1 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether an update can be provided on the work of the recently announced Bus Safety Tripartite Taskforce; (b) what are the key areas of focus of the Taskforce; and (c) to what extent has the Taskforce engaged different stakeholders to enhance bus and commuter safety.
\tThe Minister of State for Transport (Mr Murali Pillai) (for the Minister for Transport): Sir, the Bus Safety Tripartite Taskforce was formed on 1 July 2024 to review how road safety may be enhanced for bus commuters, bus captains and other road users in their interactions with public buses. The review builds on the safety initiatives and practices that the Land Transport Authority, the public transport operators and workers have put in place over the years. It aims to identify ways to make further improvements in areas such as safety protocols and procedures, staffing levels and work conditions, design of road infrastructure and the usage of technology.
Between July 2024 and October 2024, the Taskforce engaged stakeholders such as commuters, road users, bus captains and other public transport workers, to obtain their feedback on how to improve bus safety. This includes a one-month long public survey which gathered over 2,300 responses, a survey for our bus captains which garnered over 3,400 responses, as well as in-person focus group discussions with around 160 commuters and road users. The Taskforce also visited all four bus operators to understand their safety practices. During the visits, Taskforce members also had the opportunity to engage face-to-face with bus captains to understand their concerns and challenges. To learn from stakeholders outside the bus sector, the Taskforce engaged the Singapore Armed Forces' (SAF’s) Transport Command to learn about safety initiatives for transport operators in the SAF.
The Taskforce conveys its thanks to all participants of its surveys, focus group discussions and visits. It is reviewing the feedback and learning points from the numerous engagements.
In the coming months, the Taskforce will be engaging international experts, overseas regulators and operators to identify suitable best practices that the local public bus sector can adopt. The Taskforce aims to complete its review by the first half of 2025.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister of State for his answers. I am particularly interested in this Parliamentary Question (PQ) because of the bus safety issues, following the previous PQs I had asked before, especially the ones a few years ago on the accident near the bus interchange.
May I ask the Minister of State whether he can share any preliminary findings from whatever has been achieved so far since October, since the last round of consultations? And what other new consultations or engagements does he plan to make over the next few months, before the findings are released next year?
\tMr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand the concern expressed by the hon Member Mr Saktiandi. May I just assure him that the number of serious collision accidents annually involving public buses has remained stable in the past few years. This remains the case since the announcement by Minister Chee Hong Tat on the formation of the Taskforce in July 2024.
As to the preliminary findings, the surveys and engagements that the Taskforce had so far showed that commuters generally feel that the safety standards onboard buses are good. But of course, there are always areas that we can look at to enhance these standards.
As to what further steps we will be taking to get the inputs necessary, as I mentioned in my speech, we will be engaging international experts, overseas regulators as well as operators to identify best practices that we can adopt in the local public bus sector.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Tan.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for his answer. I have Clementi residents who are ageing and so are understandably giving much attention to whether our bus services, our bus infrastructure continue to be accommodating of the elderly.
Can I ask the Minister of State, in the stakeholder consultations, will there be attention given to engaging healthcare professionals who work with the elderly and may have insights into the challenges faced by the elderly? Professionals such as geriatricians, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and other allied health professionals with relevant experience.
\tMr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, in response to the hon Member Dr Tan Wu Meng's question, so far, indeed, we have engaged seniors who are commuters and also received responses from bus captains who have been engaging with the seniors as well. In particular, one area of concern is how they would be dealing with situations where the bus had to decelerate quickly as that may cause problems for our seniors. This is one area we are trying to see how best we can progress.
The other area is also, sometimes, to dissuade seniors who have mobility issues from going to the upper deck in double-deck buses, but instead, to remain in the lower deck of the buses so that they do not take any chances while climbing up to the upper deck. That requires some level of education.
I thank Dr Tan for his suggestion for the Taskforce to engage the healthcare professionals. This is something that we could look at to see how we can bolster the safety for seniors while they travel in our buses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Blocking of Websites Linked to Misinformation Campaigns and Subsequent Appeals Process","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether there is a specific threshold of reach or impact that the Ministry considers before taking action to block websites linked to potential misinformation campaigns; (b) how effective is the blocking of these websites, considering the availability of tools like virtual private network (VPN) to circumvent such restrictions; and (c) whether there is a process for website owners to appeal or seek recourse if they believe their websites have been mistakenly blocked.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) does not set a threshold of reach or impact in assessing whether to pre-emptively act against threats of hostile information campaigns (HICs).
In the case of 10 inauthentic websites that were blocked on 22 October 2024, the level of exposure of Singaporeans to these 10 websites were assessed to be low. However, based on our investigations, they could potentially be used by foreign actors to mount HICs against Singapore. Most of these websites are associated with global networks of inauthentic news websites that have been reported by cybersecurity researchers to have conducted HICs and influence campaigns in other countries.
The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) had considered the MHA’s findings and was satisfied that it was in the public interest to take pre-emptive action and not wait until a HIC is mounted before acting against these websites.
Singaporeans should continue to remain vigilant when consuming online content and be alert to such inauthentic websites and the threat that they pose. The directions to Internet Access Service Providers to disable access to the 10 inauthentic websites were issued with the intent of protecting users in Singapore from accessing and potentially being misled by these inauthentic websites. However, if individuals choose to circumvent these protections and use virtual private networks or other means to access dubious content, they do so at their own risk. We cannot protect people who deliberately avoid the protection.
Under section 59 of the Broadcasting Act, any licensee aggrieved by any decision of the IMDA may appeal to the Minister.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply. Blocking websites is a very powerful tool, but it also can have unintended consequences, such as driving traffic underground. How will the Ministry monitor this and deal with these unintended consequences? Are there complementary strategies to address misinformation besides blocking websites?
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. The objective of issuing directions to the inauthentic websites is to protect users in Singapore from accessing and potentially being misled by them, and to raise public awareness of such foreign interference risks. So, by issuing a direction, by blocking access to these websites, we would have achieved these objectives.
I take the point that the Member mentioned that there could be users, audiences in Singapore who would try other ways and means to get access to this content. I had shared in my main reply that we cannot prevent them from doing so, but we would have achieved our purpose of highlighting to these users already the risk of accessing such content.
Beyond what we can do in the areas of issuing directions, I think what is most important is that we need to remind members of the public that they have to remain aware and vigilant against potential foreign interference activity.
The Government has conducted public education efforts and communication campaigns. We will continue to do so. These include the National Library Board's SURE campaign, which stands for Source, Understand, Research and Evaluate, to impart critical thinking skills to help Singaporeans discern the reliability of information, as well as the annual Total Defence campaign that reminds Singaporeans of the part that they need to play to counter hybrid threats. Lastly, the media also plays an important role by increasing the audience's awareness of the threat of foreign interference. I thank the Member for his questions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Guidelines for Employers' Use of Automated Decision-making Tools for Hiring or Promotions to Prevent Biases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider introducing guidelines or regulations on employer's use of Automated Employment Decision Tools (AEDT), which are artificial intelligence technologies that substantially assist or replace discretionary decision-making in hiring or promotions, in order to prevent biases and including measures such as requiring companies to conduct a bias audit or to make disclosure where such tools are used to rank candidates or assess employees for promotion.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, regardless of the technological tools used to aid employment decisions, such as hiring or promotions, employers must comply with the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices, which promotes fair and merit-based employment practices.
If certain artificial intelligence (AI) use results in discriminatory employment practices, workers or job applicants can approach the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) for assistance. TAFEP will work with the employer to address the grievances of the workers or job applicants and ensure that the employer’s recruitment or performance appraisal processes adhere to the principles of fair employment. To date, TAFEP has not received complaints of discrimination arising from the use of AI tools.
I would also like to caution that AI technologies are evolving at a fast pace. In deploying AI-powered human resources (HR) tools, organisations should refer to the guidelines introduced by the Government to support the responsible development and use of AI. The Government will continue to closely monitor the trends in AI adoption and work with our tripartite partners, the Institute for Human Resource Professionals (IHRP) and the broader HR community to regularly assess if existing guidelines and regulations are adequate.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Tay.
\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his response. Just one supplementary question on how we can better protect workers' data privacy when AI systems are used, especially in HR processes.
I am glad that the Minister has introduced the Workplace Fairness Bill as well as some of the measures and Tripartite Advisories, but can we ensure that workers' consent is obtained before their data is used for AI-driven decisions, including promotions, hiring, re-employment and layoffs?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. We certainly will take the Member's suggestion to continue to improve the processes and to tighten it.
As I have shared earlier on, the adoption of AI, the use of the multiple tools is proceeding at a fairly rapid pace. To be overly prescriptive, to be overly tight in terms of our regulations, I think it would not just be not practical, but I do not think at this particular point in time, given the stage of evolution of the entire AI industry, we can really catch up with them adequately.
\t I think the best, nuanced approach is to continue to maintain clear responsible use of AI, which the Government has actually introduced in the form of a model AI governance framework. And one particular example is AI Verify. I think for the purpose of the brevity of this discussion, I do not want to go into too much discussion on that part of it. This is a toolkit, which is developed by IMDA. I am happy to walk the Members of the House through at subsequent Parliamentary Sittings if there is another Parliamentary Question filed on that, to talk about how we can use that.
For the use of data in terms of the algorithms that many of these companies may want to use, it is important that the data pertaining to individuals is anonymised. And, of course, consent would really be one of those things that we are looking at as well. So, I hope that gives the Member that reassurance that we are doing everything that we can to stay on top of it.
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng, a short one please.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Can I ask the Minister, in his assessment of the current landscape of TAFEP cases on unfair HR practices, roughly what proportion of cases did the adjudication hinge on proof of intention by the hiring manager or the company's management? Because with AI, it can be difficult to ascertain intention because the AI is not able to give testimony and be cross-examined or provide information for investigation the way a human can be questioned.
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Dr Tan for his supplementary question. As I have said, we are at a very pivotal state of transformation and the adoption of AI. If we were having a series of discussions earlier on and Dr Tan himself also brought to our attention that, today, you can actually file a legal suit using ChatGPT.
So, what is fundamentally important for us today is to work closely with employees or with potential employees who may feel that they are aggrieved, to surface such cases to us so that we can investigate. Then, obviously, we will work with the companies to see if some of the algorithms – sometimes, it may not be an intention, it could be a function of the datasets that the company is using – have an inherent bias, for instance, in looking at certain characteristics and, therefore, favour hiring or promotion in favour of those characteristics.
So, we need that constant sense of vigilance, we need the participation of all parties coming together. We also need different agencies, the IHRP, the Labour Movement and we need our tripartite partners to come into the space alongside with us. Then we can ensure a more equitable society and workplace for everyone.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, just a response to the Minister through a question vis-à-vis what he said about AI. Unfortunately, from the worker's perspective, one usually is not in a position of information superiority over the employer, so you do not know what back-end selections or pre-qualifications your AI system has done.
So, in that context, where there is always a power imbalance and there is always information asymmetry in favour of an employer, what new approaches would the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) consider to encourage employees to raise concerns to, say, TAFEP or to any other appropriate authority in MOM?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I think that it is important to recognise that in today's climate, depending on which aspects that you are looking at, the employee also has certain advantages vis-à-vis choosing the choice of employers that they want to work for, because we do have a very tight labour market. So, it is how we achieve that good balance, of balancing responsible employees who really form the majority of our workforce, alongside responsible employers who are also the majority of our entire job ecosystem, with a very good balance achieved through tripartism – working with the Singapore National Employers' Federation (SNEF), working with the Labour Movement and also getting other non-government organisations, the IHRP and other organisations which have been working alongside with us. We hope that we can continue to maintain this harmonious ecosystem.
Of course, we cannot take things for granted because we continue to work hard at tripartism, at working with the different chambers to achieve this. But I want to reassure the Leader that every single complaint and every single question is dealt with expeditiously in a very clear and transparent manner. And by building a database, a repository of the nature of the different types of complaints, it would sharpen our ability to protect employees better and, at the same time, maintain that balance for employers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Consistent Markings for Segregating Paths along Park Connector Network","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development in respect of NParks’ revised typology that segregates selected stretches of the Park Connector Network into pedestrian-only paths and shared paths, whether NParks can study how to encourage safe and considerate use of such paths for different users, including those who are (i) on foot, (ii) using strollers, (iii) walking dogs, (iv) using wheelchairs and (v) using different types of active mobility devices, and for users to keep left or give way, to minimise accidents and improve user experience.
5 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development in respect of NParks’ revised typology that segregates selected stretches of the Park Connector Network (PCN) into pedestrian-only paths and shared paths, whether NParks can consider the segregation of paths in a consistent manner and minimise frequent changes in the segregation of paths along similar stretches of PCN, including where the width of such paths have remained the same, so as to provide certainty and reduce confusion among users.
\tThe Minister of State for National Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 4 and 5 together?
Mr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, to enhance the user experience along our Park Connector Network (PCN), the National Parks Board (NParks) started piloting a revised PCN typology that segregates selected stretches of the PCN into pedestrian-only paths and shared paths in 2022. NParks has consistently implemented this revised typology on continuous stretches of the PCN, taking into consideration factors such as the width of the path and the human traffic in the area.
As part of the revised typology, NParks has also implemented revised lane markings to enhance the user experience and encourage safe and considerate use of the PCN. These include signs to remind users to keep left when using the park connectors as well as markings that clearly indicate the different types of users allowed on each lane within the path, including pedestrians, cyclists and users of personal mobility devices.
NParks works closely with the Land Transport Authority (LTA), the Friends of the PCN and the community to promote safe and gracious use of our PCN, especially for park connectors with high usage and more frequent feedback on user conflicts. NParks has also collaborated with the Singapore Kindness Movement to raise public awareness on PCN etiquette through its Kindness Ambassadors.
In the next phase, NParks will roll out the revised PCN typology for more park connectors, incorporating the feedback received so far. Thereafter, NParks will engage stakeholders again and assess the feasibility to implement the revised typology for more park connectors.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Speaker, I declare that I am a regular user of the PCN, but my Question Nos 4 and 5 actually arose from recent feedback from a Hougang resident, quite consistent with what I have raised.
Just a bit of background for me asking this question, because I have spoken on this since 2018 and I have raised specifically in 2019 to 2021 regarding the new typology where, for the benefit of people listening to this, the new red lane markings for where one-third is exclusively for people on foot and about two-thirds for all users, including pedestrians, cyclists, mobility scooters, strollers, e-scooters and pets on leash. I previously said that there are people walking on both lanes and not keeping left, and cyclists have to wait through the traffic, even going onto the exclusive walking lane, so to speak, because of congestion. I have previously asked for an increase in public education and enforcement efforts for safe and considerate use of the PCN. Almost four years on, with actually some of the red lanes having faded and turned to yellow again, awaiting a new coat of paint, the situation has, in my view and my resident's view, remained the same, especially during the peak hours of usage.
So, in the interest of safety and greater amenity of all PCN users – and I am grateful to the Minister of State for telling us about an update, that he is reviewing this – may I appeal to NParks or the Ministry of National Development (MND) to really review how we can improve on the use of the division of the lane, so that there is greater safety and greater amenity for all users? And moving forward, may I also ask NParks to increase its public education efforts on the use of this PCN for all users?
On Question No 5, currently, some parts of the PCN have no red lane markings, while others have such red lane markings, and often it is all within a few hundred metres along same stretches. Personally, I have observed that in some of these stretches, the width may not have varied. So, I would like to appeal to NParks to consider minimising different lane markings, different segregation of paths along similar stretches of PCN, to avoid confusion, perhaps adopting what LTA is doing with path segregation along its cycling network.
And may I ask, where does NParks or MND provide advisories to PCN users on the revised typology and their intended users, and can these be made more prominent on the ground? Because on the ground, I sense that people do not really understand how the division is meant to be used, even after all these years.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. I can understand the issues raised by the Member. I have been very fortunate to be involved in this area of work since I was in the Ministry of Transport and I can see how things have improved significantly over the years. Members will realise that for behaviour to change, while we provide the infrastructure and we improve the markings, I think, as humans, we also will navigate this over time. I can see that the behaviour has changed over time significantly.
Sir, you and I, we were in Parliament, we started together. We could see how the incidents and the behaviour of the people, with regard to how they use the PCN and even the cycling paths, have significantly changed and, that to me, is a positive move. And NParks continues to make improvements.
If Members realise, we have this pilot, we do it in two phases. We just completed Phase 1 and when we completed Phase 1 in the third quarter of 2023, we did surveys with the Friends of the PCN and the different stakeholders in the spirit of understanding that it takes time to improve human behaviour, but also to see how our infrastructure meets the needs of the people. So, I assure the Member that we will continue to do this.
And I am not sure whether I heard the Member correctly. He shared about some of the pedestrian paths being used by those on personal mobility devices and cyclists. So, essentially, during our pilot Phase 1, we have segregated them and what we have seen is that people are adjusting to this whole process. When we embark on the Phase 2, we will take the feedback and comments we have heard from Phase 1 and then we will see how we can navigate this further.
We will introduce more markings, especially at the start of the PCN and at the end, and we will make these at smaller intervals. And for some, it may seem that the width may be the same, but there are intersections where you would be required to understand the behaviour of people when they come together. So, it may not be as straightforward as the width. We look at various factors when we design it.
So, I hope that the Member will join us in this journey to make sure that, while we are small, we maximise our land use. And what is key is this, a feedback that I heard from one of my counterparts recently is: \"You are small, but you are able to use your land efficiently and the people are able to enjoy it even though they are all different types of users.\" So, we will continue to do this to make sure it brings goodness to Singaporeans.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, keep it short.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. If I may just quickly build on the Parliamentary Question by my hon friend, Mr Dennis Tan, where he expressed some sense in which users are sometimes confused over the demarcations.
Like him, I use the Sengkang Riverside Park along the path that follows the Punggol River, and there, the confusion is not so much that users do not keep left, but they do not know whether to keep left on the path for pedestrians or to keep left in general along the broad path.
So, along those lines, I am wondering if NParks will commit for the PCN to have markings with colour demarcations for both pedestrians versus non-pedestrians. In that way, they will know for sure that they should be keeping left along the designated path for their use.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I use the same PCN, as what was shared by the Member, and I use it regularly. I find that, even over time, I have seen people getting used to the markings. So, like what I shared with the Member earlier, it takes time for people to look at the changes and then adjust their behaviour.
In the past, I remember when NParks first built it and started it, you realise that there were lots of people who did not know how to use it. But today, I walk or even cycle there at least three times a week, I realised that people are able to navigate better, there is less conflict along the path and, at the same time, when it comes to where users come in via the different paths into the PCN, you realise that they are able to look out for one another.
So, we will take the feedback raised by the Members, but I want to urge Members to join us in this journey to make sure that we really develop something good for our people, so that wherever they live, they are able to enjoy the PCNs and even the shared and cycling paths that we have.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"National Servicemen Eligible for LifeSG Credits Announced in Budget 2024","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Defence (a) how many past National Servicemen above 60 years old will be eligible for $200 in LifeSG credits under the 2024 Budget; and (b) how will the Government reach out to less technically savvy past National Servicemen to assist them in claiming the $200 credits, beyond asking them to approach the digital ambassadors located at the 16 digital community hubs.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Defence (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) (for the Minister for Defence): Mr Speaker, the NS LifeSG Credits recognise past and present National Servicemen (NSmen) from the Singapore Armed Forces and the Home Team for their contributions to Singapore's defence and security. In the month of November, more than one million NSmen would have received, via the LifeSG application, $200 worth of credits which can be used to purchase a range of household and lifestyle goods and services. Twenty-six percent, or more than a quarter of a million, of the recipients are above 60 years old.
Recipients who need help to claim the credits can contact the NS Call Centre or approach the digital ambassadors at the 36 SG Digital Community Hubs and nine ServiceSG Centres. Those who are unable to access the credits via the digital LifeSG mobile application or who are not comfortable with digital payments, may request the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) for hard copy vouchers.
This approach is similar to the arrangement for the NS55 Recognition Package in 2022. And this had worked well and received positive feedback from past and present NSmen.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the comprehensive reply. I am not so sure we note that there is a WhatsApp message circulating around to allow the more IT-savvy Singaporeans to use PayNow to transfer the $200 LifeSG money to their savings account through some other payment apps. I am not so sure that is the intention of the Ministry to allow such easy transfers.
Secondly, I hope that with this $200 LifeSG movement, we will not increase the divide between the digitally-savvy and non-digitally-savvy Singaporeans, but rather to bridge the gap. So, we hope that beyond what you have done, maybe we can encourage more Community Centres to help make it easier for the non-IT savvy Singaporeans to get their $200 credits.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank the Member for his clarification. First and foremost, the LifeSG Credits are meant to recognise all our NSmen, past and present. And certainly, for those above 60, we want every single one of them to benefit, if possible. So, I want to assure the Member again that there is no intention to divide those who are digitally savvy and those who are not, because you have both options – the digital and the hard copies that you can request from MHA and MINDEF.
But if the Member would like to have a sense, based on the last disbursement that we had with the LifeSG Credits in 2022, about 88% of eligible NSmen who were above 60 years old had utilised their credits, and just 2% of them requested and received hard copy vouchers. So, the numbers are quite small. I would hope that after one round of experience, maybe more would have a positive experience this round as well and would be used to the LifeSG app.
But overall, if we look at the survey that we had done in the last poll – this was just about four months after the last campaign or the last disbursement in 2022 – about 95% of our NSmen indicated that they were supportive of digital disbursements. So, there is widespread support. But there are also the hard copies that members can request from MINDEF and MHA, if they cannot access digital payments.
One more point, Mr Speaker. On the Member's other point about potential scams or attempts on use of PayNow payments. If the Member has specific information on the WhatsApp messages, let us know, so that we can investigate and see if these are scams.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Factors for Lower Hiring Rate of Persons with Disabilities in Public Sector Compared to Private Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what specific factors have contributed to the lower hiring rate of Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) in the public sector compared to the private sector; (b) how the hiring rate of PwDs in Singapore’s Public Service quantitatively compares with that in other developed countries; (c) what structural or policy-related constraints prevent Singapore Government agencies from increasing PwD hires; and (d) what steps are being taken to address these constraints directly.
\tThe Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not meaningful to compare the hiring rate of persons with disabilities (PwDs) in the public and private sectors as the contexts and nature of jobs in the two sectors differ. The Government is focused on raising the overall employment rate of PwDs across both the public and private sectors, where PwDs are placed and retained in jobs that are best suited to their strengths and capabilities.
However, the public sector also has a significant proportion of roles for which a certain level of physical and mental fitness is required, such as the uniformed services. This is one reason why hiring rates of PwDs may differ across sectors. There is also no comparative data for the hiring rates of PwDs in the public sector across developed countries.
The hon Member also asked about the constraints of hiring PwDs and steps taken to address these constraints. The Member may refer to the responses to the Parliamentary Question (PQ) that he raised on 15 October, and the PQ raised by the Member, Mr Don Wee, on 9 September, where we shared the public sector's approach to the issue.
The public sector has been and will continue to support the employment of PwDs.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his reply. Sir, as of December 2023, the private sector had employed 75% more PwDs as a proportion of the total employment compared to the public sector. I understand that the Minister said that is not meaningful to compare. I would just like more clarification on why he thinks that is not meaningful, apart from the fact that the Singapore Armed Forces and the Home Team may not be able to hire as many PwDs in combat positions.
As the largest employer in Singapore, does the Minister agree that the Government bears a greater responsibility to set a positive hiring example in inclusive hiring? Ideally, the public sector should lead the hiring of PwDs, rather than lagging behind.
Secondly, could the Minister share if there are concrete targets for PwD employment in the public sector over the next five years and, if so, what strategies are in place to ensure that these targets are achieved?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already explained that the nature of jobs in the public sector is quite different from the nature of jobs in the private sector. For us, it is more important to make sure that instead of counting the number of jobs, it is to make every job count. And that is what the Public Service sector is prepared and is committed to do.
We want to make sure that every PwD employed by the Public Service sector has a meaningful job, based on their capabilities and strengths, and we will continue to look out for jobs where we can meaningfully employ PwDs to best make use of their talents. We are not here just to meet the numbers. And I think all my agencies are trying their best to make sure that they can convert jobs that are relevant and meaningful for us to hire PwDs.
I have said that there are many jobs in the Public Service sector that are not comparable with the jobs in the private sector, and it is not meaningful for us to make that comparison.
Mr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua, keep it short.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Speaker, I want to declare, first, that I am a volunteer actively helping job centres in inclusive employment. I want to present another angle. I am quite excited about the work that is going on in inclusive employment in the public sector.
Just to name a few: the National Library Board, VITAL, GovTech, the Central Provident Fund Board, Ministry of Social and Family Development, Ministry of Health Holdings, Singapore General Hospital and also the transport sector. Actually, I think that they have done quite a bit in inclusive hiring, sometimes not allowing us in the charity sector to give up even.
The average rate does not reflect some of the very good work that is done.
There are also critical success factors that I hope the Minister will agree with me that we can learn from. The first is top leadership engagement and support, middle management focus, job design, equipping the colleagues and encouraging those on the ground. So, quite a bit of critical success factors.
Sir, I would like to ask the Minister if he would consider forming even a small task force for those who are actually passionate about this in the public sector to suss out all the critical success factors and those good in this area. And, in fact, position the public sector strongly as a leader in inclusive employment. There is a lot of room there and I am very encouraged by the hiring so far.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I completely agree with Ms Denise Phua. Indeed, we have groups of civil servants who are passionate about this and they go about doing their work quietly to make sure that jobs that can be converted, or even modified, to take in PwDs. We have done so and will continue to do so.
But as I have mentioned, the nature of the jobs is quite different. So, we should not set artificial targets or we should not do what we call \"tokenism\", just to meet targets. We want to make sure that every job counts, rather than count every job.
It is important for us that we employ PwDs to give them meaningful work, rather than just to meet any numerical targets. And as what Ms Denise Phua has mentioned, it is important that we continue this journey, not only with top-level management attention on this, but it also requires every one of us who is working in the sector to make accommodations and adjustments, so that we can bring out the best in everyone, including PwDs. And we will continue to do so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government's Response to Recommendations for Medishield Life to Better Support Fertility Preservation for Young Cancer Patients","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider augmenting the policy refresh accompanying the Government's acceptance of the MediShield Life Council's recommendations for the MediShield Life 2024 review by better supporting fertility preservation for young cancer patients whose fertility may be compromised as a consequence of cancer or medical treatment for cancer.
\tThe Minister of State for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, for young cancer patients who want to undergo fertility preservation, so that they can have children in the future, they can tap on MediSave for egg freezing. If they get married in the future and would like to use their eggs for Assisted Reproduction treatments, they can also receive Government co-funding support and use MediSave for their treatments.
We will study extending more support for such patients, separately from the MediShield Life 2024 review, bearing in mind there may be other medically necessary treatments for conditions besides cancer that could also affect fertility.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for her update. She mentioned the use of MediSave for young cancer patients needing help with fertility preservation. Would the Minister of State, firstly, agree that for some young cancer patients from families of limited means, especially if the patient has not yet started work, that patient may not have much MediSave? And if the family is disadvantaged, the family may also not have much MediSave. And therefore, would the Minister of State also agree this is an issue on the ground that the Ministry of Health (MOH) should look at, to ensure that young patients diagnosed early in life with cancer, regardless of background, have that chance at preserving their dreams of a family?
May I also declare as well that I am a medical doctor looking after cancer patients, including young cancer patients, at a public hospital.
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: Mr Speaker, I note the Member's deep interest in this matter and appreciate his enthusiasm. He has raised this matter in an Adjournment Motion previously and also in several Parliamentary Questions. Certainly, the Ministry is aware of and empathise with the situation faced by cancer patients, especially if they are of low income. And I can imagine it must be traumatic and devastating for them to go through this journey. As I have also explained, we are reviewing this matter.
MediShield Life is designed as a basic insurance scheme, covering large bills due to treatment of diseases in subsidised public hospitals. That is a separate thing. We are looking at this matter. We have also taken note of some of the suggestions Dr Tan has made in his Adjournment Motion. We will be looking at how we can continue to provide more support and see what is the adequacy of co-funding of other support that we can provide in fertility treatments of cancer patients.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Upgrades to National Grid and Energy Infrastructure to Accommodate New Energy Sources","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what specific upgrades are planned for the national grid and energy infrastructure to accommodate new energy sources like small modular reactors and ammonia; (b) what is the projected timeline for implementing these upgrades; and (c) how is the Government ensuring that infrastructure and grid readiness align with the commercial availability of these technologies.
\tThe Second Minister for Trade and Industry (Dr Tan See Leng) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, the Singapore Power (SP) Group is Singapore's national grid operator. The Energy Market Authority (EMA) works closely with the SP Group to plan for and implement the necessary upgrades and expansion of our grid infrastructure. This helps to ensure a stable and a reliable power system in Singapore, even as we complement our natural gas power plants with new energy sources, such as solar panels, low-carbon electricity imports from the region, and other sources that are still currently under study.
Small modular reactors (SMRs) are still nascent. As we have previously communicated in this House, SMRs have yet to be fully commercialised. We are, however, closely monitoring developments in SMR technology to assess if and when they can be and may be safe enough and feasible for Singapore.
As for ammonia, we are developing an Ammonia Pathfinder project for pilot-scale power generation and marine bunkering. For power generation, the plan is to deploy a 55- to 65-megawatt (MW) ammonia power plant by 2028. The pilot will help us evaluate the feasibility of scaling up ammonia power generation in Singapore. If ammonia power generation becomes feasible, we will naturally consider building the infrastructure required to support this new pathway.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Chua.
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Just two quick supplementary questions for the Minister. The first is, I note that there will be a Future Energy Fund which will be set up by the year-end. I just wanted to ask if there is a specific amount that will be ear-marked for these two new technologies for the infrastructure and grid upgrades that will be necessary, should we decide to go ahead with implementing this on a larger scale.
Second, I note the Minister's response that the Government is still monitoring SMR technology. At the same time, I also saw a recent piece of news that the EMA Chief Executive shared that SMR technology is actually a possible solution to power Singapore's data centres. So, on that note, I just wanted to ask if there is a certain timeline on this. Given that the last time we did a feasibility study was about 10 years ago, are there any plans to then conduct a proper study to see whether it is possible to power, not just the data centre industry, but that of our energy requirements?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. For the Future Energy Fund, I have shared earlier on, I believe it was at the Budget or Committee of Supply debate this year, that in some of the infrastructural investments, particularly pertaining to interconnectors, that is what we envisage part of the Future Energy Fund will be used for.
It would be premature at this particular point in time to talk about what amounts have been ear-marked. But with time, we will come back and lay out what are the amounts that we have been setting aside to develop and to invest in, to seed and to catalyse some of the developments. So, the first point is, perhaps for the Member's own understanding, the first focus will be on the interconnectors and this is relating to the renewable energy imports.
For the SMRs today, while there have been a lot of discussions, there has been also a lot of publicity around the potential for SMRs. We have been looking globally. The number of sites where one SMR has been deployed in a commercially and economically feasible segment, has yet to be demonstrated.
However, that being said, it still holds quite a fair bit of promise because the safety buffer zones are significantly less than during the time when we did the first feasibility study. I think that was back in around 2012, where the safety buffer zones for the conventional large-sized nuclear reactors did not make it possible or feasible for us to be considering investing in such type of technology within our island state.
However, today, given the nascency of some of these projects, we have not decided whether we will move on to another feasibility study. We are waiting for data to come out. We have just entered into an agreement, the 123 Agreement with the United States. Our main focus is on understanding the safety, the reliability and the technical aspects of SMR type of technology.
I think in the context of thinking forward, what are some possible pathways we can use – because we have committed to a net zero target by 2050, so what are some of the alternative pathways we can do for us to continue to fulfil our zero emission target and at the same time accommodate high-growth industries, whether it is in semiconductors or even wafer fabs or even data centres?
We will explore all possible pathways in order for us to enable our policy space to be able to accommodate some of these set-ups.
So, SMR is one. I have also shared in this House that we are also looking at geothermal exploration. As I have earlier on shared, we are considering using ammonia as a pathfinder. We are also looking at the possibility of carbon capture and storage. We are also working with like-minded countries for implementation agreements according to Article 6 of the Paris Accords on carbon credits as well.
So, it is one of multiple pathways that EMA and the Energy Division of the Ministry of Trade and Industry have embarked on to explore every possible means we can to decarbonise and within our confines of policy space, in terms of affordability and sustainability.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Surveys to Assess Impact of Providing Digital Devices to Students on their Learning Abilities, Learning Habits, Academic Performance and Attention Span","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has conducted any post-implementation surveys or studies to assess the impact of providing digital devices on students’ learning abilities, learning habits, academic performance, and attention span; (b) besides digital literacy, what other key performance indicators (KPIs) are considered in evaluating the effectiveness of providing these devices to students; and (c) how will these KPIs be measured.
\tThe Second Minister for Education (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman): This question has been addressed in the Ministry of Education's (MOE's) published response to Question No 42 at the 11 November 2024 Sitting. [Please refer to \"Ensuring Proper Use of Personal Learning Devices in Schools to Effectively Support Students' Learning\", Official Report, 11 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 145, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
Members may refer to the published response.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): If I may follow up, Speaker, because I did not quite get the opportunity to pose supplementary questions on this. One major motivation behind the Parliamentary Question (PQ), stressing the importance of key performance indicators (KPIs), was because, as I am sure the Minister is aware, there is an active debate in the education literature about the net benefits of deploying technology to facilitate customised learning on one hand, versus the net cost of excess screen time on children's attention span and development of social skills.
If you would agree with me that we should not adopt an extreme approach either way by either outright banning such devices in school or allowing their use to go unmanaged, then what we really need is the data to evaluate whether this middle ground is working.
Speaking as an educator and researcher myself, I would make an appeal to MOE to consider releasing any KPI data that are collected for academic scrutiny, subject to the usual privacy provisions, of course.
\tDr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: Sir, I agree with the Member that we have to strike a balance. We cannot just swing one way or the other. Just to assure the Member that MOE did commission a National Institute of Education study – it was a two-year study which was commissioned in September 2022, but it is not completed yet. Data is still being assessed and some interim findings suggest that students found the use of personal learning devices beneficial in their learning, including their communications with the teachers and collaboration with peers.
But I assure the Member that once the study is completed early next year, we will share the findings with the Member.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Neighbourhood Centres Selected for Revitalisation of Shops Scheme and Possibility to Increase Funding Given Rise in Costs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether he can provide an update on the number of neighbourhood centres that have been selected for Revitalisation of Shops (ROS) scheme since March 2024; and (b) whether HDB will consider increasing the funding of ROS given the rapid rise of construction costs in the last three years.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Ms Sim Ann) (for the Minister for National Development): Sir, 11 Neighbourhood Centres have been selected for upgrading of common areas under Batch 8 of the Revitalisation of Shops (ROS) Scheme. HDB has informed the relevant Town Councils and merchants' associations of the selected sites in March this year.
In 2023, we had increased the Housing and Development Board's (HDB's) co-payment share for the main ROS upgrading cost from 70% to 85% to reduce the co-payment borne by shop owners from 20% to 5%. We also introduced additional funding support for optional works at the shopfront.
There are currently no plans to change the ROS budget. We will, however, continue to monitor the situation and refine our schemes as needed.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Thank you, Speaker, and also to the Senior Minister of State for the comprehensive reply. I have three supplementary questions.
Firstly, for those 11 Neighbourhood Centres that have been informed that they have been selected, when can we start implementing and asking the shop owners to vote? So far, I have not gotten a response from HDB on this portion.
Secondly, construction costs have increased, and we also note that the subsidies for the shop owners have increased but that the total budget allocated for the ROS has not increased significantly, despite the construction cost increase over the last three years by, maybe up to 50%. We noted that there is a bit more grants for the shop front, but the total construction cost still remains an issue.
Thirdly, for some of the shop owners, if they find that they have difficulty paying even the co-payment, is HDB prepared to allow them to pay by instalments?
And lastly, if the ROS is successfully implemented and some of the shop owners refuse to pay, what is the recourse that HDB has?
\t
\t
\tMs Sim Ann: Sir, first of all, we will work as quickly as possible with the local working committees which need to be set up in order to effect the ROS. From my understanding, quite a few local working committees have already been set up, including in Mr Ang Wei Neng's area. We also seek the advisors' support for encouraging the local merchant associations to work closely with us because their inputs are important.
