations. Our problem is not finding the space to build enough flats, nor keeping homes affordable for Singaporeans. We know how to do that.”
Putting the issue of land scarcity aside, I would like to make three points on the issue.
First, data from past BTO exercises shows clearly singles do not compete with young couples and families for the same type of flats in non-mature estates. The data shows that young married couples overwhelmingly apply for 3-room or larger BTO flats and very few apply for 2-room flats, whereas singles are limited to buying only 2-room flexi BTO flats. For example, in the BTO exercises since 2015, the application rate for 2-room flexi flats among first-timers have consistently been less than one time, while that for 3-room or larger BTO flats has consistently been multiple times oversubscribed. Moreover, first-timer singles can only apply for 2-room Flexi flats in non-mature locations, with a cap of 65% of the balance 60% of such flats meant for non-elderly applicants; in other words, at most, 39% of such flats.
This shows that even without making any adjustments to the unit mix of various types of flats, lowering the minimum age threshold for singles to buy a BTO flat from 35 to 28 is expected to have a minimal impact on young couples’ likelihood of securing a flat.
Secondly, we are in full agreement that public housing policy should provide extra support and incentives to young couples and budding families. Having said that, providing support for young couples and families should not be viewed as mutually exclusive from expanding HDB options for singles. For instance, the Government can loosen the BTO eligibility criteria for singles without in any way impinging on the subsidies and other benefits given to young couples, which may even be enhanced.
Thirdly, even if there were to be a question on the allocation of limited resources, such an exercise will always be a balancing act conducted in accordance with Government priorities and, more importantly, guided by fundamental principles and values.
Our current policy measures have been described as imposing “anti-single penalties” and which, unknowingly, become signals to singles that their marital status, whether by their own volition or not, is viewed as undesirable and undeserving of Government support for home ownership.
The next key argument against singles owning HDB flats is that it is somehow in conflict with the Government’s goals of encouraging marriage and family formation. If this hypothesis were true, then we might see an immediate dip in marriage rates for singles over 35 years old who have been able to buy an HDB flat of their own.
To test this, we looked at the number of marriages in the 35- to 39-year-old age group at two key points in time when HDB options for singles were expanded: after October 1991 when the Single Singapore Citizen scheme was first introduced; and after July 2013 when singles were allowed to buy 2-room BTO flats in non-mature estates.
The data showed that in the three-year period from 1992 to 1994, as well as from 2014 to 2016, marriage rates and the number of marriages for both males and females in the 35- to 39-year-old age group went up instead of falling.
We accept that this could be a simple coincidence of timing between housing policy and marriage rates, which are, of course, affected by multiple factors and do not necessarily imply causation. However, the data does suggest that we need not be too circumspect about expanding HDB options for singles as a factor that will single-handedly cause a further delay or decline in marriages. On the contrary, allowing singles to have a home of their own might even encourage marriage and family formation.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, this Adjournment Motion does not call for a major overhaul to the policies that are in place today. I hope we can, firstly, take urgent and decisive steps to increase the availability of public housing and address the current demand-supply imbalance; and, secondly, lower singles’ eligibility age for HDB BTO flats from the current 35 to 28.
I am comforted that there is a slight reallocation of 2-room flexi BTO flats in non-mature areas for singles, with up to 65% of the non-senior 2-room flexi flats in non-mature estates will be set aside for first-timer singles, an increase from up to 50% currently.
This, however, only means a marginal increase of, at most, 9% of 2-room flexi flats in only non-mature estates available.
As elected Members of Parliament, we are given a mandate from and by the people we serve. We, therefore, must lend a listening ear to the generation ahead of us and ensure that our public housing policies are both inclusive and reflective of the diversity of our society.
Senior Minister of State Sim Ann shared last year that beyond just a roof over our heads, home ownership has provided Singaporeans with a sense of stability, security and belonging and has given us a strong stake in our country’s progress. In this spirit, I hope the Government can consider the points I have raised in this speech and ensure that the housing needs of singles and all Singaporeans are met.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How.
The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Tan Kiat How): Mdm Deputy Speaker, firstly, let me thank Mr Louis Chua for raising his perspectives on the housing issue. I would like to assure Singaporeans that ensuring affordable and accessible housing for Singaporeans has always been an important priority for this Government.
Today, almost nine in 10 Singaporeans own a flat – one of the highest home ownership rates in the world.
At the same time, we are keenly aware that housing preferences and aspirations change over time and across different life stages of families and individuals. Therefore, MND and HDB have been actively engaging Singaporeans to understand their needs and aspirations, as also reflected in Mr Louis Chua's theme for the Adjournment Motion – \"housing needs for Singaporeans\". And we have been listening to Singaporeans, hearing their views and taking in their suggestions.
Most recently, as part of the year-long Long-Term Plan Review (LTPR), we have heard from over 15,000 people from all walks of life.
Seniors shared with us that they would like to age-in-place in the neighbourhood that they are familiar with.
Working adults shared with us that they would like to have workplaces closer to home to minimise commute and to have the flexibility to reconfigure their flats to provide more space as more of them work from home.
Couples with young children told with us they would like to live near their family so that grandchildren can be taken care of by their grandparents.
Young couples wanting to get married and settle down shared with us their anxieties of getting a flat at an affordable price, especially in a bullish property market.
Singles, especially those older singles, shared with us that they would like to get a place of their own near their ageing parents so that they can better care for their elderly parents.
Younger Singaporeans have also shared with us that they value their own personal space and would like to stay by themselves, even if it is rental, on a temporary basis. Many of them still wish to own their homes eventually.
We hear these views, aspirations and needs. We take them seriously and feed them into our Long-Term Plan Review, which was recently launched and exhibited at the URA Centre. We have received many valuable feedback and suggestions, some of which are quite similar to what Mr Louis Chua has raised today. We are studying those suggestions carefully and we are engaging Singaporeans as part of the Forward Singapore exercise.
We would want to meet the needs of all Singaporeans, their aspirations and their wants if we can. But we have limited land and resources and would have to prioritise and allocate within these constraints. So, I thank Mr Louis Chua for recognising these constraints and recognising the very difficult stresses and strains the Government has to deal with.
That is why we need to prioritise public housing for those who have more urgent housing needs, for example, implementing income eligibility criteria for BTO for married couples as well as for singles.
I would like to address a couple of points that Mr Louis Chua has raised.
Before that, I would like to assure Singaporeans that even as we engage all of you as part of the Forward Singapore exercise, we have already taken steps to address the concerns raised by various demographic groups and various segments of Singaporeans. We are closely monitoring the situation, to assess if other measures are needed.
On young couples, which Mr Louis Chua talked about, I am glad that Mr Louis Chua has recognised the many moves and steps that we have taken in terms of giving first-time couples priority, including in this recent August BTO launch as well as stepping up and enhancing the various grants and support that we give to first-time couples.
We are also taking steps to raise the housing supply. We are working hard, working with the construction industry that has been severely impacted because of the COVID-19 pandemic to ramp up BTO supply to 100,000 flats till 2025, if demand and circumstances warrant it.
Mr Louis Chua spoke about the demand for BTO flats. We monitor this situation very carefully. Although the application numbers have risen and increased, four in 10 of the applicants did not choose a flat when invited to do so. We are monitoring the supply situation, application rates and the locations where application rates are elevated.
In terms of affordability, I would like to assure Singaporeans that this is an important consideration for HDB and the Government. We have looked at the statistics. Most first-timers only need to use less than a quarter of their monthly income to pay for their loan instalments. In fact, most of them can service their housing loans using their monthly CPF contributions, with little or no cash outlay.
I would like to address a second group of people that Mr Louis Chua spoke about. He talked about singles and the need to cater to their needs, aspirations and wants.
I am glad that Mr Louis Chua has also recognised that, over the years, the Government has been trying to accommodate and support their needs. More recently, we have also made changes to the BTO allocation quota. In 2013, we opened access for singles to purchase new 2-room flats from HDB under the Single Singapore Citizen (SSC) scheme. We have also raised the allocation quota for these 2-room flats in 2015, from 30% to 50% of the non-senior quota in the non-mature estates.
And because we still see a fairly strong broad-based increase in housing demand across all groups, including singles, which Mr Louis Chua spoke about, we have further increased the quotas to better support all first-timers, including singles. Specifically, we raised the non-senior quota from 50% to 65% with effect from the August 2022 BTO exercise. And eligible first-timer singles can also qualify for various housing grants – up to $40,000 for a new flat purchase and $80,000 for a resale flat purchase.
We have taken steps to adjust, to finetune our policies, trying to meet the needs and aspirations of all Singaporeans within the constraints of the land and resources that we have.
There is also another trend that we have observed where more singles and young couples are renting. There is a vibrant rental market, with a wide variety of both public and private options. Some of these are provided by seniors or families who are renting out their rooms or flats to supplement their income and retirement adequacy.
An increasingly popular housing trend, especially amongst the youths, is in the form of co-living or shared housing arrangements with common facilities. These spaces are attractive as they provide the flexibility of shorter-term rental contracts. Some even provide housekeeping services and fully furnished rooms. We see many commercial providers stepping up with innovative offerings that cater to the diverse range of needs for singles and youths.
I think this shows that the market is functioning and responding agilely to consumer demand and preferences. This is an important part of the entire housing market. It is not just public housing and private housing, but also commercial providers with rental options.
We will continue to review developments holistically and comprehensively and assess if there would be ways to work with the private actors to meet the demand from youths and singles.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State, you have a minute and a half.
Mr Tan Kiat How: And to Mr Louis Chua's point about lowering the age eligibility from 35 today to 28 for the housing market for singles, this is an issue that we have discussed before. We are looking at it and, certainly, many Singaporeans have also suggested this idea of lowering the age limit and eligibility criterion as part of our long-term plan review conversations. We will, certainly, engage these issues as part of our Forward Singapore discussions.
But there are considerations that still remain – there are binding constraints in terms of land resources as well as implications on the housing market with enhanced demand. We have to bear in mind that supply is inelastic while demand can change very quickly. That might lead to high prices and those at the margins – especially those vulnerable singles like the elderly singles, single parents and those in need of housing urgently – might be squeezed out.
So, these are considerations that we have to bear in mind.
In conclusion, let me sum up by just thanking Mr Louis Chua for recognising many of the moves and efforts that we have made as the Government to accommodate the needs, aspirations and wants of Singaporeans. This is certainly something that we will continue to work towards as part of the Forward Singapore exercise. We will engage Singaporeans on their housing needs and aspirations and discuss how we can each play our part to build an inclusive home for our families and loved ones.
Singaporeans' housing needs will become more diverse as our society becomes more diverse. And housing is so much a core part of families, society and the social compact between the Government and our citizens, between each of us in society and across generations.
Minister Desmond Lee will be launching our Forward Singapore engagements later this month and we hope that everyone will participate actively, giving us ideas, suggestions and co-develop these solutions together but, importantly, co-create solutions that bring Singapore together and bring Singapore forward, while balancing the needs of various groups of people for housing aspirations.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Order. The time allowed for the proceedings has expired. I adjourn the House pursuant to the Standing Order. Order.