As for costs, I have mentioned that we will continue to monitor the situation and see if any review is required, although, for now, the plan is to keep to the budget.
Also, in terms of the Member's question about what happens if the merchants do not pay, in 2023, we amended the Housing and Development Act because of some policy changes under ROS. One of the changes that we have made is to empower HDB to collect the arrears or to collect the amount for the upgrading from shop owners who did not pay and to treat it as a form of arrears. This is something that the merchant associations would welcome because, in the past, it was the merchant associations who had to collect from these shop owners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Chinese Dialects as Electives for Primary and Secondary School Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Education whether Chinese dialects can be introduced as an elective as part of the (i) current conversational Chinese enrichment programme for students in primary and secondary schools and (ii) modular foreign languages programme pilot at the secondary level.
\tThe Minister of State for Education (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, bilingualism is the cornerstone of Singapore's education system. Our focus remains on developing students' proficiency in English and their Mother Tongue Languages. There are currently no plans to introduce Chinese dialects as an elective in our schools. Students who are interested in learning dialects can explore classes organised by the Chinese clan associations.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Minister of State. I do recognise that quite a number of the clan associations do conduct such classes to help to promote certain dialects for their respective dialect groups. But at the same time, just over the weekend, I had the pleasure, alongside other Members, of attending a certain dialect group's dinner, where quite a few actually lamented that the younger generation, right now, cannot speak the dialect at all.
So, in that spirit, just as how we, perhaps, have certain economic incentives to learn certain foreign languages, could we also not have pilots where it need not be an examinable subject, but it could be one where we can have it as an elective to better promote the understanding of a crucial part of our cultural identity?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: We recognise that Chinese dialects are part of the Singapore Chinese culture and heritage, and we welcome the clans' efforts to do so, even as the Government maintains our existing language policy. Our focus continues to be on building up competency and proficiency in English language as well as the Mother Tongue Languages.
Our students, who are curious and interested in learning Chinese dialects, apart from approaching the Chinese clan associations, can also go online. There is a huge repertoire of resources that are available for self-directed learning.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress of Developing IT and AI Professionals through Career Conversion Programmes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) in the past three years, what has been the progress of developing more Information and Technology (IT) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) professionals under the Career Conversion Programme; and (b) what is the Ministry’s plan in further developing this in the next three to five years.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for Digital Development and Information): Sir, there are multiple pathways for Singaporeans to acquire relevant skills for technology-related jobs. These include the more than 1,300 artificial intelligence (AI)-related courses offered by SkillsFuture Singapore as well as career conversion programmes supported by Workforce Singapore, which may also help Singaporeans take up jobs requiring AI-related skills.
Over the past three years, the Career Conversion Programme (CCP) and the TechSkills Accelerator (TeSA) programme have helped more than 1,000 and 8,000 mid-career workers, respectively, to transition into technology roles, such as software and cloud professionals and AI engineers.
To strengthen our pipeline from mid-career workers, we are: (a) expanding the Company-Led Training programme under TeSA to organisations that are building AI Centres of Excellence; and (b) topping-up SkillsFuture Credits for Singaporeans aged 40 and above, under the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme to support substantive upskilling and reskilling programmes.
These initiatives complement our broader efforts to expand the pipeline of AI practitioners, including enhancing the AI-readiness of information and digital technology (IDT) graduates from our Institutes of Higher Learning. Our industry partners have also initiated programmes to train and hire AI practitioners, such as AI Singapore's AI Apprenticeship programme, Singtel's Catalyst programme and Temus’ Step IT Up programme.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the comprehensive reply. Can I have a couple of supplementary questions?
Firstly, can the Senior Minister of State explain if there is a big difference between an IT professional and an AI professional? Because the Estimates Committee noted that the CCP through the Ministry, has produced 190 individuals who are able to transit to become AI professionals as mid-career people.
I want to ask whether they have plans to increase these conversion programmes, in terms of the frequency of the programmes and the number of programmes? Because the Ministry has stated that they want to convert 5,000 mid-career professionals to AI professionals over the next three to five years. The number 190 compared to 5,000, is quite a far cry. How have the private sectors chipped in and how many mid-career professionals have they converted to become AI professionals?
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. It may be useful for me to set the context of the figures that he has cited. In December 2023, we launched the refreshed National AI Strategy 2.0, which sets out our vision and plans to achieve AI for the public good for Singapore and the world. To support this ambition, we intend to expand our pool of AI practitioners and uplift our workforce to be confident AI users.
AI practitioners, as mentioned by the Member, are fundamental to support AI transformation across the economy. We intend to triple the number of AI practitioners in Singapore from 5,000 to 15,000 in the next three to five years to meet the anticipated demand. We will look to re-skilling and upskilling our locals to take on these roles. To develop the additional 10,000 AI practitioners, we are looking at a few approaches.
One is to boost the AI-readiness of existing IDT graduates pipeline, about 5,000. So, these are for pre-employment training, or PET. About 10,000, 5,000 will be through the PET route. The other 5,000, we are looking at getting through the CET route – continuing education and training – mid-career transition, people who are already in the IT or the digital field and looking on to take on new skills to take on AI-related roles. So, that is the context of the figures of 10,000 and 5,000, which the Member cited.
On the 5,000 CET number, a recent Estimates Committee report noted that the CCP has, so far, only helped 190 people transit in their new roles. Allow me to set in context the 190 figure that Parliament's Estimates Committee referred to.
The 190 was referring to those who have transited through the five Jobs Transformation Map (JTM) training provider programme. What is the JTM programme? JTM is Job Transformation Map for the information and communication workforce, which was published in October 2022. That JTM report identified AI as one of the key emerging trends that will transform technology roles. The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) partnered with five JTM partners to scale reskilling and upskilling efforts in AI and analytics, with an emphasis on generative AI (Gen AI) and two other in-demand areas: software engineering and cloud and mobility.
We launched the JTM Partners Programme and we are making good progress with our JTM partners since it launched in 2023, last year. So, the 190 figure was in the context of that very specific JTM training programme.
But as I mentioned earlier in my reply, we have a suite of different programmes under TeSA and under CCP which have shown good results in the past. JTM is part of this umbrella of effort that the Government is doing and there are many industry partners – I mentioned some in my earlier reply – and they are also stepping up to support mid-career transitions, supporting people who are currently in IT roles or technology roles to pick up new certifications, new skills to do new AI roles that are emerging.
I would also like to share with the Member that besides the good progress we are making with the JTM partners, we have a healthy pipeline of workers who have expressed interest to undergo the necessary CCP training.
In summary, the figures that the Estimates Committee referred to, the 190, is set in context to the specific JTM programme, which is part of the broader career conversion and TeSA skills that we are doing and part of the broader AI talent manpower strategy that we have embarked on.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Review of Animals and Birds Act 1965 and Code of Animal Welfare","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development when will the review of the Animals and Birds Act 1965 and the Code of Animal Welfare be completed.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Speaker. as part of the National Parks Board's (NParks') efforts to safeguard animal health and welfare as well as public health and safety, we have embarked on a review of the Animals and Birds Act 1965 and the Code of Animal Welfare. For instance, the penalty framework under Animals and Birds Act will be reviewed to ensure that they are effective in deterring and punishing acts of animal cruelty and abuse.
The review is wide-ranging and apart from reviewing penalties and enforcements, as I have just said, it also includes strengthening animal disease and zoonosis prevention and control, possible regulation of veterinary health products, as well as animal training devices, and other areas. We will continue to take a collaborative approach in this review and will engage the public and community stakeholders to ensure that their views are considered.
We will announce more details when ready.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): I thank the Minister for the reply. I note that NParks had shared publicly that they are reviewing the penalties for animal cruelty and animal abuse to ensure they are effective in deterring such acts, back in October 2021. So, could I check with the Minister, what is taking so long? Is there something that is delaying the completion of this review?
Second, the Minister had mentioned that they are going to consult widely. Could I check when the public consultations will be and also when will we be consulting the animal welfare groups, the vets and all the various stakeholders, including animal trainers as well?
\tMr Desmond Lee: Thank you, Mr Speaker and I thank Mr Louis Ng. Mr Speaker, as I have said, the review is a comprehensive one. It includes not just a review of penalties, but also zoonosis prevention and control, and other areas as articulated earlier. So, it is looking not just at penalties, but also a wider range of issues as well.
We will consult the community, we will consult stakeholders, we will consult industry and professionals. Already, some work has started. For example, the Member will be aware that the dog training standards workgroup co-chaired by NParks and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, involves representatives from animal welfare groups, dog trainers, vets and representatives from working dog units to study one specific area – that is on the least intrusive, minimally-averse training techniques, as well as to study and develop plans on the regulatory approaches to training devices.
There are other work streams being undertaken involving consultation with different groups, but at a later stage, we will consult more widely.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Further Expediting of Applications for Financial Assistance under ComCare Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether there is any room for the application process for financial assistance under ComCare schemes to be further expedited.
\tThe Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Speaker, most ComCare applications are processed within four weeks, with almost all applications processed within six weeks. In the interim, if a household requires immediate support, Social Service Offices (SSOs) provide ComCare Interim Assistance.
Time is needed to assess a household’s application for financial assistance, to ensure they meet the eligibility criteria and for proper stewardship of public resources. Officers are required to gather information on clients’ circumstances, verify supporting documents and refer to other agencies or services for support beyond ComCare.
At the same time, we have made ComCare applications simpler and more convenient in recent years through digitalisation. The Member may wish to refer to past replies for further elaboration. We will continue to explore how to streamline our processes.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gan.
\tMr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): I thank the Minister for the comprehensive reply. I do receive quite a number of residents' feedback, who actually came to me. It is because of the timeframe that they came to me for.
I wonder whether it is possible for the Ministry to go further to work with agencies to have direct access to the data, of course, with the permission of applicants.
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Our officials have been working really hard to get cross-Ministry data and collaboration, and to ensure that we simplify for the applicants the process of getting support. One way is for them to apply online at the SupportGoWhere portal, where they no longer need to key in all their personal information by using Singpass access and everything that is within that, will already be submitted. That means there is no longer the need to submit physical documents.
Even after that, our officers still need to verify these documents and sometimes, they have to check with other agencies. Therefore, when they do this online and get the permission either through online self application or when they meet the clients, we can get information from other agencies like the Central Provident Fund Board, Housing and Development Board, and Immigration and Checkpoints Authority. Therefore, all these documents need not be submitted physically.
For the very small minority who somehow did not get through in that timeframe and if they approach any of our Members, please send them to us and we will look at what the problems really are. If these are things that we can then streamline, we will certainly try to eliminate these delays.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker, just a clarification for the Minister. In view of the rising number of seniors who stay alone, for example, and may face difficulties to get online, notwithstanding more touchpoints that the Minister shared, does the Ministry consider more frequent, or is it looking at even considering the prospect of visiting these people who ask for support or who need financial assistance but for various reasons such as mobility, are not able to reach the SSOs or access the various electronic options that are available for quicker assessment of their applications?
And if so, does the Minister foresee this to be an issue which will repeat itself more frequently in future, where there may well be a need for SSO officers to visit some individuals, as appropriate?
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: My thanks to the Leader of the Opposition for bringing up that issue. It is a very specific issue for our seniors. Already, our Silver Generation Ambassadors (SGAs) visit them very regularly, some of them, so regularly and getting so intimate that when the seniors pass on, you can see the effect on our SGAs. It is not just about visiting them and taking data and so forth. They actually know the condition of the seniors. Through these, they also know that the seniors may not have support or because of changing circumstances may not have support, and therefore, will proactively ask them whether they need it, and then, will refer them to the SSOs.
So, the visiting is already being done by our SGAs. I do not think we need to duplicate that. The cross referencing is also being done and I know this is being done. The SSOs will then take over to check and assess whether our seniors are actually really needing the financial assistance. Then, we will bypass all the need for digitalisation and facilitate them getting the support they need.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhancing Quality of Information Displayed on LCD Screens in MRT Trains","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether there are plans to enhance the information on LCD systems above MRT train doors by (i) displaying both the current stop and a route map for easier reference by commuters at all times and (ii) ensuring consistent information display across all trains and lines; and (b) if so, when are these enhancements expected to be implemented.
17 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Transport (a) since the implementation of the LCD display systems, how many feedback reports have all the train operators and LTA received regarding the clarity of information on the LCD display systems above train doors; and (b) which MRT line received the most of such feedback.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport (Mr Baey Yam Keng) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I also answer Question No 17, together with Question No 16?
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
Mr Baey Yam Keng: Thank you. The various train models across different Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) lines are fitted with liquid crystal display (LCD) screens above the train doors, with some variation in the layout of information displayed. They all provide similar information to help commuters in their wayfinding, such as the route map of the line, the direction of travel, current and upcoming stations, as well as the opening side of doors at the next station.
In addition to the LCD screens located above the doors, commuters are provided with travel information, such as the current and next station, through in-train announcements and ceiling level displays in the middle of train cabins.
Since 2023, feedback on the clarity of information on the LCD displays across the entire MRT network made up less than 1% of the total feedback received by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the operators, with no specific line receiving substantially more feedback. LTA will continue to monitor public feedback and make further enhancements to our wayfinding features as appropriate.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Ong.
\tMr Ong Hua Han (Nominated Member): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the response. I ask these Parliamentary Questions as I frequently commute via the MRT. As a commuter, it is not always easy to identify where exactly I am on the MRT route, especially when the train is crowded and even more so for a wheelchair user, where the eye-level is a lot lower. So, the LCD display, as you pointed out, is not consistent across the train lines.
In my opinion, ensuring better user interface should be a priority and is potentially not too complex an issue to solve. So, I would just like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary if there are any challenges to make this information more consistently clear across the train lines and whether or not we can share a more concrete timeline of when to expect them.
\tMr Baey Yam Keng: Mr Speaker, as in my earlier reply, the types of information displayed are largely similar. Depending on the make of the train and the design of the LCD screens – some come in two panels, some come in one panel. So, when it is the one-panel design, there will be rotating pieces of information that are displayed on the screen, but the frequency of display would suffice to allow commuters to read the information, interpret and react to the information within the space of travel between stations.
But if there are specific requests that the Member would like to make of LTA, I would be happy to follow up with him subsequently, so that we can look into enhancing the experience of all commuters.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Ong.
\tMr Ong Hua Han: I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I just want to say that as a commuter and a wheelchair user, it is not sufficient because it is quite important to be able to know exactly where you are at all times. I think the rotating information, sometimes you may miss out exactly where you are on the station and let us say you were not paying attention, for example, during the commute, you want to know in one look, where you are.
So, at the moment, I think, for instance, the North East Line does not exactly show a commuter where you are approaching. And then, the East-West Line tends to show the station name quite clearly, I think in the rotating information, but not in the context of where you are on the route map. So, let us say if you were dozing off on the train and you look up, it is not immediately clear and you may miss a stop. And it is even more so if you have mobility challenges and I just wanted to raise that. I would be happy to take this also offline to discuss how we can enhance this.
\tMr Baey Yam Keng: I thank Mr Ong for the specific feedback. Let us work on this offline. Thank you very much.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints against \"finfluencers\" who Dispense Financial Advice Online","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"18 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) in the past five years, whether MAS has received complaints against online \"finfluencers\" who discuss financial content; (b) if so, how many; and (c) whether the Ministry will review the Financial Advisers Act 2001 to regulate the \"finfluencer\" sector.
\tThe Minister of State for Culture, Community and Youth and Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, \"finfluencers\" use social media to share tips and insights on finance-related topics, such as investing, saving and budgeting. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) expects financial institutions who employ finfluencers to advertise their products or services, to ensure that the finfluencers present information in a clear and balanced format that highlights key features and risks.
If finfluencers provide financial advice, they must be licensed and regulated under the Financial Advisers Act, or FAA. MAS has issued guidelines to clarify that any individual who is remunerated for making a recommendation or expressing an opinion on the buying, selling or holding of investment products will be considered as providing financial advice. Even if he or she is not remunerated, he will be considered to have provided financial advice if he makes such recommendations or expressions regularly. Posting of general educational content is not financial advice.
Over the past five years, MAS received an average of less than five complaints per year against finfluencers. Most of these complaints relate to remarks made by finfluencers who were not providing any financial advice and hence, were not subject to regulation by MAS.
MAS and the Commercial Affairs Department will take enforcement action against individuals providing financial advice without a licence. Over the past three years, enforcement action has been taken against six individuals, none of whom were finfluencers.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yong.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Thank you, Sir. I thank the Minister of State for his response. I think we can all agree that finfluencers do hold significant sway over their viewers. This is often despite finfluencers stating that their words should not be construed as financial advice. As an unregulated sector, consumers are at risk of hefty losses. I think in the United States, this was the case when finfluencers were promoting the FTX platform, which subsequently collapsed.
So, in such a situation, the consumers' only recourse would be pursuing a civil claim against the finfluencer. To my understanding, there has been no such precedence in our local courts.
Given this, I would like to ask if MAS do have a position on whether finfluencers have a duty of care to their viewers when promoting financial products online and then, in the same breath saying, \"Please do not construe my words as financial advice\".
Could MAS work towards a set of industry guidelines to provide both the finfluencers as well as consumers on their respective roles and responsibilities and the due diligence that each party should conduct? By doing so, I believe that we can continue to leverage on these influencers to grow our financial literacy among consumers and especially while safeguarding vulnerable consumers.
\tMr Alvin Tan: I thank Mr Melvin Yong for his supplementary question. As I mentioned earlier on, only financial advisory firms and their representatives who are regulated under the FAA are allowed to provide financial advisory services on investment products. Therefore, a finfluencer who provides financial advice will have to be appointed as a representative of a financial advisory firm. That said, we regularly advise the public to only deal with and invest through persons regulated by the MAS.
We also list unregulated persons who may have been wrongly perceived as being licensed or authorised by MAS on our Investor Alert List. I want to assure the Member also that consumers who suspect any wrongdoing should lodge a complaint with MAS or the relevant financial advisory firms.
MAS will review reports of breaches or misconduct and take the appropriate regulatory action against the relevant parties found to have breached MAS's regulations, including providing financial advisory services without the appropriate licences or disseminating non-compliant advertisements.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day and Notice of Motion.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Minister for Social and Family Development.
The Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Social and Family Development, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Families are the bedrock of our society. For our children, families are where they first learn the values that shape them, find comfort and strength when they face setbacks and celebrate milestones and achievements together. The Government remains committed to supporting both mothers and fathers as they embark on their parenthood journey so that our children can have a good start in life. We have been reviewing our policies regularly.
Mr Speaker Sir, with your permission, may I please distribute an infographic?
Mr Speaker: Go ahead. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]
Ms Sun Xueling: As the infographic is being distributed in the House, I would like to highlight that Members will see on the first page of the infographic our comprehensive suite of marriage and parenthood measures to support families. And on the second page of the infographic, Members will see our enhancements of parental leave over the years. Members may also access these materials through the MP@SGPARL app.
Looking at the second page of the infographic, we see that one week of Government-Paid Paternity Leave (GPPL) and one week of Shared Parental Leave (SPL) were first introduced by Minister Grace Fu in January 2013 as part of the 2013 Marriage and Parenthood Package. To quote from her speech: \"We will signal strongly to the society on the important role fathers play in raising and caring for their children. Fathers will now enjoy one week of legislated Government-Paid Paternity Leave. In addition, we will introduce a new Government-Paid Shared Parental Leave. By inculcating shared parental responsibility from birth, we hope to put families off to a good start and encourage fathers to take on a bigger role in child-raising.\"
In 2016, then Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo announced that we would legislate the second week of GPPL and increase SPL from one week to four weeks. These were implemented from 2017 onwards. The enhancements were supported by Members of Parliament (MPs), such as Mr Desmond Choo, who raised in Parliament in 2016, as to whether the Government would legislate a second week of GPPL and if the Government would increase the SPL so that more leave can be taken on by fathers.
Then-MP Mr Seah Kian Peng, now Speaker, had also in 2016 suggested independent leave for each parent instead of drawing leave from the mother's maternity leave. Mr Louis Ng, in 2017, urged a review of maternity leave and paternity leave, and also filed an Adjournment Motion to extend parental leave. It is clear from the progressive enhancements to parental leave that the Government wants to support young parents in their caregiving needs and regularly reviews policies to push the envelope to support young parents even more.
The COVID-19 period of early 2020 to 2022 upended work structures and world economies were plunged into a period of economic uncertainty. Singapore was not spared but we were able to incorporate flexible workplace arrangements and work from home. Young parents and working adults adjusted their working arrangements.
As we came out of COVID-19, the Government continued its strong support for families by announcing at last year's Budget policy enhancements that strengthened financial and work-life support for parents. The Baby Bonus Cash Gift was increased for all birth orders, and we enhanced the Child Development Account First Step Grant and raised Government co-matching caps for Singaporean children born on or after 14 February 2023. Since 1 January 2024, we doubled the GPPL to four weeks, with the additional two weeks provided on a voluntary basis. We also increased Unpaid Infant Care Leave to 12 days per parent per year in their child's first two years.
The Government regularly engages young parents to see how we can support their parenthood journey. Many parents continue to express concerns with managing family and work responsibilities. Increasingly, we see that younger generations of Singaporeans place greater emphasis on having a balance between work and personal commitments.
They also value more family time even as they build their careers. Our social and work norms are changing, and we should, as a society, evolve to support them. This includes working with employers to foster more family-friendly workplaces so that we can better support parents in their aspirations to do well both in work and in raising their children at the same time.
In particular, parents have shared that work-life support is especially critical during the child's first 18 months, when care needs tend to be the greatest. Most parents prefer to personally care for their infants or tap on the help of trusted family members. However, family support is expected to decline as family sizes shrink and many grandparents work longer or prefer to spend their retirement years on other pursuits. So, we need to provide stronger caregiving support for parents in the early stages of their child's life and enable them to be more involved in caring for their infants.
At the National Day Rally in August, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong announced that we will, from 1 April 2025, mandate the additional two weeks of GPPL currently offered on a voluntary basis. He also announced that the current SPL will be replaced with a new scheme that will provide couples 10 weeks of paid parental leave, to be shared between themselves. To provide employers more time to adjust to the new scheme, the new SPL will be implemented in two phases, starting with six weeks from 1 April 2025, to be subsequently increased to 10 weeks from 1 April 2026.
With the enhancements, eligible couples will be entitled to 30 weeks of paid parental leave in the child's first year. This comprises 16 weeks of maternity leave, four weeks of paternity leave and 10 weeks of shared parental leave from 1 April 2026. These enhancements are significant steps that the Government is taking to normalise paternal involvement in child-raising and provide both parents with greater support in caring for their infants together. In addition, parents with young children are entitled to Government-Paid Childcare Leave and Extended Childcare Leave for their caregiving needs. Those who might require more time to take care of their newborns can also utilise their Unpaid Infant Care Leave.
In formulating our parental leave policies, we have studied overseas experiences. Some other countries provide longer durations of parental leave, but at varying levels of pay.
For example, in the United Kingdom (UK), parents enjoy longer maternity leave, shorter paternity leave and longer parental leave, but maternity leave and paternity leave are compensated at reduced pay and parental leave is unpaid. Some countries, such as the United States (US), do not have paid maternity leave, paternity leave or shared parental leave at all. For Singapore, while the combined duration of our parental leave provisions is shorter, most of it is fully paid. With the leave enhancements in this Bill, we will further extend the duration of paid leave that parents can take to care for their infants.
In considering Singapore's leave enhancements, we also engaged parents, consulted tripartite partners and employer representatives to ensure that we strike the right balance between parents' caregiving needs and employers' manpower and business needs.
The Government worked closely with tripartite partners to design the new SPL scheme and update the conditions surrounding our parental leave provisions to better address both employees' and employers' concerns, which I will go into more detail later.
The Government is also enhancing other forms of infant care support to complement parental leave. We will continue expanding infant care places in preschools and will develop about 6,000 new places from 2025 to 2029. We are also launching a three-year pilot in December 2024 to grow affordable, safe and reliable childminding services as an additional infant care option for families.
We hope that these enhancements will provide parents with more assurance as they go ahead with their plans to fulfil their family aspirations.
The Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill that is currently before this House seeks to give effect to the enhancements to the GPPL and SPL schemes. We will also introduce new employment protections as well as other operational and administrative changes.
First, the GPPL. Fathers play an important role in partnering their wives in sharing the duty of raising their children. We want to encourage shared parental responsibility and enable fathers to be more involved in child-raising. Research also shows that greater paternal involvement in a child's early years has positive effects on the child's development and family well-being.
With the additional two weeks of GPPL, we hope that fathers will make good use of the four weeks to care for and bond with their newborns. Clauses 9, 11 and 12 set out the main provisions for the enhancements to the GPPL scheme.
Clause 9 will mandate the additional two weeks of GPPL. These apply to fathers of children born on or after 1 April 2025, or with an Estimated Date of Delivery on or after 1 April 2025, as well as adoptive fathers where the eligibility date of application to adopt a child is on or after 1 April 2025.
Correspondingly, clauses 11 and 12 will double the amount of payment that an eligible employee is entitled to receive from his employer, as well as the limits for the reimbursement by the Government to an employer for that payment.
Second, the new SPL scheme. This scheme will allow parents to have more time off work to bond with and care for their infants. We have designed this new scheme such that the additional weeks of legislated parental leave can be taken by both fathers and mothers to emphasise shared parental responsibility. The following clauses set out the main provisions for the new SPL scheme, and the new Shared Parental Leave Benefit scheme for working parents of a Singapore Citizen child born or with an estimated date of delivery on or after 1 April 2025.
Clause 6 will entitle working parents who are eligible for Government-Paid Maternity Leave (GPML), paternity leave and adoption leave under the Act, to the new SPL, and sets out the requirements for a valid sharing arrangement for the new SPL between two parents.
In line with our intent to encourage shared parental responsibility, each parent will be allocated half of the entitlement as the default, which means three weeks per parent from 1 April 2025 or five weeks per parent from 1 April 2026.
The allocation can be varied according to clause 23 to provide parents with the flexibility to use the leave in a way that meets their caregiving needs. This flexibility has to be balanced against the employers' need for some certainty of the employees' intended absences so they can plan for covering arrangements to ensure business continuity. The same clause, therefore, also provides that parents who wish to change their sharing arrangement on their own may do so within the first four weeks after their child's birth or, for an adopted child, within the first four weeks after the eligibility date of application to adopt. Thereafter, employees must obtain their employer's agreement before further changes can be made.
Clause 6 will also allow employees and employers to mutually agree on how the new SPL will be taken, as long as it is taken within 12 months of the child's birth. We understand that some parents may wish to have the flexibility to take this leave over a longer period. However, we have to balance this against the challenges that employers may face in their manpower planning if the leave-taking period stretches beyond one year. In the absence of a mutual agreement, employees are entitled to take their allocated share of the new SPL in a continuous block within the first 26 weeks of the child's birth, with sufficient notice given to their employer. I will share more about the notice period required further in my speech.
Similarly, clause 6 will entitle working parents who are eligible for GPML, GPPL and Government-Paid Adoption Benefits to the new Shared Parental Benefits scheme. These cash benefit-equivalent schemes are intended for working parents who do not qualify for leave due to their employment arrangements such as employees on short-term contracts, or contracts that expire before the child’s birth.
To support employers with managing costs, all 10 weeks of the new SPL will be paid for by the Government, up to the reimbursement cap of $2,500 per week. Employers can then use the wage savings to hire temporary workers or make other operational adjustments when their employee is away on parental leave.
As the new SPL scheme is meant to replace the existing SPL scheme, clause 8 will amend the eligibility criteria for the existing SPL scheme such that it will no longer apply for a Singapore Citizen child born or with an Estimated Date of Delivery on or after 1 April 2025.
This brings me to the third aspect of this Bill, new notice period requirements and employment protections, which seek to balance the needs of employers and employees utilising the parental leave schemes.
With the longer duration of leave, employers will need sufficient lead time to make covering arrangements when their employees are away. Clauses 3, 4, 6 and 9 will introduce a minimum notice period to be given by an employee, who wishes to take leave in a continuous block. This minimum notice period will be set at four weeks. Employees must inform employers at least four weeks before commencing continuous GPML, GPPL, adoption leave and the new SPL. This will give employers lead time to plan for covering arrangements and make operational adjustments.
While this is the legislated minimum requirement, I urge employees to exercise responsibility when taking the leave, to provide notice as early as possible and work through covering arrangements with your peers and employers before you go on leave.
We will update employment protections to give parents peace of mind when they go on parental leave entitlements. Today, it is unlawful for an employer to dismiss or give a notice of dismissal to a female employee when she is on maternity leave. Employers who do so today will be guilty of an offence and be liable on conviction to a fine or imprisonment, or both. Clauses 4 and 9, will accord the same protection that mothers on the GPML have, to fathers and adoptive parents who take GPPL and adoption leave from 1 April 2025. This means it will be unlawful for an employer to dismiss or give a notice of dismissal to employees on GPPL or adoption leave.
For the case of the new SPL, we want to strike a balance between providing both parents with a longer period of leave to care for their child in the first year, while allowing employers to carry out fair employment decisions during this extended period of leave. Hence, parents on SPL will not receive the same protection as those on GPML, GPPL and adoption leave. However, employees who consider themselves to be wrongfully dismissed when taking this leave, may seek recourse under the Employment Act. The upcoming Workplace Fairness Legislation will also strengthen protections against workplace discrimination.
I hope that these new protections will give our parents, including fathers, more assurance to take their maternity, paternity and adoption leave. Beyond legislation, I urge employers to show your support for the employees taking parental leave. For instance, by putting in place fair appraisal systems that recognise their contributions and not penalise employees simply for having taken parental leave. Managers and colleagues can also help to build a more family-friendly culture by being understanding of colleagues who need to take leave to care for their children. On the part of parents, I also encourage you to reciprocate when colleagues need to take time off to tend to their personal needs.
The other amendments pertain to clauses to improve operational efficiency and clarity. Clause 16 of the Bill will clarify that the limits for reimbursement of an employer will be implemented on a “per parent” basis for a parent with multiple employers, or a parent who is both employed and self-employed.
For example, an employee’s payment from a single employer is capped at $2,500 per week and the single employer’s reimbursement from the Government is similarly capped at $2,500 per week. While the parent will still be entitled to parental leave with each of his or her employers, the total reimbursement that all employers of the parent can claim from the Government will be capped at $2,500 per week. This ensures parity on the amount of Government-paid leave granted to all parents, regardless of the number of employments that they have. This amendment is also one of the Ministry of Social and Family Development's (MSF’s) corrective actions to address the Auditor-General's Office's (AGO’s) observations of possible irregularities in the payment of Government-Paid Leave Schemes in July this year.
Clause 16 of the Bill will determine that the sequence of leave taking under the Act such that employees are deemed to be consuming their entitlement to GPML, GPPL or adoption leave in full first, before consuming their entitlement for SPL. This is in line with our intent that all employees should consume their GPML, GPPL or adoption leave before commencing the new SPL.
Clause 2 of the Bill will also clarify that for the adoption of a child who is a Permanent Resident of Singapore, the definition of “eligibility date” in relation to an adoption is the date on which the application to adopt the child is made.
Sir, the birth of a child marks a new beginning for a couple. It is a joyful but also demanding period for the couple who needs to tend to the high care needs of their infant. We hope the leave enhancements covered in this Bill will give working parents greater peace of mind to focus on caring for their child during their early years.
We will also continue to enhance other caregiving options to provide more support to parents. However, this role of supporting parents in their parenthood journey cannot be played by the Government alone. Employers, for instance, have to be supportive of their employees, especially fathers, going on parental leave and should implement family-friendly workplaces. This will help employees returning to work post-leave can manage their work and parenting responsibilities well.
Mr Speaker, Sir, kindly allow me to say a few words in Chinese.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Family is the bedrock of our society. We hope that parents and children can build good relationships so that we have stronger foundation for our families. Many parents have told us that it is very challenging for them to balance both work and family commitments, especially when their children are in the infancy stage.
In order to better support dual-income families, we have worked closely with tripartite partners to introduce a new parental leave scheme. These new measures are a part of a series of initiatives we have introduced over the years to support couples in getting married and having children. We hope that the new SPL will provide more assistance to parents, giving them more time to spend with their newborns.
I encourage all parents, especially fathers, to use this additional parental leave to care for their newborns. I also hope that all sectors of society, including employers, can provide more support to working parents in the community and workplace.
(In English): Sir, this Bill will strengthen our support and assurance for Singaporeans on their parenthood journey. I urge more employers, businesses and community partners, to work with us to build a Singapore Made For Families. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to effect the enhanced Marriage and Parenthood measures that were announced at this year’s National Day Rally and also to amend the Child Development Co-savings Act for greater operational clarity.
Sir, Singapore’s total fertility rate (TFR) reached a historic low of 0.97 in 2023. This reflects a broad societal trend that young Singaporeans want better familial support, before they commit to having children.
I am glad that the Government has, in response, made big moves to foster a more family-friendly Singapore. In particular, I have heard from young couples living in my constituency, Radin Mas, that they were most excited about one, the additional two weeks of GPPL for fathers; two, the new SPL scheme that will encourage more fathers to take their parental leave; and most certainly, the increase in the number of shared parental leave to six weeks from 1 April 2025, and a subsequent increase to 10 weeks from 1 April 2026.
I also welcome the new Shared Parental Benefits, a cash benefit-equivalent scheme for parents who are not eligible for the SPL due to their employment arrangements. This would ensure parity for those who work as short-term contract workers.
While the changes will help to create a more family-friendly Singapore and encourage more couples to have more babies, one segment of couples have felt left out, as the changes will only take effect from 1 April 2025. I am referring to, of course, couples who are already expecting, with their estimated delivery dates sometime between 1 January and 31 March 2025.
I understand that Government schemes must start from a certain date and that there will inevitably be some that will be left out as a result. But, Sir, we will celebrate SG60 next year and those born in the first quarter of 2025 will be our first SG60 babies. I would therefore like to call on the Government to extend the enhanced marriage and parenthood measures to these parents. I hope that the Government would accord parents whose children are born in the first quarter of 2025 with the Shared Parental Benefits and provide them a cash benefit equivalent to two weeks’ worth of additional SPL. This would mirror the additional two weeks of GPPL for fathers. I am sure that couples with children born in the first quarter of 2025 would deeply appreciate this.
Sir, I also fully support the Ministry’s proposed amendments to clarify applicable limits on reimbursement and payment entitlements to be on a “per parent” basis and to provide parents with multiple employments with an entitlement to paid leave with all their employers.
This reflects the broader trend of fractional work, where an employee works for multiple employers, but on a shorter schedule. I am therefore happy that the Ministry is clarifying the Act to ensure that the total amount of reimbursements to employers of a working parent with multiple employments would be the same as the total amount of reimbursements made to the employer of a working parent with a single employment.
However, having multiple employers will result in greater complexities and potential disputes in the event that one employer finds themselves paying more than others. I would like to ask if there would be guidelines provided to ensure an equitable sharing of employer-paid portions of parental leave for fractional workers. Having clear guidelines will reduce potential disputes and protect our fractional workers from being discriminated against, due to their pregnancy.
Sir, as a father of two, I vividly recall the struggles that my wife and I faced in our children’s early years, particularly in preschool when they tended to fall sick more often. I also commonly hear from my grassroots volunteers that they sometimes utilised much of their annual leave to care for their young children who have fallen ill. Some even had to take unpaid leave, if their child has lower immunity.
The Government currently provides up to six days of Government-Paid Childcare Leave for parents who have children below seven years old and two days of Extended Childcare Leave for those with primary school-going children. According to parents that I have spoken to, this is inadequate and they hope that more support can be given in terms of childcare leave.
Could the Government consider staggering the number of Government-Paid Childcare Leave? For instance, more paid leave days could be provided to parents when the child is in infant care and nursery, and this tapers off gradually as the child enters kindergarten and primary school. Having more paid childcare leave when the child is youngest and requires the most care, will certainly go a long way in helping parents cope with the inevitable healthcare challenges in their children’s early years.
Sir, the decision to have children is a deeply personal choice and young couples often weigh the potential impact that having children would have on their career aspirations and on their finances. As we enhance marriage and parenthood benefits and continue to provide hefty Government subsidies for preschools, we can do more to alleviate any anxieties that might serve as an impediment to prospective parents.
Today, maternity insurance is not compulsory and insurers are allowed to reject applicants with pre-existing health conditions. Unexpected pregnancy complications can sometimes completely drain a couple’s finances. I hope that the MSF could work with the Ministry of Health (MOH) to engage insurers to create a universal maternity insurance scheme where all mothers-to-be can subscribe to. Under such a scheme, we can sufficiently risk-pool and mothers with pre-existing health conditions will therefore not be denied coverage.
In closing, I would like to commend the Government for continuing to make bold and decisive moves to enhance both marriage and parenthood benefits. I am confident that these measures will help make Singapore more family-friendly and hopefully encourage more couples to have children. I hope that the Government will continue to evolve the scheme and also consider my suggestions to help young parents better cope in the early childhood years. Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, this Bill enshrines into law enhancements to Singapore's statutory parental leave benefits, which were articulated by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong during this year's National Day Rally.
The initial GPPL structure of two weeks mandatory and two weeks voluntary paternity leave will now become four weeks of mandatory GPPL. The SPL scheme was also introduced on top of the GPPL and GPML enhancements. From 2025, six weeks of SPL will be provided, with that number increasing to 10 weeks from 2026. Moreover, the Bill seeks to protect fathers who take GPPL from being served a notice of dismissal during the period of paternity leave.
With Singapore's TFR dropping to a record low of 0.97 in 2023, such measures are certainly a step forward in promoting parenthood amongst couples.
In my speech today, I will share my thoughts on several of these measures and other points which I believe, are important to consider including paternity leave, SPL, flexible work arrangements (FWAs) and childcare leave provisions.
First, on paternity leave. During the debate on the Women's Development White Paper in 2022, I highlighted how policy moves such as increasing one's GPPL entitlement would encourage more fathers to take a more active role in their parenting and household responsibilities, and thus help nurture gender equality within society by shunning traditional gender norms.
In Singapore, however, it is deeply concerning that just over half of fathers even took paternity leave to begin with. As someone who had taken my full share of two weeks of paternity leave twice, I find it hard to understand, especially when it is an all-hands-on-deck situation at home immediately following a newborn's birth.
In my speech on the Budget 2023 debate, I shared that while the move to raise GPPL from two weeks to four weeks is no doubt welcome, I noted that this was purely on the voluntary basis on the part of employers and wondered if the then-Deputy Prime Minister's message that we want paternal involvement to be the norm in our society could in practice turn out as being construed as paternal involvement is voluntary. The move to make the four weeks of paternity leave mandatory is thus a welcome change.
That said, given our utilisation of paternity leave today, where only just over half of fathers take paternity leave and the median paternity leave taken by eligible fathers is only just over a week, I wonder if would-be fathers would be in a position to take the full entitlement of the expanded paternity leave and, importantly, feel comfortable doing so.
Perhaps it is worth considering having the Government payment of paternity leave to employers to be contingent on the utilisation of at least half of the full four weeks, at two weeks of paternity leave, before gradually increasing these over time. This could further entrench the notion that paternal involvement is important and necessary, while taking into account employers' concerns.
Next, on the new SPL provisions. This is certainly a welcome move which I wholeheartedly agree with. As part of the Workers' Party (WP) manifesto in 2020, we proposed a shared parental leave scheme that entitles parents to 24 weeks of Government-paid leave to be shared between mothers and fathers as they choose, with a minimum of 12 weeks to be granted to the mother and four weeks to the father. This was a point which I have also reiterated during the debate on the Empowering Women Motion in August 2021 and the Women's Development White Paper in 2022, as have my other WP colleagues.
As my Sengkang team mate Ms He Ting Ru described in her speech in October 2020, the current Government policy back then, which allows fathers to share only up to four weeks of the mother's leave, reinforces the outdated notion that childcare is primarily the mother's responsibility rather than promoting equal parenting roles.
That being said, while the default position is that each parent is allocated half of the SPL to encourage shared parental responsibility, I wonder if this is likely to be the case in reality. I acknowledge that we need to give parents the ability to decide what is best for their own families, but part of the requirements of the new SPL is that changes to the leave-sharing arrangements should be made within four weeks after the child's birth. Any changes thereafter will require mutual agreement between parents and their employers.
Likewise, I agree that we need to acknowledge the potential impact on business operations as a result of employees' parental leave arrangements. But can we consider putting in place mechanisms to better facilitate or mediate issues faced by parents when making changes to SPL arrangements, especially when the needs of either parent's employers may not be aligned? For example, while parents may have decided on an equal sharing of SPL, the mother's employer may have a new and time-sensitive work project that comes up and the father's employer may not see it in their own business interests to agree to the extension of the parental leave.
If this is not possible, can we consider extending the eligibility period for the parental leave to be taken within 24 months of the child's date of birth, instead of within 12 months from the child's birth? Doing so can also give both employers and parents the flexibility they need to respond to changing circumstances and needs within the households and also at the workplace.
This brings me to my point on FWAs, which I have spoken about on numerous occasions in this House. The Tripartite Guidelines for Flexible Work Arrangement Requests, which comes into effect in December, stipulates that employers must consider employees' requests for FWAs properly. Crucially, it stops short of legislating the right to request for FWAs.
However, the recent uptick in employers such as Grab and Amazon requiring all employees to return to office for all five days of the week have undone the progress made to normalise FWAs in the workplace. While one can argue that FWAs can take many forms, and indeed there may be jobs where operational demands may mean that work from home may not be possible and that other forms of FWAs may actually be more appropriate, I am concerned that the progress we have made in normalising FWAs is quickly eroding away, with employers less likely to even consider other less disruptive forms of FWAs.
Hence, I would like to reiterate my call made in October last year to enshrine into law the right to request for FWAs and this would make it easier for parents to care for their children whilst managing their work commitments. FWAs are also important in the context of our current childcare leave provisions.
If we cannot legislate for FWAs, can we then at least ensure that parents are able to care for the needs of their child via increasing the number of days of childcare leave, or to have it on a per-child basis? As many parents with young children may know, they will need to take significant time off from work to care for their children as they often tend to fall ill. For instance, I have shared in my Adjournment Motion speech on FWAs in 2023 that I had clocked 20 visits to a paediatrician over a period of nine months. With medical leave durations ranging from three days to about five days, how can parents cope without additional childcare leave or FWAs?
Moreover, the reality is that parents will also need to care for their young children whenever their preschool closes, which according to the Early Childhood Development Agency, is now up to eight working days a year and increased from six days a year previously. So, as it is, actually the existing childcare leave days are not even sufficient to cover for school closure days, let alone for when our children actually fall sick.
In response to calls by Members of this House to enhance childcare leave provisions, the Government has articulated its concern about the impact that increasing such leave benefits have on the manpower and operational needs of their businesses. However, seeing how we are facing a TFR crisis of our generation, perhaps the Government should channel greater efforts towards granting Singaporeans who wish to start a family the opportunity to achieve that dream. Further, employers could still stand to benefit as it has the effect of boosting staff retention and productivity.
Nonetheless, should increasing the statutory childcare leave entitlements by a couple of days be deemed as having a substantial adverse effect on businesses, FWAs that parents can actually have could present itself as a viable solution.
Mr Speaker, my journey in Parliament pretty much coincides with my own parenthood journey. Given that my first child was born in September 2019 and less than a year later, I was elected together with my Sengkang team mates in July 2020. A year later, in November 2021, my second child was born and his birthday is in a couple of weeks. Like many of my peers with young children, to say that parenthood is like a roller coaster ride is not an understatement. With many ups and downs, unexpected twists and turns, where you could be screaming in terror one moment and crying tears of joy in the other. I have absolutely no regrets being a father, but I also feel deeply the sacrifices and difficulties that a working parent has to go through in the Singapore that we live in today.
For some of my peers who have decided not to have children, I do not blame them at all when they question whether or not all the sacrifices that are necessary in being a parent is actually worth their time, money and effort. Why wake up at 3.00 am in the morning for a feed when you could be sleeping in over the weekend and then have brunch? Why fret over paying for diapers, food, childcare, clothing when you could be on a nice ski holiday to Japan? Why scramble to pick up your kids from school when you could be striving to advance your career in the office?
As lawmakers, we cannot force Singaporeans to have more children, just as how we cannot force Members of this House to lead by example and meet the replacement TFR of 2.1. But what we can do is to minimise the pains and difficulties faced by parents and parents-to-be, just so that they can better see the joys and wonders of parenthood.
And this is where we need to enact the right policies and legislation, putting in place something as simple as an incentive-disincentive framework for employers to make sure that fathers and mothers all take the full share of parental leave, they have sufficient leave to care for their child and that parents are not robbed of the ability to have FWAs just because of business needs. Just so that we can place the sustainability of Singapore as a nation as an utmost priority.
Mr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. This Bill, if passed, is a significant signal to our young Singaporeans that the Government will make significant policy moves to support their family journeys.
Many young couples desire to be highly involved parents. Besides resources and housing, many of them worry if they would have the time and space to care for their children. They want to give the best to their children. There are many needs, and there are already many policy interventions that are necessary and some of them are already in place.
The first year of birth is often the most challenging. As with all parents, we all struggle with caring for our babies. It is nearly always all hands on deck or crib in that first year. I remember speaking about this issue in 2016, a few months after the birth of my first child. The weariness and eye bags were very evident then.
Further supporting young Singaporeans in the first year of birth is indeed the right move. But this Bill also sends a strong message that there needs to be a greater and faster evolution in gender-based family stereotypes. Our women and mothers bear a greater responsibility at home. While we have made progress over the years, it is true that our women and mothers bear the lion's share of the burden.
The differences between the male and female labour force participation rates are evident, so our mothers will need greater caregiving support. But we also need a strong societal signal that everyone can play a role to narrow the gender gap, especially those born out of cultural norms. When fully implemented on 1 April 2026, it will bring total paid parental leave to 30 weeks, up from the current 20 weeks. It also encourages fathers to play a greater role in parenting.
With smaller family sizes, young couples are increasingly finding it difficult to manage both their aspirations with their family commitments. Most of us will have heard of young couples shelving their plans to start families because of the lack of caregiving support. I believe that the enhanced leave structure will go a long way in helping couples who wish to start or expand their families better manage their responsibilities. We will also continue to keep up pace in evolving social-cultural norms by promoting the new norm of shared parenting.
But providing the legislative support is futile if the utilisation of the GPPL does not continue to improve from the 53% in 2022. The legislative signal can promote an important signal to employers and peers. But there are also larger societal shifts that will be imperative to the success of this policy shift and, in fact, the SPL. I shall address them in turn.
Firstly, fathers must actively step up to their responsibilities to be more involved. The Bill places a renewed emphasis on the roles that fathers can have on parenting. It is a cultural norm, perhaps more so in Asian societies, that caregiving is still seen as that falling within the domain of mothers, while fathers are the traditional breadwinner. I believe that such cultural norms are already changing, especially amongst our younger Singaporeans. But such outdated notions remain in Singapore society.
The enhanced GPPL, whilst a shift in policy, cannot, by itself, drive this cultural change. For that shift to happen, we need both fathers and mothers to contribute within the home and in the workplace. This is why I would like to call on fathers to utilise the GPPL to take on an active, meaningful role in raising their children.
Research has shown that fathers who actively participate in caregiving for their children build stronger bonds with their children. Downstream effects of undertaking such an active role include positive cognitive and social developmental outcomes in children and can include positive labour-market outcomes.
Even while our young couples play their role in stepping up to their family commitments, supportive workplaces are key to making this aspiration a reality. Some single or older workers might be asked to cover duties for their child-bearing colleagues. Some employers have lamented where would the additional manpower come from. These are valid concerns, but the low birth rate is a national collective issue. I encourage companies to support our workers who would need to cover duties either with incentives or to hire additional manpower from the Government payment.
Workplaces play a crucial role in creating a positive environment that supports the Government's family-friendly policies. There will, indeed, be sacrifices from all quarters, but we had also made it work back then in the earlier years, where there were significantly more births. Besides, without a supportive environment, some women, or in fact men, might decide to leave the company. Therefore, it is a good human capital practice to retain talent in the company by providing support to our young parents.
Legislatively, the Bill does much to ensure that fathers enjoy the benefits and protection arising from GPPL. For example, the proposed amendments to section 12H of the Bill introduces protection for an employee against dismissals during the period that such an employee is taking the GPPL. Errant employers are liable to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or up to a six-month term of imprisonment. I also note and support that the same protections are also now extended to parents on adoption leave.
Could the Ministry consider increasing the quantum of such a fine to not exceeding $10,000 for first-time offenders across GPML, GPPL and, in fact, adoption leave? I believe that by doing so, we will send a stronger signal towards the Government's stance on such dismissals. Over time, together with the upcoming Workplace Fairness Legislation, which will strengthen protections for employees with caregiving responsibilities against discrimination for all employment decisions, this will help to normalise the role of fathers in shouldering caregiving responsibilities.
However, whilst such protection does provide some comfort to employees, some workers, especially fathers, may still hesitate to fully utilise their entitlement due to workplace cultures that might frown upon long absences. This is where inclusive workplace cultures become paramount. I would like to encourage employers to embrace family-friendly policies and consider a broader and deeper adoption of the flexible workplace arrangement for employees to allow them to shoulder both their work and family responsibilities.
From a business standpoint, the concerns of employers are real. Yet, studies have also demonstrated that supportive and family-oriented workplace policies enhance job satisfaction and may even enhance profitability. I do acknowledge that our small and medium enterprises (SMEs) may face operational constraints in complying with the new legislation, and I would like to urge the Ministry to consider the constraints faced by these SMEs and help them to adopt inclusive workplaces. The Labour Movement stands ready to assist the Ministry on this front.
Next, on closing the gender pay gap. The Bill before us today goes beyond addressing shared caregiving responsibilities alone. It can be a meaningful step towards narrowing the gender pay gap and improving the labour participation rates of women.
I have spoken on various occasions on the importance of closing the gender pay gap in Singapore. The gender pay gap has been attributed to the fact that women shoulder a disproportionate burden of caregiving responsibilities which, in turn, causes them, or might cause them, to fall behind in the workplace. The time away from work can cause our women to lose out on work and wage progression. While we have made significant progress in the past decade to narrow our gender pay gap, more must be done.
With the renewed GPPL aimed at redistributing caregiving responsibilities more equitably at the start of a child's life, I hope that this shared commitment between couples would endure during the child's formative years. In turn, we can change the outdated notions of the roles of men and women within family and level the playing field between genders in the long run.
It is worth noting that this Bill will likely provide a positive, long-term effect on the next generation of Singaporeans. I am hopeful that children who grow up seeing both parents share caregiving responsibilities will thereafter carry these norms into their own lives when they start their own families in the future.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill before us today is not just a routine Bill. It is a call to action for us all. For fathers, it is an invitation to play larger roles in parenting. For workplaces, it is a call for stakeholders to cultivate a supportive environment that is understanding of the dual responsibilities of both mothers and fathers. For society, Singapore at large, it is a reminder that gender equality is not just an issue women should care about, but instead, a social imperative for our society to flourish.
Let us work together as a nation to champion supportive workplaces, encourage families for life and pave a way for a future where Singapore's sons and daughters live in a society that values their contributions equally. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) supports the CDCA Bill. This Bill seeks to amend the CDCA for several purposes, including providing for new SPL, doubling the total period of paid paternity leave to four weeks, and introducing protection for fathers against a notice of dismissal during paid paternity leave.
These changes had been announced during the National Day Rally. In my response to the National Day Rally, I had stated that PSP supported these changes to uplift Singapore's low TFR, which fell to 0.97 in 2023. Although more parental leave alone might not necessarily have an immediate significant effect on our TFR, we believe it will create a positive effect as it gives potential parents peace of mind to take time off work to build secure and strong relationships with their newborn children, setting an important foundation for the long journey ahead.
We support the amendments to increase mandatory paid paternity leave and introduce protection for fathers against a notice of dismissal during paid paternity leave, which is similar to the current protection mothers have during paid maternity leave. These amendments send an important message that both parents are co-partners in a marriage and in starting a new family, and provide the crucial opportunity for both parents to be physically present to take on child-minding responsibilities.
Research has uncovered evidence pointing to the crucial role played by fathers in affecting not just newborn health and the subsequent development of a child, but also maternal health, postpartum and beyond. A father who is involved from the very start in the caring of a child provides important support to the mother, especially during the immediate postpartum period when mothers face the risk of postpartum depression. A mother who is both mentally and physically healthy is, in turn, better able to provide optimum care for the child.
Indeed, a longitudinal study conducted in Singapore found that fathers who were involved in their infant's birth were more actively involved in infant care at six months postpartum, highlighting how active participation from the start carries forward to the later periods in the child's life. Fathers also play a unique and critical role in the different stages of childhood development, affecting the socio-emotional and cognitive development of their children. It is, therefore, heartening to see that the Government is implementing policy changes to help fathers fulfil their important role in parenting.
Besides the duration of paid parental leave, we believe that there are many other factors at play which affect the ability and willingness of Singaporeans to have children. In our view, these other factors include the cost of living, especially the cost of housing, healthcare and education, as well as employment policies that have an impact on job security, the rates of unemployment and underemployment. In this regard, PSP strongly supports the introduction through this Bill of protection for fathers against a notice of dismissal during paid paternity leave, which is similar to the current provisions for mothers. As our cost of living continues to rise, job security is ever more important, especially to a couple who are contemplating on starting a new family and having children.
In totality, moving towards more parental leave and the gradual equalisation of maternity and paternity leave are both beneficial to building stronger marriages and families, and PSP appreciates the Government's efforts thus far to work with tripartite partners to establish the norms of fathers taking leave to care for and bond with their infants. We also believe that it is important for the Government to address the high cost of living in Singapore and consider employer incentives to create a more conducive work culture, as these also affect the ability and willingness of Singaporeans to start a family and have children. Mr Speaker, Mandarin please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, PSP supports the CDCA Bill to provide four weeks of statutory paternal leave for working fathers as well as to establish a new shared parental leave mechanism. Research has shown that fathers not only have a significant impact on the health of newborns and subsequent child development but are also important to the mothers' postpartum health. PSP therefore supports the Government's implementation of these policy changes to support fathers in playing their crucial role in the parenting process.
The issue of low fertility rates has troubled our country for many years. PSP believes that, in addition to the duration of paid parental leave, there are many factors affecting the ability and willingness of our citizens to have children. These include the cost of living, such as housing, healthcare and education, as well as job security and the employment environment.
We believe that if our country wants to further increase the willingness of citizens to have children, the Government must address the issue of high living costs and consider adopting measures to encourage employers to create a more pro-family work culture for their employees.
(In English): Mr Speaker, PSP supports the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, the GPPL and SPL schemes are progressive measures to support families fostering progressive workplace practices and strengthening the foundations of our society. The move towards a default 50-50 split on shared parental leave between parents is a bold step in the right direction.
This structure sends a strong message about the normalisation of shared caregiving between women and men, not just at home, but also in the workplace and in society at large. With this flexibility, fathers are empowered and equipped to step up, take on more active roles at home, building stronger relationships with their children, strengthening marital bonds and setting a positive example to our children.
Beyond this, by being invested in the everyday runnings of the household, fathers also empower mothers to return to the workplace with peace of mind. According to the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM's) statistics, there are some 260,000 women of economic age who are not participating in the workforce. Caregiving responsibilities and, believe it or not, housework are common reasons given for this.
Indeed, in the National Trades Union Congress' (NTUC's) #EveryWorkerMattersConversation Workers Compact Report in 2023, we found that in dual-income families, women were five times more likely than men to be managing housework and caregiving responsibilities, and women workers, unfortunately, were four times more likely to have left their jobs for caregiving than their men compatriots.
A 2021 Ipsos and United Women Singapore survey also found that while close to nine in 10 Singaporeans agree that household chores can be equally shared by husband and wife, gender-defined roles still exist in Singapore. The same study found that, in reality, more women take on the daily responsibilities of cleaning and laundry, tasks that take up daily attention, while men contribute by taking on household repairs and management of technological devices. These are not daily tasks.
Hence, Mr Speaker, would we not agree that many working mothers, especially those returning to their careers, would benefit immensely from the support of a partner who is actively involved in household responsibilities.
With the enhancements to the paternity and shared parental leave schemes, we hope to see more fathers encouraged to lean in and support their partners beyond traditional expectations. However, in order for this to happen, workplace norms would need to evolve to not only support, but encourage more fathers to take up these leave schemes.
As part of change management, companies must have open communications between management and employees, institute fair outcomes-based performance appraisals and create positive role models. Initiatives, such as townhalls, lunchtime parenting talks and even mentorship circles, are good ways to spark discussion within the workplace and I would like to ask our Ministry if support and resources can be availed to companies in their change culture process.
Mr Speaker, I would now like to talk about a group of Singaporean workers who, while traditionally under-served and under-represented, are now making great strides in improving their workplace rights. That is, our platform workers.
With the passing of our recent Platform Workers Bill, our platform workers are recognised for being employee-like and the Labour Movement thanks the Government for taking in our recommendation to include platform operators' Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions in the calculation of Government-paid leave payments. This adjustment ensures parity with salaried employees and recognising CPF contributions in leave calculations reinforces the idea that all workers deserve fair treatment when it comes to their parental leave entitlements.
Mr Speaker, our parents have shared that while they appreciate the paternity and SPL enhancements, raising a child is a lifelong process that goes beyond just the first year. While these enhancements address the critical first set of adjustments families must take after their child's birth, FWAs, enhanced caregiving leave, extended family support and a trusted ecosystem of care providers must be in place to support our families.
The Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests will be implemented on 1 December this year and our parents and working caregivers welcome this move. In part, this is because, this is not about a one-size-fits-all FWA, but one that revolves around requests. Hence, revolving itself around the work hours and the work plans of our caregivers.
In NTUC's engagement with 40,000 workers at our #EWMC Conversations, 85% of workers with caregiving responsibilities cited FWAs as their most preferred form of support. Paid caregiving leave was second, at 64% and this was a good 20% lower than FWAs.
Some of our workers have shared their apprehension when it comes to asking for FWAs, citing that they may face backlash or future discrimination from their employers. In equipping workers and employers with the upcoming rollout, the Labour Movement and the Tripartite Workgroup for Flexible Work Arrangement Requests has provided resources, such as templated employee handbooks, training for workers, case studies for companies. I believe the upcoming Workplace Fairness Legislation will also, no doubt, set additional protective safety nets.
But how can MSF further support our parents and caregivers by helping to normalise FWAs in the workplace? Can the popular Becky the Bunny \"Families For Life\" theme become an expanded campaign in workplaces to spark frank discussions and family-friendly programmes in the workplace? This could include encouraging companies to adopt progressive leave practices, such as allowing singles to take childcare leave to help look after their nieces and nephews.
Mr Speaker, the enhancements to the GPPL and SPL schemes build a more robust support system for parents in Singapore and they promote a fairer caregiving/workplace norm and underscore the importance of shared parental responsibilities. With these enhancements, we are moving closer to a society where every parent, regardless of gender, is empowered and equipped to contribute meaningfully to their family, workplace and community. This is a very forward-looking policy change that demonstrates our commitment to strong family values and a supportive society. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Jean See.
Ms See Jinli Jean (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, the passing of this Bill would set in motion enhancements to shared parental leave and paternity leave schemes. Together with maternity leave, a couple who welcomes a baby in 2026 can benefit from 30 weeks of paid leave in total.
These enhancements that include the doubling of mandatory paternity leave from two to four weeks mark a major reset to policies and necessitate a major change in mindsets of how society can and should support parents and the parenting journey. Freelancers make up about one in ten of Singapore's resident workforce. Some, too, are hoping to start families. They welcome the Bill and look forward to the enhancements.
Nonetheless, some have raised concerns on how the Bill would be received by service buyers. Allow me to elaborate. Before I proceed, I declare my role as Director for NTUC's Freelancer and Self-Employed Unit.
Babies bring joy. However, some freelancers have found the journey of becoming a mother distressing. Why so? For instance, some freelance instructors shared about abrupt termination of their contracts after disclosing their pregnancy status to clients. These clients had included education institutions. Being dumped by clients in such manner is hurtful and runs counter to this Bill's push for progressive, family-friendly policies.
My Parliamentary Question at the recent 14 October 2024 Sitting, thus sought to know if MOM would extend maternity protection to Singaporeans engaged in non-standard forms of employment should the contracts of these freelancers, such as dependent contractors, be terminated on grounds related to pregnancy.
The Minister's response to the question provided the following guidance, \"Self-employed persons and service buyers are encouraged to negotiate contracts that are mutually favourable, including providing for scenarios where a party is unable to fulfil the contract, such as pregnancy.\"
Parties can take reference from the Tripartite Standard on contracting with self-employed persons and any disputes can be brought to the Small Claims Tribunal. In this regard, would MSF consider working with MOM and Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP), to state upfront, in the Tripartite Standard on contracting with self-employed persons, that a service buyer should consider substitution options than to terminate the contract of a freelancer who must absent herself due to pregnancy and/or childbirth?
Could I also seek assurance from the Government that should a freelancer approach TAFEP and/or the Small Claims Tribunal about losing a contract or contracted gig after disclosing her pregnancy status to the client, the authorities would not condone such pregnancy discrimination?
On the operational aspect of the CDCA, given that the birth of a child is accompanied by many expenses, could MSF consider paying out the GPML amount to eligible freelancers when the maternity leave commences and not after the ninth week of the maternity leave period?
I would also like to seek clarification on the amendment where workers with multiple employment arrangements would be reimbursed on a per-parent basis instead of per-employment basis. How would this amendment be implemented for persons who are both employees and self-employed?
Notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support the Bill and look forward to this decisive step towards a fair and inclusive work environment for freelancers and employees.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I wholeheartedly support this Bill, which will introduce policy changes that are very close to my heart. I have spoken up many times in this House about providing more paternity leave and equalising paternity leave, for making our policies fairer and sending a strong message that looking after a child is not just a mother's duty, but also that of the father's. This Bill will give our parents the most precious thing of all, more time.
With this Bill, we will double paid paternity leave to a total of four weeks and introduce 10 weeks of shared parental leave. My parenthood journey with my daughters Ella, Katie and Poppy is the most rewarding journey I have taken. This journey started with paternity leave that allowed me to spend precious time with my babies. I hope many more fathers will be able to experience the same.
I thank the Ministry and our hardworking civil servants for making Singapore a country that is made for families. As my colleagues know, I am a housefly when it comes to asking for more. Even as Minister Indranee swats and shoos me, I keep coming back for more.
So, even as we celebrate this huge step forward, I also hope that we can look into three further points.
My first point is on how we can encourage fathers to take more paternity leave. The Government has sent a strong signal to employers and fathers by increasing mandatory paternity leave to four weeks. This is only just the start. This legislative signal will have to be accompanied by softer measures to encourage and inspire fathers to actually take the leave. From 2018 to 2020, only about 40% of eligible fathers took the full two weeks of GPPL in each year. In 2022, the take-up rate for paternity leave stood at only 53%. For maternity leave, it was 74%. I believe that fathers do want to spend more time with their newborn child.
An online infant care poll in October 2022 by the Ministry of Digital Development and Information, found that 68% of respondents wanted themselves or their partners to be their infant's main caregiver but only 32% managed to make it happen.
Many fathers I speak to tell me they do not have a supportive environment at their workplace and so, they do not feel they can take the leave. Taking the full four weeks of GPPL does not mean fathers can become their infant's main caregivers, but it means they can be more present in the first few weeks of their infant's life – precious and important few weeks – and start their fatherhood journey on a strong footing.
In the Committee of Supply of 2022, Minister Indranee shared her thoughts on paternity leave, I quote, \"We see more fathers wanting to be involved. Employers need to be onboard. Which is why, both at the Committee of Supply and now, I am reiterating, as, indeed, Mr Ng is, that it is actually better for your organisation if you are family-friendly. It is better for your organisation if you support fathers to take paternity leave and, of course, mothers as well. This is something that we need to work with the Tripartite Partners on. Mr Ng can be reassured that this is an area of work we will continue to look at.\" Unquote.
I am glad the Minister has provided the reassurances and, indeed, steps have been taken, but it is timely to receive another reassurance. Can the Minister of State and Minister Indranee share what steps the Ministry will be taking to encourage fathers to take more paternity leave?
My second point is on helping low-income fathers to take their paternity leave. A longitudinal study by the National University of Singapore Prof Jean Yeung found that fathers in more labour-intensive or lower-income roles are less likely to take paternity leave. She said that this segment of the population and their employers should be a key focus for policymakers and paternity leave policy. To quote Prof Yeung, \"They may fear they will lose their jobs if they take the leave, so that they feel some pressure from their bosses and co-workers for taking this leave.\"
Being a new father is stressful. They have to care and provide for a new life. For lower-income fathers in precarious jobs, the stress is even more acute. Fathers should not have to choose between spending time with their babies and keeping their jobs. We have laws which generally provide against unfair dismissal, but these may not provide sufficient assurance. Can the Minister of State share how we can have more targeted support for lower-income fathers to take their paternity leave?
My third and final point is on equalising parental leave. I am glad that the default position is that the 10 weeks of shared parental leave will be equally shared. However, maternity leave is still four times that of paternity leave. The big gap between maternity and paternity leave entrenches gender stereotypes.
A 2019 Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) research paper stated that “family policies in Singapore continue to signal that childcare is a woman’s responsibility and reinforces gender stereotypes”. This is a self-reinforcing loop. Because we give fathers less leave, they do not get to develop the skills and confidence needed to care for their kids. Thus, this, the IPS study finds, causes them to leave childcare to mothers.
More recently, a Cultivate SG-commissioned poll done in mid-2024 on parenthood and work found that material and financial provision is the most common perceived role for fathers. In contrast, mothers are associated with care-oriented roles.
I hope that we will eventually equalise the amount of paternity and maternity leave. This is an ambitious call but there are concrete steps we can take now. Let us start by setting a target year, perhaps 2030, or later, for equalising paternity and maternity leave. We can increase paternity leave in phases, like we are doing now, and give our employers time to plan ahead, while also providing a clear signal of our intentions to reduce gender perceptions of parenthood. Will the Minister of State look into this with tripartite partners and non-governmental oranisations, such as Families for Life and the Centre for Fathering?
Let me end with one of my most favourite quotes, Minister Vivian Balakrishnan’s best quote, “Life is a one-way ticket. A baby will only remain a baby for a very short time. They will grow up before we even realise it. The thing about life is, we cannot rewind time. So, my advice to young parents here is, your children need you, they need you desperately and they need you only for a very, very transient time in their lives. If we miss it, we cannot get it back.\"
I am grateful that the Government is providing more precious time for people to spend with their children. Our policies are changing and we are heading in the right direction. I thank the Minister and the Minister of State for all the reassurances and I look forward to more reassurances in the Minister of State's wrap-up speech on how we will encourage fathers to take more paternity leave, how we can have more targeted paternity leave policies for lower-income fathers and when we will eventually equalise maternity and paternity leave. Notwithstanding these clarifications, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Mark Lee.
Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the CDCA Bill, which significantly improves our parental leave framework, including the new SPL scheme. This Bill goes beyond a routine policy update. It reflects our commitment to supporting the well-being of families which, in turn, strengthens both our economy and society.
As a father to three kids, my youngest just two years and four months old, and a business owner, I fully appreciate the priority of family. Whether it is attending to a sick child or ensuring they are receiving vaccinations, family will and should always come first. This is a value that the business community understands and respects, as we all recognise that a strong family foundation ultimately supports a stable and productive workforce.
However, I do have a few clarifications on the SPL scheme.
First, section 12DA provides a solid framework, but we can do more to encourage companies to be progressive in supporting parents. The Bill states that if a newly hired employee meets all requirements but has not yet completed three months of employment, and the employer grants them SPL, the Government may reimburse the employer. Could the Ministry provide clear guidance on the conditions for this reimbursement, as this could encourage more companies to adopt a progressive approach in supporting new hires in taking parental leave?
Second, for parents with multiple jobs or a combination of employment and self-employment, section 12M provides much-needed support. However, clear guidance on managing claims and reimbursement limits would alleviate potential concerns, particularly for employers. For example, if a parent holds two part-time jobs, they are eligible to claim SPL leave from both employers, but how would reimbursement limits and apportionment apply if the combined claims exceed the cap?
Employers may, in good faith, pay out the full leave benefits to employees but could later find that Government reimbursements are less than expected. This could increase administrative complexity and even require employers to claw back amounts from these part-time employees – an uncomfortable situation for all involved. Clarification from the Government on how these cases will be handled would be invaluable in reducing these risks for employers and ensuring smooth implementation of these provisions.
Third, the Bill also introduces penalties for employers who \"without reasonable cause\" fail to grant SPL. Many SMEs will be looking for more clarity in defining \"reasonable cause\", so that they can be in full compliance.
While employees have the flexibility to take leave within 12 months, certain situations may arise where immediate leave requests pose significant challenges. For instance, if a small business with limited staff cannot immediately accommodate leave without major disruptions, would that constitute a reasonable cause for delay, especially if the employee insists on taking it at that time? For sectors with critical peak seasons, such as retail during holidays, could an employer reasonably defer leave if an employee insists on taking it during such high demand times?
Mr Speaker, Sir, as a small nation with a limited resident workforce, Singapore relies on measures like SPL to support family growth and our nation’s fertility rate. The business community supports these initiatives as essential for workforce sustainability and economic resilience.
Yet, the extension of SPL presents operational challenges, especially for SMEs. Smaller businesses with lean teams must manage workload distribution, find temporary staffing and plan for the re-integration of employees returning from leave. For highly specialised roles, finding a suitable temporary replacement is not always straightforward. Re-integrating employees after extended leave also requires careful planning to maintain productivity. SMEs often incur additional costs during overlapping periods when both returning employees and temporary staff are needed. To help manage these challenges, I urge the Government to strongly consider support measures, such as extending pay coverage for returning employees by one to two months, to help offset the operational impact.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to stress that no good employer would want to disrupt an employee’s parental leave unnecessarily. We all understand that time away to care for a sick child or to meet other family needs is essential and should be respected fully. At the same time, fostering a supportive work environment is a shared responsibility. I encourage employees to give ample notice whenever possible in planning their parental leave and using this time with the purpose it is intended for, dedicating it to family. When everyone respects these principles, it strengthens trust between employers and employees and creates a smoother experience for all involved.
I also urge employees, when possible, to remain flexible and reachable for urgent matters during their leave. For instance, if you are in charge of IT in your organisation and it is hit by a serious virus, such as cloudstrike, and your colleagues need your help, please be there for them. This sense of mutual assistance reinforces trust, promotes teamwork and nurtures a workplace culture that benefits everyone.
Lastly, it is essential that both employers and employees acknowledge the efforts of colleagues who take on additional responsibilities during someone’s parental leave. Recognising and appreciating their contributions go a long way in fostering respect and a spirit of collaboration that supports the entire organisation.
In conclusion, with thoughtful collaboration between businesses, the Government and employees, this Bill positions Singapore as both a family-friendly and business-friendly society. By setting a new standard in progressive workplace policies, we enhance our global competitiveness and quality of life for all Singaporeans. Notwithstanding my questions, I support this Bill wholeheartedly.
Mr Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.
Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, in the last debate on the CDCA Bill, I had urged the Government to accelerate making four weeks of paternity leave mandatory rather than voluntary, and to further review parental leave. The provisions in these latest amendments to the CDCA Bill represent a significant step towards realising a vision of society where healthy equal parenting is the norm, where dads get to be a much bigger part of their children’s lives from those vital early months, and moms get to continue to pursue their careers with the support of their partners.
By providing four months of maternity leave, four weeks of paternity leave and 10 weeks of SPL for a total of 30 weeks, we are giving moms and dads a genuine choice about how they want to balance parenting responsibilities and work.
But I want to stress a key point. Realising this vision is not just about the personal choices of individual moms and dads. Realising this vision requires a systemic cultural shift, where attitudes within workplaces and society at large are supportive of families, and those who take parental leave are not made to feel guilty or regret for doing so.
We have heard the concerns of employers over the operational challenges, as well as from colleagues, especially singles or childless colleagues, who worry that that they will be forced to pick up the slack for colleagues on parental leave with nothing in return for them. I do not trivialise these points of view. But I believe the importance of providing more support to families means we must go beyond these concerns.
How might we effect these cultural shifts? I would like to offer three suggestions.