[(proc text) The Question having been proposed at 6.19 pm and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mdm Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 6.49 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":"Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion","questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Set-up and Sustainability Plans for Enabling Business Hubs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"15 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the projected timeline for the establishment of the first Enabling Business Hub (EBH); (b) how many EBHs are anticipated to be available to serve the community in the scaled-up phase; (c) what will be the total capacity of all EBHs once they are fully scaled up; and (d) what will be done to ensure that there are sufficient staff with the right training and expertise to run the EBHs.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Enabling Business Hubs (EBHs) aim to better support persons with disabilities who need customised work support and a structured environment to work in. MSF and SG Enable will work with service providers which have the necessary expertise to train and place persons with disabilities in employment. EBH staff will need to be trained in areas, such as understanding different disability types and disability etiquette, through topics like Disability Management. They will also be trained to help persons with disabilities in areas like communication and job interviews. Training will be available at the Enabling Academy run by SG Enable and NCSS’ Social Service Institute, among other training providers.
The first EBH pilot is expected to be operational next year in the West region. As we build up experience from the pilot, MSF plans to set up a few more EBHs in different parts of the island, with each EBH hiring some persons with disabilities directly, while training other persons with disabilities to prepare them for employment. EBHs, along with other measures, will contribute to our aspirational employment rate target of 40% by 2030.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Encouraging Government Agencies to Hire More Qualified Persons with Disabilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"16 Mr Leon Perera asked the Prime Minister (a) what percentage of Public Service officers are persons with disabilities; (b) whether the Public Service Division plans to encourage Government agencies to hire more qualified people with disabilities so as to promote diversity and equality of opportunity; and (c) if so, in what ways.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): As at 31 December 2021, about one in 430 public officers are persons with disabilities.
As an inclusive employer, the Public Service is committed to supporting the employment of persons with disabilities to take on meaningful jobs in accordance with their abilities. The Public Service Division has established an arrangement with SG Enable such that suitable job opportunities in the Public Service are advertised on SG Enable’s job portal.
In addition, since 2019, potential job seekers who are persons with disabilities are introduced to HR teams across the Public Service on a regular basis, to encourage public agencies to actively consider them for job placement.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Recent Flaw in iOS Devices on Personal Data of Singaporeans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"17 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Communications and Information in view of the recent flaw in iOS devices requiring emergency software updates to prevent hackers to seize control of the devices (a) whether the Ministry is aware of reports where Singaporeans’ personal data has been compromised due to this flaw; and (b) what is being done through the SG Digital Office to increase awareness amongst Singaporeans, especially the seniors who are less tech savvy, on the importance of installing software updates on their electronic devices, especially their handphones.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Member is referring to Apple’s announcement on 17 August 2022 regarding two security vulnerabilities in iPhones, iPads and Macs which, if left unaddressed, could allow attackers to take control of any affected Apple device. These were zero-day vulnerabilities, meaning that they were unknown to the vendors when discovered.
Apple advised that it was possible that these vulnerabilities may have already been actively exploited by threat actors and had since released emergency security updates for users to install. The Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) has issued advisories to users in Singapore to immediately patch their products to the latest iOS versions.
To date, the Singapore Computer Emergency Response Team (SingCERT) and the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) have not received notifications of cybersecurity incidents or compromises of personal data associated with these security vulnerabilities. The agencies will continue to monitor the situation and will investigate any reported breaches accordingly.
These measures cannot replace good cyber hygiene practices by each of us. Such practices include using strong passwords, being wary of phishing links, and using anti-virus software. It is also important to install software updates on electronic devices promptly, manually or by enabling automatic software updates.
For groups that might be less tech savvy, such as our seniors, the Government has introduced several targeted programmes. CSA launched the SG Cyber Safe Seniors Programme in 2021, to raise awareness and drive adoption of cyber hygiene practices amongst seniors. More than 45,000 seniors have been engaged through pop-up events, webinars and programmes at SG Digital Community Hubs. In addition, as part of SG Digital Office (SDO)’s Seniors Go Digital programme, seniors are taught about cybersecurity risks and tips on how to keep themselves safe online. This includes advising them on the cyber hygiene practices I mentioned earlier.
We can all play our part to improve cybersecurity by being vigilant, practising good cyber hygiene and encouraging our family and friends to do the same. This would go a long way in addressing evolving cyber threats, including the emergence of zero-day vulnerabilities, such as those recently found in Apple’s products. The Government will continue to engage and support groups which need help, to empower them to stay safe and secure online.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Salary Review of Polytechnic and ITE Educators","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"20 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education (a) whether a salary review of Polytechnic and ITE educators will be conducted; and (b) if so, whether the review will include considering the competitive job market that may impede recruitment of experienced talent and the salary of adjunct lecturers and project staff of Polytechnics and ITEs.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: We value the contributions of all Polytechnic and Institute of Technical Education (ITE) staff, including adjunct lecturers and project staff. The Polytechnics and ITE jointly review the salaries of staff periodically to ensure that salaries remain competitive against market benchmarks.
Currently, a study on the competitiveness of the existing salary schemes for academic and non-academic staff, including adjuncts, is underway. The outcomes will be shared with staff when the review is completed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Physical Barriers to Separate Smoking and Non-smoking Areas in Coffee Shops","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry will consider mandating physical barriers to separate smoking and non-smoking areas in coffee shops so as to reduce the impact of second-hand smoke on those not smoking.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: To limit the exposure of second-hand tobacco smoke on non-smokers, smoking has been prohibited at all coffee shops since July 2006, except at designated smoking corners. Smoking corners are, typically, located at the peripheral sections of outdoor refreshment areas and are also limited to 20% of the outdoor refreshment areas.
Since June 2017, to further reduce the public’s exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke at retail food establishments, including coffee shops, NEA has stopped accepting applications for new smoking corners in retail food establishments. Existing smoking corners in retail food establishments will be phased out when the licences of the establishments are terminated or cancelled. As such, the number of smoking corners in retail food establishments will decrease over time.
There are no plans to mandate the installation of physical barriers to separate the smoking and non-smoking areas in coffee shops, as such barriers are not practical and ineffective in limiting the spread of second-hand tobacco smoke.
I urge smokers to be considerate and exercise social responsibility by refraining from lighting up at places where the second-hand tobacco smoke can affect others around them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Target Timelines for Government Replies to Appeals Raised by Members of Parliament for Their Constituents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Prime Minister (a) whether there are stipulated timelines in the Government Instruction Manual on replies to appeals raised by Members of Parliament on behalf of their constituents; (b) if so, whether the Government monitors compliance by Government agencies and Statutory Boards and what have been the compliance rates respectively; and (c) what steps have been or will be taken to ensure stronger adherence to service quality standards and timelines.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The Public Service has put in place a set of whole-of-Government service standards on replies to public feedback, including replies to appeals raised by Members of Parliament (MPs) on behalf of their constituents.
The guidelines on response times have been set taking into account the nature and complexity of the correspondence and appeals received. For more straightforward enquiries and feedback, both Ministries and Statutory Boards are given guidance to resolve and respond within three working days. For complex issues that require further assessment and fact-finding, agencies are given guidance to provide a reply within three weeks. Agencies are required to send interim replies if they are unable to respond within the stipulated time. If a solution cannot be provided, agencies should explain why the issue requires further study and be transparent with the plan of action.
Ministries and Statutory Boards are accountable to ensure that replies are provided in a timely manner. Hence, every Ministry and Statutory Board is required to appoint a Quality Service Manager (QSM) of a senior level to provide the necessary leadership and establish a strong system to ensure that appeals are adequately and properly reviewed within the agency.
Sometimes, the required information to review the appeals raised by MPs may not have been fully captured in the appeal letters and added time is needed for agencies to contact the appellants for more information. To service citizens better, the Public Service Division is putting in place a whole-of-Government digital feedback management system that templates the required information to be captured and facilitates the transmission of appeals to agencies and agencies’ replies back to MPs. We hope that this digitalisation initiative can help us improve the response to appeals raised by MPs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"More Transitional Shelters for Homeless Persons and Rough Sleepers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether there are any plans to build more transitional shelters for homeless persons and rough sleepers, including those for displaced families with no access to other forms of accommodation.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: There are six transitional shelters with capacity for about 500 individuals and 180 families. There is sufficient capacity as occupancy for individuals and families is around 50% to 60%. Hence, there are no immediate plans to build more transitional shelters.
While there are available shelter spaces, some choose not to take up shelter for various reasons. Some are not ready to accept help from social services and Government agencies. Others choose to remain at familiar locations.
To help the homeless address their underlying issues, MSF works through the PEERS Network. \"PEERS\" stands for Partners Engaging and Empowering Rough Sleepers. It is a collaboration amongst community partners, social service agencies and public agencies to provide timely support to rough sleepers and the homeless. Befrienders from the PEERS Network conduct regular night walks to reach out to rough sleepers. They help to address their basic needs and link them up with agencies when they are ready to receive assistance. Some PEERS partners also set up Safe Sound Sleeping Places, or S3Ps, in community premises. S3Ps provide rough sleepers a safe environment to rest for the night and connect them to other assistance subsequently.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"ASEAN's Response to Lack of Progress on Five-Point Consensus on Myanmar","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) to what extent has the ongoing crisis in Myanmar affected the credibility of ASEAN in promoting peace and stability in the region; and (b) whether ASEAN is considering a joint effort to engage the Myanmar leadership at the highest levels.
26 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs in view of the Myanmar military government’s failure to implement the Five-Point Consensus on Myanmar reached with ASEAN in 2021, whether Singapore plans to work with ASEAN to (i) implement targeted sanctions on Myanmar’s military, including an arms embargo and imposing travel restrictions on members of the military and (ii) establish contact with, and provide assistance to, the National Unity Government.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: The coup in Myanmar was launched by the Myanmar military or the Tatmadaw on 1 February 2021. Since then, the tragic consequences arising from the coup, which include large-scale civilian deaths and injuries, have continued with no sign of abatement. The situation remains dire. The primary responsibility for the ongoing crisis in Myanmar lies with the Tatmadaw.
The Five-Point Consensus was formulated by the ASEAN Leaders and accepted by Senior General Min Aung Hlaing at their meeting on 24 April 2021 in Jakarta. However, Singapore and ASEAN are deeply disappointed that there has been little progress in its implementation. This is despite efforts by successive Special Envoys of the ASEAN Chair – Brunei and Cambodia – and direct entreaties by current ASEAN Chair, Cambodia. Instead, aerial bombings of opposition-controlled areas and the execution of opposition activists have occurred. The timings of these actions by the Tatmadaw underscore their disregard for both ASEAN and the Five-Point Consensus.
Myanmar’s peace, security and stability are not only in its own interest but also for the whole region. However, without political reconciliation and dialogue in good faith by all stakeholders, the necessary political solution cannot be found. The setbacks to ASEAN’s efforts are not a matter of ASEAN credibility, but rather of the Tatmadaw’s intransigence. The ASEAN Leaders will have to assess the progress of the Five-Point Consensus’ implementation at the ASEAN Summit this November. Depending on how the situation evolves, they will have to make some difficult decisions to guide ASEAN’s next steps.