First, we must ensure that men and women who take the parental leave that they are entitled to are not discriminated against. According to the Association of Women for Action and Research's (AWARE’s) Workplace Harassment and Discrimination Advisory, maternity discrimination from untoward job interview questions to wrongful dismissals, denials of bonuses and outright harassment is by far the most common form of discrimination seen. In 2022, such cases made up 85% of the service’s entire discrimination caseload.
But it is not just an issue for women. Studies have also suggested that some men also fear losing their jobs if they take their paternity leave and feel pressure from their bosses and co-workers when they want to do so.
It is important that the progressive moves in this Bill do not lead to unintended negative consequences. In India in 2017, mandated paid maternity leave was increased from 12 weeks to 26 weeks. A study found that the policy change caused a 30- percentage point decrease in women’s employment and a 2% to 4% decrease in income for employed women. This was attributed to a rise in firms’ reservations for hiring women in the high fertility age group, since employers alone financed the leave.
Here, in Singapore, the Government is funding the increase in leave and the policy intent is for the leave to be taken by both men and women. I urge the Government to further ensure that protections against discrimination for those who take up any form of parental leave, whether it is SPL, GPPL or GPML are strengthened, possibly in the upcoming workplace fairness legislation.
Second, we must promote a workplace culture that supports families and greater opportunities for women. This starts with inclusive leadership and line managers who walk the talk and must be supported by moves to embed gender balanced leadership and diversity within teams, and to enhance parental support in order to help sustain the change. Parental support here refers to not only parental leave but other forms of support before, during and after pregnancy. For example, progressive employers offer flexibility for medical appointments pre-delivery, FWAs post-delivery and after parental leave, and re-integration support post parental leave and childcare leave.
Line managers have an outsized impact on how any policy lands for their workers. They need to be socialised and trained on the benefits of parental leave to the company, including on recruitment and retention and to society as a whole. In a tight labour market, such as we are in now, companies need to put their best foot forward, and the sooner they move to a supportive workplace culture, the better.
It makes a big difference when managers encourage and are role models themselves for taking up parental leave options or FWAs, so that any employee looking to do so will not feel like he or she sticks out as an exception to the norm.
It is critically important that men take the new shared parental leave. By creating a new shared parental leave that is shared equally by mom and dad by default, versus sacrificing part of the mother's maternity leave as is the case today, which may explain the low take-up, is a great move. If the vast majority of shared parental leave is still taken by the moms, women will continue to struggle in the workforce and women of childbearing age could be discriminated against, whether or not they want to have children. So, take-up of SPL by fathers is something we really need to track.
Some organisations, especially SMEs, will need support in making the transition to this new culture. But the fact is, there are SMEs that are doing this today, who are progressive and more should take the same step.
As for single or childless workers who fear that all these might unfairly create additional burden to them, it is important to recognise that the responsibility for arranging parental leave cover does not like with these co-workers, it is the responsibility of the employer. The Government is paying them for it! Employees who take on a significantly heavier load to cover for a co-worker should be adequately compensated, or the company can look into taking on a temp worker to take over all or some of the duties. The longer the duration of parental leave also makes me more feasible to take on temp workers.
While employees are entitled to take their parental leave, proactiveness on their part to not only give sufficient notice as required under the new provisions and to also find practical solutions to their time off and hand over work responsibility, will no doubt be appreciated.
And may I ask for a clarification from the Minister of State. For shared parental leave, could it be taken rather than in full days, in half days and the time extended in order for companies to continue to be able to support their employers if needed?
Thirdly, we must track and make transparent metrics that will help us measure our progress. We can regularly report headline metrics like take-up rates for the various forms of parental leave. But beyond that, regular surveys can be done to measure shifts in culture and attitudes towards the ideal viz one where parenting is a more equal responsibility. There should also be periodic assessments of the impact on workforce outcomes and birth rates to help us assess progress and make necessary corrections over time.
Before I conclude, I would like to take the opportunity to repeat my call during the last Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill debate for the Government to also review childcare leave for families with many young children. Because caring for children does not stop after 12 months. We need to support parents to navigate caring from their children throughout their childcare years.
Mr Speaker, I do not have children of my own. But I feel passionately that moms and dads should have a genuine choice about how they manage parenting and work in the early years of their children's lives. It is good for dads, moms, our children, society and the economy in the long run. Let us build a Singapore that is pro-business, pro-worker and pro-family. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. The amendments proposed in this Bill demonstrate our Government's unceasing effort to make Singapore an even more conducive environment for Singaporeans to start families. These amendments follow the slew of past measures such as enhancements to parental leave, increasing childcare availability and affordability, as well as providing more financial assistance to large families.
As shared by the Minister Indranee with this House on 28 February 2024, like many developed societies, Singapore's TFR has been on a declining trend and for the first time in history, fallen below 1.0. This is an alarming sign and an existential threat to Singapore.
Prospective parents would have their respectively varying concerns and reasons militating against starting a family. Everybody's circumstances and challenges are unique and there is no silver bullet to miraculously improve Singapore's TFR overnight. That said, I have every firm believe that our PAP Government will never stop doing its best for Singaporeans, and today, we have this Bill to improve the conditions for prospective parents, which is a step in the right direction in an endless journey.
During the recent focus group discussions organised by the PAP's Women's Wing and Friendzone, I got to listen to approximately 100 youths aged between 20 and 40 years old. When asked whether they intend to have children, many of them candidly shared their concerns with me, that child raising comes with significant burdens – both emotionally and financially.
Amongst other comments, some of these youths painted a daunting picture with their words when they said, \"marriage is hard, raising children is even harder\" and \"if I want to have a kid, I must be confident that I can provide him/her with the best, if I think I can't do that, I would rather not have one.\"
As I told them at the discussion, and I repeat now, we hear you. These are genuine concerns on at least two levels – in actuality and by perception. Either level could be sufficient to dissuade a couple from starting a family. The actual and/or perceived high costs of education, transportation, medical care, clothing and food, may generally cause couples to feel anxious and face challenges in sustaining their childless lifestyle, which may become or feel insurmountable should they have a child or children.
Mr Speaker, we can do more and do better, to not only allay such concerns, but also positively encourage aspiring parents to actually become parents. The Child Development Account or in short, CDA, is a Government initiative designed to support parents in managing the costs associated with raising children.
Over the years, the Government has broadened the scope of approved uses of the CDA to cover beyond education and healthcare expenses. Notwithstanding, many parents with whom I have interacted in my Woodgrove division still share their struggles arising from the high cost of maintaining a child, from the purchase of baby formula to enrolling their child to enrichment classes to ensure that the child is ready for school.
They therefore hope that the list of approved uses can be widened to further assist them with these expenses. Currently, there are restrictions on using CDA funds for optional enrichment programmes. However, many of them have confided in me, sharing that while these enrichment programs are offered by the preschool as \"optional\", they take place during the child's normal curriculum hours and they often feel a great dilemma on whether to enrol their child in these classes. Their primary fear is that their child will lose the learning opportunity and occasion to foster cohesion as well as friendships. As a mother of a five-year-old and one-year-old, I can relate to these concerns they have shared.
Another resident shared that bringing her four children out for family outings is an expensive activity. She appreciates our Woodgrove Division's frequent organisation of trips to attractions and places, catering to the needs of family with young children to bond, such as indoor playgrounds and the newly opened Bird Paradise at highly-subsidised rates, as otherwise, she and her husband would either not have been able to bring their children to these places, or would have faced significant financial strain in doing so.
Mr Speaker, my resident's hesitation in organising family outings is understandable and could also be shared by many other Singaporeans. Just as an example, while some local attractions offer subsidised rates or promotional offers for Singapore residents, a visit to one could cost this family of six, comprising two adults and four children, around $450. If allowed to tap on the CDA, it would spare them from having to cough out more than half in cash.
For the sake of Singaporean families, we ought to consider further improving the CDA.
I now move on to the topic of paternity leave. Our paternity leave scheme was introduced more than a decade ago. While the take-up rate has risen steadily in recent years, it is still at 53%. The reason why the uptake of paternity leave tends to remain low may likely be due to traditional gender norms and organisational stigma, despite that we are seeing more fathers are stepping up on assuming parenting responsibilities.
I am therefore doubtful that simply by mandating the enhanced paternity leave would encourage a substantive increment in take-up rates, particularly for the shared leave component where it may likely be a situation where couples decide that the wife should take up all 10 weeks so that she can have more time to recuperate both mentally and physically from child birth and enjoy more bonding time with the child during the breastfeeding journey. I therefore call for the Government to take bolder moves, just as what my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Louis Ng, had sought in his speech earlier, with some of my suggestions as follows.
Firstly, the Government can consider providing more support, particularly to SMEs to improve the experience of employers in the administration of their employees' consumption of parental leave days. In this regard, the Government can also consider introducing support packages and tax incentives to support employers who encourage their employees to apply for parental leave, providing a workplace culture in which fellow co-workers have a better understanding of the role of the workplace in accepting parents' use of paid leave days.
Secondly, to ensure that fathers co-share the parenting responsibility, bonuses can also be introduced to incentivise fathers to use their parental leave and for their companies to encourage doing so. In Australia, where parents share their childcare benefits at a minimum ratio of 40:60, each parent would be entitled to a \"partnership bonus\" payment.
In the Singaporean context, apart from \"Baby Bonus\", can we look into providing an extra \"New Parents\" bonus payout or additional leave entitlement for these young parents where fathers are prepared to step up in utilising their paternity leave to spend quality time in caring for the newborn with their spouses?
We should also be mindful of the gender stereotyping that may occur at the workplace, particularly during the hiring process; a married women in her late 20s or 30s may often be subject and asked by her potential employer on whether she has plans to have children in the near future.
Ultimately, why can we not, as women, excel in both areas – in our careers as well as our role as mothers? Why must we sacrifice one for the other? Just like what my fellow Parliamentary colleagues, Mr Desmond Choo and Ms Yeo Wan Ling, have shared earlier, I believe that we can and should create a work culture which will afford women the opportunity to achieve a balance and excel in both of these aspects. Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Under this Bill, there is a requirement of a new minimum notice period of four weeks. While I can understand that this is to help employers better adjust their operations after parental leave benefits are enhanced, because parents may leave work for some time. However, as we all know, the journey of pregnancy may be rather unexpected, with occasional instances of premature births that may happen despite parents' best-laid plans. In such instances, may I ask whether there is a flexibility in how this law is being enforced and what level of support is available to alleviate or waive such notice periods?
(In English): Finally, when allocating the appropriate length of paid parental leaves for the mother and father respectively, as well as shared parental leave, I wish to enquire with the Ministry, whether the Government had taken reference from the measures introduced or enhanced by other countries – beyond those of the UK and US, as shared by the Minister of State Sun Xueling earlier – to better support their citizens in embracing parenthood? These changes in parental schemes in other countries whose demographics and lifestyles are relatable to ours, may allow us to observe the impact of specific policy changes on parental behaviours, and adopt best policies and practices.
Notwithstanding my clarifications and suggestions, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan, do you have a clarification to make?
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Speaker, thank you for your indulgence. I had not meant to speak on this Bill. I am very supportive of the Bill.
But on hon Member Mr Louis Ng's point about equalisation of parental leave – as for in maternity and paternity leave – I totally agree with him that we should in-step move towards that, because the joint involvement of both parents is very important for child development and care.
But he was so adamant on this, so, I want to ask him this clarification because he kept talking about maternity leave and paternity leave and childcaring and child rearing, which is important.
I just want to ask him this clarification: does he recognise that maternity leave is not just about parenting and childcare? Maternity leave also involves the recovery of the mother and – in case he does not realise – nine months of carrying a child and then going through childbirth is quite tough. So, I hope that he will agree with me that as he advocates for this, he also advocates for time for the mother to recover. The father having more paternity leave is definitely welcome because then, he can also help to take care of the mother a little bit more as well.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Thank you, Sir. Deputy Speaker was smiling quite a bit, so it worried me for quite a while, but I knew she was going to put her hand up.
It is precisely because the mother needs to recover from childbirth that the father needs to be there. If the mother is recovering from childbirth, who is looking after the kid? Sometimes, of course, you can outsource it to the helper, but it is precisely that the mothers need to recover from childbirth, that is why we should give fathers the time to be there for the mother and for the children.
I had raised this in my Adjournment Motion as well for extending parental leave for those with multiples – twins as well as pre-term babies. Again, for the same reason – as the mothers recover from giving birth to twins or pre-term babies, the fathers need to be there to spend time with the mothers and also look after the children. So, it is not a zero sum; it is not an either or. I am hoping, again, that we equalise so that both parents can be there for each other and for the children as well.
Mr Speaker: You are both of the same page. Dr Wan Rizal.
Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. Mr Speaker, as a father of four, I am deeply appreciative of the Government's efforts to support parents through this Bill. Although my children are now older and I do not think I will revisit that phase again, I am heartened to see that these changes will benefit future generations of parents.
When my children were born, I was fortunate to be on leave, as I was pursuing my studies, first my degree, then after that my PhD. This allowed me be fully present during those formative years, allowing my wife to recuperate while I looked after the children together with her – something that I am grateful for to this day. I did not have to worry about missing and catching up on work although I did have exams and I had multiple assignments to submit as well as reports. But nothing beats the stigma of taking leave and thinking that your colleagues will take the heavy burden of your work.
This Bill by expanding parental leave and supporting working parents will provide similar opportunities for countless families in Singapore. It re-affirms our commitment to a society where parents have the time they need to support their children during the crucial early years. I am grateful that we are moving tin this direction and I look forward t seeing the positive impact these changes will bring to all Singaporean families.
The Bill reflects our steadfast commitment to fostering a supportive and inclusive environment for Singapore. It is part of our broader vision to encourage family formation and build a society where parents, regardless of their work situation, can balance family life with professional responsibilities.
The proposed amendments introduce key updates to the existing framework, aimed at increasing support for working parents, expanding options for parental leave and extending coverage to diverse family structures.
Notably, the introduction of the SPL scheme marks a significant step forward in promoting more equitable caregiving roles for mothers and fathers. We are seeing a growing desire for shared responsibilities in parenting, as we heard earlier, and this Bill empowers both parents to play a proactive role in their child's formative years.
Furthermore, this amendment Bill recognises Singapore's changing work environment. With the rise in self-employment and concurrent employment arrangements, it is essential that our family support policies adapt. Thus, this Bill provides income loss compensation for self-employed parents and accommodates unique scenarios like dual employment, ensuring no family is left behind.
Mr Speaker, while I support the Bill, I wish to share some key concerns raised by my constituents. One primary concern among SMEs is the potential financial and operational burden these changes may introduce.
SMEs face unique challenges in maintaining workforce continuity, especially with increased leave entitlements. To support SMEs in fulfilling these commitments, I ask that the Government consider several measures, including subsidised administrative support, a dedicated helpline or advisory service, and a streamlined reimbursement process for parental leave.
Additionally, regular check-ins and a feedback mechanism with SME representatives could help identify implementation challenges early, while temporary financial assistance during the transition period would ease initial burdens. Training sessions or resource kits would also be valuable, helping smaller businesses understand and implement family-friendly policies effectively. These measures would enable SMEs to meet their family support obligations without undue strain, balancing their business needs with their contributions to a more family-friendly Singapore.
Second, Sir, is about addressing workplace stigma associated with parental leave, like I mentioned earlier in my introduction. Another concern that several parents have shared is the lingering stigma or perception of workplace penalties for those who take extended parental leave. Despite our progress in building family-friendly workplaces, many parents still feel apprehensive about using their leave entitlements due to fears about career impact. This is especially true for new fathers, who may worry that taking shared leave could signal less commitment to their roles, and for mothers, who may fear that extended leave could limit career opportunities.
While I support the Government's emphasis on protections for employees and penalties for non-compliance, I also hope that we, as a society, can foster a cultural shift that normalises caregiving for both parents.
To address this stigma, I suggest that the Government work closely with NTUC and community organisations such as Dads for Life and Mums for Life to promote a positive culture around parenting. These organisations have been instrumental in encouraging active parenting, and by partnering with them, we can amplify messages that normalise parental leave for both mothers and fathers. Together, they could develop public campaigns, resources and workplace programmes that highlight the benefits of shared caregiving, fostering a culture where parental responsibilities are seen as integral to a balanced life.
Sir, I would also like to suggest that the Government consider increasing the number of childcare leave days for parents. At present, the six-day childcare leave entitlement is helpful, yet it may fall short, for parents with multiple children or for those who face frequent health or school-related demands. An increase in childcare leave would greatly support families with greater caregiving responsibilities. Sufficient leave reduces stress on parents, benefiting their mental health and allowing them to be more present and engaged with their children.
Early childhood is a vital stage of development and a supportive environment promotes mental well-being for both parents and children. One approach could be a tiered system that increases leave days based on the number of children, or a pool of flexible family leave days that parents could use as needed. Expanding childcare leave would further reinforce Singapore's family-friendly framework and support the well-being of all children. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, this Bill aims to strengthen support for families. The proposed amendments will introduce a shared parental leave scheme, provide financial assistance to self-employed parents and offer flexibility to families in different employment situations.
However, I would like to highlight several concerns from the community.
Firstly, the potential financial burden faced by SMEs in meeting these new demands, especially in terms of costs and administration. Additionally, I also urge us to address workplace stigma against parents who take extended leave to care for their children.
Recently, M3@Jalan Besar launched the Malay Men's Mental Health Peer Support Group (3MH) a peer support group specifically designed to support the mental health of men in the Malay/Muslim community. Initiatives like this are crucial to ensure that fathers also receive the emotional and mental support that they need for the sake of their families’ well-being. By providing a more comprehensive support, we can build a more family-friendly work culture and ensure the mental well-being of parents and children.
Overall, this Bill is a positive step towards building a more caring society that support families in Singapore.
(In English): Mr Speaker, the Bill represents a significant step forward in building a more supportive and inclusive Singapore for our families. By enhancing parental leave options, expanding eligibility and providing greater financial security for parents, especially those in self-employment or dual employment, we are not only supporting individual families, but also reinforcing the values that underpin our society.
As we look to the future, our policies must continue to evolve with the changing needs of our families and workplaces. By promoting family well-being, mental health and inclusivity, these amendments support stronger family bonds and a more resilient society. These changes will foster stronger family bonds, encourage shared caregiving responsibilities and ultimately, contribute to a more resilient and cohesive society. Notwithstanding the concerns raised, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Sun Xueling.
Ms Sun Xueling: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members for their support for the Bill. It is encouraging that we all agree it is important that we continue to strive towards building an environment that values and supports families and children. Let me now respond to the questions and suggestions that Members have raised.
Ms Hany Soh asked if the Government referred to the parental leave provisions in other countries when designing the new SPL scheme. As I mentioned earlier, the enhancements were developed after studying international practices, and extensive feedback and consultations with parents and the tripartite partners, so that we arrive at a scheme design that best fits our local context.
Members have asked about the eligibility of different groups of parents and the scheme parameters. Mr Mark Lee asked whether parents with non-traditional work arrangements, such as newly hired employees, will be eligible for the new SPL scheme. Broadly speaking, working parents who are eligible for the existing parental leave schemes, such as GPML and GPPL will be eligible for the new SPL scheme. One of the eligibility criteria is that the employee should serve the employer for a continuous period of at least three months before the child's birth, to be entitled to take this paid leave with the employer.
Working parents who do not meet the minimum employment period of three months, such as those whose babies are born shortly after joining the company, may qualify for the new Shared Parental Leave Benefit scheme instead if they have worked at least 90 days in the last 12 months. This is a cash benefit-equivalent scheme, similar to the existing GPML and GPPL schemes where parents will receive the cash benefit directly from the Government in lieu of paid leave and can use the cash benefits to make suitable work and caregiving arrangements.
Progressive employers who would like to grant the new SPL to an employee, whose child is born shortly after joining the company and does not meet the minimum employment period of three months, can be reimbursed by the Government if the employee has met all other eligibility criteria. The leave that is voluntarily granted by the employer should also follow the conditions of the new SPL scheme, such as being taken within 12 months of the child's birth.
Ms Hany Soh asked if there is flexibility to the new requirement for employees to provide at least four weeks' notice before commencing parental leave in instances of pre-mature births. I would like to assure the Member that we understand that these events are unpredictable, and employees will not be penalised when there is sufficient cause for not giving notice.
Mr Mark Lee also asked if operational constraints would serve as reasonable cause for an employer to delay the granting of the new SPL scheme. I wish to highlight that the consumption period for the new SPL is 12 months from the child's date of birth, and this provides a reasonable window within which the leave can be taken. The penalties will only apply when employers fail to demonstrate with reasonable cause that they could not grant parental leave at any time during the 12 months after the child's birth.
As demonstrated by the examples raised by Ms Hany Soh and Mr Mark Lee, this is indeed why it is important for employers and employees to have early conversations and plan ahead as soon as possible so that a suitable leave arrangement can be worked out to meet the needs of both parties. This could include taking the leave more flexibly in weeks, days, or half-days, as was mentioned by Ms Mariam Jaafar, over the 12 months, to avoid peak periods or periods of manpower shortage, or to meet changes in parents' caregiving circumstances.
Mr Louis Chua asked whether we can extend the consumption period for the new SPL scheme. When developing the new shared parental leave scheme in consultation with the tripartite partners, we had considered allowing parents more flexibility to take the new SPL over a longer period of two years. However, employers preferred a shorter consumption period to reduce the uncertainty on when employees may be absent from work, which could result in greater challenges in making manpower arrangements. We are always mindful that we have to balance employers' needs, even as we try our best to support new parents.
Taking indeed all these considerations, we decided on a consumption period of 12 months, which is also aligned with that for our maternity and paternity leave schemes.
Several Members called on greater support for self-employed persons and sought clarifications on the reimbursement of parental leave for those with multiple employers. Ms Jean See asked whether the Tripartite Standard on Contracting with Self-employed Persons could state upfront that if the contracted freelancer must absent herself due to pregnancy and childbirth, the service buyer should consider substitution options rather than to terminate the contract. The Tripartite Standard on Contracting with Self-employed Persons states that when a self-employed person enters into an agreement with a service-buyer, the parties’ obligations and how the agreement may be varied, among other things, should be set out clearly in writing.
I encourage self-employed persons and service buyers to negotiate contracts that are mutually favourable, including providing for absences due to pregnancy and childbirth. Prescribing that the service buyer must consider substitution options when a self-employed person absents herself due to pregnancy and childbirth may make it very rigid for service buyers who may have legitimate urgent business needs.
Ms Jean See also sought assurance that the Government will not condone pregnancy discrimination if a freelancer approaches the TAFEP or the Small Claims Tribunal about losing a contract or contracted gig after disclosing her pregnancy status to the client.
I wish to assure Ms See that in the final report of the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness, the Committee recommended including additional guidelines in the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP) to provide greater clarity that corporate service buyers and intermediaries should not discriminate based on characteristics that are not related to the job. MOM will work with the tripartite partners to include these additional guidelines in the TGFEP.
Ms Jean See also asked if GPML can be paid to eligible freelancers when the maternity leave commences and not after the ninth week of the maternity leave period. I wish to clarify that under the Employment Act and CDCA, the first eight weeks of maternity leave for the mother’s first two child orders are paid for by the employer and the Government reimburses for the last eight weeks. Freelancers are considered self-employed and the same approach is adopted for self-employed persons. The first eight weeks of maternity leave for the first two child orders are also paid for by the self-employed person, while the Government pays for the lost income for the ninth to 16th week of maternity leave.
To ensure accountability for the use of public funds, paying on a reimbursement basis is a safeguard to ensure that the leave is taken as intended before payment is released. However, we do understand that cash flow may be an important consideration for freelancers and self-employed persons. To mitigate this, self-employed persons are encouraged to submit their claims accurately as soon as possible. Claim submissions that are accurate and complete will typically be reimbursed within 10 working days. Self-employed persons can also claim reimbursement for any portion of Government-paid leave that has been taken even when there is still remaining leave to be consumed. This means self-employed persons can submit claims between the ninth and 16th week of maternity leave for the first two child orders and need not wait for the period of eight weeks to have passed before claiming for reimbursement.
Ms Jean See and Mr Mark Lee asked how the reimbursement limit will apply for parents who have multiple employments, such as those who hold multiple jobs, or are both an employee and a self-employed person. Such parents will be able to take parental leave with each employer as well as take time-off as a self-employed person. For example, for the new SPL, the total amount that the Government may reimburse the parent’s employers for paid leave given to the parent and pay directly to the parent as a self-employed person will be capped at $2,500 per week.
If the total reimbursement across multiple employments exceeds $2,500 per week, the Government will reimburse the parent’s employers first, as employers would have already paid for their employee’s leave, before considering claims by the parent as a self-employed person.
Where there are multiple employers and the total claim amount exceeds the reimbursement limit, the reimbursement for each employer will be further determined based on the proportion of the employer’s claim out of the total claim amount submitted by all employers.
I would like to assure the Member that this group of employees is very small, at less than 1% of claims. We encourage employees to inform their employers before consuming the leave, if they have multiple employers and are likely to exceed the reimbursement limit. The Bill provides for employers to recover the difference directly from their employees, if the total claim amount exceeds the reimbursement limit.
I wish to assure Mr Mark Lee and Mr Melvin Yong that these details will be covered in the guidelines which MSF will provide on its website.
To Mr Mark Lee’s question on the computation of income for self-employed persons, it is based on the income set out in the individual’s Notice of Assessment and should therefore cover any seasonal variations within a year.
Let me now move to suggestions on how we can encourage the take-up of parental leave schemes.
Mr Louis Ng asked how we can encourage fathers, especially low-income fathers, to take more paternity leave. Ms Hany Soh also suggested incentivising fathers to take more leave by introducing additional bonuses, either in the form of payouts or additional leave to couples if the father takes paternity leave or shares a certain portion of the new SPL scheme. Mr Louis Chua suggested making the reimbursement for a portion of paternity leave contingent on fathers taking a minimum number of weeks of leave.
First, this is why we are introducing new employment protection for fathers taking GPPL. Mothers are currently protected against dismissals when they are on maternity leave. By extending the same protection to fathers who are on paternity leave, we want to send a strong signal to employers that it is important for them to also support their male employees to take parental leave, besides their female employees. We hope that this protection will provide fathers with the assurance and peace of mind to go ahead to use their paternity leave entitlement. The same protection will also be extended to employees taking adoption leave.
I agree with Ms Mariam Jaafar and Ms Hany Soh that we must continue to strengthen protection against discrimination of women with childbearing intentions and parents at the workplace and the upcoming Workplace Fairness Bill will address this.
On the new protections, Mr Desmond Choo asked to increase the penalty for employers who are first-time offenders, from the current fine not exceeding $5,000 to a fine not exceeding $10,000. The current penalties under the CDCA are in line with other employment offences for statutory leave provisions in the Employment Act and we will take the Member’s feedback into consideration when reviewing the penalties. It is also important to understand the spirit of the law, which is to encourage a supportive workplace environment for families.
In response to Mr Louis Ng's point on incentivising fathers to take paternity leave and shared parental leave, not only are we offering fathers protection from dismissal, we are also paying for both types of leave in full up to $2,500 per week or about $10,000 per month.
Members have provided useful suggestions, and we will continue to review our parental leave schemes and study how we can design them better to encourage utilisation.
This brings me to my second point that beyond legislation and Government support, workplace culture and societal norms are key factors that influence whether parents use their parental leave entitlements. I echo Mr Desmond Choo, Ms Mariam Jaafar and Dr Wan Rizal, who highlighted that a shift in policy cannot by itself drive cultural change. Encouraging greater paternal involvement and shared parental responsibilities require mindset shifts in our society. Workplaces with supportive supervisors and coworkers can make a huge difference to assure fathers to go ahead and take leave to bond with and care for their newborns. Therefore, the Government has been, and will continue to work with tripartite partners and community partners such as Families for Life Council and Centre for Fathering to encourage employers to foster family-friendly workplaces.
I urge supervisors to be supportive when their employees apply for paternity leave and hope that co-workers will be understanding and help to cover their colleagues who take time off work to care for their children. I also call on parents to be ready to extend similar support when they return to work, should their colleagues also need to take time off from work to tend to their families.
As Ms Mariam Jaafar highlighted, we will continue to track our progress and the take up of our parental leave schemes. MSF published the \"Family Trends Report\" in July 2024, which provides key annual updates on Singapore’s family trends as we work towards achieving a Singapore Made for Families. The report includes the utilisation trends of Government-paid Leave Schemes. The National Population and Talent Division also regularly conducts the Marriage and Parenthood Survey to understand perceptions toward marriage and parenthood, including that of parental caregiving roles and the actual division of childcare duties at home between men and women.
Several Members have also called for further increases in parental leave provisions. Mr Louis Ng asked about further increasing paternity leave to eventually equalise maternity and paternity leave, so that we avoid entrenching gender stereotypes.
Maternity leave is longer than paternity leave, given that mothers need time to recuperate physically after childbirth, a point which was emphasised by Member Ms Jessica Tan earlier. Although the duration of maternity and paternity leave differs, the Government has been mindful about the importance of encouraging shared parental responsibility. And you can see, from the progressive rounds of enhancements in recent years, that they have focused mainly on increasing paternity leave.
Mr Louis Chua, Ms Mariam Jaafar and Dr Wan Rizal suggested increasing Childcare Leave, including to tier it according to the number of children or combining it into a pool of family leave. To Mr Louis Chua’s suggestion to increase Childcare Leave from six to eight days in view of the additional preschool closure days, I would like to clarify that there has been a net increase of 0.5 days of preschool closure and not two additional days as the Member had thought. Previously, all preschools were already allowed to close 7.5 days per year – six closure days and three half-days on the eves of selected public holidays.
We fully recognise that caring for a child is a long-term commitment and that working parents must continue to manage their work and caregiving responsibilities even after the first year of the child’s life.
Currently, each working parent whose youngest child is below seven years old is entitled to six days of Childcare Leave per year. A working couple would therefore have a total of 12 days of Childcare Leave on top of their annual leave provisions, which they can use for preschool closure days and other childcare purposes. At the start of this year, we also doubled Unpaid Infant Care Leave to 12 days per parent in the child’s first two years.
Any further enhancements to our leave schemes will require us to strike a fine balance between the caregiving needs of parents and the manpower and operational needs of employers. We also need to provide employers with some time to adjust to the significant increases in overall parental leave provisions with the introduction of the new SPL scheme. Nevertheless, we will continue to regularly review our leave policies in consultation with parents and the tripartite partners.
Beyond legislated leave provisions, we encourage other sustainable ways that support parents and other caregivers in juggling work and caregiving commitments, such as FWAs. The Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Workplace Arrangement Requests will take effect from 1 December 2024 and the mandatory guidelines will enable employers and employees to have open discussions and work out arrangements that can meet both parties’ needs. We should focus on building confidence and capabilities among companies to manage flexible workplace arrangements effectively, instead of relying on legislation alone. We thank the NTUC's efforts on this front.
Even as some Members call for even more leave provisions, other Members have highlighted the potential challenges that businesses may face in managing the extended absences of employees. Mr Desmond Choo, Mr Mark Lee, Ms Hany Soh, Ms Hazel Poa, Dr Wan Rizal and Ms Yeo Wan Ling have called for better support to help companies, especially SMEs, with manpower and operational constraints.
We fully understand that employers are concerned about the impact of the parental leave enhancements on their business and manpower arrangements. As I mentioned in my opening speech, we have therefore worked closely with tripartite partners and employer representatives, to design the parental leave enhancements in a way that best mitigates some of the challenges that employers may face.
Indeed, one key approach is that most of Singapore's parental leave provisions are paid by the Government and at a generous level of $2,500 per week or about $10,000 per month. This fully covers the wages of the majority of employees on leave. Employers can use the wage savings to mitigate the operational impact of their employees going on leave. This includes, hiring and training temporary workers, providing additional remuneration to recognise the effort of colleagues covering for the employees on leave and supporting any overlapping periods for handovers when re-integrating returning employees.
On the Government's reimbursement to employers, I would like to assure Dr Wan Rizal that we are committed to ensuring timely reimbursements and streamlining the claim processes. For example, in response to feedback, we have since allowed claims for childcare leave to be submitted in batches, instead of individually, to reduce the administrative burden on employers. We will continue to review and improve our reimbursement processes to support employers in providing parental leave.
For the longer term, we encourage employers to take this opportunity to strengthen their manpower planning capabilities and make operational and system adjustments. After all, given the demographic challenges of a declining birth rate and an ageing workforce, mature economies and societies like ours must increasingly find ways to effectively navigate manpower constraints in future and manage a more flexible workforce well. Employers can tap on existing grants and resources, such as the Productivity Solutions Grant, to improve business productivity and automation and implement FWAs or use SkillsFuture Credits for their HR professionals to obtain the Institute for Human Resources Professionals' certifications and be equipped with progressive people practices.
Mr Melvin Yong asked whether the Government can consider extending the Shared Parental Benefits to couples whose babies are expected to be born in the first-quarter of 2025. I seek Members' understanding that specific start dates are required for any new measure or enhancement, to ensure a smooth implementation process for all stakeholders involved. This start date applies to both the SPL scheme as well as its cash benefit-equivalent Shared Parental Benefits scheme.
Ms Hazel Poa spoke about other concerns that we must also address to build a conducive environment for families. In the infographic I distributed earlier, Members will see how the Government has put in place a comprehensive suite of support measures across various domains, such as housing, healthcare and education, and we will continue to review our measures to address the needs of parents.
In particular, we recognise that parents may be concerned about the cost of raising children, as several Members have highlighted. We recently enhanced the Baby Bonus cash gift and Government contributions to the CDA, last year, to support parents in defraying the cost of child-raising.
Ms Hany Soh asked if we could further enhance the CDA to cover optional enrichment programmes and family outings. The CDA is intended to help parents defray healthcare and educational costs and we have scoped the use of the CDA accordingly. We regularly review the uses of CDA and will take Ms Soh's feedback into consideration. Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, in his National Day Rally speech, had also said that the Government is looking into ways to provide more support to larger families with three or more children, such as the resident, whom Ms Hany Soh mentioned.
Mr Melvin Yong suggested further healthcare support for mothers, such as through providing universal maternity insurance for all mothers-to-be, including those with pre-existing conditions to allay worries about unexpected pregnancy complications. I wish to highlight that as a universal health insurance scheme, MediShield Life covers all Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents, including mothers-to-be with pre-existing conditions, for life. They can be assured that MediShield Life covers the treatment of serious pregnancy and delivery-related complications.
For general maternity expenses, the Government provides subsidies of up to 80% and allows the use MediSave through the MediSave Maternity Package. Expectant mothers may choose to purchase maternity insurance policies for added coverage. Such maternity insurance plans are optional private products, where the benefits and terms and conditions are determined by insurers.
Sir, let me now conclude. I am grateful for the views shared by the Members and thank them for their various suggestions. The current amendments covered in this Bill are part of the Government's commitment to better provide working parents with greater caregiving support, especially in their child's early years when the care needs are the greatest. We hope that both mothers and fathers will use the enhanced leave provisions well, to bond with their children and share the parenthood journey together.
We must also recognise that these schemes do not operate in isolation and that parenthood continues beyond infancy. We will, therefore, need to press on with our whole-of-society effort to build a Singapore Made For Families. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications for the Minister of State Sun Xueling? I do not see any.
I still recall that when I became a Member of Parliament in 2006, GPML was significantly lower than what it is now. As for paternity leave, there was none. So, we have made much progress since.
[(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":"Administration of Justice (Protection) (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Law (Mr Murali Pillai) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
This Bill is intended to safeguard the administration of justice in Singapore by clarifying that egregious abuse of the court process will amount to contempt of court. In my speech, I will, first, provide the background to the Bill. I will explain why we have assessed that it is necessary to proactively act to introduce these amendments. I will, then, take Members through the details of the proposed amendments. In doing so, I will share how we carefully scoped the proposals to achieve a balance between the public interest in guarding against abuse of process and the rights of litigants to ventilate genuine claims before the Courts.
Starting with the background. In 2016, this House passed the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act, or AOJPA in short. The AOJPA consolidated the law of contempt of court, which was previously set out in multiple cases, in a single piece of legislation. The fundamental aim of our contempt of court laws is to protect our Courts and our justice system.
The justice system is critical to Singapore's continued success. It benefits all of us in various ways. For example, our criminal justice system ensures law and order and a safe Singapore. Our commercial law regime provides a stable platform for investment and economic growth and allows for the expedient resolution of commercial disputes.\tIn the community sphere, we have set up specialised tribunals and introduced simplified judge-led processes, that allow for the effective resolution of community disputes. Our family justice system aims to find timely and enduring solutions to family disputes by applying therapeutic justice. The AOJPA protects the justice system across all these spheres.
The AOJPA has become even more important in recent years, as we have taken significant steps to improve access to justice. These steps include setting up the Protection from Harassment Court and the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT). These reforms provide simplified processes intended to allow Singaporeans to enforce their rights more easily.
Promoting access to justice is part of the Government's mission. We need to have good laws on our statute books and the public must be able to enforce their legal rights in practice. However, improving access to justice does not mean enabling vexatious litigants to mount abusive and unmeritorious legal claims.
There are existing levers to address the risk of abuse of process in specific contexts, which we regularly review.
For criminal proceedings, we passed legislation in 2018 and 2022, to provide clear procedures for applications filed after a concluded criminal appeal, including post-appeal applications in capital cases. Thresholds were included to make clear that such late-stage applications must be premised on persuasive, new material to guard against persistent delays and the constant re-litigation of issues in criminal matters.
There are also existing levers available in other proceedings. For instance, the Protection from Harassment Court has powers to deal with unmeritorious or frivolous cases by striking out such claims and imposing costs consequences. However, we have received feedback that there is still a risk of harassment proceedings being misused for collateral purposes. As such, this is an area we continue to monitor and review.
Similarly, for community disputes, the CDRT may award costs in cases involving an abuse of process. Under the Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Bill, which was passed yesterday, the Tribunal will be further empowered to issue civil restraint orders to curb claims or applications that are an abuse of process.
More broadly, the AOJPA provides that interference with court proceedings, or the administration of justice may amount to contempt of court and attract criminal sanctions. This is a general protection that applies to all court proceedings in Singapore. Contempt by interference with the administration of justice may be committed in various ways, including by abusing the process of the court in an egregious manner.
Examples of such egregious abuse include: (a) commencing civil proceedings to seek financial damages, despite knowing that the claim is without foundation, for the ulterior motive of oppressing the defendant; (b) filing fictitious claims for the improper purpose of delaying criminal proceedings; and (c) persistently commencing actions and making applications that are totally without merit.
The impact of egregious abuse of our court system can be serious, very serious. Individuals are forced to bear the financial and psychological burden of undergoing court proceedings for matters that should not be going to court. Limited public and court resources are diverted away from other deserving, meritorious cases and our court system is strained and weakened as a result. If we do not act, over time, trust in Singapore's justice system will be eroded.
We have observed notable examples of abuse of the court process in Singapore and overseas, as parties engage in what is referred to as \"lawfare\", commencing unmeritorious claims to oppress others or for ulterior purposes. With your permission, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a handout with some examples?
Mr Speaker: Please proceed. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]
Mr Murali Pillai: Thank you, Sir. Members may also access these materials through the MP@SGPARL App.
I will proceed, Sir. In the handout, you will see that in the United States (US), lawfare has taken various forms. This includes misuse of court proceedings by individuals against their intimate partners, who may be survivors of domestic violence or sexual abuse, as a means of controlling, harassing or intimidating them long after the relationship has ended. It also includes unscrupulous lawyers and litigants commencing abusive or bogus claims with the main incentive of forcing a monetary settlement or to \"make a quick buck\".
In Europe, the European Union parliament is studying the rising phenomenon of strategic lawsuits against public participation, also known as \"SLAPPs\". SLAPPs are legal actions, typically brought with the intention of harassing or intimidating opponents via improper use of the legal system for purposes other than genuinely vindicating a legal right. The United Kingdom (UK) government also proposed legislative action in this area earlier this year in March 2024.
In Singapore, we have also observed notable cases of egregious abuse of process. In an extra-judicial lecture delivered in 2023, our Chief Justice spoke about the phenomenon of truth decay: the proliferation of disinformation and devaluation of truth in our societies. He observed that \"a number of recent examples suggest that truth decay is spreading into court proceedings\". He cited \"the conduct of some advocates, who have in some cases attempted to conceal facts from the courts, or to delay proceedings on spurious grounds.\"
One example of such conduct is the 2022 case of Mohammad Farid bin Batra v Attorney-General. The applicant had been sentenced to life imprisonment and caning for possessing drugs for the purposes of trafficking. After his appeal had been dealt with, he filed two subsequent applications to the Court of Appeal, which were dismissed. Thereafter, the applicant filed another application to the General Division of the High Court on an urgent basis. The Court dismissed the application. In doing so, the Court found that the claim was completely baseless and brought to delay, and ultimately avoid, caning. The Court also noted that it \"would have to leave it to the Executive and the Legislature to consider whether and what action can be taken in future instances of abusive applications by litigants and those advising, assisting or egging them on.\"
Having observed these trends, we have decided that it is time to proactively act to safeguard the administration of justice in Singapore. It is the Government's responsibility to act to protect the judicial system, especially when we have repeated pronouncements from our courts on the abuse of their processes.
The current provisions of the AOJPA, in principle, already cover egregious abuse of process. Specifically, section 3(1)(e) of the AOJPA, which relates to contempt by interference with the administration of justice, captures: \"Any person who…intentionally does any…act that interferes with, obstructs or poses a real risk of interference with or obstruction of the administration of justice …if the person knows or ought to have known that the act would interfere with, obstruct or pose a real risk of interference with or obstruction of the administration of justice.\"
However, the language of the current provision, which I have just read, is broad. We have decided that the legal position can be made clearer on how the general standard set out in section 3(1)(e) applies to the context of abuse of process. The amendments which we are proposing are, therefore, clarificatory in nature. They do not lower the current threshold for contempt of Court.
Besides providing legal clarity, our intent is also to send a clear signal to deter abuse of the court process. The amendments will make it clear to the public and potential court users that egregious cases of abuse of process will amount to contempt of court and that such conduct can attract criminal sanctions.
This is also in line with the established legal position in other jurisdictions. In the UK, the Supreme Court has emphasised that serious cases of abuse of process involving false claims ought to be sanctioned as contempt of court. The Court noted that such claims undermine the system in a number of serious ways, including imposing a burden upon honest claimants and damaging the system of adversarial justice which depends upon openness, transparency and honesty.
The Indian Supreme Court has also recognised that abuse of process that is calculated to hamper the due course of judicial proceedings or the orderly administration of justice amounts to contempt of court. The Court noted that such conduct extends its influence beyond the parties to the action and affects the public's interest in the administration of justice.
Having set out the background and the policy rationale, I will now take hon Members through the details of the proposed amendments. The key point to note is that the provisions reflect what is already the current law.
Under clause 2 of the Bill, the proposed new sections 3(1)(da) and (db) of the Act clarify what kinds of conduct would amount to contempt by interference with the administration of justice.
The new provisions apply to all court proceedings in Singapore, whether conducted by a self-represented person or a lawyer. Three categories of egregious abuse of process are set out: first, the conduct or commencement of a court proceeding, which the person knows, or ought to have known, involves a deception on the court, is fictitious or constitutes a mere sham.
Second, the conduct or commencement of a court proceeding, which the person knows or ought to have known is manifestly groundless or without foundation and involves the process of the court being used for an ulterior or improper purpose. These requirements are cumulative. Under this category, it is not sufficient just to have a manifestly groundless claim, or to have found an improper purpose. You must have both.
Third, the conducting or commencing of multiple or successive court proceedings, which the person knows or ought to have known are manifestly groundless or without foundation.
Deceiving the court, abusing the court process by filing baseless claims for an improper purpose, or launching multiple baseless court proceedings – these are acts of abuse that are clearly egregious and which cannot be condoned. These are also acts which would already fall within the current section 3(1)(e) of the AOJPA, as acts which interfere with the administration of justice.
Our amendments, therefore, do not change the current legal standard. Rather, they provide clearer signposting in setting out the types of conduct that would amount to contempt of court.
We have also considered that there may be also persons, who are causing or abetting others, to engage in the contemptuous conduct before our courts. The usual levers of striking out and costs orders will not deter them, as they are not involved in the court proceedings. To deter such behaviour, clause 2(d) of the Bill provides that persons who cause or abet egregious abuse of our court process as provided for under the new section 3(1)(da) and (db) will also be liable for contempt.
In developing these proposals, we were keenly aware of the need to strike a balance between the need to guard against abuse of process and the rights of litigants to ventilate genuine claims before the courts. Our policy intent is that litigants and lawyers who act with reasonable care and in good faith should not be penalised. We looked at past examples of conduct which amounted to abuse of process. We also examined the leading case of Chee Siok Chin v MHA, where the Court had set out the categories of abuse of process at common law. To ensure that we only capture egregious cases as contempt, the provisions in the Bill specify narrower categories than what was set out in Chee Siok Chin.
The approach we have taken ensures that the amendments will not cover the typical case of a civil matter that is struck out for the sole reason that it has no merit. Such cases can continue to be adequately dealt with by striking out and cost orders. The Court will be able to examine the circumstances of the case, when considering whether the conduct constitutes contempt.
In scoping the proposals, we spoke to key stakeholders, including the Judiciary, to ensure that we achieved the right balance.
We also spoke to members of the Bar on these amendments. There is consensus that lawyers must be held to high standards. At the same time, some members of the Bar have expressed concern whether these amendments may discourage lawyers from taking up difficult cases and arguments, where the merits of the case or the evidence may be borderline or unclear. They ask whether the amendments will prevent them from robustly representing the interests of their clients.
Let me make a few points to directly address these concerns. First, I reiterate that the amendments are clarificatory in nature and do not lower the current threshold for contempt of court.
The elements of the new provisions, particularly the mental element that the person must have \"known or ought to have known\" that the proceeding would amount to contempt, are consistent with the current section 3(1)(e) of the AOJPA.
The new provisions are also consistent with the pre-AOJPA case law on other forms of contempt of court, under which it was not necessary to prove an intention to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. The new provisions do not affect the procedural protections under the existing AOJPA. The standard of proof remains that of proof beyond a reasonable doubt under section 28 of the AOJPA. Consent of the Attorney-General is also required under section 30 of the AOJPA before contempt proceedings are instituted.
Second, lawyers and litigants are already held to high standards. To reiterate, those who exercise reasonable care and act in good faith will not be caught and have nothing to fear. Let me illustrate this with an example. An accused person who has been convicted and had his appeal dismissed approaches a lawyer, shortly before the accused is to start serving his sentence. The accused presents new evidence that the lawyer is unsure whether is genuine. The lawyer needs more time to investigate the matter and makes an urgent court application so that the accused person does not have to immediately start serving sentence. Eventually, after due investigation, it transpires that the allegedly new evidence is not genuine and the application is duly withdrawn.
In such a circumstance, if the lawyer had acted in good faith and had taken reasonable steps before filing the court application, considering the limited time available to him, the lawyer will not be caught by the elements of the proposed amendments. This is because the standard of what the lawyer knew or ought to have known is contextual and the Court will have to examine carefully the factual matrix of each case. The standard also allows the Court to take into account the practical challenges faced by the lawyers.
However, in the same scenario, if the lawyer had failed to take reasonable steps – for example, by ignoring obvious red flags, or had carried on conducting the application even after discovering that the new evidence was fabricated – then, he may well be caught by the amendments. Rightly so, as we expect high standards from lawyers who owe paramount duties as officers of the Court. Again, much will depend on the particular context of each case.
This is why I say that lawyers and litigants who act with reasonable care, and in good faith, have nothing to fear. On this point, as hon Members sitting in this House, we are ultimately concerned with the public good and must act in the best interest of all Singaporeans. As I mentioned at the start of my speech, our justice system is a key pillar of what has made our country successful. It is precious and must be protected.
All of us – the Courts, lawyers, lawmakers and members of the public – have an interest in ensuring that we have an effective justice system that is focused on enforcing our laws and resolving genuine disputes. We also have a duty to ensure that our processes are not weaponised or abused.
The proposed amendments will help us deter egregious cases of abuse of process and safeguard our justice system so that it continues to benefit and serve all of us.
As I have elaborated in some detail in going through the amendments, they are clarificatory and are not intended to lower the threshold for contempt. I have also taken some time to explain the rationale behind the amendments.
So, while hon Members may have brought prepared speeches, I would ask that you may want to consider the explanations I have already given, so that the response I may provide later can be more efficient.
Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, I rise today in support of this amendment Bill. These amendments clarify that severe cases of abuse of court process, where proceedings are knowingly initiated with deceit, as shams or based on baseless claims, these will be treated as contempt of court. I welcome the hon Minister of State's assurance that this Bill does not lower the threshold for contempt, but it is meant to deter abuse of our Courts, and thus preserving the Courts' integrity for those with genuine claims. These amendments are welcome in light of the observations from the High Court in the recent case that the Minister of State mentioned, where an applicant filed for judicial review with the ulterior aim of delaying his punishment of caning. This Bill addresses situations where litigants or their advocates knowingly file abusive applications. It reinforces that the Court is a place for genuine grievances, not tactical delays or gamesmanship.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
This sends a strong message that our Courts will not tolerate misuse of judicial process for ulterior motives. Importantly, less severe abuses will continue to be handled through existing measures, such as cost orders, dismissal and disciplinary action, as these remain the appropriate responses for less serious infractions.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, at the outset, I believe that the Bill is not imposing anything new in terms of professional conduct standards in dealing with abuse of process through multiple baseless claims and in the abetment of contempt of court.
Firstly, on legal professional conduct, these amendments reinforce the standards already enshrined in the Singapore Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules which state that a lawyer's paramount duty is to the Court, meaning justice, truth and fairness must come first, above the client’s interest. As a lawyer, our role is not to win at all costs but to uphold the integrity of the judicial process.
Specifically, the new sections 3(1)(da)(i) and (ii) require that lawyers refrain from initiating cases that they know are baseless, deceptive or meant to deceive the Court. These standards are consistent with expectations from current case laws. Already, lawyers are prohibited from knowingly misleading the Court and cannot simply accept clients’ instructions at face value without reasonable scrutiny and are already liable for costs if they advance frivolous or ill-conceived applications. Ultimately, lawyers also have the opportunity to respond to allegations of misconduct before facing any personal cost orders.
Secondly, in respect of multiple or successive groundless claims, section 3(1)(db), targets litigants who engage in successive or repeated meritless claims. Currently, such behaviour is already recognised as an abuse of process, with Courts authorised to issue civil restraint orders or general restraint orders, preventing cases from proceeding without the Court’s permission. Since 2019, the Supreme Court of Judicature Act have been amended to formalise these powers, even though Courts have historically exercised such powers through its inherent jurisdiction. The Attorney-General also has the authority under section 74 of the SCJA to bar vexatious litigants from filing further claims without prior permission.
I do, however, have four sets of clarifications.
Firstly, on the knowledge of the lawyer. The phrasing used in this Bill, particularly the terms \"ought to know\" and \"manifestly groundless or without foundation.\" These terms are somewhat subjective. When the Bill states that a lawyer who “ought to know” his or her client’s claim is groundless will be sanctioned, it places lawyers in a precarious position, especially when clients insist on pursuing claims that may be weak or challenging. While a lawyer may suspect that a claim is weak, they may still present it for the Court's consideration if it contains legitimate legal questions.
To address this, may I suggest a possible carve-out for lawyers who have already advised clients of the poor merits of their case but are instructed to proceed nonetheless. In such cases, personal sanctions should not apply, as the cost regime already functions as a penalty mechanism. This approach would allow lawyers to uphold their duty to both their clients and the Court without fear of sanctions for attempting legitimate, albeit difficult, claims.
Secondly, on the new provisions of the Bill addressing third parties who abet or cause contemptuous actions. Under existing common law, third parties can already be held liable for aiding and abetting contempt of court if their actions threaten to prejudice justice. My question is: why is there a need for this to be explicitly legislated? Is the Bill seeking to modify the existing common law position and, if so, in what ways? Furthermore, does this extend to those who are funding frivolous cases with malicious intent, whether based locally or from outside of Singapore, particularly those who are engaging in \"lawfare\" to create discord within our legal system? Can the hon Minister of State also clarify if this provision would also apply to crowdfunding sources and, if so, whether a member of the public who participates in crowdfunding activity to fund a baseless or frivolous claim will also be held in contempt of court?
Thirdly, on the definition of abuse of process for multiple filings of claims. This Bill reinforces the four categories of abuse of process already established in case law. The Minister of State mentioned this as the Chee Siok Chin case. In that case, the hon Justice of Appeal VK Rajah classified abuse of process into four categories involving deception, ulterior motives, baseless claims or vexatious multiple filings. However, the new section 3(1)(db) departs from prior case law by not requiring that multiple proceedings cause “improper vexation or oppression” to qualify as abuse. I would appreciate if the hon Minister of State can clarify whether this omission was intentional or if successive meritless filings alone per se are deemed inherently vexatious.
Fourthly and finally, I have some suggestions on public awareness. The prevention of frivolous or repeated claims serves a dual purpose: first, safeguarding judicial resources; and second, protecting the public. Frivolous litigants sometimes seek public donations under misleading pretenses, potentially duping well-meaning supporters. It may be beneficial for the judiciary to establish a publicly accessible database of debarred litigants, enabling members of the public to verify claimants before contributing financially. I also suggest that the judiciary provide transparent data on the resources expended on frivolous cases, allowing the public to appreciate and understand the importance of safeguarding judicial resources.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Courts and our Judiciary are not just providers of public service but a key Organ of State and essential branch of the Westminster System. In this regard, I quote from the president of the supreme court of the UK, the Right Hon Lord Reed, on the key role of the Courts: “At the heart of the concept of the rule of law is the idea that society is governed by law. Parliament exists primarily in order to make laws for society... Courts exist in order to ensure that the laws made by Parliament, and the common law created by the courts themselves, are applied and enforced… In order for the courts to perform that role, people must in principle have unimpeded access to them. Without such access, laws are liable to become a dead letter, the work done by Parliament may be rendered nugatory, and the democratic election of Members of Parliament may become a meaningless charade. That is why the courts do not merely provide a public service like any other.”
In conclusion, Sir, it is essential to protect our justice system from exploitation by vexatious litigants, whose actions deplete valuable judicial resources and erode public confidence in our legal system.
However, this Bill must not deter legitimate advocacy or prevent lawyers from fearlessly defending their clients within the bounds of the law. A lawyer’s duty is to balance loyalty to the client with an unwavering commitment to justice and fairness. Quoting from Robert Kennedy: \"Courage is the most important attribute of a lawyer. It is more important than competence or vision. It can never be an elective in any law school. It can never be delimited, dated or outworn. And it should pervade the heart, the halls of justice and the chambers of the mind.\"
When we enhance our legal system by deterring abusive practices, we must still preserve the principles of fearless yet responsible advocacy, as lawyers are not mere agents of clients’ desires but officers of the Court who must advocate responsibly and ethically. Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, my understanding is that this Bill was motivated by certain matters that came before our Courts. Two matters come to mind. First, there were the two claims filed by a spurned boyfriend, which a Court found were commenced with the ulterior motive of pressuring a girlfriend not to terminate the relationship.
Second, there was a criminal case where a convicted drug trafficker was found to have filed a meritless court application for the purpose of delaying his sentence of caning till he reached 50 years of age when he could not be legally caned, the Farid Batra case. This case was referred to by the Minister of State earlier and is also listed in the handout that he distributed.
In Farid Batra's case, he was initially sentenced to death for drug trafficking but was later certified by the Prosecution to be a courier who had rendered substantive assistance, which led to the Court re-sentencing him to life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. Since then, he has filed several applications for review of his conviction, as well as to bring a prisoner to Court, which were dismissed by the Court of Appeal either as speculative or an abuse of process.
In the latest application in 2022, he applied for permission to commence a judicial review on the basis that a co-accused person should have faced an additional charge and received a heavier punishment. The Court found that Mr Farid Batra did not have sufficient interest to start that action and that his real purpose was to delay his sentence of caning till he passed his 50th birthday and could not be caned.
The Judge there expressed frustration that he did not have any options to punish Farid Batra for his abuse of court process, as he was a prisoner already serving life imprisonment, for whom there was no downside in mounting meritless applications.
The Court further stated that he \"would leave it to the Executive and Legislature to consider whether and what action can be taken in future instances of abusive applications by litigants and those advising, assisting or egging them on\". So, there appears to be a gap that needs to be addressed. What does this Bill provide then?
Clause 2 of the Bill introduces a new section 3(da), which will make it a contempt of court for any person to conduct or commence a court proceeding when he knows or ought to know that the proceeding involves a deception of the court, is fictitious or constitutes a mere sham. It would also be a contempt if the proceeding is manifestly groundless and involves the process of the court being employed for an ulterior or improper purpose. The spurned boyfriend comes to mind here.
The Bill also introduced a proposed section 3D(b), where it will also amount to contempt if a person conducts or commences multiple or successive court proceedings when he knows all to know that such proceedings are manifestly groundless and without foundation. Farid Batra's case appears to possibly fall within this provision.
Sir, in assessing whether this Bill is needed, it is useful to take stock of the tools already available to handle court applications that amount to an abuse of process. In this light, I have four queries on the Bill.
First, on capital cases. Two years ago, Parliament passed the Post-Appeal Applications and Capital Cases Act, or PACC, which came into effect in June this year. Under PACC, strict conditions have been imposed on when additional applications can be made to the Court in capital cases where the usual avenues of appeal have been exhausted.
As this Act has just been operationalised, it is only fair to wait and see whether it is adequate to manage court proceedings in capital cases. This Bill provides a factual scenario in Illustration 4 where the offender is convicted of rape, which is a non-capital offence. Is this an indication that the provisions are really targeted at non-capital cases?
Secondly, on how the Bill will solve the problem in cases like Farid Batra's. As mentioned earlier, Farid Batra was sentenced to jail for life. Even if he were to be convicted for contempt of court, an additional jail term imposed may not have any deterrent effect. How will the new contempt provisions discourage the filing of meritless applications in such situations?
Third, the impact on civil cases. No doubt, the use of lawfare to oppress defendants is a concern. At the same time, MinLaw recognises that there are existing court procedures that enable typical civil cases to be struck out for lacking merit and for the losing party to be ordered to pay legal costs. So, where do we draw the line as to which cases are tantamount to a contempt of court and which are better off being dealt with by the usual rules of civil procedure?
One must remember that contempt of court is a very serious matter which carries a heavy punishment. For example, a contempt of the High Court carries a potential fine of up to $100,000 and a jail term of up to three years. Therefore, these provisions must not be triggered lightly and the bar must be set very high.
MinLaw has stated that the contempt law will not cover cases where litigants and lawyers have acted with reasonable care and good faith. Neither should the contempt laws be invoked in cases where existing procedures to deal with the situation are adequate. Would it not be preferable to codify these carve-outs so as to give further confidence to those acting in good faith?
Sir, my fourth and final query relates to why lawyers are being specifically included in the provisions. Here, I declare that I am an advocate and solicitor. As we know, lawyers are officers of the Court and already subject to the control of the Supreme Court through the Legal Profession Act. We see this disciplinary aspect exercised every day in various ways.
For instance, whenever lawyers are assessed by the Court to have conducted a case in a way that amounts to an abuse of the court process, the Court may order them to pay costs personally, that is, out of their own pockets. Alternatively, lawyers are periodically referred by the Courts or the Attorney-General to face disciplinary proceedings for any misconduct. The outcome of such proceedings could be a striking of the role, suspension, financial penalties and so on. These are hardly trivial.
In the case of Farid Batra, who had no lawyer representing him in the latest case, the Judge observed that if he were represented by a lawyer and I quote the Judge here, \"The lawyer could expect substantial severe consequences.\" This appears to be an acknowledgement by the Court that there are already sufficient disciplinary and deterrent measures against lawyers.
Earlier in the handout, the Minister of State highlighted an extrajudicial lecture by the Chief Justice where he spoke about truth decay and how lawyers might be complicit in that process. But it is not clear from the extract that the Chief Justice was actually calling for additional measures against lawyers. So, I would like the Minister of State to clarify this point.
MinLaw has stated in its October press release that key stakeholders had been consulted on the Bill, including the Judiciary. Earlier, the Minister of State mentioned that he spoke to several members of the Bar as well. But I would like to ask whether the Law Society was specifically consulted and, if so, what were its views? Could the Ministry further clarify why the existing framework for disciplining lawyers is not adequate to handle the scenarios emphasised by the Bill?
Sir, in summary, I do not oppose this Bill, but the clarifications I have sought would be useful and necessary.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill provides a timely and necessary response to the increasing misuse of our court processes. These abuses squander public resources and judicial time. They also hurt genuine victims who need fair and prompt resolutions. I am confident that the provisions in this Bill will booster the integrity of our judicial system.
While I endorse the intent and spirit of this legislation, I would like to seek further clarifications on four key areas.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my first concern is how stricter contempt of court laws might affect those with valid grievances. While I support the need to curb abusive litigation, we must be careful not to discourage individuals with genuine grievances from seeking justice. This requires a delicate balance. We must deter bad faith actors without dissuading those with sincere, if ultimately unsuccessful, claims.
Take for instance, a recent case under current contempt laws. A blogger was charged with contempt for making unfounded accusations against the Judiciary. He implied that the Judiciary was swayed by the Government. The Court found that his statements had the potential to erode public trust in our Judiciary. This led to a contempt charge.
I believe this case was ultimately shown to be a good use of the law. It highlights the fine line we tread between maintaining the integrity of our Courts and protecting freedom of expression. Addressing harmful and unsubstantiated allegations is undoubtedly important. Yet, we must be cautious that the tightening of contempt provisions does not stifle legitimate discourse.
Thus, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I seek clarification on how the amendments will differentiate between genuine claims, if even unsuccessful, and those deemed contemptuous. What safeguards are in place to protect individuals who may unintentionally bring forward claims, later classified as groundless? Could these legislations deter residents, especially those with limited legal knowledge, from exercising their right to justice? And might these amendments dissuade pro bono lawyers from supporting disadvantaged residents due to potential repercussions? It is essential that as we curb misuse of the Court's time, we do not inadvertently silence legitimate cries for justice due to fears of unintended legal consequences.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my second point concerns the potential impact on vulnerable residents. Stricter contempt provisions may disproportionately affect those who face financial or legal challenges, as they may feel the chilling effects of these amendments most acutely. Navigating the legal system can be daunting, even for those with resources. The risk of contempt charges may discourage self-represented litigants, especially those with sincere claims, from coming forward.
How will these amendments protect those who lack the resources to fully understand legal complexities? Are there plans to conduct public education campaigns to help residents understand what constitutes a manifestly groundless claim? Additionally, how can community legal clinics and support services help mitigate this risk for residents? Ensuring access to justice requires that we balance curbing misuse while maintaining protections for the vulnerable. This is essential to uphold equitable access to our legal system for all residents.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my third concern addresses the role of legal advisors and the implications of holding them accountable for pursuing groundless claims. Accountability is vital, but we must consider how this might affect lawyers' willingness to take up pro bono or challenging cases, particularly those with a public interest angle but uncertain outcomes.
A case in 2022 illustrates this dilemma, where two lawyers were ordered to pay personal costs due to their conduct in a case. Their approach was deemed problematic as they introduced evidence piecemeal and at the last minute. These examples highlight the tension lawyers may face when advocating passionately for their clients. The Court's reaction highlights the necessity of adhering to procedural rules. However, it is also important to acknowledge that in critical cases, legal counsel might be driven to explore every possible option to advert potential miscarriages of justice.
Should there be clearer guidelines for legal advisors on what constitutes \"ought to have known\" when assessing case merit, could heightened liability raise legal costs for residents as lawyers factor in greater risk? What recourse will residents have if they feel their lawyer has not accurately represented the risk of contempt under this amendment?
Clarity is essential, not only for those seeking justice, but also for the legal professionals who guide them. This will help ensure fair, accessible and equitable representation for all.
Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to address public perception and trust in our legal system. While the amendments are well-intentioned, they could unintentionally create a sense of reduced access to justice amongst the public. Maintaining public confidence in our Court's accessibility and fairness is paramount.
The blogger case I mentioned earlier sparked considerable debates, both locally and internationally, on freedom of expression and fairness in our legal system. Human rights organisations and international media outlets cited the case as an example of perceived suppression of free speech. This shows that striking a balance between upholding respect for the Judiciary and preserving public trust is not only delicate but essential.
Therefore, what steps will the Government take to ensure these changes do not undermine public confidence in our justice system? Could more detailed public reporting on cases deemed manifestly groundless help clarify the rationale for these amendments? Transparency in how these provisions are applied could reinforce the public's understanding and trust in the system. A just society is built not only on the laws we enact, but on the public's trust in those laws and their fair and transparent application.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I stand in strong support of the Administration of Justice Protection (Amendment) Bill. Its aims are praiseworthy. I believe these amendments will reinforce the backbone of our legal system. But to ensure its full impact, we must address the potential challenges it brings. As we implement these changes, let us make sure that they achieve a fair and balanced system, one that deters abuse without discouraging genuine claims, supports vulnerable residents, respects the role of our legal advisors and strengthens public trust in our Judiciary.
This is a call for a justice system that is not just efficient, but compassionate and accessible to all Singaporeans. I urge the Ministry to provide the necessary clarifications and safeguards so that this Bill can truly protect the integrity of our courts while honouring the rights of our residents. Let us, together, build a justice system that inspires confidence and upholds the principles we all stand by. I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): This Bill clarifies that egregious abuses of court process amounts to contempt of court. While the amendments are intended to prevent abuse of judicial processes through frivolous and vexatious litigation, we should also minimise any potentially unimpeded impact.
I have three points of clarification to raise.
My first point is on what constitutes deception of the court. The new section 3(1)(da) makes it contempt of court to conduct or commence proceedings if they involve a deception of the court, are fictitious or constitutes a mere sham. It is fair litigation strategy to commence court proceedings even if a party's intention is to amicably settle the matter. Starting court proceedings is a commonly used tactic to signal to the other party the seriousness and strength of the other party's case.
Commencing court proceedings with the intention of settling the case could be, in the strictest sense, a deception of the court or fictitious, in the sense that the party had no intention of seeing the proceedings all the way through to trial. Can the Minister of State elaborate on how it would distinguish between cases that would be deemed deception of the court and the use of court proceedings as part of fair litigation strategy?
My second point is on what constitutes court proceedings that are manifestly groundless or without foundation. It is not unusual for lawyers and their clients to disagree on whether certain claims have merit or are supported by evidence. In certain cases, clients might instruct their lawyers to proceed with claims, even if they have been advised that the claims are weak. In other cases, clients may instruct their lawyers to file claims in the hope that more evidence will emerge through discovery to support their initially unsupported claims.
There are existing mechanisms, such as striking out and cost orders, to deal with unmeritorious claims. However, as MinLaw has clarified, the amendments are not intended to cover typical cases that are struck out for the reason that it has no merit. Can the Minister of State clarify the qualitative difference between a case that is manifestly groundless or without foundation and a case that simply has no merit?
Given that the test is that the individual know or ought to know, the standard is an objective one. Uncertainty on how the objective test is set leads to the concerns of parties pursuing an aggressive litigation strategy, unwittingly committing contempt of court.
My third and final point is on the expansion of contempt liability to non-parties. Under the new section 3(7), individuals who cause or abet parties or advocates to file sham or groundless proceedings may be accountable for contempt of court. Can the Minister of State provide specific examples of influence by third parties that fall under the scope of section 3(7)?
It is not unusual for litigants to seek advice and support from acquaintances and advisors on the conduct of their litigation. For some litigants, support from non-government organisations is very important in helping them in navigating the legal system. This is the reason why the State Courts have its Community Courts and Tribunals Clusters Friend Scheme. Section 3(7) may cause these well-meaning individuals to be fearful of providing much needed support for litigants to pursue justice.
Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Members who spoke on the Bill for their questions, suggestions and support. I am heartened that hon Members agree on the importance of safeguarding our court system.
Before I respond to the specific questions, let me reiterate a key point which I made in my opening speech. The amendments in the Bill reflect what is already the current law and are clarificatory in nature. The primary effect of the amendments is to signpost the types of abuse of process which would amount to contempt of court. Some of the questions posed by hon Members assume that the Bill makes our contempt of court laws stricter or tighter. That is not the intent. The amendments do not lower the current threshold for contempt of court. I ask hon Members to keep this broader point in mind, as I provide my responses to the specific questions raised.
I start with the balance between promoting access to justice and the need to deter abuse of process. The hon Member Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how the amendments might affect those with valid grievances, including vulnerable residents and self-represented persons. He also asked whether the amendments could create a sense of reduced access to justice.
The Government, as hon Members would be aware, has taken significant steps in recent years to improve access to justice. I spoke about some of these steps in my opening speech, such as the setting up of specialised Courts with simplified processes. Needy Singaporeans can also access legal aid through the Legal Aid Bureau and the Public Defender's Office. We also work closely with partners, like ProBono SG, to promote access to justice in the community. This includes supporting ProBono SG in setting up community law centres in the heartlands – at the Tian De Temple in Hougang last year and in the Realm of Tranquility in Woodlands earlier this year. If any member of our community has a genuine claim and requires legal assistance, there are resources available.
The amendments we are introducing in the Bill will not affect such genuine claims. Rather, they are targeted at egregious abuses of the court processes, such as the filing of fictitious claims or commencing baseless proceedings motivated by an improper purpose. One does not need to be a lawyer to know that such conduct is wrong.
I should add that deterring abuse of process and promoting access to justice are, in fact, complementary goals. This is because abusive claims drain the limited resources of our Judiciary, thereby reducing access to justice for genuine litigants. In other words, deterring abusive claims is necessary to maintaining access to justice and public trust in the legal system.
Next, I move on to the specific issues raised by hon Members.
Ms Sylvia Lim asked what kinds of cases this Bill is targeted at. As I have stated earlier, the Bill will apply to all cases before our Singapore Courts, including criminal and civil cases. So, it is of general application. The hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim also noted that there are some persons, such as offenders serving a life sentence, who would see no \"downside\" in making multiple court applications. We acknowledge that the deterrent effect of the amendments may be limited in such cases. However, in the case of Mohammad Farid bin Batra v Attorney-General, which the hon Member mentioned, the Court also referred to third parties who advised, assisted or egged on the offenders to commit such conduct, and these amendments are still important to deter such persons.
I next turn to questions raised on the legal elements of the new provisions. Mr Louis Ng asked what constitutes deception on the court and the definition of the phrase \"manifestly groundless or without foundation\". These phrases are based on the current case law on abuse of process, and the leading case of Chee Siok Chin v MHA, as I mentioned earlier in my speech. It would not be possible for me to make detailed pronouncements on how these standards should be applied by the Courts. Whether these thresholds are met will depend on the particular facts. However, let me share some general points.
On the ground of deception on the court, the cases that have been found to have transgressed this limb typically involve egregious conduct, such as claims which are founded on a fictitious factual premise. To put it simply, where the claim is based on a falsehood. Our intention is not to capture fair litigation strategy. This is something for the Court to assess in each case.
On the phrase \"manifestly groundless or without foundation\", an important point for hon Members to note is that even if the case is found to be without merit, that, in itself, is insufficient to amount to contempt of court under the amendments. There must be other abusive factors present, such as the bringing of the claim for an improper purpose under the new section 3(1)(da)(ii) or the filing of multiple or successive claims under the new section 3(1)(db). This is the reason why I stated in my opening speech earlier that the amendments are not intended to cover the typical case that is struck out for the sole reason that it has no merit.
The hon Member Mr Zhulkarnain asked about section 3(1)(db). The section covers the conduct of multiple or successive proceedings which the person knows or ought to have known is manifestly groundless or without foundation. Specifically, Mr Zhulkarnain asked why the section does not also contain the requirement that the proceedings would cause \"improper vexation or oppression\".
As I explained in my opening speech, the provisions in the Bill are different from the categories of abuse of process at common law. We have carefully scoped our proposals to capture egregious abuses of process that would interfere with, or obstruct, our administration of justice. This is conduct that would already be captured under the current section 3(1)(e) of the AOJPA. But our amendments provide clarity on how the general standard applies to specific contexts. In particular, the purpose of the new section 3(1)(db) is to address the harm to the court system, as a whole, caused when a person files multiple or successive proceedings that are manifestly groundless. A multiplicity of such baseless proceedings diverts precious resources away from deserving cases and the harm is not limited to the vexation or oppression of the other party.