Singapore voted in favour of UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/75/287 \"The Situation in Myanmar\" in June 2021, which calls on UN Member states to \"prevent the flow of arms into Myanmar\". Since April 2022, Singapore has not authorised the transfer of items assessed to have potential military application to Myanmar, where there is a serious risk that the item may be used to inflict violence against unarmed civilians. This is in line with our firm commitment to measures that will facilitate the de-escalation of violence in Myanmar and support efforts by ASEAN and the UN to achieve a negotiated political solution.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mental Health Support for Singapore’s Athletes during Training and in Run-up to Competitions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth in addition to the appointed performance psychologists, what mental health and well-being support is provided to Singapore’s carded athletes in their daily training programme and in the run-up to competitions.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The Government is committed to supporting our Team Singapore athletes throughout their sporting journey. A lot is asked of our athletes, from pushing the boundaries of what they can achieve in their sport, to bringing sporting glory to Singapore and becoming role models for others to follow.
The Singapore Sports Institute (SSI) and the National Youth Sports Institute (NYSI) take a holistic approach to preparing our athletes to excel in a high-performance setting and this includes support for their overall psychological and mental well-being. By doing so, our athletes are equipped with the skills and mental resilience to deal with the demands they face. Let me share some ways in how we do this.
First, ahead of major competitions, SSI and NYSI assign dedicated teams of sport psychologists and Athlete Life personnel to provide support for the psychological and mental well-being of our national athletes. This includes one-on-one consults and imparting skills and knowledge to cope with mental and emotional issues, also known as psycho-education.
For this year’s Major Games, namely, the Southeast Asian (SEA), Commonwealth and ASEAN Para Games, SSI piloted a Fitness and Freshness Survey to measure and monitor athletes’ injuries, physiological and psychological health before the Games and identify areas for closer monitoring and support.
Second, beyond competitions, SSI also proactively monitors our athletes’ mental health. A well-being survey was added to its Sport Excellence (SPEX) programme’s regular medical check-up in 2020 to screen for possible psychological and mental distress, including eating and sleeping disorders. Cases requiring attention are flagged and assessed by SSI’s sport science team. If clinical expertise is required, they will be referred to the Singapore Sport and Exercise Medicine Centre (SSMC@CGH) for follow-up with a trained psychiatrist or clinical psychologist.
Third, SSI works with coaches and other touchpoints who influence or interact with the athletes.
SSI and NYSI partner the NSAs to strengthen our athletes’ mental resilience, by equipping them with the necessary knowledge to recognise symptoms of poor mental health, turn to appropriate coping mechanisms, and practise self-care.
SSI runs a mental health literacy programme to empower coaches and other athlete support personnel to identify and support athletes who need help with their mental well-being. This programme has seen a healthy take-up.
All NYSI staff will be completing a Psychological First Aid course this month and this further expands the touchpoints who can help detect issues early for intervention.
Fourth, we will continue to raise awareness on the importance of mental well-being. For example, SSI and NYSI intend to launch a series of infographics on mental health for athletes on World Mental Health Day in October to make the information more accessible and easily understood.
Finally, beyond these efforts, knowing that they have the support of Singaporeans greatly boosts our athletes’ mental well-being. I hope that Singaporeans will continue to cheer our athletes on and express support for them through the ups and downs of their sporting journeys, as they continue to do their best for the nation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Malay University Applicants Enrolling in Courses with Lower Cut-off Points Despite Qualifying for Those with Higher Cut-off Points","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has data on the number and proportion of Malay applicants to Autonomous Universities who have chosen to enrol into a course that has a lower cut-off point over other courses which have a higher cut-off point despite qualifying for these courses with their score; (b) if so, what is the data for the past three years; and (c) how does this data compare with Chinese and Indian applicants.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Autonomous Universities provide information on the indicative grade profiles of the 10th and 90th percentiles of applicants offered places in the previous academic year on their websites, rather than cut-off points. This serves as a reference to enable prospective applicants to make informed choices, based on their aspirations, interests and strengths, rather than opting for the most competitive course that they can qualify for. MOE does not track whether applicants apply for courses with a lower indicative grade profile than their academic results.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Coverage of New Subsidy Framework for Standard Drugs List and Drug Affordability","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health with the new subsidy framework for the Standard Drugs List (a) how many more Singaporeans will be covered under the revised subsidies; (b) how much does the Ministry expect to spend in total for the revised subsidies; and (c) how will the Ministry ensure that medical drugs remain affordable to all Singaporeans.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Under the new subsidy framework for the Standard Drug List (SDL) in the acute hospital and community hospital settings, all Singaporean patients with Per Capita Household Income (PCHI) up to $2,000 will receive higher SDL subsidies of 75%, compared to 50% previously. Singaporeans with PCHI above $2,000 will continue to enjoy SDL subsidies of 50%. This will be effective from 1 November 2022.
The Government’s expenditure for SDL subsidies arising from this change is expected to increase by around 7% to over $120 million per annum.
To ensure that medical drugs remain affordable for Singaporeans, MOH also recently enhanced Medication Assistance Fund (MAF) subsidies, such that eligible residents with PCHI of $2,800 to $6,500 seeking care at our PHIs will receive subsidies of up to 50% for selected high-cost drugs.
MOH also takes active steps to manage drug procurement and related supply chain costs. This includes aggregating drug demand and centralising drug procurement across the public healthcare sector through the Agency for Logistics Procurement and Supply (ALPS), to achieve greater economies of scale and negotiating leverage. At the same time, the Agency for Care Effectiveness (ACE) also conducts health technology assessment and negotiates drug prices with pharmaceutical companies to achieve prices that commensurate with the benefits.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Road Traffic Accidents Caused by Mechanical Failures in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs with respect to road traffic accidents caused by mechanical failures in the past five years (a) what is the aggregate number of cases; (b) how many persons have been injured or died as a result; (c) how many vehicles have been damaged; and (d) how many prosecutions are commenced against persons or organisations for failing to properly maintain the vehicles that have caused the road traffic accidents due to mechanical failure.
Mr K Shanmugam: Most road accidents are caused by behavioural factors, such as careless or dangerous driving. Road traffic accidents caused by mechanical failure are in the minority.
Currently, only vehicles involved in fatal accidents are sent by the Traffic Police (TP) for mechanical inspection as part of the investigation process.
Between 2017 and 2021, there were two fatal accidents caused by mechanical failure. During that period, there were 534 fatal accidents in total.
In the first case in 2017, six vehicles and one bicycle were damaged, with one fatality and one injured person. This case resulted in a Coroner’s Inquiry. No prosecution action was taken against the driver or vehicle owner, as the mechanical failure was attributed to material fatigue – specifically, the wear-and-tear of a drain valve component, which failed at the time of the accident while the vehicle was in operation.
In the second case, which also took place in 2017, one vehicle was damaged with one fatality and no injured persons. The company which owned the vehicle was charged for permitting the use of a vehicle with mechanical defect and issued with a Court fine.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Years of Work Experience as Added Criterion in Complementarity Assessment Framework","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Complementarity Assessment Framework (COMPASS) criteria can be widened to include the number of years in relevant industry as an alternative or additional criterion to enhance the competency-based assessment of candidates under COMPASS.
Dr Tan See Leng: In designing the points-based COMPASS framework for Employment Pass (EP) applicants, MOM selected a set of criteria that would be most impactful in achieving our objectives of selecting complementary foreign professionals, while incentivising employers to improve workforce diversity and build a strong Singaporean core.
We had considered but did not include a criterion on the EP candidate’s years of relevant industry experience, as this is susceptible to inaccuracies, including possibly fraud, especially if the bulk of the work was done overseas. To prevent such inaccuracies, MOM would need to individually evaluate and verify the quality and relevance of a candidate’s experience. This would significantly increase the time taken to process and respond to applications and still contain an element of risk. Instead, COMPASS assesses the salary that the company is willing to pay the candidate since it reflects the candidate’s market worth and would correlate with their work experience.
COMPASS also includes other measures of an individual’s complementarity beyond salary. The qualifications criterion offers a standardised as well as a more verifiable measure of a candidate’s calibre. The Shortage Occupation List recognises candidates filling skills in shortage with bonus points. To holistically evaluate an EP application, COMPASS also places emphasis on other firm-related attributes, such as the diversity of a firm’s workforce and their support for local PMET employment.
In developing COMPASS, MOM was mindful not to include too many criteria, as doing so would dilute the impact of each criterion and increase administrative complexity for businesses. On the whole, we believe that the set of six COMPASS criteria meaningfully recognises key aspects of complementarity of EP candidates and their hiring companies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessing Success of Overseas Networks and Expertise Pass Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what measures are used to benchmark the success of the Overseas Networks and Expertise (ONE) Pass scheme; (b) whether the potential crowding out of local talents in allowing for ONE Pass individuals to take on multiple roles is considered; (c) what jobs will their dependants be allowed to work under the Letter of Consent; (d) how will a \"meaningful\" contribution be measured; and (e) whether the Ministry will codify training and skills transfer requirements to locals into law to ensure \"meaningful\" contributions.
Dr Tan See Leng: This has been addressed in the Ministerial Statement on 12 September 2022. [Please refer to “Strengthening Singapore’s Position as a Global Hub for Talent”, Official Report, 12 September 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 67, Ministerial Statement section.]
MOM will continue to ensure that our work pass framework is relevant and updated, so that businesses can have access to the complementary foreigner manpower they need, while maintaining a level playing field for our locals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on New Male Citizens who Do Not Serve National Service","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Defence (a) from 2000 to 2021, what is the annual number of male citizens granted Singapore citizenship who did not serve National Service in the age groups of (i) 18 to 30, (ii) 31 to 40 and (iii) above 40; and (b) of these male citizens, how many joined the SAF Volunteer Corps.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: MHA had provided the age breakdown of the number of new male citizens granted citizenship since 2000, in reply to Mr Leong’s Parliamentary Question (PQ) on 1 August 2022. About 57% of new male citizens are below 30 years old when they receive their citizenship. Of these, about 70% are below 18 years old and the remaining 30% are between 18 and 30 years old.
New male citizens who stayed in Singapore when young and enjoyed economic and social benefits are enlisted when they reach 18 years of age or older. Males who receive citizenship as mature adults, typically in their 30s and 40s, are not enlisted for NS, as they are not suitable for full-time National Service (NS) at that age and did not enjoy any benefits prior to their citizenship.
We have stated this in MINDEF’s reply to Mr Leong’s PQ on 5 July 2022 and in the 2 August 2022 Ministerial Statement on \"Liability and Contributions of New Citizens to National Service\".
The SAF Volunteer Corps (SAFVC) was established in October 2014 and built up progressively. Today, about 250 new male citizens and Permanent Residents apply to join the SAFVC each year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assisting Students and Staff in Schools with Less Established Alumni Networks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Education regarding the Ministry’s plan to work with school alumni groups to benefit students and help ease the workload of teachers (a) whether there are and, if so, what are the compensating measures to assist students and teachers in schools with less active or established alumni networks; and (b) whether the Ministry has plans to narrow any disparity in community resources and alumni capacity between neighbourhood and established schools and, if so, what are these plans.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Schools work with alumni in different ways, depending on their needs. Some alumni serve on the School Advisory or Management Committee. Some mentor students in their Co-Curricular Activities and support various school programmes. Others share experiences or offer opportunities through the school’s education and career guidance programmes.
Schools work with many community partners, including alumni groups, Parent Support Groups, and other community partners. Some of our Primary schools have Parent Support Groups which support the daily running of the school and school programmes. MOE has also been strengthening partnerships with the community. For instance, one of the key initiatives of UPLIFT (Uplifting Pupils in Life and Inspiring Families Taskforce) is to strengthen school-community partnerships to enhance support for vulnerable students. The support is provided through befriending, mentoring or interest-based programmes. MOE actively matches relevant community resources with schools whose students would benefit most from these programmes.