In addition, there could be other culpable motivations for a person to file multiple or successive proceedings besides improper vexation or oppression. For instance, the person may file successive baseless claims to delay proceedings. Again, this is harmful to our administration of justice, which ought to be deterred.
I move on to liability of non-parties. The hon Member, Mr Zhulkarnain, observed that third parties can already be liable for contempt in certain circumstances. He asked whether the new section 3(7), which covers persons who cause or abet abusive conduct represents a change in the current position. The answer is no. As with the other new provisions, section 3(7) is clarificatory in nature. In particular, section 3(1)(e) of the Act already covers \"any person\" who does \"any other act that interferes with, obstructs or poses a real risk of interference with or obstruction of the administration of justice in any other manner\". This may include persons who cause or abet other forms of contempt of court.
Hon Members Mr Louis Ng and Mr Zhulkarnain also asked about the scope of third-party liability. Mr Louis Ng asked whether the amendments may inadvertently capture well-meaning individuals. Mr Zhulkarnain also asked if the provisions would extend to those who fund frivolous actions, including members of the public who participate in crowdfunding. Under the Bill, non-parties will only be caught under the new section 3(7) if the Court finds that the non-party: one, caused or abetted the types of abuse of process set out in sections 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(db); and two, knew or ought to have known of the abusive nature of the court proceeding.
To give an example, this would cover third parties who instigate others to commit egregious abuse of process. The Court will examine the particular facts, including what the non-party knew or ought to have known, when considering whether the non-party is liable for contempt of court.
I next turn to the impact of the amendments on lawyers. Hon Member, Mr Yip Hon Weng, asked whether there could be guidelines on what lawyers ought to know when assessing the merits of a case. Mr Zhulkarnain suggested a carve-out if the lawyer advises his client that he or she has a bad case, but the client nevertheless instructs the lawyer to proceed.
As Mr Zhulkarnain rightly noted in his speech, lawyers are already held to high professional standards. They owe paramount duties as officers of the Court. They are also bound by obligations under the Professional Conduct Rules. Thus, we are not changing the standards that lawyers need to uphold when dealing with clients or assessing the merits of the case. As I elaborated in some detail in my opening speech, lawyers who act with reasonable care and in good faith have nothing to fear.
I should also stress that the amendments only capture egregious abuse of process. Where the client insists on proceeding with an abusive claim against the lawyer's advice, the standards and expectations are clear. As the Court of Three Judges noted in a recent disciplinary proceeding, the duty of the lawyer is, and I quote: \"to dispense his professional duties with moral courage and independence in the face of pressures from his clients. It is open to the solicitor to inform his client of the conflicting duty on account of the instructions and, if necessary, to discharge himself from acting for the client.\" The fact that the client insists on proceeding is not, and cannot be, an excuse for the lawyer to commit an egregious abuse of process.
The hon Member, Ms Sylvia Lim, asked why the existing levers available for lawyers, including disciplinary proceedings, are inadequate. Disciplinary proceedings and contempt proceedings serve different purposes. Contempt of court serves a broader purpose than other levers, as it is aimed at protecting our justice system as a whole. Thus, contempt proceedings are instituted by the state, unlike the other levers, which are sought by individuals in the case of cost orders, or professional bodies in the case of disciplinary actions. The existing levers, such as cost orders, may be appropriate for less serious cases, but may not be adequate for egregious cases of abuse of process. Proceedings for contempt of court, which carry criminal sanctions, are also meant to protect the administration of justice, which goes beyond just one case.
The hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim also suggested that it should be codified in the Bill that provisions do not cover persons who act with reasonable care and good faith. It is inherent in the elements of the provisions that such persons would not be caught in line with our policy intent. Let me explain.
The mental element provided for in the provisions is that the person must have known or ought to have known of the abusive nature of the application. In cases where a person acted with actual knowledge, then it is self-evident, they could not have acted in good faith. On the standard on \"ought to have known\", the question for the court to assess, is whether the person could have reasonably known of the abusive nature of the application. This is a contextual standard of reasonableness, which would not capture those who act with reasonable care and good faith. So, in a sense, we are ad idem on the net effect, because the point about codifying a defence is already embedded in the ingredients provided for in the amendment Bill.
Mr Zhulkarnain also suggested having a database of frivolous litigants and that the public be provided with more information on the resources and costs involved in such cases. Mr Yip Hon Weng likewise suggested more detailed public reporting. I thank the hon Members for the suggestions. We will consider if more can be done to raise public awareness in this area. However, I should add that cases involving contempt of court are already publicly reported when the Court issues its judgment.
Finally, the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim asked if the Law Society has been consulted on this Bill and what its views were. As I mentioned in my opening speech, key stakeholders were consulted. These include the Judiciary and the Attorney-General’s Chambers. We also spoke with the representatives from the Law Society. These were senior members of the Bar across various practice groups with extensive experience in litigation.
There was consensus on the importance of safeguarding our justice system. And as I mentioned in my speech, there were also concerns from some lawyers as to whether these amendments will hamper them from doing their best for their clients, particularly in difficult cases. I promised them I would deal with their concerns in my opening speech and that is what I did.
Conversations like these help us find the appropriate balance to promote an effective justice system. That is why we have regular, ongoing, conversations with our key stakeholders, including the members of the Bar. As always, the Ministry is open to further feedback on our policies.
With that, Sir, I conclude my round up speech and I once again thank the hon Members again for their support for the Bill. Sir, I beg to move.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Are there any clarifications? None? I shall put the question to the House.
[(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. – [The Minister of State for Law (Mr Murali Pillai)]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.30 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.05 pm until 4.30 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.30 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Hawker Culture","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That this House calls on the Government to review its policies relating to hawkers and the management of hawker centres to provide better support for hawkers to sustain and grow our Singapore's hawker culture so that Singaporeans can continue to enjoy good and affordable hawker food.\"
Sir, since 2020, our hawker culture has been recognised as a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Intangible Cultural Heritage. But have we provided enough support to our hawkers who are the creators of that culture? That is the question that prompted the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) to raise this Motion today.
The UNESCO accolade aside, hawker culture and hawker food are central to our Singaporean identity. Hawker centres, coffee shops and food courts are spaces for Singaporeans from all walks of life, rich or poor, regardless of race, language or religion, to interact and enjoy delicious, affordable food. It is a true melting pot for all Singaporeans.
It is one of the things that Singaporeans miss when they are overseas, myself included. While I was building my career overseas in 1990s, one of the things I missed most was a delicious bowl of laksa. In fact, I loved laksa so much that I had started a laksa stall in Tokyo in 2015 at the famous shopping district, Omotesando, in central Tokyo.
However, the hawkers who are behind the delicious local food that we enjoy have not been provided with sufficient support.
A hawker's life is a tough one. Not enough is done to address the hardship of our hawkers, who are burdened with the need to provide cheap food to the public, high rent, harsh work environment and arguably predatory management practices in the social enterprise hawker centres. We have a responsibility in this House to pass on our hawker culture to our future generations and to ensure that it not only survives, but flourishes, long into the future.
But our hawkers will need a lot of help and support at the national level to achieve this. We need to do more than putting up shows at the National Day Parade to celebrate our hawker food heritage.
The Government did not build any new hawker centres from 1986 until 2011. Since then, many Singaporeans, including those who know the hawker trade, have stepped forward to contribute good ideas to better support hawkers. However, besides the introduction of the social enterprise model, officially called the Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centre (SEHC) model, not much else has fundamentally changed about the way the Government manages hawkers. Many other ideas relating to building up the human capital of the industry and providing further support to hawkers have not been implemented.
I would like to acknowledge first the effort of those Singaporeans who had participated in the relevant discussions and research. I also seek their indulgence to use some of their ideas in the debate today.
Personally, the hawker trade is close to my heart. My late father was a hawker in Chinatown, the sole breadwinner for our family. My sister is a wonton noodle hawker today. I am deeply honoured to have the opportunity to speak up on this issue in this House today.
The PSP hopes that our Motion today will remind Singaporeans of the people behind the good and affordable food we enjoy every day. Some of these hawkers, advocates and supporters are with us in the House today, in the Strangers' Gallery, at my invitation. I would like to invite the whole House to join me in a round of applause to thank them for their hard work and their dedication to providing good food at affordable prices for Singaporeans. [Applause.]
Today, I will first discuss the importance of preserving and promoting our hawker culture before discussing the problems faced by hawkers. My colleague Ms Hazel Poa and I will then put forward possible policies to resolve these problems. These policy recommendations are based on the belief that the success of our hawker culture is inextricably tied to the success of our hawkers.
First, I will speak on the importance of preserving and promoting our hawker culture. The PSP believes there are at least four major benefits.
Firstly, hawker culture and hawker food is a rich heritage handed down by our ancestors that needs to be preserved and passed on to future generations of Singaporeans. The UNESCO recognition is an added reason for us to sustain this heritage.
Secondly, affordable hawker food has provided Singaporeans a buffer against the high cost of living in Singapore. The convenience and affordability of eating out also allowed many families to earn dual incomes. With millions of meals served to Singaporeans every day, hawker centres are the people's kitchens. To maintain them, we have to first help our hawkers to survive and thrive.
Thirdly, the hawker trade is one of the most conducive route for a budding entrepreneur to try out a business venture. I lived in Japan for many years, so I know of many Japanese who talked about starting a cooked food business as a business or hobby or just a place to meet friends and people. I am beginning to see this among some of our younger Singaporeans today. But their dreams are often hindered by the high entry cost to the hawker business.
I am confident that with lower rent and better working conditions, hawker centres can become incubators for our future food and beverage (F&B) entrepreneurs.
Last but not least, there are huge economic benefits if we promote our hawker food both domestically and internationally. As a parallel, Thai food has done very well globally. The number of Thai restaurants overseas has tripled from about 5,000 in 2002 to 15,000 in 2024. But a large part of their success is due to strong government support, such as in training chefs, providing loans and conducting market research to advise chefs on how to appeal to foreign tastes. Thai dishes often rank among the top in global culinary surveys, overshadowing our local dishes. I have been unhappy for a long time that chicken rice is recognised more as a Thai dish than a Singapore dish in Tokyo.
There is no reason why Singapore hawker food cannot be as world renowned as Thai food. The well-reviewed Urban Hawker in New York, curated by Mr KF Seetoh, is an example of the success we can achieve if we do more as a nation to promote our hawker food overseas. We can extend our soft power by winning the hearts and minds of people all over the world through their stomachs. This is another example of how we can punch above our weight.
However, despite all the significant cultural and economic benefits that hawker culture can bring to us, it may wither in the future without policy adjustments to provide greater support to our hawkers. A serious examination of the problems faced by hawkers and new policies to address these problems are long overdue.
The crux of the problem arguably is that the Government expects hawkers to provide cheap food as a safety net amidst the very high cost-of-living environment in Singapore. Yet at the same time, the Government has created a high-cost environment for hawkers to operate in.
PSP calls for a holistic and comprehensive review of the hawker trade by the Government, which should cover all hawkers operating in hawker centres, coffee shops and food courts. We do not know how long more we can sustain our hawker culture because of the many challenges faced by hawkers. These challenges can be grouped into four areas: one, hawker centre management, which includes problems with the social enterprise hawker centre model; two, high rent and other operating costs; three, harsh working conditions leading to shortage of manpower and successors; and four, the expectation to provide cheap food, which is partly encouraged by the Government.
I will start by discussing the first problem of hawker centre management. There are more than 120 hawker centres in Singapore today. Out of these, 12 are managed by private operators under the social enterprise model, as of 31 December 2023. Since the introduction of the social enterprise model in 2012, we have seen multiple conflicts between hawkers and social enterprise operators because of the high costs and onerous contractual conditions, compared to the National Environment Agency (NEA)-operated hawker centres.
For example, in 2018, the hawkers of the Jurong West Hawker Centre filed a petition against a 20-cent tray return surcharge imposed by Hawker Management, a social enterprise operator and subsidiary of the Koufu Group. It was also reported publicly in June 2024 that the hawkers of Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre tried to lower costs by asking the operator to let them use a cheaper gas provider, but they were denied.
Based on replies to my past Parliamentary Questions (PQs), we know that the median rent at social enterprise hawker centres is about 5% higher than the median rent at NEA-operated hawker centres. However, auxiliary costs at the social enterprise hawker centres, such as table cleaning fees, dishwashing fees, Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CCs) and pest control fees, can add up to as much as the rent itself.
Hawkers in social enterprise hawker centres also face many hidden costs. For example, they must bear the costs of offering loyalty discounts, budget meals and subscriptions to food delivery platforms. All these are part of a long list of onerous contractual obligations on hawkers who may have to pay damages or receive demerit points if they fail to meet these requirements.
Following the outcry in 2018 against the social enterprise operators, NEA reviewed the key contractual terms between such operators and their stallholders and asked operators to make changes with effect from 1 January 2019. However, the contractual terms seem to have continued to be very onerous, as I have confirmed in a contract signed by a hawker of a social enterprise hawker centre in 2022.
Over the years, the officeholders have repeatedly come out to say that the social enterprise model is sound, working well and has benefited hawkers and customers. But it is a sign that things are not going well when many more hawkers of social enterprise hawker centres are terminating their contract earlier, compared to hawkers of NEA-operated hawker centres.
From 2019 to 2023, the average annual early termination rate for food stalls at social enterprise hawker centres was 8%, more than twice as high as the 3% early termination rate at NEA-operated hawker centres. The social enterprise model is arguably not helping to sustain and grow the hawker culture.
I have done some calculations on the potential cost burdens imposed on hawkers by social enterprises. For example, it was reported that JW Heritage, another social enterprise operator and a subsidiary of the Chang Cheng Mee Wah Group, paid $4.86 million to the Government to manage the Jurong West Hawker Centre when it reopened in 2023. Since there are 39 stalls there, this contract price translates into a cost of $125,000 per stall. This cost represents a huge cost burden which must be recouped either from the stallholders or customers.
But is it justifiable for private operators to extract surpluses or profits from hawker centres which are public assets, even if 50% is required to go back to programmes that benefit the hawker centres and hawkers?
The PSP recommends that the current social enterprise model be phased out, as the contracts of the current operators expire. This will eliminate the problems in social enterprise hawker centres. PSP proposes that hawker centre management be taken over by a new Government agency tentatively called Hawker Singapore. This agency can be formed by transferring the current Hawker Centres Group of NEA to it and then further expanding it.
Hawker Singapore will oversee the management of all hawker centres in Singapore and the promotion of hawker culture domestically and internationally, working together with other relevant agencies, such as the Singapore Tourism Board and Enterprise Singapore. It will work with hawkers in each hawker centre to develop its own unique value proposition within the general guidelines laid down by itself. We envisage that Hawker Singapore will be advised by an independent industry expert panel to formulate strategies, finance expansion and assist hawkers to professionalise their business. We also propose that Hawker Singapore should set up a hawker academy to be a focal point for training young hawkers. Former Member, Mr Leon Perera, had raised this in this House in 2021 and PSP supports this suggestion.
A hawker academy will provide training and succession planning for hawkers, set standards for the hawker trade and help to preserve a selection of heritage foods that are important to our different communities.
In addition to centralising the management of all hawker centres, I will present three more policy recommendations to deal with the three other problems I discussed earlier. These recommendations will provide the impetus to preserve and grow the hawker trade in a sustainable way.
Firstly, to deal with the problem of high rent, the Government needs to move away from the practice of setting hawker stall rents by tender. While rent may not be the biggest cost item for a hawker, it is the biggest burden because it is a fixed cost. Hawkers can save on variable costs but not fixed costs. Only the pioneer cooked food hawkers who were resettled from the streets get to enjoy subsidised rentals between $192 and $384 per month at the NEA-operated hawker centres. They represent about 30% of the hawkers today.
The non-subsidised stalls which account for 70% of the hawkers must pay market rent determined via the tender system where stalls are rented out to the highest bidder.
In 2023, the median monthly rent for non-subsidised stalls at NEA-operated hawker centres was $1,625 per month but bids frequently exceeded that, especially for stalls in better locations with higher footfall. One successful tender recently exceeded $10,000 per month. While allowing bids to hit new records through the tender system, the Government also reduces a tendered rent to an assessed market rent when the hawker renews his contract after the initial three-year period. In other words, from the fourth year onwards, the $10,000 bidder will pay a much lower rent for the same stall.
Last week, the Government announced that it would prolong the time required to adjust the tendered rent to the assessed market rent so as to deter excessively high hawker stall bids. This latest change shows that the Government is aware of the problems of the current system. However, the question of why such a system still exists remains.
The current tender system has the negative effect of driving up headline rentals in hawker centres. This can have a ripple effect on the rents and values of Housing and Development Board (HDB) coffee shops. Several HDB coffee shops have been transacted at multi-million dollars in recent years bought by large business groups. A record price of $9,361 per square foot was set in 2022 by the Chang Cheng Mee Wah Group when it bought a Yishun coffee shop for $40 million. Such high market prices for coffee shops have been a major cause of the rising cooked food prices and cost of living in Singapore.
The PSP recommends that we move away from the tendering model altogether. Instead, we propose a more flexible rent model, with the aim of lowering rent and curbing excessive speculation in coffee shops. Under this rent model, all hawker stalls will be charged a monthly base rent of $500 or 3% of gross turnover, whichever is higher. Stalls will be allocated by a random ballot within each food category curated by Hawker Singapore under the advice of the independent industry panel.
Currently, NEA has five categories of stalls: cooked food, halal cooked food, Indian cuisine, drinks and cut fruits. We suggest adding a sixth category, namely, heritage foods, to ensure that as many traditional foods unique to the different races in Singapore as possible are preserved. For example, it would be nice to see a revival of Eurasian food in our hawker centres. Later, my colleague Ms Hazel Poa will present a possible model for curating hawker stalls.
PSP's proposed rental model is skewed to support smaller hawkers with lower rentals. It will lower the barriers of entry for new hawkers and thus enhance the sustainability of our hawker culture. At the same time, it will not price out hawkers who are successful in growing their business.
Secondly, we need to adjust the manpower policies for hawkers to deal with the problem of manpower shortage and the lack of successors. The hawker trade is physically demanding, taxing on their health and even dangerous, especially for elderly hawkers. Hawkers must deal with long working hours. For example, to serve the breakfast crowd at 6.00 am or 7.00 am, the hawkers must wake up at 1.00 am or 2.00 am. Floors in hawker stalls are slippery or oily and hawkers must work around hot oil, knives and choppers. There have been many accidents involving hawkers.
In September, it was reported that a famous Chinatown claypot rice hawker, Uncle Hong, decided to retire because of complications after he fell and broke his pelvic bone. Mr Tan Hock Guan who ran the Michelin-recognised Guan Kee Fried Kway Teow stall in Ghim Moh also retired last November when he fainted while frying kway teow. All these are not new to me. I have witnessed, as a child, the many accidents and hardships experienced by the Chinatown neighbours of mine who are hawkers. Some might have made some money but, usually, they had to retire relatively young due to various ailments.
For hawkers, additional manpower can help to reduce their workload and prolong their working life. However, apart from hawker stall owners, few Singaporeans would want to work at a hawker stall. In this case, a Work Permit holder will complement our current hawkers without threatening the job security of Singaporeans.
Therefore, PSP recommends that each cooked food hawker stall, including drinks and cut fruit stalls, should be allowed to employ one Work Permit holder as a stall assistant. This is not a completely new policy because the Government already allows companies operating coffee shops and food courts to hire Work Permit holders.
PSP also believes that the recent move by the Government to allow hawkers to employ Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) holders as stall assistants will not be adequate to address the manpower problems of the hawkers. It is difficult to understand why coffee shop and food court operators are allowed to employ Work Permit holders but individual hawkers are not.
Our policy proposal will not undermine the Singaporean character of our hawker centres because only one Work Permit holder is allowed per stall. On the other hand, our proposal will reduce the workload of senior hawkers and allow them to continue their trade for a longer time, while we encourage our younger Singaporeans and second-generation hawkers to enter the hawker trade with our new rent structure and training at the new hawker academy. This provides more assurance that our hawker culture remains sustainable.
Thirdly, to keep hawker food affordable in the immediate future, the Government should provide targeted discounts for needy groups and adjust the “budget meal” policies that have emerged in recent years. The Government has introduced the “budget meal” initiative, possibly to insulate Singaporeans from rising costs in other areas like housing, Certificates of Entitlements and healthcare. Social enterprise hawker centres and some HDB coffee shops already contractually force stallholders to sell budget meals, usually at $3 or $3.50. By 2026, all stalls in rental HDB coffee shops will be required to sell these budget meals.
The problem is, all these “budget meals” are paid by the hawkers. Hawkers in social enterprise hawker centres are also forced to provide discounts, at their expense, to Pioneer, Merdeka and Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) cardholders.
I do not believe there is any other industry where we contractually force suppliers to sell items below a certain price. When HDB rents out shop spaces for supermarkets in the new estates, for example, HDB does not contractually force the supermarket operator to sell some budget food items below market prices. So, why do we require this of our hawkers?
Every cent earned by the hawkers is hard-earned money. Half of the stallholders in the hawker centres are lower-income Singaporeans who received the Workfare Income Supplement in 2020. These hawkers are in no position to do charity and should not be forced to do so.
Hawkers should be allowed to determine their own prices, which should not be controlled by the Government or operators. They deserve to be fairly remunerated and incentivised to sell good and affordable food to Singaporeans. It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that food remains affordable.
We propose that discounts for Pioneer, Merdeka and CHAS cardholders should be paid for the Government, for example through the funds in the Pioneer or Merdeka Generation Funds. These discounts should be available for food at all hawker centres.
The Government can also provide lower-income households with more Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers so that they can use these vouchers to pay for their hawker meals.
Sir, in closing, our hawker culture is a precious inheritance from our Pioneer generation which we should preserve and grow. The UNESCO accolade has given us an added reason to do so. However, high operating costs and harsh working environment have deterred younger Singaporeans from entering the hawker trade while existing hawkers are ageing and retiring. As a result, our distinctively Singaporean hawker culture and food are fast disappearing. The Government’s policy responses to these problems so far are too little and too late.
I have shared four policy changes to improve the prospects and livelihoods of our hawkers so that they are motivated to professionalise, innovate and sustain our hawker culture.
Firstly, PSP recommends that the social enterprise hawker centre be phased out and the management of hawkers centralised under a new government agency called Hawker Singapore.
We also propose a new rent model which will charge lower rent and is intended to have ripple effects on rents in coffeeshops and food courts.
Next, we propose allowing each hawker stall to employ one Work Permit holder as stall assistant.
Finally, instead of forcing hawkers to provide “budget meals” at their own expense, the Government should pay for targeted food discounts for Pioneer, Merdeka and CHAS cardholders at all hawker centres and provide lower-income households with more CDC vouchers.
My colleague Ms Hazel Poa will speak on two other policy proposals later on centralising procurement of essential ingredients and revising the Code of Conduct for Leasing of Retail Premises.
PSP believes that our six proposed policy changes will re-invigorate our hawker culture and allow it to shine brightly on the global culinary scene. At the same time, it will ensure that the hawker centre, the people’s kitchen of our nation, will provide us with affordable food for many more generations to come. Only then can we say our hawker culture has truly lived up to its reputation as a UNESCO Intangible World Heritage. Sir, I beg to move. For country, for people.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion raised by my colleague Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Many Singaporeans are extremely concerned about the cost of living. The cost of food, including hawker food, is a big part of such concerns. Out of the hundreds of complaints about price increases received by the Committee Against Profiteering, most are about food prices.
For generations, hawker centres have been an essential place for working-class families to access delicious and affordable food in Singapore, and we should keep it that way. To do that, not only do we need to keep the cost of hawker food under control, we also need to ensure that the overall hawker industry remains vibrant and being a hawker is a viable and sustainable livelihood for Singaporeans. That is why in our Motion statement today, we have emphasised that we must improve the prospects of hawkers so that we can sustain and grow our hawker culture and continue to enjoy good and affordable food. The policies we propose today will improve the prospects and livelihoods of our hawkers and ensure that hawker food remains affordable for Singaporeans in the longer term.
Take for example our proposal of a fixed rental structure. Currently, stalls are allocated to the highest bidders in tender exercises. This is generally held to be the economically efficient approach. However, PSP believes that the allocation of essential goods and services needs to account for other non-economic factors.
The subsidising of public housing, public transport and healthcare are examples of considering both social and economic factors in essential goods and services. We believe that hawker food qualifies as another case deserving special consideration.
We have therefore proposed that the allocation of hawker stalls should not be based on highest rent tendered. Instead, we propose a pre-determined rent structure to keep rental cost under control. We believe that this proposal will be a game-changer for hawkers. A reduction in rents in hawker centres will also have an anchoring effect on rents in privately-operated food courts and coffee shops. This will benefit all Singaporeans.
If rent is not the mechanism used to allocate hawker stalls, how should they be allocated? We have said earlier that one way to do so is by random ballot. Another possible way is to allow the customers to decide.
For example, for hawker centres located near HDB flats, let the residents living nearby vote for their desired stalls through a small food fair or competition. Hawker Singapore will ensure that the stalls that are chosen can still meet the needs of different ethnic groups. PSP believes that getting the stakeholders involved in the decision-making will lead to a more optimal outcome. We can first implement this on a trial basis at a few hawker centres to determine its feasibility before extending it to all hawker centres.
Next, I want to reiterate that PSP firmly believes that it should be the Government’s responsibility to ensure that food remains affordable, not the hawkers'. We therefore propose that, instead of compelling hawkers to offer budget meals to everyone at their own cost, the Government should pay for targeted food discounts at hawker centres for Pioneer, Merdeka and CHAS cardholders, and lower-income households. The Government can also provide lower-income households with more CDC Vouchers to pay for their hawker meals. This will provide vulnerable groups with some much-needed assistance in the short term to ensure that their meals remain affordable. This approach ensures that assistance is more targeted at the more vulnerable. The Government’s current “budget meal” approach, however, is open to all.
In the past, we have argued for basic goods and services to be exempted from the Goods and Services Tax (GST). The Government’s response has always been that this would also benefit the rich, and targeted vouchers and rebates are better. Therefore, I am sure the Government can understand how the hawkers feel when they see customers visibly better off than them financially, buying budget meals from them. Is this not a case of double standards? How is this fair to the hawkers?
Secondly, PSP’s approach ensures greater fairness to all vulnerable Singaporeans, not just those staying near the social enterprise hawker centres or rental HDB coffee shops.
Thirdly, our proposal is more sustainable because it will be funded by the Government instead of the hawkers themselves. As my colleague Mr Leong Mun Wai has explained, the “budget meal” initiative is being paid for by hawkers themselves, but many of them are themselves lower-income Singaporeans who are not in a good position to pay for such initiatives.
I would like to share another proposal by PSP to lower costs for hawkers and keep hawker food affordable for Singaporeans.
We can set up a centralised procurement system where the new agency, Hawker Singapore, can contract with wholesalers to supply hawkers with ingredients that are commonly used by hawkers, such as cooking oil, rice, flour, sugar, salt and eggs, at lower prices through bulk purchasing. Hawkers have the option to get their supplies through such arrangements or they could still choose to use their own suppliers if they think that it is of better quality or it gives them some other competitive advantage.
Currently, we already have a company, ALPS Pte Ltd, that purchases drugs, medical and non-medical supplies and equipment, and services for Singapore’s three public healthcare clusters. Last year, PSP had called on the Government to centralise drug procurement across all public and private medical institutions and distribute drugs to public and private health facilities on a not-for-profit basis.
It would not be a huge stretch to set up a similar centralised procurement system to bulk buy all the essential raw ingredients used by hawkers in Singapore. We believe that such a system would have a very substantial impact on reducing the cost of living in Singapore.
I would like to emphasise that no hawker will be forced to get their supplies through PSP's proposed centralised procurement system. Additionally, the Government will not provide any subsidies to hawkers through this system. All savings will come from bulk purchasing the ingredients from wholesalers.
We have received feedback that, currently, some SEHC operators require hawkers to purchase supplies, such as gas and crockery from designated suppliers. This has caused unhappiness in cases where the designated suppliers charged a higher price than free market. We believe that such provisions in the rental contracts are unfair to hawkers and provide potential for abuse and profiteering. Landlords should not be specifying who their tenants should be buying from.
We propose that the Code of Conduct for Leasing of Retail Premises be revised to explicitly cover hawkers and prohibit all such practices. Contracts that deviate from this must seek the tenant's agreement and be submitted to the Fair Tenancy Industry Committee, as is the existing practice. Mr Speaker, Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] For many years, hawker centres have played a crucial role in the lives of many Singaporeans, serving as places where we can obtain affordable food. In 2020, hawker culture is inscribed onto UNESCO's Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.
To ensure that hawker culture can be preserved and continue to develop, PSP puts forward a Motion on hawker culture, calling on the Government to review its policies relating to hawkers and the management of hawker centres. This is to address the various issues currently faced by hawkers, ensure that the industry can attract the next generation of Singaporeans and ensure that prices at hawker centres remain affordable for the public.
To improve the prospects and livelihoods of hawkers and to ensure that hawker centres can continue to provide affordable food, PSP today proposes six recommendations.
First, we propose to gradually phase out social enterprise hawker centres and centralise the management of all hawker centres under a new Government agency called Hawker Singapore. In addition to managing hawker centres nationwide, this agency will also be responsible for actively promoting hawker culture both domestically and internationally, in collaboration with other relevant agencies such as the Singapore Tourism Board and Enterprise Singapore.
Second, we propose to stop the current practice of awarding stalls to the highest bidder. We suggest setting the rent at $500 per month or 3% of total turnover, whichever is higher. We believe that under this rental model, most hawkers will pay lower rents. Lowering rents at hawker centres will also help to reduce rents at private coffee shops and food courts, thereby lowering the cost of living for all Singaporeans.
If stalls are not allocated based on rent, how should they be allocated? We propose two methods. The first is random balloting. The second is through customer voting. For example, Hawker Singapore could organise tasting sessions, inviting nearby residents to sample and vote to determine the winners of stalls in neighbourhood hawker centres.
Third, we propose that the Government allow hawkers to hire one Work Permit holder as a hawker assistant to alleviate manpower shortages.
Fourth, in recent years, social enterprise hawker centres and HDB-leased coffee shops have successively mandated hawkers to provide \"budget meals\" at their own cost. PSP does not oppose budget meals, but we believe they should be funded by the Government. Many hawkers do not earn high incomes and they work hard for their money. They should not be forced to provide budget meals at their own cost. We believe a better approach would be for the Government to pay for targeted discounts or meal vouchers for those in need.
Fifth, we propose that the Government establish a centralised procurement system, contracting with wholesalers to supply hawkers with commonly used ingredients such as cooking oil, rice, flour, sugar, salt and eggs at bulk prices. This will help lower the prices of cooked food, thereby reducing the cost of living for all Singaporeans.
Sixth, PSP has received feedback that some operators of social enterprise hawker centres currently require hawkers to purchase gas and crockery from designated suppliers at higher prices, causing unhappiness. We believe such provisions are unfair to hawkers and could potentially be abused for profiteering. We suggest amending the Code of Conduct for Leases of Retail Premises to prohibit such practices.
We believe that the six proposals we put forward today will effectively lower the cost of living for Singaporeans and strengthen the sustainability of our hawker culture. We hope the Government will seriously consider implementing the recommendations we have proposed today.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, PSP understands that many Singaporeans, especially the lower income and the elderly are extremely concerned about the cost of living.
Over the years, affordable hawker food has been one of the major ways through which the cost of living has been kept in check for Singaporeans. We recognise the importance of this. As circumstances change, we need to adjust our policies to ensure that hawker food remains affordable in a sustainable way.
We believe that our six proposals will substantially help lower the cost of living for Singaporeans while ensuring that being a hawker remains a viable and sustainable livelihood for Singaporeans. We hope that the Government will seriously consider these proposals.
Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, the Motion being moved today is for this House to call upon the Government to review its policies relating to hawkers and the management of hawker centres to provide better support for hawkers to sustain and grow Singapore's hawker culture so that Singaporeans can continue to enjoy good and affordable hawker food.
Mr Speaker, I am glad that PSP's Motion acknowledges three important things: first, that our hawker centres are places where good and affordable food is accessible to all; second, that it has gone beyond the provision of food and become a culture; and third, that these two things need support in order to sustain and grow.
These acknowledgments are testimony to the success of the Government's approach because our beloved hawker centres and the special role that they play in Singaporean life is a result of the People's Action Party (PAP) Government's policies and support over the years. From the early years when roving hawkers were brought into centres built specially for them and supported, the expansion of hawker centres into the heartlands, the Hawker Upgrading programmes and so on; evolving over time until they have become treasured institutions that they are today, even to the extent of achieving UNESCO Cultural Heritage status and being much in demand in our new housing estates.
Mr Speaker, hawker centres are a Singapore quintessential. They have a very special place in our Singapore psyche, having filled our tummies over the years with warm familiar foods and our hearts with much warmth and comfort. I believe every Singaporean has a lovely, bittersweet, maybe even milestone defining, memory tied to our hawker culture. Perhaps a first date over rojak, a serious sibling discussion over claypot rice, a \"lao di fang\" Tiger beer hangout spot with friends. Our Singaporean lives are intertwined with the safe spaces offered by hawker centres and, of course, by the familiar faces of our favourite hawker uncles and aunties.
However, this was not always the case in Singapore. It may seem inconceivable to many, but what we recognise as hawker centres today, did not exist until the 1970s. In fact, hawker centres are a fairly new construct. Prior to hawker centres, our hawkers existed in our community as street vendors. It was not too long ago that street hawkering was still seen as a public disamenity and this is still a Singaporean living memory. I recall that, as a child, my uncle telling me one evening that he was unsuccessful in procuring his satay at Glutton's Square as the street hawkers had fled, in front of him, from special squads of illegal hawker inspectors.
Indeed, it was this Government, right after our Independence in 1965, that recognised the collective value of our street hawkers. This Government rolled up its sleeves and started the hard work of licensing and organising our 18,000 street hawkers into safe trading spaces with access to water, storage and sanitation.
It was also this Government, together with the HDB in the 1970s, that did something quite extraordinary and innovative. While organizing street hawkers, the HDB had the eureka moment of also planning, into our HDB estates, nearby access to organised hawker services, thereby sparking the Singaporean hawker culture that we all know and love today.
Mr Speaker, even with these changes, throughout the years, one thing remains constant: our hawkers never had it easy. In Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Even with these changes, throughout the years, one thing remains constant – our hawkers never had it easy. In the early years, our street hawkers made their living in extremely difficult conditions. However, as times changed, even after the establishment of hawker centres, hawkers still needed to work long hours, starting early and finishing late, to fulfil their commitment to the community. Many hawker brothers and sisters have to wake up at 3.30 am to start preparing ingredients, so they can open their stalls before 7.00 am to serve residents going to work and school, and they can only close after the last customer leaves in the evening. Just think about it – that is a workload of 18 hours a day, six days a week.
Our hawkers soldier on because they are committed to serving our community and the residents in our estates. Our hawkers are proud of the hawker trade and it is because of this that Singapore's hawker culture has been listed in UNESCO's Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.
Hawkers affect the lives of Singaporeans in many ways. You have touched our lives and shaped our Singaporean way of life with your care, and your legacy will be carried on for many generations.
(In English): Mr Speaker, many hawkers toil day in and day out with the repetitive work of a hawker, such as frying hundreds of plates of, say, char kway teow, a day to just give us more wok hei. This has caused our hawkers back and hand injuries, sometimes even permanently damaging their nerves.
Our hawkers experience bar rot, which is an itchy, painful hand fungal infection due to wet work surroundings, washing produce and cleaning our utensils. Our hawkers soldier on because they are committed to serving our community and the residents in our estates. Our hawkers are proud of the hawker trade and it is because of this and their hard work that Singapore is now a UNESCO site for cultural heritage. To this, I thank our many hawker brothers and sisters in the gallery for accepting our PAP Members' invitation to be here with us today.
And to all our hawkers and friends listening in, watching this Parliamentary debate: your resilience, your care and your dedication to our community, Singapore thanks you. [Applause.]
You have touched our lives and you have shaped our Singaporean way and know that your legacy will continue to touch our lives to many, many generations to come.