MOE also links up schools with organisations that support the schools’ programmes, for example, in education and career guidance, Applied Learning and Learning for Life Programmes. We appreciate individuals and organisations coming forward to support our schools on a sustained basis and we welcome more to do so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Announcement of and Public Consultation for Land Use Plans for Changi Bay Reclamation Site","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for National Development (a) when will the land use plans for the Changi Bay reclamation site be announced; and (b) whether the Government will consider disclosing land use plans for projects that require major irreversible changes, such as land reclamation, to allow for public scrutiny.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Government engages the public as part of our land use planning process, through public exhibitions, facilitated discussions and workshops on our land use plans and strategies. These take place when we review our Long-Term Plan, previously known as the Concept Plan, and our Master Plan. All feedback is carefully considered and incorporated into our plans, where feasible.
Plans to reclaim Changi Bay were first exhibited during the Concept Plan Review in 1991 and, most recently, at the Long-Term Plan Review in 2022. Earlier in July this year, we made the environmental study report for the land reclamation at Changi Bay available to the public.
At this juncture, the timeline and specific land use plan for the Changi Bay reclamation site are still under study. We will announce details of the land use plans for Changi Bay when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Control over Number and Location of Tobacco Retail Licences Issued","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the number of tobacco retail licences issued in each of the past five years; and (b) what is the control framework for the number and location of licences issued to reduce the prevalence of smoking.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: In the past five years, the number of tobacco retail licences granted is set out in the table below.
Under the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) (Licensing) Regulations 2017, tobacco retail licensees must not site their premises in unsuitable locations, including healthcare institutions, pharmacies, educational institutions, childcare centres and computer gaming/video gaming centres.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improvement in Wait Times Given Increase in Allocation Quota for HDB BTO First‐timer Applicants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Derrick Goh asked the Minister for National Development with regard to first‐timer applicants of HDB BTO flats in non‐mature estates (a) what is the current median wait time from the date of application to choosing a unit for such applicants; and (b) what is the expected improvement in median wait time in view of HDB’s announcement in August 2022 regarding the increase in allocation quota for first‐timer applicants.
Mr Desmond Lee: First-timer applicants may not apply in consecutive Build-To-Order (BTO) exercises and may also apply for flats in both mature estates (MEs) and non-mature estates (NMEs) in different BTO exercises. Some applicants may also be given a queue number and invited to select a flat, but they may decline to do so. From past sale launches, about 40% of the invited flat applicants did not proceed to book a flat. As such, it is not meaningful to track the median wait time between the first flat application and when the applicant books a flat in an NME.
On average, over the past few years, almost 90% of first-timer families applying to NMEs managed to secure their BTO flats within two attempts. First-timer families who have been unsuccessful in two or more NME BTO attempts are given an additional ballot chance in their subsequent application for a BTO flat in NMEs. As a result of this policy, virtually all first-timer families have been successful within their first three tries for an NME BTO flat over the past few years.
In view of the strong housing demand from first-timer applicants, HDB has recently adjusted the first-timer NME BTO allocation quotas with effect from the August 2022 BTO exercise to give first-timer applicants greater certainty in securing an NME BTO flat. At least 85% of the 3-room BTO flat supply and 95% of the 4-room and bigger BTO flat supply in the NMEs are now set aside for first-timer families. This is up from the previous levels of at least 70% and 85% respectively. As the adjustments to the first-timer NME BTO quotas are recent, it would be premature to comment on the extent to which the adjustments will improve the success rate of first-timers.
To meet the strong housing demand, HDB has also been ramping up the supply of BTO flats and will launch up to 23,000 flats per year in 2022 and 2023. This is a significant increase of 35% from the 17,000 flats launched in 2021. We are also prepared to launch up to 100,000 flats in total from 2021 to 2025, if needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Service Standards for Non-emergency or Private Ambulance Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry imposes service standards for the operation of non-emergency or private ambulance services that include waiting times; and (b) if so, what are they.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Ambulance services providing non-emergency conveyances are licensed as Medical Transport Service under the Healthcare Services Act.
Licensing condition includes adhering to regulations covering quality assurance standards, such as training and competencies of service crew, ensuring that vehicles are equipped with necessary medications, consumables and equipment; and service-related standards that cover price transparency and bill itemisation.
Waiting times are not specifically included in the requirements, but licensed providers are required to establish care protocols, which, if adhered to, will ensure the safe and timely conveyance of patients.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Disclosure Requirements and Penalty Regimes for Breaches of Securities and Futures Act and Companies Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister in view of the enforcement actions taken against Noble Group Limited for a civil penalty of $12.6 million relating to a breach of section 199(b)(ii) of the Securities and Futures Act and stern warnings to two former directors of Noble Resources International Pte Ltd relating to a breach of section 201(2) of the Companies Act, whether MAS intends to strengthen disclosure obligations and penalty regimes relating to false and misleading statements and breaches of disclosure requirements.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister): Regulatory framework for financial statements and disclosures is multi-layered and robust
Singapore’s regulatory framework governing the financial statements of and disclosures by Singapore listed companies places obligations on various stakeholders.
Companies listed on the Singapore Exchange (SGX) and their directors are subject to robust disclosure requirements under the Securities and Futures Act (SFA) and SGX’s Listing Rules.
Companies incorporated in Singapore and their directors must comply with the Companies Act, which requires them to present their financial statements in accordance with prescribed accounting standards.
Meanwhile, external auditors are responsible for conducting audits in accordance with prescribed auditing standards, to ascertain if the financial statements are a true and fair representation of the company’s performance.
The Noble case is a complex one involving multiple parties within and beyond Singapore. The parent company, Noble Group Limited (NGL), was incorporated in Bermuda, headquartered in Hong Kong and listed on SGX. As a company listed on SGX, NGL and its directors are subject to SFA. However, as it is a Bermuda-incorporated company, its financial statements and audit requirements are not subject to the Singapore Companies Act.
Noble Resources International Pte Ltd (NRI) is the Singapore-incorporated subsidiary of NGL. As a locally-incorporated company, NRI and its directors are subject to the Companies Act.
NGL, acting through NRI, entered into long-term marketing agreements and applied an incorrect accounting treatment to these marketing agreements. This had the effect of inflating NGL’s and NRI’s reported profits and net assets.
NGL’s financial statements were audited by Ernst & Young Hong Kong. NRI’s financial statements were audited by Ernst & Young Singapore. Clean audit opinions were issued in both cases. Ernst & Young Singapore had, in fact, concurred with the accounting treatment for the marketing agreements.
Notwithstanding the clean audit opinions, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) and Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) continued to gather and review information to establish a basis to probe deeper into the case after allegations of accounting irregularities in NGL’s financial reports surfaced. In 2018, MAS, ACRA and CAD commenced formal investigations into NGL and NRI.
Upon the conclusion of the investigations, the regulatory authorities took action against the relevant parties in accordance with the respective requirements of their Acts, based on the facts and circumstances of the case and the culpability of the involved parties.
First, in respect of NGL, a civil penalty of $12.6 million was imposed under SFA for publishing false or misleading financial statements. Under SFA, a civil penalty sum not exceeding three times the amount of profit gained or loss avoided by the company, or $2 million for each breach, may be imposed on a company that fails to meet disclosure requirements. In this case, the incorrect recognition of future fees from the marketing agreements presented an artificial picture of NGL’s financial position but did not translate into actual monetary gains by the company. Hence, the applicable maximum civil penalty quantum of $2 million for each breach was applied. This quantum was arrived at after considering key factors, including the number of breaches and the cooperation rendered during investigation.
No penalties were imposed under the Companies Act as the Companies Act provisions only apply to Singapore-incorporated companies and NGL is not a Singapore-incorporated company.
With regard to the key former directors and managers of NGL, the information that could be obtained was insufficient to prove that NGL’s offences were attributable to the neglect of any particular individual.
Second, as to NRI, investigations revealed that the two directors were following the parent company NGL’s group accounting policy in approving the financial statements. Importantly, there was no suggestion from their auditors that the accounting treatment was incorrect and there was no intention to cheat or defraud on their part. As such, stern warnings were issued to them.
Third, with regard to NRI’s auditors, Ernst & Young Singapore, it was found that while their audit work did not reflect a competent application of accounting principles for the long-term marketing agreements, the audit issues they had to consider were not straightforward. They had abided by the firm’s processes to consult technical experts on the accounting treatment, which involved professional judgement, and the technical experts concurred with the accounting treatment. They were thus issued orders for their audit work to be subject to peer review and training to remediate the identified audit deficiencies.
Ernst & Young Hong Kong which audited the parent company NGL, does not fall within the regulatory jurisdiction of our authorities. MAS has shared information regarding the case with the Hong Kong regulator and will work closely with them as needed.
Measures to enhance regulatory oversight and enforcement. MAS and ACRA, together with the Singapore Exchange Regulation (SGX RegCo), continually review and enhance the relevant regulatory and penalty regimes. For example:
(a) MAS and ACRA set up a joint forum in 2019 to strengthen coordination for the review and enforcement of disclosure breaches, as these may be intertwined with accounting issues;
(b) SGX RegCo established a dedicated whistleblowing office in 2020 to address feedback regarding listed companies’ compliance with the listing rules. In 2021, it introduced requirements for all listed companies to have whistle-blowing policies; and
(c) Since 2021, SGX RegCo has also enhanced accountability for the audits of Singapore-listed companies’ financial statements, by requiring all primary-listed companies, including foreign-incorporated ones, to appoint a local auditor registered with ACRA.
MOF and ACRA are, currently, reviewing the fines that can be imposed on directors of companies due to the failure to prepare and table annual financial statements in compliance with the prescribed accounting standards in Singapore.
MAS, SGX Regco, ACRA and CAD will continue to thoroughly investigate acts of corporate malfeasance and take appropriate actions to ensure our regulatory system remains fair and robust.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Study into Demand and Models for Adult Disability Care Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Social and Family Development considering the current acute shortage of places in Day Activity Centres (a) what are the terms of reference for the study on the longer-term demand and service models for adult disability services mentioned in the Enabling Masterplan 2030; and (b) when is this study expected to complete.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: As of July 2022, about 80% of the 1,700 places in Day Activity Centres (DACs) were taken up. Last year, MSF increased our funding to DACs to enable them to hire more care staff and increase their quality of care. As mentioned in the Enabling Masterplan 2030 (EMP2030), we are also trying out new service models, such as providing activities and services for adults with disabilities and respite care options for caregivers through the Enabling Services Hub.
Beyond catering to current demand and supply, we recognise that care needs may change, as our population ages and families become smaller. The longer-term study as part of EMP2030 will help us to stay ahead of these changes and better meet future care needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress on Introduction of Common Salary Guideline for Asatizahs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) what is the progress of the introduction of a common salary guideline for asatizahs as recommended in the report of the Committee on Future Asatizah in 2020; (b) when is MUIS’ review of the salary guidelines for the religious sector expected to be completed; and (c) in view of the pay increases of civil servants and teachers in the secular sector, whether the salaries of asatizahs working in religious institutions will be reviewed so that they remain competitive.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: MUIS is working with the madrasahs and mosques to implement a Common Salary Guideline for our asatizahs.\tThis will involve a holistic review, including a rigorous evaluation of the asatizahs' job scope and salary benchmarking with relevant sectors.
These salary adjustments will be underpinned by a robust performance-based system that ensures our asatizahs are fairly compensated based on the skills, competencies and value that they bring to their jobs.
MUIS is engaging employers in the madrasah and mosque sector to review the existing performance appraisal system. MUIS will also conduct workshops to equip supervisors and reporting officers, as well as their human resource personnel, with the skills and knowledge to implement the salary structure within their organisations, in accordance with the Common Salary Guidelines.
Once these engagements are completed, MUIS will implement the Common Salary Guidelines in phases from 2023. MUIS will, thereafter, regularly monitor and ensure that salaries for the asatizahs remain competitive with the relevant sectors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Childcare Leave Provisions for Parents with Children with Special Needs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Prime Minister whether childcare leave provisions for parents of children with special needs can be extended until the child is 18 years of age.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister): Today, childcare leave is provided for working parents of children up till the age of 12. Each working parent of a Singaporean child, including those with special needs, is eligible for six days of paid childcare leave per year when their youngest child is below seven years old and two days of paid extended childcare leave per year when their youngest child is aged seven to 12.
We appreciate that children with special needs may require additional care beyond age 12 and that their parents will value additional support. However, any enhancement to leave provisions will need to strike the balance in addressing the caregiving needs of parents and the manpower and operational needs of employers.
Beyond legislated leave provisions, we encourage employers to provide a family-friendly work environment to help parents manage their work and caregiving responsibilities, such as through adopting the Tripartite Standards on Flexible Work Arrangements and Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs, which were introduced in 2017 and 2018 respectively. To better support parents of children with special needs, employers can, for instance, offer flexible work arrangements so that parents may work from home or adjust their regular work hours to better tend to caregiving needs, or take a few hours off work to bring their child for medical appointments or developmental assessments when needed.
The Government has also steadily improved overall support for the childcare needs of parents of children with special needs. In 2020, we enhanced subsidies for the Special Student Care Centre programme, which provides before-and-after school care service and supervision for students in Special Education Schools. Working mothers who seek caregiving help from grandparents can also now tap on the Grandparent Caregiver Relief scheme to get $3,000 of tax relief, regardless of the child’s age for those with special needs. As part of the Enabling Masterplan 2030, MSF is also looking into enhancing the range of respite care options for caregivers, which parents of children with special needs will be able to tap on.
We will continue to study, together with MSF and other relevant agencies, how to better support working parents, including those with children with special needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Review and Consultation Process for Environmental Impact Assessments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for National Development with regard to concerns raised about the accessibility of environmental impact assessments (EIAs) that are made available to the public for review, whether there are plans to standardise the public review and consultation process to allow for online access to the reports and have consultations where their durations commensurate with the complexity of each EIA to allow for in-depth study of the report in order to provide meaningful feedback.
Mr Desmond Lee: We adopt a systematic framework to determine and mitigate the potential impact of new developments on the environment. Environmental studies, like Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), may be required as part of the planning process. This helps to inform our understanding of the development’s potential environmental impact and the adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures.
The Government is committed to ensuring transparency and involving the public in the EIA process. EIA reports are made publicly available online, unless there are specific reasons to maintain confidentiality, like security considerations. In such cases, we will consider on a case-by-case basis if the full report should be made public and the modality for such disclosure, such as making the report available for hard copy viewing.
The public feedback period for EIA reports is typically four weeks, which provides adequate time for the public to view the report and provide feedback. Where necessary, the feedback period can be extended on a case-by-case basis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increase in Primary School Capacity in Housing Estates with New Developments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Mr Derrick Goh asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry can consider increasing the Primary 1 places available at North View Primary School and Huamin Primary School, to cater to the increasing demand from a large number of new residents moving into Yishun Spring BTO estate.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: MOE regularly reviews the demand and supply trends for school places at the national and regional levels. Our school planning takes into account the current and projected population and planned housing development programmes. This ensures that there are sufficient school places to meet the needs of families with school-going children in each residential area.
We have been monitoring the Primary 1 demand and supply situation in Yishun closely and make year-by-year intake adjustments for schools in these areas, where appropriate, to meet the projected demand arising from the new housing developments.
There are sufficient places in Yishun to meet the demand from residents at this year’s Primary 1 Registration Exercise. At the end of Phase 2C (Supplementary), there were still 70 Primary 1 places remaining in a nearby school in Yishun.
MOE will continue to closely monitor the demand and supply trends for the coming years and, if necessary, adjust the Primary 1 intake to meet the projected demand.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safety Measures and Occasions for Military Demonstrations Such As Free Fall Jumps","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Defence with regard to military demonstrations, such as free fall jumps and parachute landings, whether the Ministry will consider (i) reviewing the safety measures and criteria for suitable conditions and (ii) limiting such exercises to training operations only.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: The Red Lions have been a regular feature of the National Day Parade (NDP) since 1989 – 31 times over 34 years. Out of a total of about 3,400 individual parachute jumps, there have been four recorded injuries – a rate of 0.12%.
The safety record of our Red Lions during NDP is good and equivalent to that in regular military freefall training jumps – over the past five years, where the incident rate has also been about 0.1%.
SAF recognises that conditions during NDPs pose tighter constraints due to challenging wind conditions and limited landing area, among other factors. This is why only experienced parachutists are selected as Red Lions for NDP displays.
Parachutists must have made a minimum of 180 jumps to qualify for the selection tests. After they are selected for the team, they will undergo continuous and rigorous training to maintain their skills and proficiency. In fact, Red Lions selected for recent NDPs have clocked an average of 400 to 500 jumps and 20 years of jump experience each.
For jumps at the Floating Platform or HDB heartlands, landing sites are carefully selected. The sites must be flat, provide sufficient space and are free from obstructions and the wind conditions within safe thresholds. A safety management plan is developed to identity potential risks and design mitigating measures. Prior to the live jump tasks, safety briefings are conducted for all involved personnel, covering pre-operations drills and emergency procedures.
There are clearly prescribed \"No-Go Criteria\" for jumps. These criteria include, but are not limited to, prevailing visibility of the landing site by the parachutists, communications with the pilot and ground personnel, as well as acceptable weather and wind speed. Each factor is closely monitored leading up to the actual jump. If any factor exceeds the stipulated thresholds, the jump will be cancelled without hesitation. This was what happened during the 2015 NDP, where the Red Lions segment was cancelled due to low clouds obstructing the visibility of the landing sites. More recently, a planned morning jump on 7 August 2022 for the heartland NDP celebrations at Ghim Moh was postponed to the evening due to weather conditions.
While the Red Lions' safety record has been good thus far, following the incident involving 3WO Heng, a review committee led by the SAF Inspector-General Office (IGO) has been convened to assess the cause(s) of the specific incident, as well as to review near-misses and incidents in the past. The Committee includes independent experts outside the SAF in sky diving and military freefall. They have also been tasked to determine if there have been systemic changes, such as stronger wind, other weather conditions or local environment, which have increased the risks. Their findings will also have a bearing on routine training. The Committee has met and let me share some of their preliminary findings.
The measured surface wind speeds during the Red Lion rehearsals and NDP 2022 were within the acceptable range stipulated in the SAF’s safety regulations. As to the specific cause of the incident during NDP, the current assessment is that a sudden change in wind conditions during 3WO Heng’s final approach contributed to his hard landing. Red Lion 3WO Heng had assessed that his parachute canopy was unstable and executed the \"parachute landing fall\" technique in accordance with existing protocol. His actions mitigated the impact of the hard landing and, consequently, he did not suffer severe injuries.
I have asked the Committee why specific incidents like this had not occurred before, since changes in wind conditions cannot only have occurred for NDP 2022. They are consulting the external experts on this specific question, as well as reviewing in detail the approach route taken by 3WO Heng. Other issues to be examined include the impact of eddy currents caused by the design of the Floating Platform, the stage and the spectator stands. These findings will be relevant to the design and construction of the NS Square, which will be a permanent site for subsequent NDPs.
The Committee is also examining possible measures to enhance safety. One change being considered is increasing the distance between parachutists. This will provide the parachutists more reaction time as they approach the landing zone and enable the landing to be more spaced out.
The SAF’s priority is safety, and the Red Lions will continue to be a part of our NDP celebrations, only if safety can be ensured, with appropriate new measures, including those recommended by the Review Committee.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Risk to Ecological Balance with Deployment of Genetically-modified Mosquitoes as Vector Control","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry has evaluated the risks in altering the ecological balance of the local wild mosquito population that is associated with deploying genetically-modified mosquitoes as a vector control method.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: NEA has been conducting research and trialling the use of Wolbachia-carrying Aedes aegypti (Wolbachia-Aedes) mosquitoes to suppress urban Aedes aegypti populations in Singapore since 2016. Wolbachia-Aedes mosquitoes carry the Wolbachia bacterium, which is safe and occurs naturally in more than 60% of insect species. The Wolbachia field trials are carried out in accordance with the guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO) and in consultation with NEA’s Dengue Expert Advisory Panel (DEAP), which comprises local and international experts. Wolbachia-Aedes mosquitoes are not genetically-modified, as there is no tampering or modification of the genes of the mosquito. This is confirmed by the Genetic Modification Advisory Committee (GMAC) in Singapore.
Prior to carrying out field releases of Wolbachia-Aedes mosquitoes, NEA had carried out comprehensive risk assessments of the Wolbachia-Aedes suppression technology and determined it to be safe, with no risk to human health and insignificant risk to ecology and other mosquito species in our ecosystem. This conclusion is consistent with findings from studies in other parts of the world.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singaporeans Affected by Alleged Job Scams for Work in Cambodia and Myanmar","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether there are Singaporeans who have been reported to be missing after being attracted to work in Cambodia and Myanmar and who are suspected to be kidnapped to work for the scam syndicate there.
Mr K Shanmugam: Since 2021, there has been one Police report made, whereby the complainant claimed that he had heard from another party, that there were Singaporean victims possibly being kept against their will in Myanmar to work for scam syndicates there. The complainant stated that he had not personally spoken to the said Singaporeans and did not have any other information or details regarding the identities of the Singaporeans. The Police has referred this case to its counterpart in Myanmar for assistance.
Police will continue to monitor the situation. Members of the public who suspect that their family members were kept overseas against their will should make a Police report.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effect of Elevated PM2.5 Levels on Rail Workers' Health","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport in view of the recent study on air quality in underground train stations in Singapore published on ScienceDirect website (a) whether the elevated levels of PM2.5 are an occupational health hazard for rail workers; and (b) if so, what are the plans to mitigate the health risk posed to those working in underground train stations and in the train tunnels.
Mr S Iswaran: The 2018 study on air quality referenced by Mr Melvin Yong noted that the air quality in most of our underground train stations was within acceptable limits under the Singapore Standard Code of Practice for Indoor Air Quality for Air-Conditioned Buildings, or SS554. While the PM2.5 levels measured during peak hours at some underground train stations along the North-South and East-West lines exceeded the 24-hour mean exposure limit, the health risk to rail workers is low as they, generally, spend only four to five hours a day, on average, at the station platforms.
Notwithstanding, inspection, maintenance and cleaning of air-conditioning and mechanical ventilation systems are carried out regularly to ensure good ventilation at station platforms. To further improve air quality, more efficient filters that can trap finer dust particles, such as PM2.5, have been installed at station platforms. Air-conditioning systems for underground train stations along the North-South and East-West lines are progressively being upgraded and will be completed by 2025.