Looking ahead, I think we can all agree that we must see how we can continue to support our hawkers. As consumer preferences, workforce demographics and business models evolve, so must our hawkers and the hawker trade. We need to keep a steely eye on the win-win national desires of providing affordable food for Singaporeans, with supporting the lives and livelihoods of our hawkers. Our hawkers and F&B owners have spoken: long hours, rising business costs, an ageing workforce and pressures from costs of living are at the top of the mind for our hawkers.
Number one, rising business costs. For hawkers, business costs stem mainly from raw materials, manpower, utilities, rentals, platform delivery fees and shared services, like dish washing and tabletop cleaning. Hawkers have told me that they face up to 40% increases in raw material costs and many are still calibrating with their service providers on keeping the costs down. Over at the Labour Movement, we are keeping an eye on ensuring that Progressive Wage Model moves in the cleaning and food services industries are fairly shared amongst stakeholders as uplifting lower-wage workers are a whole-of-community effort.
Number two, pressures from costs of living. Our hawkers, being at the frontline to keep daily meals affordable, are often caught in budget meal crossfires and are sometimes left holding the ground on budget meal prices, unsure of where to look for wider community support. In speaking with hawker centre and food court operators, like NTUC Foodfare, I note that budget meal innovations have been introduced. For example, the Rice Garden by Fairprice Group Initiative by Foodfare provides budget meals to CHAS and COMCare card holders, with prices controlled by Foodfare. Other local initiatives, like our CDC Vouchers and Punggol Shore's Care Voucher Programme works hand in hand with stall operators in providing for the community.
Mr Speaker, hawker centres were created out of a national win-win desire to provide Singaporeans with convenient access to affordable, delicious meals within safe, clean spaces for all to bond; while at the same time, allowing our hawkers access to a ready pool of captive customers, a place to trade safely, while enjoying the economies of collective scale. As a nation, we have continued to keep a very watchful eye on this win-win national desire, even as we continue building up, adding to and innovating the rich hawker culture we have. Indeed, the constant reviewing and taking in feedback from hawkers and stakeholders ensure that our hawker culture continues to hit home right.
Mr Speaker, in my walkabouts and chats with our One Punggol Hawkers, I believe that what we really need is a many-helping-hands approach if we, as a community, agree that our hawker culture is quintessentially, Singaporean. I learnt from Wei Siang, who has recently quit his job as a cabin crew to join his family's business selling Ah Balling at our One Punggol Hawker Centre, that in the business model of centralised dish washing, prevalent at many hawker centres now, that the stall owner would likely need to pay, on top of a monthly service fee for dishwashing, a standardised rate for each bowl that is being used.
This means, for every empty bowl that a patron of the stall requests from the stall owner, the stall owner would incur another around 10 cents, 20 cents, maybe more, per bowl charged to them by the dishwashing vendor. Wei Siang shares that this eats into the already slim profit margins of his sweet glutinous rice ball soup and, as such, he has to sometimes charge patrons extra when they request for more bowls. This has led to some very unkind comments in his Google reviews.
Yes, I did read up on the reviews and these are what some of the public comments are: \"Would not recommend. The seller was quite unreasonable and trying to overcharge an additional bowl\", one out of five stars for service review; \"Bad attitude! Very stingy on bowls. Do not visit! Spend your money somewhere else\", one out of five stars overall review. Wei Siang was obviously upset and hurt with these reviews, and I can understand why.
However, I am also glad to note that there are progressive and supportive stakeholders too. I spoke with several cleaning and dishwashing service providers and found out that they, too, understand the difficulties faced by our hawkers and have, on their own accord, created programmes to support our hawkers.
Chye Thiam Maintenance, for example, provides 100 free bowls for patrons which they put at different collection points in a hawker centre and tops this up during peak periods. NTUC Foodfare, after receiving feedback, has also put a hard cap on chargeable bowls for hawkers.
Mr Speaker, the examples that I have brought up, no doubt, point towards the viability of the Singaporean hawker industry when the system works together, positively and towards win-win outcomes. Over the years, we have seen many happy outcomes from running a hawker business.
My friend Valerie and her brothers, Adrian and Pathom, who are up in the gallery today, are fourth generation owners of Xi De Li. Their great-grandparents fried you char kway as street hawkers in the 1920s. Xi De Li moved from street vending into hawker centres and over the years, took on you char kway OEM contracts, supplying to other stalls and restaurants. They now have their own factory producing 10,000 sticks of you char kway daily. Valerie tells me that she is thinking about venturing overseas and has innovative product development plans, such as making a Singapore-version of churros from you char kway. Indeed, the Labour Movement is now assisting her in her optech roadmap and the use of technology to upskill her workforce.
Like Valerie's parents, grandparents and great-grandparents before her, many of our hawkers have done well for themselves and passed on their legacies to their families. Some of their children choose to leave the family trade and pursue interests in the arts, law and engineering, others like Valerie and her brothers have chosen to stay and to continue as pillars in this industry.
You know what? Valerie is in good company, very good company. She is part of Food Gen 2 (食二代), which is a grouping of second-generation F&B owners and some running companies spanning over five generations. They are a very strong, close group of 100 members, making positive strides on the ground towards a sustainable and strong future for F&B and our hawker culture. They are here in the gallery today to lend support to our hawkers. Thank you. [Applause.]
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would summarise my points as follows. Our current dynamic hawker landscape is a result of the hard work and dedication of hawkers, as well as many policy reviews and innovations by the Government working with the community over the years. Hence, I wholeheartedly agree that we should continue to review our policies relating to hawkers and hawker centres. But at the same time, to be fair, we should also recognise that much have been done over the years, in terms of policy and support and this is a continuing journey.
The second point is, everyone, not just the Government, has a part to play in supporting our hawkers and sustaining and growing our hawker culture. I call on the Government, Singaporeans, the Labour Movement, operators and service providers, to continue exploring new and innovative ways in which we can support our hawkers. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I speak on this Motion from the perspective of someone who has spent years working alongside hawkerpreneurs in my various roles, first as an entrepreneur and now as a Member of Parliament and grassroots advisor. Defending Singapore's hawker culture and hawkerpreneurs's livelihood is a deeply personal matter to me as I have experienced first-hand the grit, determination and passion of our hawkerpreneurs and have close friends in the ecosystem.
As such, I have personally experienced several reviews that led to tangible improvements. Our hawkerpreneurs are everyday heroes who toil over their hot stoves to provide all of us with affordable and tasty meals. I would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to all hawkerpreneurs, past and present and, especially, those who are with us in the gallery today.
From my direct engagement with hawkerpreneurs, it is clear that the two largest cost drivers are the cost of raw ingredients and manpower, not rent, as is commonly perceived and acknowledged by Member Mr Leong Mun Wai as well. Based on data shared by hawkerpreneurs whom I met recently at Senja Hawker Centre, ingredients make up 50% to 60% of their total costs, manpower accounts for 15% to 25% and rental constitutes around 10%. This means for every serving of hawker meal we order for $4, $2 to $2.40 is paid to ingredients suppliers, 60 cents to $1 for manpower and 40 cents is paid for rental. There are other miscellaneous expenses, such as transport and utilities. The actual net profit margin that our hawkers earn is as low as 20 cents to 40 cents per serving. This breakdown highlights the thin profit margins and underscores the importance of addressing the need of our hawkerpreneurs to earn a decent livelihood.
To illustrate the challenges with ingredient costs on the ground, allow me to share about Mr Zuhairi, who runs Project Penyek at Senja Hawker Centre. Mr Zuhairi shared that customer preferences for certain parts, such as thighs over breast meat, lead to imbalances and wastage. Unsold breast meat at the end of the day has to be discarded, increasing the cost of goods sold significantly. He mentioned, \"When customers ask for more thighs, I worry about the breast meat that may go unsold. Any wastages directly affects my earnings.\" These days when I order Ayam Penyet at his stall, Mr Zuhairi will jokingly ask me \"Breast or thigh?\" I will obviously reply \"Chicken breast\".
Mr Zuhairi also shared that in recent years since COVID-19, the cost of fresh chicken has risen from $3.50 to $4.50 per kilogrammes and the price of chilli has nearly tripled, from $2.50 to $6 per kilogrammes. Mr Zuhairi orders chilli to make tasty sambal that goes perfectly well with his Ayam Penyet. But Mr Zuhairi expressed anxiety over customers requesting extra sambal chilli sauce, which they expect at no additional charge. With margins already slim, such additional requests further strain finances. He shared, \"I want to satisfy my customers, but giving more chilli without charging increases my ingredients cost.\"
Mr Speaker, these anecdotes may seem trivial to some, but I felt that it is important to share the ground concerns and anxieties of our hawkerpreneurs. These are issues we may not think of as consumers when we buy our food. Thankfully, Mr Zuhairi shared that ingredients prices have stabilised. This signals that the monetary measures, such as strengthening the Singapore dollar put in place by the Government, have helped.
With regard to Member Ms Hazel Poa's suggestion on centralised procurement at hawker centres, I would like to share that operators have explored these ideas, but certain challenges make it difficult to implement. First, hawkerpreneurs' ingredients are highly varied, with many different stock keeping units. For example, even something as simple and common as rice, comes in various types and grades, complicating central procurement and bulk purchasing efforts. Second, many hawkerpreneurs have longstanding relationships with their suppliers and prefer to maintain these trusted connections.
Another key challenge that hawkerpreneurs face is the cost and lack of manpower. As part of our national commitment to uplift lower-wage workers, manpower costs have increased. Hawkers are now offering salaries ranging from $2,600 to $3,200 for stall assistants, but there are very few local jobseekers interested in these positions, due to the demanding nature of the work and long hours. Local jobseekers are also needed in other sectors, such as childcare and healthcare.
Recognising these challenges, during one of my catchups with hawkerpreneur friends – one of whom is Mr Noorman Mubarak, founder of Nasi Lemak Taliwang – they suggested allowing them to hire Long-Term Visit Pass Plus (LTVP+) holders to alleviate the manpower shortage. I felt that this was a good suggestion, as LTVP+ holders are part of the Singaporean family. Allowing hawkers to hire LTVP+ holders will balance both the need for an additional pool of workers to hire, mitigate concerns that our hawker centres should be distinctively Singaporean and provide additional job options for Singaporean families.
As a follow-up, I submitted a Parliamentary Question in August, urging the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) to allow hawkers to hire LTVP+ holders. I am pleased that following this, Senior Minister of State Dr Koh Poh Koon announced in the last Sitting, that hawkers can now employ LTVP+ holders as stall assistants. [Applause.]
As shared earlier, this policy change not only provides hawkers with an additional pool of manpower, but also increases job opportunities for LTVP+ holders, who are often family members of Singaporeans.
I note that some hawkerpreneurs have asked to be allowed to hire foreigners on Work Permits. We are mindful of community concerns about allowing more foreigners to work in hawker centres. Hansard records from 2010 and 2011 reflect concerns over the influx of foreign workers in hawker centres, with residents noting issues, such as language barriers, cultural differences and variations in service standards.
In the Parliamentary Sitting on 1 March 2010, then-Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, acknowledged these concerns, \"Some Members have raised concerns about the increasing presence of foreign workers in hawker centres, which may affect the ambience and character of these places. To strike a balance, NEA allows hawkers to employ a limited number of foreign workers as assistants, subject to certain conditions to ensure that the character of hawker centres is maintained.\"
Member Lim Biow Chuan expressed during the 5 March 2010 Sitting, \"Many residents have given feedback that the presence of foreign workers affects the traditional feel of our hawker centres. There are also concerns about communication difficulties and differences in hygiene practices.\"
It is important to acknowledge these concerns and strive for a balance between addressing manpower needs and preserving the authenticity of our hawker culture. The recent policy to enable hawkers to hire LTVP+ holders demonstrates that reviews are conducted continuously, taking the manpower situation and cultural attitudes into careful consideration.
Next, I would like to speak about the management model of hawker centres. The SCHC model has been subject to much discussion in the past and in today's debate. It is essential to share some sentiments of hawkerpreneurs presently. One that I know very well is the Senja Hawker Centre in Zhenghua. This is a new hawker centre managed under the SCHC model. The FairPrice Group is the appointed management company by NEA.
I would like to share with the House the experience of Ms Angeline, a first-time hawkerpreneur at Senja Hawker Centre who sells local delights, such as Hokkien mee and carrot cake. At the start, Angeline faced several challenges. She needed guidance to navigate various licensing matters, such as understanding which licenses were necessary and figuring out how to set up a utility account. Employment laws and finding reliable supplier contacts were also obstacles along the way. But she was not alone. The centre manager from the SCHC operator became a vital source of support, helping her through each requirement. In her own words, she shared, \"Without the support of the centre manager, I would have felt lost and it would have taken me much longer to start my business.\"
Such support is invaluable, especially for the next generation of hawkerpreneurs, who may not have the industry knowledge and networks that veteran hawkerprenurs have built over the years. With the guidance of dedicated centre managers, new hawkerprenuers like Angeline are better positioned to navigate these challenges and build successful businesses.
SCHC operators also assist in procuring shared services, such as centralised dishwashing. This has significantly alleviated manpower challenges as they are not required to wash dishes themselves. The dishes are cleaned by a third-party vendor.
Hawkers at Senja Hawker Centre expressed satisfaction with these services. Mr Yeo, a senior hawker who owns Yong Feng Ji Chicken Rice, shared that centralised dishwashing saves them time and allows them to focus on cooking and serving their customers.
While SCHC has brought clear value to most hawkers, some have also provided feedback on areas of concern with the SCHC model. For instance, the operational hours minimum requirements can be rigid, making it challenging for a single-operator stall to comply. It gets harder to comply when hawkers face manpower challenges and need time for personal exigencies.
On the other hand, the minimum operating hours requirement is to ensure that there are sufficient choices for patrons and minimum vibrancy. It is challenging for the management to attract footfall to a centre if there are insufficient stalls open for business. Hawkerpreneurs benefit from increased footfall.
I believe that a genuine solution is to find a realistic fit somewhere between these two expectations and every single hawker centre will be different due to local community needs. Instead of perceiving the SCHC model as the boogeyman, we need to solve the real challenge: how do we fine-tune the model to meet the needs of our hawkerpreneurs and the communities they serve?
Taking a leaf from PAP's tripartism, we can extend hawkerpreneurs' representation under the SCHC model to a similar model to that of existing hawkers' and merchants' associations. This provides an opportunity for collective feedback from hawkerpreneurs to SCHC operators and NEA to co-create industry standards around contractual matters and ground issues that align hawkerpreneurs with local needs.
The SCHC model definitely has value and it is the hawkerpreneurs informing us about how things are better for them. But this does not make us complacent. Let us work together with the operators and hawkerpreneurs to make continuous improvements.
Mr Speaker, Sir, to ensure our hawker culture thrive, it is crucial that our hawkerpreneurs can earn a sustainable income. Rising costs of ingredients and manpower costs continue to erode their already slim profit margins, leaving little for their own livelihood. Our hawkerpreneurs provide incredible societal value by offering affordable food to Singaporeans. To truly appreciate the affordability of our hawker food, let us compare it to street food prices in other major cities around the world, relative to the median incomes in those cities.
In Singapore, the median monthly wage in 2023 is about $5,197 and a typical hawker meal costs around $5. This means that a hawker meal represents roughly 0.1% of the median monthly income. Consider Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia, where the median monthly wage in the same year is approximately $1,901 and a street food meal costs about $2.90. Here, a meal accounts for around 0.26% of the median income. More than twice that of Singapore. Moving to Hong Kong, the median monthly wage is about $3,378 and a simple street meal can cost around $8.50, making up about 0.25% of the median income.
Even in Western cities like New York City, where the median monthly wage is about $6,626, the cost of a basic meal represents a larger proportion of the median income compared to Singapore. In New York, a street meal costs around $13.00 and takes up about 0.2% of the median income.
Earlier, Mr Leong Mun Wai referred to the hawker stalls at Urban Hawker in New York, curated by Mr KF Seetoh. It is laudable that our hawker food has been brought overseas. However, I read in a report by local news site Mothership and also CNA, that chicken rice and prawn mee sold by Urban Hawker in New York cost about $25 and $26, much more than the same dishes cost in Singapore. The Mothership article also reported that hawkerpreneurs in New York cited high rental, ingredients and manpower costs and other challenges. Sadly, at least one hawkerpreneur has closed since. I was told that more have closed in recent months.
Mr Speaker, Sir, what this shows is that the cost of food and business operating costs are common to all cities, Singapore included. But yet our local hawker centres are still able to provide us with affordable meals.
I am aware and empathise with residents who think of affordability based on what they used to pay, rather than what others in other countries have to pay. However, such economic data points across cities provide a clear reality of our comparative situation. Notwithstanding this, our hawkers provide high-quality, diverse and delicious meals at prices that are a fraction of what people pay in other global cities. This affordability is Singapore's unique social compact forged out of a vocation to feed the nation, but it also underscores the financial pressures hawkers face.
As we reflect on Singapore's social compact, let us also take a moment to consider how each of us can contribute to helping our hawkerpreneurs earn a fair and sustainable livelihood. Hawkers have expressed that while customers are willing to pay $15 for a bowl of ramen, they hesitate to pay $5 for a handmade bowl of fishball noodles. I believe that as a deeper appreciation of our hawkerpreneurs grows, the consumer will respond to pricing favourably because they know and understand what it takes to deliver good hawker food. We must support them to ensure they can continue this vital service without compromising their livelihoods.
On the Government's side, one particular initiative that has balanced affordability with accessibility well is the Government's CDC Vouchers. Hawkerpreneurs at Senja Hawker Centre shared that these vouchers contributed to approximately 10% of their revenue, which is significant. The CDC Vouchers have directly provided Singaporean households with more to spend at the hawker centres. Hawkerpreneurs at Senja Hawker Centre shared that the vouchers not only increased their sales but also introduced new customers to their stalls.
In a recent catch-up with Mr Melvin Chew, who is the founder of Hawker United Dabao 2020 Facebook group that has more than 330,000 members and also the owner of Jin Ji Teochew Braised Duck and Kway Chap – and I understand he is here today and I want to acknowledge his presence – which is located at Chinatown Complex Market and Food Centre, he shared candidly that the CDC Vouchers have been extremely helpful for the patrons in Chinatown as many are seniors who have retired. He has witnessed seniors holding stacks of CDC Vouchers as well-wishers donate CDC Vouchers to them and seniors can now gather to enjoy a nice tze char meal instead of being restricted to just budget items.
There are also many notable examples of Pay It Forward initiatives in hawker centres around Singapore. This example shows that Singaporeans can align local initiatives to show their support for those with less.
I hope that we can provide more CDC Vouchers to resource low-income families and our seniors who are mostly retired. Providing additional vouchers to them ensures they continue access to affordable meals and it supports hawkers by increasing patronage.
In Zhenghua, we have also introduced $1 deals as part of our local initiatives. Every month, Zhenghua residents can purchase $1 deals and in December alone, nearly 1,000 hawker meals were sold at just $1 each. Hawkers receive the full value of the meal as our community funds tops up the difference. These deals were fully sold out in three days. My grassroots team and I are now exploring ways to expand this initiative so that even more hawkers and residents can benefit.
Corporations can also play a significant role in supporting our hawker culture. Notable initiatives like DBS' \"5 Million Hawker Meals\" programme offer $3 cashback for PayLah! users at participating hawker stalls. The scheme encourages users to dine at hawker centres.
These programmes underscore that much has been done to support our hawkerprenuers and ensure that food remains affordable. It takes a whole-of-society approach to support our hawkerpreneurs. From Government policies to corporate initiatives and consumer's attitudes, everyone has a role to play in sustaining this vital part of our culture.
As such, Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I propose amendments to the Motion?
Mr Speaker: Can I have a copy of your proposed amendments?
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui: Yes, Sir. [A copy of the amendments was handed to Mr Speaker.]
Mr Speaker: The proposed amendments submitted by the Member are in order. Do you have copies available for other Members?
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui: Yes, Sir.
Mr Speaker: Can we distribute those? I will give some time for the copies to be distributed before you move your amendments. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]
Mr Chia, I have also frozen the time clock. It is not eating into your speech time, although you are getting close to the 20 minutes.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui: Thank you very much, Sir. Thank you.
Mr Speaker: Alright, I think all Members have received a copy of your amendments. Mr Chia, you may move your amendments.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the following amendments:
First, \"In line 1, to delete 'review' and insert 'continue its support for hawkers by regularly reviewing'\".
Second, \"In line 2, to delete the words ‘to provide better support for hawkers’ and insert ‘which will help’\".
And third, \"At the end of line 3, to add ‘while enabling hawkers to earn a fair livelihood’\".
Mr Speaker: You can proceed with the rest of your speech.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui: Mr Speaker, Sir, our hawker centres are integral to Singaporeans' way of life. They are places where we connect, share and celebrate our diverse heritage. Let us work together – the Government, businesses and citizens alike – to ensure that our hawkerpreneurs can make a fair livelihood and that everyone can enjoy affordable food. This will ensure that our hawker culture thrives for generations to come. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: There are three amendments proposed by the Member to the Motion.
Amendment No 1: \"In line 1, to delete ‘review’ and insert ‘continue its support for hawkers by regularly reviewing’\".
Amendment No 2: \"In line 2, to delete the words ‘to provide better support for hawkers’ and insert ‘which will help’\".
Amendment No 3: \"At the end of line 3, to add '‘while enabling hawkers to earn a fair livelihood’\".
It may be convenient that the debate on the original Motion and on any other amendments moved by Members be proceeded with simultaneously as a debate on a single question. Do I have hon Members' agreement to this?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated agreement. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: The question is the amendments as moved by the Member. Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, it is without a doubt that Singaporeans love our hawker food and it is something which we all hold dear and close to our hearts. Our hawker centres are deeply ingrained in our cultural identity and our collective memories, and these familiar communal spaces and their associated sights, smells and tastes are what make Singapore feel like home for many of us. Just ask anyone who has been abroad for even just a week.
We are also passionately protective of our hawker food culture, to the extent that there is always some healthy debate among Singaporeans about which hawker stall serves the best Hokkien mee or, for that matter, some friendly rivalry with our friends across the Causeway about whether the Kuala Lumpur-style Hokkien mee with its thick egg noodles stir fried with black soy sauce is superior or the Singapore-style Hokkien mee with a mixture of yellow wheat noodles and bee hoon braised in prawn stock.
However, there could be little left to protect, with our hawker food culture at risk of eroding rapidly, and the sustainability and very existence of our hawkers under threat, if we do not take proactive steps to fix the current issues at hand and remodel the way our hawker trade is managed today.
On that note, Mr Speaker, while I had initially wanted to raise a similar matter in an Adjournment Motion, I will still cover the same points in my speech today on three broad areas: addressing the business costs for hawkers, addressing the cost of living for Singaporeans and, lastly, on revitalising the industry.
The very existence of our hawkers hinges on whether it is sustainable for the hawkers to ply their trade and operate a financially viable business. In recent years, there has been no lack of news about F&B operators closing, even some high-profile hawkers whom many find surprising, given their popularity with patrons. A recent example is Zhong Xing Foochow Fish Balls and Lor Mee in Bukit Merah, where the owners lamented that they had to close their 82-year-old family-run business, due to their old age, an impending doubling in rent and unwillingness to pass on higher prices to their regular customers, many of whom are the elderly.
Caught between rising costs and the difficulty or even reluctance in raising prices, many hawkers are simply finding it difficult to sustain a decent livelihood. Addressing the business costs for hawkers is thus a key thrust of my speech today.
Our conversations with hawkers suggest that rentals and their associated costs for raw materials and manpower are the key costs for running their businesses. The NEA noted from its survey that raw materials and manpower were the main cost drivers for stallholders in hawker centres, at 56% and 20% of operating costs respectively in 2022. However, it is important to point out that while the cost of ingredients is a key variable cost for our hawkers, rentals represent a key overhead cost that imposes a high hurdle that hawkers have to overcome on a monthly basis, before they can even start to make a profit, leading many to feel as though they are working for the landlord for a long time before working for themselves. And the cycle repeats every month, with many hesitant to take a long break as a result.
Importantly, rentals are a key cost component that we can influence and try to control, as opposed to raw material costs which are primarily dependent on global commodity price trends and may not be directly under the Government’s control.
Moreover, we see that even for the largest listed F&B companies in Singapore, their pre-tax margins hover between a low single digit margin and even losses. So, for our hawkers operating at a much smaller scale, every single percentage point counts. Whether rentals represent 10% or 20% of operating costs, bringing rentals down by even a few percentage points from their total operating costs could mean the difference between shutting down or not. This is where I believe we can easily do more to better support our hawkers.
In my speech during the Committee of Supply debates earlier this year, I was comforted to hear that there was a rental cap for this year’s Geylang Serai Ramadan Bazaar, similar to that in 2019. To quote the Minister of State for Home Affairs and National Development Faishal Ibrahim: \"We hear you. For Bazaar Raya Geylang Serai 2024, we are taking steps to ensure that it is more affordable for our sellers and consumers\". Whether it is the F&B stalls at the bazaar or at our hawker centres, I believe the affordability concerns remain. Could we not adopt the same rental cap idea for our NEA-operated hawker centres?
In addition, I would also like to propose again we should phase out the price-only tender system entirely. I am sure many of you would have seen the new record set for hawker rentals at Marine Parade Central Market and Food Centre, where the vacant unit #01-29 set a new record in the July 2024 tender at S$10,158 per month.
Whether or not the particular stall passes on the higher costs, which I believe is only logical, is just one aspect of the problem. The other aspect is that if such a trend continues, this will have knock-on effects on the supposed market rate as determined by an independent professional valuation, leading to higher market rents and an upward spiral for other hawkers if this persists as well.
Moving from a price-only tender would reduce a significant amount of financial pressure for both hawkers and consumers, and also reduce the current environment that is favourable to large franchisors or those with deep pockets, as opposed to the enterprising and innovative hawkers starting out on their own.
The Price-Quality Method (PQM) is a method which many Town Councils, such as Sengkang Town Council, routinely use to evaluate tender bids in order to more holistically evaluate the merits of the proposals. In fact, HDB is already evaluating the tenders for eating houses under the price-quality method. Why can we not do the same for our hawker centres?
If it is implementation challenges that NEA is concerned about, I would suggest that they work with the HDB commercial teams to understand how this is being done for what is essentially the same trade. A hawker whom I spoke to, who is very supportive of the PQM method, also suggested some factors for the NEA’s consideration, such as the pricing of their products, operating hours, whether they are young hawker entrepreneurs and the heritage value of the product, to begin with.
At present, there are more than 100 markets and hawker centres managed by NEA with about 13 SEHCs. I wish to reiterate a point raised in the Workers’ Party 2020 manifesto, which called on all hawker centres to eventually be brought under NEA control, as that would provide the necessary long-term assurance to hawkers that there are governmental levers of control over rents, not only today, but also tomorrow.
The ultimate goal of an SEHC is to make a profit and not provide a public good. Hence, hawkers are often at the behest of their SEHC operators. With operators having access to point of sales (POS) data, these operators are incentivised to maximise the rentals and occupancy costs of their hawkers, which, while in the best financial interest of the SEHC operator, may not be in the interest of the hawkers and ultimately consumers. Such an environment will also not be conducive to creative budding entrepreneurs, but favour established chains with scale, and the lack of diversification of our hawker food mix may even be a consequence. Having all hawker centres under the common management of the NEA also creates consistency in criteria, standards and policies for all hawkers to follow.
To be fair, I am not painting all SEHC operators with the same broad brush. But there are certainly some questionable practices of certain operators which require urgent attention today, even if plans for the centralised management of SEHCs are not implemented immediately.
Certain SEHC operators impose highly onerous contracts in the pages, which are to the detriment of hawkers rather than being supportive of them. These include monthly payments for an expensive POS system on a recurring basis compared to them purchasing their own at a lower cost over a period of time, strict terms and conditions, including the imposition of liquidated damages for a long list of terms and conditions, such as business hours and stall closures without written notices, failure to support their loyalty app or even broad-based terms, such as the refusal to cooperate with the landlord. Are consumers and hawkers benefiting from some of these onerous terms?
I urge the Government to regularly review the contractual terms and conditions between the SEHC operators and stallholders to better protect the welfare and interests of our hawkers.
Next, I move on to addressing the cost of living for Singaporeans. Short of stating the obvious, we all need to eat and it is a matter of sustenance and survival. I believe the public do understand and appreciate that running a hawker stall entails rising overhead costs, along with other intangible factors, such as long preparation hours, the years of honing and refining their recipe and craft, and the hot and sweaty work environment.
Nevertheless, the increase in business costs borne by our hawkers has ostensibly trickled down to diners, who are already squeezed by rising costs elsewhere. This is best exemplified by the staggering 6.1% hike in hawker food prices in 2023 which, according to the Singapore Department of Statistics, could be attributed to higher input costs.
The Government’s approach to tame the rise in hawker food prices is through the introduction of the Budget Meal Programme, which aims to have all 374 HDB rented eating houses provide at least four meal options priced at $3.50 and below, and two drink items priced at $1.20 and below by 2026.
Our hawkers are trapped between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, they must contend with price hikes in raw ingredients and utilities, coupled with high rentals. On the other hand, seeing how price increases could potentially turn away customers whilst worsening the financial burden experienced by low-income patrons, many stall owners are hesitant about raising their prices. Now, with the requirement to sell their budget meals at a Government-mandated “budget” price at the expense of their already-dwindling incomes, hawkers ultimately bear the biggest brunt of the budget meal scheme.
As lamented by a hawker interviewed by The Straits Times in an article dated 1 June 2024: “It is impossible to make a profit from these meals”.
In an attempt to maintain their livelihoods, several hawkers have turned to other methods to cover costs from their budget meals, often at the expense of the meal’s quality. For example, there have been instances of budget meals with small portion sizes, while several have also noticed nutritionally imbalanced budget meal offerings with heaps of carbohydrates coupled with little to no proteins.
Our hawkers, many of whom are sole proprietors, should not have the Herculean task of shouldering the burden of providing Singaporeans with “cheap” meals to cope with the cost of living crisis. In fact, they should have the freedom of setting their own prices, given that they have an astute understanding of their business costs and the need to sustain their livelihoods, whilst keeping it affordable enough to ensure a steady flow of customers.
Instead of mandating the menu prices that hawkers should set and having our hawkers shoulder the burden of addressing food costs, the Government ought to do more to ensure the affordability of hawker food, given that it has the capacity and resources to do so.
The Government has introduced CDC Vouchers to be used at participating merchants, which would help reduce the out-of-pocket costs when purchasing food or groceries. Nevertheless, several residents have experienced difficulties when obtaining these vouchers, such as those who are living in another house from the one stated on their National Registration Identity Card, those living in shelters and those who face strained familial ties.
To ameliorate this, one suggestion would be to expand the pre-existing CHAS card scheme to effectively cover meal discounts to residents. Aside from providing some relief to the cardholder’s medical bills, this scheme is already being used in supermarkets, such as FairPrice, to provide discounts to cardholders.
Similarly, cardholders who present their CHAS card at a participating hawker would be able to receive a discount on their food. Whether it is blue, orange or green, the quantum of discount would then correspond to these different levels. Importantly, the cost of these discounts should not be imposed on the hawkers, but on the Government instead. Rather than subsidise high net worth individuals or millionaires who, like low-income households, all receive CDC Vouchers, the subsidy would be better directed to those who need them the most.
Such a move would help to minimise the administrative and operational costs in providing affordable meals by tapping on the infrastructure and systems of a pre-existing scheme. Meanwhile, it would help to improve access to those who experience difficulties in obtaining and redeeming their CDC Vouchers.
By enhancing governmental support to ensure affordable meals whilst securing the livelihoods of our hawkers, younger players could come in and rejuvenate the hawker scene, whilst bucking the trend of a rising number of veteran hawkers opting to call it quits and retire.
Another means for hawkers to broaden their reach is by listing their business on food delivery platforms such as Foodpanda, GrabFood and Deliveroo. Such platforms have also provided many of our residents, tired after a long day at work, easy access to tasty and delectable food right at their doorstep. This is especially prevalent in estates such as Sengkang, where many residents have turned to food delivery platforms due to the lack of coffee shops and hawker centres in the area. However, the hefty platform fees incurred by merchants on food delivery platforms have resulted in them either increasing their menu prices accordingly or opting to absorb it into their menu prices, which results in a decrease in profits.
In a PQ filed in 2021, Minister for Trade and Industry Mr Gan Kim Yong outlined that the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) will continue to monitor the food delivery sector for any anti-competitive practices. A 2020 Zaobao article reports that the platform fees charged by the trio of GrabFood, Foodpanda and Deliveroo – with market shares of 56%, 35% and 8% respectively as of 2022 – hover at around 30% of the menu price. I believe this remains the case today.
Instead of adopting a heavy-handed approach to managing hawkers and the prices they charge, perhaps the food delivery platforms, who are in a financially stronger position, could be the ones subject to greater oversight by the Government instead, especially with regard to the platform fees, which are hefty relative to food value.
Fee transparency is a key measure to ensure that competition can truly yield a fair platform fee for all hawkers and F&B operators and level the playing field between sole-proprietor hawkers and large restaurant chains in dealing with these delivery platforms. Such a measure also helps customers understand the true costs of delivery and protect hawkers from hidden fees and charges.
While I appreciate the CCCS had issued interim measures directions during the possible acquisition by Grab of Delivery Hero's business in Singapore, which did not ultimately materialise eventually, would the Government consider such measures to help ameliorate the cost borne by merchants for their presence on such platforms?
Certainly, with greater oversight of the food delivery business, food establishments, especially our hawkers, could be provided with another means to grow their business and thrive, while providing consumers with another affordable dining option.
Finally, Mr Speaker, I want to make the point that the Government must make revitalisation of the hawker industry a policy goal. When I say \"revitalisation\", I mean it literally in that there is a decline that needs to be reversed. Too many indicators suggest that the industry is in trouble, not just financially as I have mentioned earlier, but also culturally. For instance, the median age of hawkers was said to be 60 years old in 2019. The Government has not, to my understanding, published any updated data on this since, but I do not think the number has changed significantly. This means that half of Singapore's hawkers are at most three years away from the current age of retirement.
This retirement of a whole generation of hawkers is also evident in the disappearance of certain Singaporean dishes. Kueh tutu, appam, satay bee hoon and Fujian oyster cakes are increasingly rare and almost unheard of in new hawker centres. Food historian Khir Johari, in his book \"The Food of Singapore Malays\", talks about dishes that have already disappeared, such as mee maidin and rujak su'un. Just as critically, he notes how corners are cut and old recipes are disregarded in Singaporean food culture.
We need to recognise that the Hawkers' Development Programme and Hawkers Succession Scheme do not work. I do not know of any other way to describe this, but we need to go back to the drawing board and examine the reasons for this and re-model the existing schemes which are no longer fit for purpose.
In response to my PQs, since the launch of the Hawkers' Development Programme to much fanfare, 566 aspiring hawkers have enrolled, 120 completed their apprenticeship and an even smaller number of 29 have started their business and a mere 16 of them remain in operation. Of the Hawkers Succession Scheme, since its launch on 1 January 2022, a grand total of seven veteran hawkers have signed up and of these only two have completed the transfer of their stalls to their successors.
While the role of hawker food in our economy may not change so quickly because the demand for low-cost food is always there, its role in our culture is undisputed. We must make sure we protect it for our future generations. In 2020, UNESCO decided to inscribe our hawker culture on its list of Intangible Cultural Heritage. In our sub mission, it was highlighted several times that efforts are being made to pass on culinary practices to family members or apprentices, for instance through apprenticeship programmes.
One suggestion, I hope the Government will seriously consider, is for its programmes to be consolidated under a single, independent hawker academy. This was a suggestion mentioned in a related Adjournment Motion by my former colleague, Mr Leon Perera, in 2021. Such a focal point for the hawker trade could provide more tailored support for hawkers, as well as streamline the role of the Government in its support for the hawker ecosystem. After all, the culinary and entrepreneurial skills of a hawker are not learnt the way one would learn a more academic subject.
Lastly, I would like to make a specific call for the rule allowing only citizens and Permanent Residents (PRs) to work in hawker centres to be reviewed. This is a long-standing challenge faced by hawkers I talked to and represents a policy inconsistency.
In Sengkang Grand Mall, for example, Buangkok Hawker Centre is, as the name suggests, a hawker centre but for any other CapitaLand mall, this would be a food court and subject to a different set of rules. \"What's in a name?\", one might ask. Perhaps a middle-ground approach, allowing hawkers above the age of 60 to employ one foreign work pass holder, at most per stall, should be studied.