As for train tunnels, air quality is regularly monitored to ensure air quality is kept within acceptable limits. Tunnel ventilation fans are deployed to ventilate the tunnels during heavy maintenance works.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress on Measures to Achieve United, Caring and Inclusive Society in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Prime Minister what is the progress of measures taken to achieve a united, caring and inclusive society in Singapore.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (for the Prime Minister): A united, caring and inclusive society does not happen by chance. We need to both aspire and take action to achieve this.
Our aspiration to be one nation and one united people is enshrined in our National Pledge, reminding us never to take our harmony and unity for granted.
But we must back our aspiration with action. Collectively and deliberately as Singaporeans. The deliberate measures we have put in place, while still a work in progress, are bearing fruit.
These measures have created opportunities for us to live together in our housing estates, our children to study together in national schools, our men to serve together in National Service, and many of us to encounter one another daily in our public parks, hawker centres and sports facilities.
Through these interactions, we grow to understand, respect and appreciate one another. According to a recent survey by the Singapore Kindness Movement1, three in four Singaporeans are satisfied with their relationships with their neighbours. We are good neighbours and friends.
But we can always do better. It is natural for people to sort themselves into more homogenous groups. It happens in schools and in neighbourhoods. We can do more to know and befriend those who are different from us. The last comprehensive study on social capital was conducted in 2017 by the Institute of Policy Studies, with the support of MCCY. This study found that Singaporeans are more likely to mix with people of other races and age groups than those of a different social background. We need to expand the circle of people we care about to include not just those who are like us, but also see ourselves in fellow Singaporeans with very different life experiences.
At MCCY, we work with Singaporeans to grow a culture of everyday care and neighbourliness. More recently, we have been creating additional opportunities for groups to come together. In schools, we have the MOE-OBS Challenge, which brings together participants from diverse social backgrounds. Our Strategic Partnership Co-Curricular Activities also allow students to mix with peers from other schools.
Through our SG Cares movement, we have built a network of volunteer centres to make volunteering and mutual support part of Singaporeans’ daily lives. Since 2018, over 30,000 volunteers have served more than 240,000 beneficiaries2, many of whom become volunteers themselves and paid it forward. Corporates have also stepped forward to do their part. Last year3, two-thirds of businesses engaged in corporate giving.
A strong civic culture of care, consideration and contribution to Singapore. Our culture of care has also become more evident in the past few years, as we stood united in the face of COVID-19. Singaporeans supported our healthcare and frontline workers. The Sayang Sayang Fund, established to deliver support to vulnerable communities, raised over $9.6 million and benefited nearly 360,000 recipients4.
And we have introduced more opportunities for all stakeholders in our society to take action. Following the Emerging Stronger Conversations in 2020 and 2021, we formed 36 Alliances for Action (AfA). Over 140,000 individuals and 1,500 organisations came together to co-create and implement solutions to causes that matter to them. On such example is the Alliance for Action for Low-Wage Workers. Members focus on a whole-of-society effort to uplift low-wage workers. This AfA has created 13 projects so far.
Reaffirm our shared values and refresh our social compact. This is the energy and spirit of collective action that we want to harness in our ongoing Forward Singapore exercise. An enduring and refreshed social compact that will set us up strongly to face challenges. It takes every single one of us. Not just Government, but with our community, with businesses and every Singaporean and Singaporean resident alike.
Employers must create environments where workers can thrive. Singaporeans must engage one another with care, respect and dignity. And we must pledge to look out for one another and uplift those in greater need. Together, we can build a more united, caring and inclusive Singapore. Not just for ourselves, but for our future generations as well.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Source: Graciousness Survey 2022 by Singapore Kindness Movement. The online survey polled a demographically representative sample of 1,012 respondents.","2 : Source: SG Cares Office; accurate as of July 2022.","3 : Source: Corporate Giving Study 2021 by National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre.","4 : Source: Community Foundation of Singapore. Accurate as of 1 April 2022."],"footNoteQuestions":["50"],"questionNo":"50"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Help Eligible Prison Inmates Claim NS55 Recognition Package Before Expiry Date","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the number of prison inmates who are eligible for the NS55 Recognition Package issued in commemoration of 55 years of National Service; (b) to date, how many of such inmates have had their $100 credits claimed, either by themselves or their next-of-kin; and (c) what measures are in place to assist prison inmates or their next-of-kin wishing to claim these NS55 credits before the expiry date for claims.
Mr K Shanmugam: As at 30 August 2022, there are about 3,200 inmates who are eligible for the NS55 credits and about 150 inmates have claimed their NS55 credits.
Singapore Prison Service (SPS) has been liaising with MINDEF to work out the process to allow inmates to redeem the NS55 credits. The process and list of eligible inmates have since been firmed up. All eligible inmates are in the process of being briefed on the redemption process and can nominate a family member or a friend to liaise with the NS55 Call Centre on their behalf to collect the hard copy vouchers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statement of Assets and Liabilities in Government Financial Statements for FY2021/2022","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the total financial assets of $1.57 trillion in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities as per the Government Financial Statements for FY2021/2022 include the latest reported increase in assets held by GIC and Temasek Holdings; and (b) if not, how much will those contribute to the increase in the total financial assets for FY2022/2023.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SAL) records the Government's gross financial assets, comprising cash and investments, that are set aside in deposit accounts and funds that are established in accordance with the laws governing them. Government assets managed by GIC, as well as Government investments in Temasek, are recorded in the SAL, according to its basis of preparation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of $980 Billion in Government Securities Fund in Financial Statements for FY2021/2022","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what is the breakdown of the $980 billion in the Government Securities Fund as per the Government Financial Statements for FY2021/2022.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Government Financial Statements provide information on the Government Securities Fund, including a breakdown of the outstanding borrowings issued under the Government Securities Fund. Details are included in section 1 (VII) of the Government Financial Statements for the Statement of Government Securities Fund.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Subvention Grant to Town Councils with Raising of GST in 2023 and 2024","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether Town Councils will be provided with increased annual GST subvention grant when GST is raised in 2023 and 2024.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Government will provide funding to Town Councils to absorb the additional GST payable on Service and Conservancy Charges. This was announced six months ago by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in the Budget Statement delivered on 18 February 2022. Details of the additional support to the Town Councils were conveyed to them by MND on 31 August 2022.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Uptake of NS55 Recognition Package Credits","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Defence in respect of the NS55 Recognition Package issued in commemoration of 55 years of National Service (NS) (a) what is the number of NSmen who have approached the Ministry for assistance as they are unable to claim their credits; (b) what are the reasons these NSmen are unable to do so; and (c) what measures are available to assist these NSmen wishing to claim their NS55 credits and what has been the uptake.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: This question has been addressed by written reply to Question No 7 on 12 September 2022. [Please refer to “Eligibility for and Issues with NS55 Recognition Package”, Official Report, Vol 95, Issue No 67, Written Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Beauty Salons Found Engaging in Vice Activities in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many beauty salons have been found to have engaged in vice activities in the past five years; and (b) whether the Police will close any potential loopholes that allow vice activities to be conducted while the establishments are masquerading as beauty salons, which do not require a massage establishment licence from the Police to operate.
Mr K Shanmugam: Any business that provides massage services within their premises must be licensed under the Massage Establishments Act 2017, unless they meet the criteria for exemption.
From 2018 to 2021, the Police detected more than 300 cases of vice activities in commercial outlets, including both licensed and unlicensed massage establishments. The operators of these outlets who were found to be involved in the vice activities were taken to task under the Women's Charter 1961. As vice activities could take place under the guise of any commercial businesses, Police do not track statistics of vice activities in beauty salons specifically.
The Police will continue to keep a close watch on the vice situation in Singapore and will not hesitate to take the necessary enforcement actions to stamp out vice activities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Removal of Hyperlinks in SMS and Aggregator Messages to Reduce Risk of Phishing","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Ministry will consider partnering IMDA to remove the use of hyperlinks in SMS and aggregator messages, which is known to increase the risk of phishing; and (b) whether measures targeted at e-commerce's sending of high volumes of SMSes apply to the SMS aggregators as well as the e-commerce entities.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Inter-Ministry Committee on Scams (IMCS) takes a sector-based, risk-calibrated approach to the removal of hyperlinks in SMSes. This is in consideration of the trade-offs between the risks of phishing and the facilitation of services, which hyperlinks enable.
IMCS has worked with the Association of Banks in Singapore to get banks to remove hyperlinks in SMSes sent to retail customers. As for Government agencies, hyperlinks in SMSes are still necessary in the provision of public services in certain circumstances, such as mobilising citizens to get vaccinated during COVID-19. To mitigate the risks, if the Government agency assesses that it is necessary to send hyperlinks in SMSes, the agency will only use a domain1 ending with \".gov.sg\", and will not ask users to provide their credentials through websites accessed through the hyperlinks.
IMCS will continue to study the use of hyperlinks in other sectors and work with sector partners to adjust their use if necessary. As scammers may pivot to other communication channels, the removal of hyperlinks in SMSes does not eliminate the risk of users falling prey to phishing attempts. Users should continue to exercise vigilance.
To further secure SMSes from scams, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) implemented the Singapore SMS Sender ID Registry (SSIR) in March this year. Organisations, including e-commerce companies which wish to protect their SMS Sender IDs, can register their Sender ID with SSIR. SSIR reduces the risk of SMS phishing by blocking messages using spoofed Sender IDs which had already been registered with SSIR. SMS aggregators are required to refer to SSIR and block SMSes that use spoofed Sender IDs which had been registered with SSIR.
Registering with SSIR is currently voluntary, applicable only to organisations which register their Sender ID. The public may, therefore, still receive phishing SMSes that spoof Sender IDs belonging to organisations that are not on SSIR, or that use Sender IDs that do not belong to any organisation. To close this gap, IMDA is looking to make SSIR registration a requirement for all organisations that use Sender IDs by end-2022. SMSes with non-registered Sender IDs will then be blocked as a default.
IMDA is also looking to introduce anti-scam SMS filtering solutions, to filter out malicious hyperlinks and scam messages, applicable to all SMSes sent through telecommunication networks. These filters are designed to work like a security firewall, using automated machine scanning to filter out malicious URL hyperlinks and scam messages.
IMDA's public consultations on these proposals are ongoing till 14 September 2022. The IMCS will work closely with IMDA to study the views received.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : A domain is a unique address used to access websites, such as \"www.smartnation.gov.sg\"."],"footNoteQuestions":["6"],"questionNo":"6"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints of Unfair and Pressure Sales Tactics and Recourse Available to Aggrieved Consumers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the number of complaints that Government agencies, including the Police and the Consumers Association of Singapore, received on unfair or pressure sales tactics in each of the last five years; (b) what are the remedies and processes involved for the aggrieved consumers to seek recourse; and (c) how many errant retailers or businesses have been taken to task in the last five years.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) received a total of 1,216 complaints in the last five years pertaining to pressure sales tactics (see Table below for breakdown). As for the Police, they do not track consumer complaints which are civil in nature.
Under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA), it is an unfair practice for suppliers to take advantage of a consumer by exerting undue pressure or undue influence on the consumer to enter a transaction. Consumers who encounter such unfair practices and need assistance in seeking redress may approach CASE. CASE can represent a consumer in corresponding with an errant supplier to reach a settlement, or act as a mediator between a consumer and an errant supplier. Should negotiation or mediation fail, consumers have the option to file a claim with the Small Claims Tribunal or seek other forms of legal redress.
In egregious cases, CASE will refer errant suppliers to the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) for investigation under CPFTA. In the last five years, CCCS investigated five cases involving pressure sales tactics. These suppliers have ceased their unfair practices and either signed Voluntary Compliance Agreements with CASE or provided undertakings to CCCS.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effect of Increased Temperatures from Climate Change on Changi Airport Operations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Transport whether studies on potential impact of increased temperatures arising from climate change and its effect on Changi Airport operations like the terminals, tarmac and staff working outdoors have been conducted, considering the reported disruption at London's Luton Airport in July 2022.
Mr S Iswaran: The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) and Changi Airport Group (CAG) have studied and taken mitigating measures against the potential risks to critical airport infrastructure and operations due to increased temperatures arising from climate change.
To ensure that the runways and taxiways can continue to function under higher temperatures, polymer additives have been introduced into Changi Airport’s asphaltic pavement designs. This is similar to the measures used in Middle Eastern airports where ambient temperatures can exceed 40 degrees Celsius. Doing so will avoid disruptions due to runway pavement defects, such as those seen recently at London's Luton Airport.
We do not expect higher temperatures to cause any disruptions to our passenger terminal buildings or the operations within. Temperature-sensitive equipment, such as baggage screening machines and electronic systems are located in a climate-controlled indoor environment to preserve their reliability. The air-conditioning and mechanical ventilation systems throughout Changi's terminal buildings are also designed with cooling capacity buffers to cater for higher ambient temperatures.
To protect outdoor airport workers from heat stress, there are shelters and cool zones at the airside and regular distribution of fluids during hot spells. CAG is also working with employers and workers to strengthen existing protocols and engaging medical service providers to train outdoor workers to look out for symptoms of heat stroke and render first aid to workers suffering from heat stress.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Delay in Opening of Phase 3 of Thomson-East Coast MRT Line","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the reasons to wait for the end of the year before opening Phase 3 of the Thomson-East Coast MRT Line (TEL) to passenger traffic relative to the originally reported commencement in the second half of this year; and (b) whether the repeated train and signal faults on TEL had a role to play in this decision.
Mr S Iswaran: Phase 3 of the Thomson-East Coat Line (TEL3) is on track to open in the second half of this year, as earlier announced.
To ensure the systems function well as per designed, LTA has conducted extensive tests for TEL3 as well as integration tests with TEL1 and 2. Any issues identified through these tests are analysed and rectified. These are complex technical works as many tests are done alongside ongoing live operations on TEL1 and 2 and integration tests must be conducted within limited engineering hours at night.
The system tests have since been completed and the operator, STEL, has taken over TEL3 to conduct trial running. This involves the training of the staff to handle and respond to the various operational scenarios and is an important step in preparation for the opening of TEL3.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Total and Average Sum in Electronic Road Pricing Charges Paid by Motorcyclists","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Transport for each year in the past three years, what is the total sum in Electronic Road Pricing charges paid by motorcyclists and the average sum paid by each motorcyclist respectively.
Mr S Iswaran: The total amount of the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) charges collected from motorcyclists for each year in the past three years was about $6.1 million for 2019, $1.7 million for 2020, and $0.8 million for 2021. The average annual sum paid by motorcyclists was about $30 in 2019, $8 in 2020, and $4 in 2021.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Safety of Bus Stop Users from Cyclists","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport what measures are in place to ensure that cyclists do not ride into bus stops or ride in ways that compromise the safety of bus stop users when travelling in close proximity of bus stops.
Mr S Iswaran: LTA has been undertaking various infrastructural improvements and public education measures to promote the safe use of active mobility devices. Where feasible, the space behind bus stops is converted to cycling paths or footpaths. This enables active mobility device users, including cyclists, to avoid riding into the bus stops. Guiding lines are drawn to direct users to the paths behind the bus stops. Complementing this, safety markings, such as \"SLOW\" markings and speed regulating strips leading into the bus stop area, remind cyclists to slow down and give way to commuters boarding and alighting from buses. Such safety features will be rolled out at more bus stops.
Under the Active Mobility Code of Conduct, cyclists should slow down and be prepared to stop when approaching crowded areas, such as bus stops. LTA promotes the awareness of such safe riding practices through regular public education campaigns and safe riding programmes, such as Confidence on Wheels. LTA also carries out regular enforcement operations to take errant users to task.
Ultimately, safety is a collective responsibility. I urge all commuters and path users to stay alert, look out for one another and follow the rules and guidelines.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Electronic Road Pricing Charges' Effect on Drivers' Decision on Route and Travel Mode","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether there is any study conducted on how Electronic Road Pricing charges nudge drivers to (i) take alternative routes along smaller roads that may involve longer journeys (ii) to switch to public transport and (iii) not to travel; and (b) if so, what are the breakdowns respectively.
Mr S Iswaran: ERP is a congestion management tool and helps to maintain traffic speeds within an optimal range. By adjusting ERP rates at specific locations and specific timeslots where traffic speeds are low, it sends a price signal for motorists to find alternative modes, routes, or timing. Typically, when ERP rates are increased at a gantry and during a particular timeslot, we observe that traffic volume is reduced and speeds improve. This implies that some motorists do switch to other routes, timeslots or modes.
The ERP system was not designed to track routes taken by individual motorists. Instead, LTA monitors the aggregate traffic volume and speed across our road network to ensure that traffic remains smooth-flowing.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enforcement Against Non-Compliance with Vehicle Exhaust Emission Standards","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) for each of the past three years, how many vehicle owners have NEA taken action against for failing to ensure that their vehicles meet the exhaust emission standards; (b) since 2017, what has been NEA's experience in deploying surveillance cameras to detect and identify air polluting vehicles; and (c) whether there are plans to extend the use of these cameras as a deterrence against the use of air polluting vehicles on our roads.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: NEA took about 7,400, 4,100 and 4,400 enforcement actions against smoky vehicles in 2019, 2020 and 2021 respectively. The significant reduction in enforcement actions in 2020 and 2021 was due to reduced road traffic as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Enforcement officers are deployed at various locations across Singapore to detect and take video evidence of smoky vehicles on public roads. While NEA had embarked on a small-scale trial of automatic smoke detection cameras in 2017, it was assessed that the technology was unable to detect and pinpoint the smoke emissions from individual vehicles accurately and reliably.
As part of its continuing efforts to reduce air pollution and promote public health, NEA will continue to identify and conduct trials on other potentially suitable and cost-effective technologies to detect smoky vehicles on the road.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Places Offered by New SPED Schools under Enabling Masterplan 2030 Recommendations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education with regard to the Enabling Masterplan 2030 recommendations to increase the number of Special Education (SPED) schools, how many additional places will be offered to students by these new SPED schools.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The five new Special Education (SPED) schools to be set up by 2030 will add some 1,400 places for students.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria for Caregivers of Mentally Disabled Persons to Qualify for Concessionary Levy or Grant","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the current system of allowing caregivers of mentally disabled persons to qualify for concessionary migrant domestic worker levy or grant based on the persons' ability to perform Activities of Daily Living may be adjusted to allow for such concessionary levy or grant so long as the person cared for is assessed to be significantly mentally impaired.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Migrant Domestic Worker (MDW) levy concession is offered to families of persons who require assistance with at least one Activity of Daily Living (ADL)1. This includes persons who may physically be able to perform the ADLs but require assistance or supervision to do so due to cognitive impairments.
For example, a person with cognitive impairment may be able to hold a fork and spoon, but require assistance to portion the food, or supervision to ensure that he/she does not choke while eating. Such a person can be assessed by a registered physiotherapist or occupational therapist at a SPED school, disability care centre, or therapy hub service provider using MSF's Client Assessment Form (CAF) and the family can submit the CAF to qualify for the MDW levy concession.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) refer to: eating, bathing, dressing, transferring, toileting and walking or moving around."],"footNoteQuestions":["15"],"questionNo":"15"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Staff Vacancies in Adult Disability Homes and Day Activity Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the current number of staff vacancies in Adult Disability Homes (ADHs) and Day Activity Centres (DACs); (b) what are the challenges faced by social service agencies in filling these vacancies; (c) whether the manpower shortage has impacted their operations and, if so, how; and (d) what is the feedback from caregivers and clients about the service quality of ADHs and DACs.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: A March 2022 survey found that Adult Disability Homes (ADHs) and Day Activity Centres (DACs) have plans to fill some 200 vacancies. This includes additional staff supported by the increase in funding to ADHs by 25% ($6 million) per year from July 2021 and to DACs by 20% ($3 million) per year from October 2021, to enable them to hire more care staff and increase their quality of care.
The National Council of Social Services (NCSS) regularly reviews and publishes salary guidelines for the social service sector. This information helps social service agencies to set competitive salaries to attract and retain good staff. Nonetheless, there remain concerns about career prospects, salaries and working environment.
To encourage more people to join the social service sector, the Career Conversion Programmes provide funding support for mid-career professionals from other sectors to acquire relevant skills and become social workers and allied health professionals1. NCSS also launched the Social Service Tribe in 2018 to increase public awareness and career interest by communicating the values of the sector, highlighting the work carried out by sector professionals and sharing career opportunities and pathways.
In our FY2021 survey on caregiver satisfaction with ADH services, 92.3% of caregivers gave a rating of 3.5 and above out of 5. We plan to survey DAC clients from FY2022.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : CCP for Social Worker (SW) provides trainees with up to 95% (depending on trainee’s programme track and age profile) sponsorship of course fees and employers with up to 70% of salary support, capped at $4,000 per month or up to 90% capped at $6,000 for Singapore Citizen trainees above age 40 or are long-term unemployed. CCP for Allied Health Professional (AHP) and Speech and Language Therapist (SLT) provide trainees with up to 100% and 85% sponsorship of course fees respectively with training allowance and career transition bonus, supported by the employer, NCSS and WSG."],"footNoteQuestions":["16"],"questionNo":"16"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Publication and Distribution of Future Care Planning Playbook","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) when is the Future Care Planning Playbook expected to be finalised and published; and (b) how does the Ministry plan to distribute the playbook to relevant stakeholders.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: SG Enable will be working with Social Service Agency (SSA) partners to develop a Future Care Planning Playbook. The playbook will provide caregivers with resources and guided support to develop a future care plan while prioritising the needs and choices of their family member with disability. This can enable conversations on important life choices to start earlier and allow a longer runway for caregivers and persons with disabilities to identify and develop suitable support and development options.
The playbook is expected to be ready by 2024. The playbook will be made available online and disability SSAs will be trained on how to use the playbook progressively.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria for Admission to Preschools Supported by Anchor or Partner Operator Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what are the criteria for the admission of children to preschools supported by the Anchor Operator Scheme or the Partner Operator Scheme; and (b) whether the Ministry has considered requiring preschools benefiting from these schemes to give priority admission to Singapore Citizens living within one kilometre of the preschool.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Government-supported preschools under the Anchor Operator (AOP) Scheme and the Partner Operator (POP) Scheme are required to accord priority to Singapore Citizens in their enrolment process.
Apart from the above requirement, ECDA understands that AOPs and POPs already consider various factors in making enrolment decisions, including whether siblings are already enrolled in the centre, as well as proximity of their homes to the centre.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Hiring of More Dedicated Administrative and Support Care Staff to Assist Nurses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health (a) what plans does the Ministry have to hire more dedicated administrative and support care staff to assist nurses; (b) what is the number of additional staff members the Ministry intends to hire; and (c) what is the timeframe for rolling out these plans.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The hiring of staff and determination of staffing numbers are managed by the healthcare clusters, not MOH. What MOH does is to work with the clusters to help redesign healthcare roles and facilitate equipping staff with the skills and training to allow them to grow throughout their careers. Every job in a hospital or the healthcare sector needs to be meaningful, dignified and enable the worker to develop and grow.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Spent by Healthcare Professionals Communicating with Patients and Their Families","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health with regard to time spent by healthcare professionals communicating with patients and their families in the course of providing care (communication time) (a) whether any studies have been conducted on the time needed for effective communication time and, if so, whether findings have shown an increase in the need for communication time; and (b) whether contemporary manpower planning have considered the role of effective communication time in providing holistic patient-centric care.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: We have not come across literature that recommends an optimal time duration for communication between healthcare professionals and their patients or family members. From our experience, effective communication varies with factors, such as disciplines or specialties and individual circumstances, including but not limited to case complexity and the baseline health literacy of the patient and their family. As of now, manpower planning is still, primarily, based on patient load and the complexities of their diseases.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Long-term Effects of COVID-19 Vaccines on Children and Removal of Vaccine-differentiated Measures in Medical Facilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the total incidence of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children who have caught COVID-19 that are (i) vaccinated and (ii) non-vaccinated; and (b) whether the current review of mRNA vaccines by HSA will include the long-term effects of the vaccines on children, particularly with regard to risks of developmental defects in children below five years old.
22 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Health whether resource constraints at our medical facilities and hospitals remain a binding constraint on (i) the full removal of vaccine-differentiated measures (VDMs) and (ii) the consideration to make such VDMs illegal.
23 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there is an update on HSA's assessment of the use of Novavax COVID-19 vaccine for persons aged 18 and below; and (b) whether there are plans to eventually approve the Novavax COVID-19 vaccine as a non-mRNA vaccine alternative for children aged six months and above.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: These questions have been addressed in my reply to Question Nos 1 and 2 for Oral Answer on the Order Paper for 13 September 2022.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Private Residential Properties Bought by Locals and Foreigners in Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry has data on the total number and percentage of private residential properties that are bought by locals and foreigners respectively for each of the past three years; and (b) if so, what are they.
Mr Desmond Lee: The annual breakdowns by residential status of the number and percentage of private residential property purchases for 2019 to 1H2022 are provided in Table 1 below.
25 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry has conducted any in-depth studies on why other countries have banned the practice of debarking dogs and declawing cats; (b) if so, what are the results of this review; and (c) if not, why.
Mr Desmond Lee: Due to animal welfare concerns, countries such as Australia, New Zealand and the US, generally, do not encourage or allow debarking of dogs or declawing of cats, except for medical or health reasons or other circumstances. In a few US states, such as New Jersey, Massachusetts and Maryland, the debarking of dogs is prohibited, unless it is carried out on the advice of a licensed veterinarian and for medical reasons. Similarly, in the Australian states of Queensland and Victoria, debarking of dogs and declawing of cats are legally prohibited, unless carried out by a veterinary practitioner for therapeutic reasons.
NParks' position on debarking dogs and declawing cats is aligned with the veterinary practices in these jurisdictions. We take a firm stance against such practices, except under certain circumstances, such as for medical or health reasons. This provides pet owners with an alternative, as opposed to giving up or euthanising the animal. NParks has put in place a framework to regulate such practices.
The Code of Ethics for Veterinarians considers such practices unethical, unless they are performed as an alternative to euthanasia. Under the Code, veterinarians are required to advise pet owners of non-surgical alternatives and to ensure that all reasonable efforts have been made to manage the issue prior to performing such procedures. Failure to do so can result in written warnings, composition fines or suspension or revocation of veterinary licences. NParks will also continue to educate pet owners and raise awareness on alternatives to debarking and declawing.
Should the public come across suspected cases where debarking of dogs and declawing of cats have been performed without due justification, they are encouraged to inform NParks, so that it can investigate and take the necessary actions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Completed But Vacant HDB Units by Flat Type and Vacancy Rates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development in the past 10 years, what is the annual number of completed but vacant HDB units, broken down by flat type and their respective vacancy rates and within one year of obtaining Temporary Occupation Permits for the flats.
Mr Desmond Lee: There are a total of 1,037,013 completed HDB flats, as at 31 July 2022. Of these, 1,465 flats, or 0.1%, were vacant units that had not been booked. Most of these units were either being offered under Sale of Balance Flats exercises where flat selection had not been completed or were scheduled for subsequent exercises. Please see Table 1 for details.
27 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the rationale for NParks to limit the pilot approach to centrally manage environmental impact assessment studies to HDB and JTC development projects; and (b) whether the Ministry can provide an indicative timeline on when this approach will be rolled out to all Government projects.
Mr Desmond Lee: Centralising the management of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) consultancy services has various benefits, such as raising standards across the industry and consolidating information on Singapore's biodiversity. Given the scale of Government projects and that the centralisation entails agencies restructuring their roles and processes, we will begin by piloting this approach for new HDB and JTC development projects requiring EIAs.
The pilot will cover a sizeable number and mix of project types, including residential and industrial developments. When the pilot concludes in end 2024, we will review the outcomes before deciding whether and when to scale the centralisation further.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of $193.7 Million Annual Fee Paid to Sports Hub Pte Ltd","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth with regard to the $193.7 million annual fee paid to Sports Hub Pte Ltd (a) whether the annual fee includes other costs apart from operations, maintenance, lifecycle and debt servicing costs; (b) what is the breakdown of these different costs from the annual fee paid; and (c) whether there are contractual clauses in the Project Agreement that allow the Government to discontinue payment of the entire annual fee in the event of non-performance by SHPL.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: About 65% of the annual fee of $193.7 million goes towards SHPL's debt service repayments for the loan they took out to finance the Sports Hub construction. The remaining amount goes towards the day-to-day maintenance and operations, as well as lifecycle costs of the assets.
These payments are subject to SHPL's achievement of a broad and comprehensive range of Key Performance Indicators (KPI) stipulated within the Project Agreement. These include the availability of Sports Hub facilities and performance of services, such as events and activity programming, as well as cleanliness, estate management, security and quality of customer care. Deductions to the annual payments can be made if the KPIs are not met.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Funds Raised by People’s Association and Mayors for Community and Charitable Causes in 2021","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth what is the total amount of funds raised by People’s Association and the Office of the Mayors for community and charitable causes in 2021.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The People's Association, including the Community Development Councils, works with corporate and community partners to help residents in need. In the past five years, an average of $29 million was raised each year to fund charitable and community programmes, such as welfare assistance, employment assistance and home refurbishments.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Individuals Who Ceased Employment Since Implementation of Workforce Vaccination Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Manpower with regard to the 52,000 unvaccinated employees as of 19 December 2021, whether there is an update on the number of individuals who have ceased employment since the Workforce Vaccination Measures came into effect in January 2022.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Workforce Vaccination Measures which came into effect from 1 January 2022 were lifted on 26 April 2022. Of the 52,000 unvaccinated employees identified in December 2021, 32,000 were local employees. Of the 32,000, we estimate that 5,000 (16%) were unemployed or were placed on no-pay leave at some point this year based on their CPF records.
As of June 2022, CPF records showed that about 1,000 of the 5,000 local employees have regained employment. Individuals who need employment assistance may tap on the existing career matching services offered by Workforce Singapore (WSG) and NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute (e2i).
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Wage Cut Notifications Received from March 2020 to July 2022","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether a monthly breakdown can be provided on the number of wage cut notifications received by the Ministry from March 2020 to July 2022; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider re-implementing the wage cut notification measures as a way of monitoring businesses that use wage cuts as a solution to overcome business challenges.
Dr Tan See Leng: In March 2020 with the onset of COVID-19, MOM introduced a temporary requirement for employers with 10 or more employees to notify MOM if they implement any cost-saving measures that affected employees' monthly salaries. This would encourage responsible implementation of such measures and allow MOM to monitor the scope and scale of the measures. This would also enable the tripartite partners to step in to provide the appropriate support to both employers and employees when needed.
As the economy progressively recovered, the number of cost-saving notifications received fell from a monthly peak of 1,937 in April 2020 to a monthly average of nine between January and July 2022.
Given the fall in the number of notifications received to a very low level and that it has been sustained at that level for several months as we emerged from the pandemic, the tripartite partners did not see a need to continue to impose the requirement on employers. We have no plans to reinstate the requirement at the moment.
Notwithstanding the above, the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment (TAMEM) remains in place to guide employers on the implementation of cost-saving measures to preserve jobs. Employers should consult their unions and employees to discuss and reach an agreement before implementing wage cuts. Employers who need clarification on TAMEM can approach the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) for advice. Employees who feel that cost-saving measures have not been implemented fairly can also approach the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) for assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"One-off Adjustment to CPF Ordinary Account Interest Rates to Better Reflect Inflation Premium","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Manpower in light of the consistently high interest rate spread between lending and deposit rates, with limited pass-through of global central bank rate hikes to domestic deposit rates, whether the Ministry will consider (i) a one-off adjustment to CPF Ordinary Account (OA) interest rates that better reflect the inflation premium already captured in lending but not deposit rates and (ii) a different formula for CPF OA rates based not only on average deposit rates, but also on lending rates.
Dr Tan See Leng: The commercial banks' lending rates take into account factors that include the possibility that the loans may go bad and not be repaid. Therefore, the OA interest rate is not comparable to banks' lending rates because the OA principal and interest are guaranteed by the Government.
In response to rising inflationary pressures, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has tightened its monetary policy four times since October 2021. The stronger exchange rate has helped to dampen imported inflationary pressures. To help Singaporeans cope with rising inflation, MOF has also announced a $1.5 billion support package in June 2022. Instead of a one-off adjustment to CPF OA interest rate, the package provides more targeted and immediate relief, especially for the lower-income and vulnerable groups who are disproportionately impacted by the effects of higher prices.
Even though the OA pegged rate remains at around 0.09%, the Government is paying up to 3.5% on the OA balances due to the 1% extra interest and the statutory minimum of 2.5%. Members can also transfer their OA monies to the Special or Retirement Account to earn up to 6% for members aged 55 and above, or up to 5% for members below 55.
That said, our policies are not static. We are watching the interest rate environment closely to ensure that the OA interest rate peg remains relevant in the prevailing operating environment whilst taking into consideration the longer-term outlook.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":5181,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Sun Xueling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220913/vernacular-Sun Xueling Debt Collection 13Sep2022-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Sun Xueling Debt Collection 13Sep2022-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5182,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Don Wee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220913/vernacular-Don Wee Debt Collection 13Sep2022-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Don Wee Debt Collection 13Sep2022-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5183,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Leon Perera","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220913/vernacular-13 Sept 2022 - Mr Leon Perera - National Symbols Bill.pdf","fileName":"13 Sept 2022 - Mr Leon Perera - National Symbols Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5184,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Joan Pereira","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220913/vernacular-Joan Pereira National Symbols 13Sep2022 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Joan Pereira National Symbols 13Sep2022 -Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}