I recognise that the Government has stated in its reply to a PQ that it will \"allow hawkers to hire LTVP or LTVP+ holders with Letters of Consent (LOC) or Pre-approved LOCs to work as their stall assistants. This policy will be effective from 1 Jan 2025\". However, I wonder how effective this would be, given that the LTVP is not intended for long-term employment purposes at all and we are looking at, potentially, a limited pool of workers. Has the MSE quantified the impact of this move? As stated on the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM's) website, the LTVP is for common-law spouses, step-children or handicapped children of an eligible Employment Pass or S Pass holders and parents of those earning over $12,000.
The move to allow the hiring of work pass holders would benefit hawkers who find it difficult to open their stall every day at full hours, and these are also likely the hawkers who have been toiling in the most challenging of conditions day and night for decades and many are likely to be one of our most loved hawker stalls with recipes that have withstood the test of time in a challenging F&B industry. After all, many restaurants, coffee shops and food courts offering Singaporean cuisine rely partly on foreign labour to meet manpower needs.
To conclude, Mr Speaker, I hope the Government can take proactive and concrete steps to address the business costs for hawkers, address the cost of living for Singaporeans and lastly, to revitalise the industry we Singaporeans love the most – our hawkers.
While we had intended to support the Motion, as filed by the Member Mr Leong Mun Wai. Based on my very quick perusal of the amended Motion by Member Mr Edward Chia, I believe that is something that we can support as well, given the points covered in my speech, namely the impact on the hawker themselves and consumers, and on revitalising the industry. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.
Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, hawker food is now a critical source for most Singaporean's daily meals, especially, for families who do not often have home-cooked meals.
Hawker centres, that are located amidst our residential heartlands, are an integral part of our food landscape. More importantly, affordable hawker food offers a sustainable option for low-income families and seniors.
When I was still a student, I used to help at my aunt's Marine Parade laksa stall, not the same one as Mr Leong's laksa stall, during my school holidays. I witnessed the challenges she faced, the very long hours she had to work, and only having one rest day a week. Their daily revenue is unpredictable as their earnings will naturally be affected whenever business is bad. Nevertheless, her laksa business has managed to assist my aunt's family financially. When she retired, only one of her six children was willing to continue with the business. As expected, my cousin had to sell the business as the third generation was not keen to take over. As a matter of fact, most elderly hawkers are retiring without any succession plans.
Understandably, compared to the first- and second-generation hawkers, their children are now exposed to better employment options and opportunities with more rewarding salaries and progressive career prospects. Given the evolution of this business and the challenges ahead, we would need to assist these hawkers.
One challenge would be the lack of people willing to work as hawkers. There are several initiatives already implemented by the Government to help existing hawkers better cope with the labour shortage. For instance, the joint tenancy scheme allows hawkers to work shorter hours and share rental cost with co-tenants. Also, to alleviate manpower shortage, stall holders can now hire from a bigger pool of LTVP holders. They can hire family members who will be more willing to work long hours and are more committed to help sustain the business. Apart from that, centralised common services scheme like dish washing, clearing of crockery and cutlery, and general cleaning can reduce the manpower required.
On the payment mode, digitalisation initiatives, such as cashless payments and the CDC vouchers have also helped to reduce the stall's cash management. As a result of such labour reduction initiatives, many stalls can now be managed by two or for some, even one person.
The second challenge is to offer hawker food at affordable prices without compromising the quality. Older hawkers live in older housing estates such as Old Airport Road, Tiong Bahru, Geylang Serai and so on. Most of the famous and popular hawker stalls including Michelin Bib gourmand stalls are often found in these older hawker centres. Most of these older stalls are able to sustain well. After a 26-year pause, in 2011, NEA restarted the building of 20 new hawker centres.
With the additional and sudden surge of so many new hawker centres, operating costs in these new hawker centres tend to be higher. Hawkers will have no choice but to pass on the increased operating cost to the consumers. Otherwise, many stalls in these new hawker centres will find it very challenging to operate. We have received numerous feedback from residents about the price increase in hawker meals. This price increase has caused a heavy strain on them. Most affected are from the low-income families, retirees and students.
To address their concerns, our local MPs have been working closely with the hawker centre operators, to try to keep meals affordable for residents. In Sembawang Group Representation Constituency (GRC), Kampung Admiralty Hawker Centre and Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre were opened in recent years and are managed by SEHC operators.
In Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre, all 44 stalls offer $3.50 budget meals and the meals' quantity and ingredients are usually more budgeted as well to fit into the price cap. Seniors holding the blue CHAS, Pioneer and Merdeka Generation cards will receive a 10% discount. Students under the age of 18 will also get student discounts during weekday afternoons.
In Kampung Admiralty Hawker Centre, local schemes such as Belanja-A-Meal, provides low-income families with affordable meals. Thanks to contributions from fellow residents and generous donors, low-income residents on Belanja-A-Meal scheme can each enjoy 10 free meals monthly. These local schemes do help some residents who are most affected by recent price increases. Many are appreciative of the support provided. My fellow GRC MP, Ms Mariam Jaafar, will later share more, in her speech. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to say a few words in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] After a 26-year hiatus, NEA resumed efforts in 2011 to build 20 new hawker centres. With the addition and sudden surge in the number of new hawker centres, operating costs at these hawker centres have risen further. Hawkers have no choice but to pass on these increased operating costs to consumers. As a result, many stalls in these new hawker centres face significant challenges in operating.
We have received much feedback from residents about the recent increase in hawker food prices. These price increases places tremendous pressure on them. The most affected groups include low-income families, retirees, and students.
To address their concerns, our local MPs have worked closely with hawker centre operators to try to ensure that food remains affordable for residents. In Sembawang GRC, the Kampung Admiralty Hawker Centre and the Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre were opened recently and are run by socially-conscious enterprise operators.
At the Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre, all 44 stalls offer budget meals priced at $3.50. Senior citizens holding blue CHAS cards, Pioneer Generation cards and Merdeka Generation cards will receive a 10% discount. Students under 18 years old will also get a student discount during lunchtime on weekdays.
At the Kampung Admiralty Hawker Centre, local schemes such as Belanja-A-Meal provide affordable food for low-income families. With contributions from residents and generous donors, low-income residents under the Belanja-A-Meal scheme can enjoy 10 free meals per month. These local schemes help some of the residents most affected by recent price increases. Many appreciate the support provided. My fellow MP, Ms Mariam Jaafar, will elaborate further about this initiative.
(In English): It is a matter of reality that first- and second-generation hawkers will retire and, sadly, some original and authentic hawker recipes, together with certain Singapore hawker culture, will gradually fade. It is definitely not easy to sustain and grow our hawker culture in this rapidly changing environment. Nevertheless, I believe the hawker culture is an important part of our cultural heritage and more must be done.
The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) had made a commendable effort in December 2020 for Singapore’s rich and vibrant hawker culture to be recognised in the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. This recognition has raised awareness about the importance of preserving and growing our hawker culture.
The Hawkers' Development Programme, which trains and mentors potential hawkers, was launched by NEA in 2020. In 2022, the Hawkers Succession Scheme was launched to help retiring veteran hawkers pass their culinary skills, recipes and hawker stalls to aspiring successors. Unfortunately, the take-up rate for these schemes to establish a more systematic framework to attract and develop aspiring hawkers is still low till date. We need to push harder in order to entice young hawkers into the trade with more creative incentives.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to share a few points in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] It is a matter of reality that first- and second-generation hawkers will retire and sadly, some original and authentic hawker recipes together with certain Singapore’s hawker culture will gradually fade. It is definitely not easy to sustain and grow our hawker culture in this rapidly changing environment. Nevertheless, I believe the hawker culture is an important part of our cultural heritage and more must be done.
MCCY had made a commendable effort in December 2020 for Singapore’s rich and vibrant hawker culture to be recognised in the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. This recognition has raised awareness about the importance of preserving and growing our hawker culture.
The Hawkers' Development Programme, which trains and mentors potential hawkers, was launched by NEA in 2020.
In 2022, the Hawkers Succession Scheme was launched, to help retiring veteran hawkers pass their culinary skills, recipes and hawker stalls to aspiring successors. Unfortunately, the take-up rate for these schemes to establish a more systematic framework to attract and develop aspiring hawkers is still low to date. We need to push harder in order to entice young hawkers into the trade with more creative incentives.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two suggestions for NEA's consideration. The first is to organise a grand annual competition and provide credible recognition to outstanding hawkers. Such features and awards can help raise awareness that being a hawker requires a special distinguished craft, just like how a Michelin chef is recognised. The competition can include various categories, showcasing preservation of traditional techniques and heritage dishes, creativity in new recipes, healthier food selections, excellence within cost constraints or excellence within slightly higher budgets, to cater to different taste buds and different pocket sizes.
The competition prize can include a free rental for a period, at a stall of the winner’s choice. This reward could be a pragmatic way to encourage talented young people to enter the hawker profession as it enables them to start off with an advantage.
My second suggestion is for Enterprise Singapore and NEA to jointly help enterprising hawkers who do not have the funds to promote and expand their business and operations within Singapore and overseas. One way is to form a panel to identify and promote certain local brands and assist them to look into pre-packaged meals for the retail market. They can either be dried, canned or frozen. With new ideas and creativity, we can further strengthen Singapore’s local hawker brand names and, in turn, raise awareness for our hawker culture.
Mr Speaker, Sir, when older hawkers retire, we must do our best to incentivise younger Singaporeans to continue their legacy while earning a fair livelihood. Our Singaporean food culture is about our good and affordable hawker food and this is a gem that must continue to shine.
I support the amended Motion put forth by Member Mr Edward Chia.
Mr Speaker: Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":"Business Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Hawker Culture","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Keith Chua.
Mr Keith Chua (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, firstly, allow me to declare my interests in this matter. Currently, I serve as a member on the National Heritage Board. I am also currently Vice President of the Restaurant Association of Singapore and also Executive Chairman of a food service business.
Hawkers play a key role in the F&B landscape. They continue to provide tasty and affordable meals for all Singaporeans. An NEA study in 2023 suggests that over 80% of Singaporeans consume hawker centre food at least once a week.
Hawker food continues to remain largely affordable owing to a variety of factors. In F&B, the three main cost components are cost of space, that is, rental; cost of food, that is, the raw materials that go into the dish; and manpower. Hence, an F&B business thrives or survives when it generates sufficient revenue to cover all operating expenses.
Government policy thus far has recognised the value and place of hawkers in our society, and it would seem the majority of hawkers benefit from generally low and manageable rentals in the 100-plus hawker centres. Older hawkers continue to benefit from the Subsidised Rent Scheme. NEA data estimates this at about 40% of cooked food stallholders. NEA also reports that the average successful monthly bid for cooked food stalls continues to be lower than rental at food courts and coffee shops. Thus, on the issue of rents, can there be a better way to support hawkers moving forward?
Recent high bids in popular centres have raised the question of whether the bidding system is still the correct approach. If we look at the hawker centres, in many hawker centres there will be a few stalls with long queues and many where we can just walk up and order. It is the same pattern in other F&B concepts, whether these are food courts, quick service restaurants or full service restaurants. Some will have waiting lines, while others, you can be seated almost immediately. There are also variations in revenue levels for the same concept over various geographical locations. So, one particular brand in one particular location may attract a certain level of revenue and be different in another location. Some malls, where the foot traffic is high, the F&B outlets located there enjoy proportionately stronger sales. But this comes at a cost – higher rents.
In the case of private landlords, private landlords set the rental and the tenant decides whether to accept it or not or negotiate over the best available rental. In Government hawker centres, the potential tenant offers the landlord what is considered affordable. A seasoned or experienced hawker will know the potential of the business and would have done the maths on what to bid and what is affordable.
The alternative to the bidding system would be a balloting system where the rent is fixed and the variable then becomes the luck of the draw. And this has been proposed by hon Members Mr Leong and Ms Poa. This, too, will not be perfect and could result in potential vacancies, whereas the current bidding system will still award a stall for a minimum of $1 rental if this is the highest bid. I, therefore, feel the Government is addressing the issue of rental costs at hawker centres in a reasonable and fair manner under the current circumstances.
The next big cost item for all food businesses is cost of raw materials. In recent years, we have seen food costs escalate, owing mostly to external factors. Inflation and higher costs have impacted many industry sectors, not just the F&B sector. Food is a necessity. Hence, higher food costs would naturally hit us more noticeably and directly.
Typically, a business will raise selling price to retain operating margins. However, for F&B, this is often not so clear-cut. We are truly spoilt for choice in F&B. Hence, operators, myself included, would need to be judicious in raising selling prices. The similar cautious approach is taken by hawkers who are concerned that a price increase will result in loss of customers. Recent reports suggest that many hawkers prefer to accept the lower operating margins rather than risk losing business through a price increase.
Some suggest that public perception of hawker food is low price and hence, this makes it more difficult for customers to accept price increases.
Mr Speaker, Sir, F&B is a competitive business. The discerning customer will make choices, weighing price, quality, convenience and a variety of other factors.
There are many initiatives to raise the profile of hawker food, with the intention to get the general public to accept paying more for hawker meals. It should be noted though that there are some hawkers who do not intend to raise prices. Some feel that they want to keep the meal affordable for those who would be adversely affected by price increases. Others would feel that they have comfortable earnings even though margins are down.
In this cost area, the Government has been managing inflation at the macro level and, as mentioned by hon Members earlier, provided supplementary efforts, such as the CDC Voucher scheme. The CDC Voucher scheme has the dual impact of helping households meet higher rising costs and supporting spending at selected merchants, including hawkers.
The third cost component, manpower, is a continuing challenge for the F&B sector. While some hawkers work as a family unit, there are those who will need to hire assistants and the cost of this has increased. There is also the issue of supply of manpower. Manpower costs are not as key a cost component for hawkers as other F&B concepts. But where margins are challenged, any increment eats into the bottom line.
Consumer spending does flow with the economic tide. During better times, it is possible that consumers will be willing to spend more on F&B and, therefore, replace a hawker meal with one at a higher cost option. Similarly, when we need to tighten our belts, the demand for hawker food may well increase.
On a national level, there has been the successful inclusion of hawker culture in the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has not been short of efforts and allocation of resources toward the support of hawkers. I believe these will be constantly reviewed and enhanced, where appropriate. The support during and post-COVID-19 would have brought welcome relief to many hawkers, though some hawkers will have been impacted more negatively than others. Hawkers also have opportunities to improve processes and these include grants for equipment and going digital.
One big challenge for the hawker industry is that of succession. While some hawkers have moved into second and third generations, many cease operations when there is no opportunity for succession. F&B operators have been seizing the business opportunity for some popular stalls and scaling these to multi-outlet operations. It remains to be seen how this will feed into the continuity of our hawker culture.
There are also examples of hawkers who have grown into full scale restaurants on their own and not just one restaurant, but several outlets. KEK Seafood is one example of a family that has successfully transitioned into the second generation, having grown from a stall to now, a multi-outlet restaurant business.
Hawker culture as we know it will need to evolve. The case study, entitled \"Cooking or Cooked: The Future of Singapore's Hawker Culture\" by Khor Jia Wei and Kenneth Tan, helpfully lists the multiple issues and factors feeding into the sustainability of the hawker industry. Public policy is just one of the factors. Public perception of hawkers and the expectation of cheap food may well need to evolve.
However, we also want to try to ensure that access to good and affordable meals remains available and accessible for those who need this option, as we work on raising income levels. As we reframe our definition of success, there may well be a rethink on where providing good and affordable food, or taking on a thriving hawker business into the next generation will be on this list. Mr Speaker, Sir, I therefore intend to support the amended Motion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I felt compelled to speak on this Motion, having pushed the Government to resume building hawker centres since I became a Member of this House in 2006. The perfect opportunity came in 2011, when Minister Vivian Balakrishnan became the Minister for Environment and Water Resources. And I know him to be a Minister who has always been open-minded about new policy ideas or policy changes, and that he has no hesitation to move if he feels that it is the right thing to do.
Hence, on our first Environment Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) meeting with him in 2011, I remember my first ask to him at that meeting was to review the hawker centre policy and to consider resuming the building of new hawker centres.
My arguments then were, firstly, coffee shops were changing hands at very high prices at the time, in the tens of millions, which had direct flow-on effects on stall rentals and added upward pressures on food prices. There was a need for the Government to intervene, so that the mass retail food market would continue to be affordable.
Secondly, we need to lower the barrier to entry for hawkers to enter the trade so as to keep the hawkers' trade alive and going. The inadequate supply of affordable hawker spaces then would be a major impediment to would-be hawkers. So, we needed to tackle the insufficient supply of hawker stalls.
My third argument then was, it may not be intended that way at its inception, but today's hawker centres have become our unique social melting pot. There is huge social value in having a publicly-run, not-for-profit common eating spaces, where people from all walks of life can come together, under one roof to dine.
Sir, hawker centres came about in 1971 when the Government relocated 18,000 street hawkers that operated under unhygienic and unregulated environments, and moved them into modestly built and inexpensive premises that comes with stricter hygiene regulation and proper licensing.
Upon completing the relocation exercise in around the mid-1980s, the Government stopped building new hawker centres. And the reason is that the Government felt that the provision of eating places and food can be left to the private sector, such as coffee shops and food courts business operators.
There is good reason for that, a good position to begin at that time. Indeed, the Government should not be the sole or dominant retail F&B space provider and manager. The private sector can and should have a role in this F&B ecosystem and besides, the Government also need to focus on its role as a regulator too.
However, what happened around 2011 and prior was that the market mechanism had not worked out in the way as intended. Coffee shops and food court spaces were traded at bubbly high prices. It would have direct bearing on the stall rentals and thereafter, the cooked food prices. This would not be sustainable to the hawker trade and would impact the overall affordability of cooked food prices.
So, my point here is that, while we leave it to market forces to sort out most of the things, there can be situations where the market forces can bring us to the wrong place, such as runaway coffee shop prices, unhealthy market power and monopolistic behavior by dominant players, or that where coffee shops or retail F&B spaces have become speculative assets for trading.
There is a need for the Government to intervene by way of supplying more hawker spaces then to stabilise the markets, no different from how the Government intervene to manage, say, our currency, the Singapore dollar, to keep within a trading band or the cooling measures to tame the hot property markets.
Hawker centres are relatively low capital expenditure infrastructures, they are mostly non-air conditioned and built with a pretty unsophisticated design deliberately, with the purpose to keep maintenance costs low. Because of the typically large floor spaces, it can accommodate more stalls under one roof and offer a wide selection of food choices. As a result, hawker centres are a more competitive marketplace, which helps keep prices of food in check.
With lower barrier to entry and lower running costs, it helps improve the viability of hawker trade businesses and keeps the hawker trade and its food culture alive.
So, I am glad, in 2011, that then-Minister Vivian was able to finally persuade the Cabinet to resume building hawker centres and the first 10 new hawker centres were announced – with the first one being built in Bukit Panjang, although I must declare, I was not the Member of Parliament there yet. But after some wait, I finally have one at my then-constituency, in the Senja area.
And that is how we entered the new era of hawker centres development. I would call this the Hawker Centres 2.0, where a new generation of modern hawker centres sprouted up across the island. At my last count, we have added 14 new hawker centres since 2011, with six more in the pipeline to be built by 2027. NEA still directly managed the existing 121 hawker centres and markets.
While I am glad that the Government has decided to resume building hawker centres and giving the hawker trade a new boost in life, we also know that it comes with both new and old challenges.
First challenge, succession. Our first-generation and even second-generation hawkers are catching up in age. It is understandable that the younger generation may not see hawker trade as their first career choice, although I have also met quite a number of younger ones as well, including at Bukit Panjang. Mr Walter Tay is one of them and he runs \"Father and Son Carrot Cake\".
But clearly, the numbers are still not enough to replace the earlier generations of hawkers. This is a serious challenge to the hawker trade and to our hawker culture. In recent years, the Government introduced a number of programmes with the aim to encourage more to join the hawker trade, such as the Incubation Stall Programme to assist aspiring hawkers with pre-fitted equipment to lower the startup cost; Hawkers Succession Scheme, which aims to assist veteran hawkers who intend to retire but are unable to find successors, to pass down their skills, recipes and hawker stalls to aspiring hawkers and which also come with a generous $23,000 ex-gratia payment as well as monthly stipend in the initial months. There is also the Hawkers' Development Programme, which helps to equip aspiring and existing hawkers with the relevant skills and competencies to run a hawker business.
We have to keep reviewing these programmes to see if it achieves the intended outcomes and if need be, to introduce new schemes to encourage new hawkers to join the trade.
Sir, the society at large can also play a part to keep the hawker trade going by not only consuming at the hawker centres, but also respect hawker trade as a profession of choice. Many enter the trade as a calling and because of their passion for culinary and local food culture. We should show appreciations and cheer them on, including their stall assistants and the cleaners and the dishwashers at the hawker centres.
The second challenge is insufficient manpower. Hawker cooked food businesses are labour intensive work. The number of meals served and how long is the stall opening hours are, are dependent on the number of stall assistants available at the stalls. These days, it is difficult to find local stall assistants. Among the reasons, the work at hawker centres is physically demanding and the work environment not so appealing.
The policy position has always been that hawker stallholders should be reserved for Singaporeans and PRs, to safeguard the local identity of our hawker culture. Senior Minister of State Dr Koh Poh Koon announced last month that NEA will be relaxing the manpower policy to allow hawkers to hire LTVP+ holders in January next year. I hope that can, in some way, alleviate the manpower situation.
Of course, the other aspect to help hawkers improve productivity is also important. I understand that hawker centres have tapped the various productivity support programmes, such as the Productive Hawker Centres programme, to enjoy the 70% tiered subsidies for centralised dishwashing. The Hawkers Productivity Grant has also helped individual hawkers with 80% co-funding to purchase kitchen automation equipment and digital solutions.
There are also other bulk-purchasing services initiatives to reduce the toil on the workers. Having a larger pool of available stall assistants and to continue to work on improving productivity hopefully can move the needle and alleviate the situation faced by the hawkers.
The third challenge is about the rising input costs and the food price tensions. Hawkers, like all of us, wants a decent wage. Consumers also want affordable or value-for-money food. So, how do we achieve both and where is the balance?
Indeed, prices of cooked food have risen in the last few years, primarily due to rising input costs. Data from the Department of Statistics showed that hawker food prices rose by 6.1% in 2023 and the increase is broad-based. Raw food ingredients among the key components, which are pricier today due to higher global food commodity prices, the extreme weather also has an impact, and the knock-on effects from the higher energy and transport costs.
In response to a recent PQ that I filed, MSE replied that based on NEA's surveys, the main cost drivers for stallholders were ingredients and manpower, which combined, account for 70% to 80% of the hawkers' expenditure.
Over the weekend, I had a chat with Mr Ong Chye Lai, who runs the popular lor mee stall at Bukit Panjang Hawker Centre, to validate NEA's numbers. And he shared with me that, indeed, a major bulk of the cost increases come from his ingredients, such as the fish and meat that he serves, as well as the spices for his lor mee. He added that post-COVID-19, the prices of these ingredients have fluctuated at a wider range and he is trying to cope with the volatility.
How do we fight rising prices that are externally driven, such as supply chain disruptions, the war in Ukraine, the weather, the volatility in the global food commodity markets and that we import almost all of these inputs? Fortunately, in the case of Singapore, we have some very helpful levers to mitigate the impact to our domestic economy.
Firstly, of course, is our strong Singapore dollar. Most of what we consume are imported and if our Singapore dollar is weak, it will be a double whammy to everyone of us. We know that a strong Singapore dollar is not a given and should not be taken for granted. Markets have to see the value in the Singapore dollar, on the basis of fundamentals – do we have a strong and sound economy, are we a strong and cohesive society and how are we as a country?
Secondly, while we use the exchange rate to reduce the impact on imported inflation, it is not possible to totally negate rising costs. Hence, it is also important to work on the other side of the equation as well, which is income. We need to keep on working on income to rise so that it can help us mitigate inflation. And here, again, we need to keep our economy strong and attract investments so as to keep having good jobs and incomes for our people.
The third lever is that we must always have a competitive, efficient and vibrant business ecosystem, where consumers have choices as to where they want to consume. In Chinese, it is called \"货比三家\". A consumer must have a choice of at least three places to go to consume so that there is always competition. A competitive business landscape helps keep costs and prices in check and help eradicate potential profiteering.
Fourthly, there is the need for the Government to continue to give direct assistance to help Singaporeans cope with the rising costs. And we do have a whole range of assistance schemes like GST Vouchers, U-Save vouchers, service and conservancy charges rebates, the Cost of Living payouts, CDC Vouchers, Workfare, Silver Support and so on. Some of these assistance measures are permanent in nature and adds up to the billions of dollars from our Budget allocation.
Again, we are fortunate to be in this good fiscal position to help Singaporeans households directly and very extensively, to directly assist Singaporean households to cope with the cost of living.
The fifth lever is everyone of us – the community support initiatives. We know in various constituencies, we all do have our ground-up initiatives to help our fellow residents cope with cost of living. For example, at Bukit Panjang Town, we have what we call the monthly \"$1 Deal\" initiative, \"一元为定\", to help reduce the impact of cost of living to our fellow residents. We use funding from the community or from donors and not imposing it on the stallholders or hawkers.
There are also the private sector initiatives in the neigbourhood such as DBS’ \"5 Million Hawker Meals\" scheme and the various grocery support schemes such as by Hao Ren Hao Shi, \"好人好事\", New Life Community Service and also organisations like the Association of Banks of Singapore who bring volunteers and offer groceries to our residents.
Sir, before I end, I want to speak on another issue, with regard to the outlier high rental bids during the monthly tender exercises by NEA. Out-of-the-norm high rentals do attract a lot of attention and may influence future would-be stall bidders to bid higher and thereby, push up overall average rentals. So, we need to figure out how we can prevent that from happening.
Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon had taken pains to explain to the House at last month’s Sitting that outlier high tender bids are not the norm and that the median rent typically average around $1,200 per month in the last 10 years, as per his recent speech, And some subsidised stallholders pay about $300 per month. NEA allocates stalls on price-based tender basis, with no reserve bid price. So, stall rentals can go below $100 per month, including to as low as $1 in the past, as it had happened before in the past. I note the announcement last month that NEA will stagger the downward rental adjustments over a longer period, after three years, referencing the Assessed Market Rent.
Let us keep a close watch in the subsequent biddings whether the change has any effect in discouraging outlier bids. I also welcome NEA move to make available more information and make available the online business cost estimation tool to help tenderers make more informed and realistic bids.
Having said that I would still want to come back to my suggestion that I raised in last month's Sitting, which is that besides tender price, we should also look at the quality of the bid or what we call the price-quality method, or PQM.
For example, in the event that of top bid rent price, that significantly deviates from the Assessed Market Rent, NEA can carry out a deeper evaluation on the bidders on whether the bidder really has the means and the capability to sustain their business with such a high rental rates? In that way, we can remove some of these unrealistic bids and reduce the incidence of outliers in the rental bid price.
Sir, in conclusion, since the policy change to build hawker centres about 10 years ago – credit to MSE, NEA and the various Government agencies – we have seen concerted efforts and significant resources being allocated to support the hawker trade. We now see really modernised hawker centres, better facilities, better ambience – this is a good thing for the hawkers ecosystem.
Besides the various support schemes to support individual hawkers, there is also the Hawker Centre Upgrading Programme to upgrade older hawker centres, there is the Toilet Improvement Programme which the Ulu Pandan Hawker Centre just recently benefited from, and there are the CDC Vouchers to support hawkers as well as heartland digitalisation packages to help support the overall hawker centre ecosystem.
Of course, there will continue to be challenges to the hawker trade, but as Mr Edward Chia stated in his amended Motion, we must continue to support our hawkers by regularly reviewing the policies and to sustain our hawker ecosystem, so that both the hawkers can earn a fair livelihood and Singaporeans at large can enjoy good and affordable hawker food.
Sir, with that, I support the amended Motion in the name of Mr Edward Chia.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the early hours of 11 October 2016, I received an urgent call from my volunteers: a fire had broken out in a market in Jurong Central. Rushing to the scene, I found the wet market and an adjacent eating house completely destroyed. Another nearby coffee shop was also severely damaged and would remain closed for months.
Immediately, we rallied our volunteers to support the affected hawkers, who were devastated by the loss of their businesses. I reached out to NEA for a list of alternative cooked food stalls and market stalls at nearby hawker centres in the West, offering the hawkers a temporary place to continue their livelihoods while we began to explore options for rebuilding. With the help of South West CDC, we were able to quickly provide emergency relief funds to support them through those first difficult days.
But the challenge was far from over. We faced two options: either construct a temporary market within six to 12 months or undertake a faster rebuild of the burnt market back to the original condition, which would take 12 to 18 months. Building a temporary market would cost about $750,000 – a daunting figure that we would have to fundraise. After consulting with the hawkers, nearby residents, volunteers, construction experts and the Government agencies, we chose to go ahead with a temporary market for several reasons.
Firstly, the hawkers wanted to stay close to their original market location to continue serving their loyal customers. They needed to earn their livelihood. Secondly, residents valued the convenience of having their favourite stalls nearby. Lastly, we saw an opportunity not just to restore what was lost but to create something better for the hawkers, the community and the residents.
Together, we took on the challenge and, against all odds, raised the funds and built the temporary market in just six weeks – much faster than industry experts had predicted. By the end of 2016, the stallholders were back in business. And on 1 January 2019, we opened the new market and eating house known as the Jurong Central Plaza, a two-storey complex that also includes a Senior Day Care Centre on the upper floor, providing valuable services to our elderly community members.
The reason we were able to build the temporary market in just six weeks, instead of six months, was the unwavering commitment of the entire Government to support the hawkers during this crisis. This extraordinary achievement would not have been possible without the dedication and collaboration of our partners. I want to express my heartfelt thanks to the donors, HDB, NEA, the Public Utilities Board (PUB), the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and all the Government agencies whose collective effort made this a reality.
During this period, from 2016 to 2018, my team and I effectively became the developers and operators of the temporary market. We gained a deeper understanding of the hawkers’ challenges and the nuances of operating a hawker stall. I recall that when we first provided the list of available stalls managed by NEA to the cooked food stallholders affected by the fire, their initial concern was rental rates. When they learned that some stalls could be rented for as low as $1 per month, they were immediately skeptical. The hawkers were forthright, expressing that while rental rates were important, their primary concern was foot traffic and community reach.
The experience of managing a temporary market and overseeing the rebuilding of a new market and eating house proved to be invaluable when I later worked with the NEA to reopen the Jurong West Hawker Centre in West Coast GRC.
The old Jurong West Market and Hawker Centre faced significant challenges to stay afloat, battling fierce competition from a nearby food court and a 24-hour supermarket. The isolated location of its cooked food stalls on the second level, hidden away from the public eye at street level, gave them more challenges.
To ensure the success of the new centre, we conducted a survey of over 2,000 nearby residents to better understand their preferences for wet market stalls, cooked food stalls, or a combination of both. The results revealed that more residents preferred a combination of both. However, when we examined the responses more closely, we found that many of those who expressed a preference for wet market stalls had rarely, if ever, shopped there. And some had visited only once in a blue moon. This insight gave us valuable perspective on the real needs and habits of the community. With this insight, we made the decision to focus solely on cooked food stalls, making use of both the ground and second levels with easy access via escalators.
Today, the revitalised Jurong West Hawker Centre is doing much better than before. The tenants pay a fixed rental fee to the SEHC operator of the Jurong West Hawker Centre, Chang Cheng, rather than through a price bidding system. The tenants also received rental discounts in the first couple of years of operations. The operator organises fringe activities periodically to bring in the crowd and plans to offer discount vouchers to vulnerable families.
In addition, many of us have local schemes to help our residents better cope with the rising cost of living. In Nanyang division, for example, blue CHAS card holders can apply for multiple $1 breakfast voucher to exchange for a $3 breakfast set from two main coffee shops at Blocks 815 and 959 Jurong West. At Ayer Rajah-Gek Poh, low income residents receive $50 WeCare vouchers monthly to spend at local shops, including local hawker centre.
The above experiences underscore the Government’s steadfast support for our hawkers as well as our support to our vulnerable residents, to mitigate the impact from rising food costs. The very concept of hawker centres was championed by the PAP Government and today, Singapore’s hawker culture is recognised on UNESCO’s Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.
Are we perfect? Certainly not. Nothing is. But we continue to listen, adapt and improve to support our hawkers and Singaporeans who are patrons of the hawker centre. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, in October 2016, when a fire broke out at the market and food centre in Jurong Central, 56 stallholders instantly lost their livelihoods. Faced with this sudden incident, I immediately gathered grassroots leaders, volunteers and affected stallholders to engage in urgent consultations with relevant agencies, such as HDB and NEA. We decided to quickly set up a temporary market for the stallholders. What was originally estimated to take six months of construction was completed successfully in six weeks. From the fire in October to around Christmas at the end of December, the affected stallholders were able to reopen their businesses.
The smooth completion of this project was due to the full support from HDB, NEA, SCDF, PUB and other Government agencies. At the same time, we also received donations from many kind-hearted individuals which enabled the temporary market to be completed so quickly. After a two-year transition period, the new two-storey Jurong Central building finally officially opened on 1 January 2019, providing hawkers with a brand new and more spacious business venue, as well as a more comfortable shopping and dining environment for our residents.
Between 2016 and 2018, my team and I not only had to operate the temporary market, but also prepare for the construction of the new market and food court. This process was full of challenges and complexities. However, it was precisely this experience that gave us a deeper understanding of the hard work and difficulties faced by hawkers in their daily operations.
This valuable experience was very helpful later when I joined the West Coast GRC to assist NEA in planning the re-opening of the Jurong West Hawker Centre. The new Jurong West Hawker Centre broke away from the previous design of having cooked-food stalls only on the second floor and instead placed them on both the first and second floors, offering more diverse choices and better visibility. The new Jurong West Hawker Centre has been operating for over a year now, attracting a noticeably increased footfall, making it more convenient for everyone to enjoy good food.
These two examples fully demonstrate the joint efforts of the Government and civil society in improving the environment for hawkers and enhancing the diversity of our local cuisine. At the same time, the tripartite partners have been working tirelessly to ensure that Singaporeans can enjoy high quality and more diverse local food.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, the examples cited above showcase our continuous support for our hawkers. Thus, I fully support the Motion as amended by Mr Edward Chia.
Mr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Hawker culture, recognised by UNESCO as part of our intangible cultural heritage, is not just about food. It is about a way of life that brings together Singaporeans from all walks of life, around the humble dining table of our hawker centres.
First, on Singapore's support-hawker measures. In recent years, we have the Singapore Government, including MSE and NEA, stepping up significantly to support and preserve hawker culture. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, the Government implemented several measures to protect hawkers. Rental and table-cleaning waivers and salary subsidies through the Jobs Support Scheme were granted to ease the financial strain during these uncertain times. CDC Vouchers were also introduced to encourage locals to support their neighbourhood hawkers. These initiatives were designed to help hawkers sustain their livelihoods through challenging times, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
Post-COVID-19, the support continues. Policies aimed to sustain the hawking industry were introduced. Some have been fairly successful and some not so, but I know the Government is closely looking at these. These include the revised rent control measures, a suite of hawker training programmes to increase the replacement rate of hawkers, the Hawkers' Productivity Grant and the Hawkers Go Digital Programme; and of course, the ongoing CDC Vouchers.
In fact, the budget for CDC Vouchers, originally intended only for lower-income households, was substantially increased after the Mayors appealed and worked with the Ministry of Finance to extend them to every Singaporean household. So, big thanks to the Ministers for Finance – then, Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat and now, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong. A unique feature in the safety net, the CDC Voucher scheme has the dual purpose of supporting both Singaporeans and the heartland businesses, especially hawkers. This support is still ongoing. I thank PSP and PAP MPs alike for agreeing that the CDC Vouchers are, indeed, useful.
Next, on the importance of infrastructure improvements. Infrastructure improvements are another critical element of preserving hawker culture. Over the years, NEA has initiated several programmes to modernise and maintain hawker centres. NEA-managed hawker centres have seen substantial upgrades in facilities, cleanliness and ventilation, ensuring that patrons can enjoy a pleasant dining experience. These physical improvements are not merely cosmetic. They are essential to the continuity of hawker culture. A clean, safe and well-ventilated environment encourages patrons to return and also helps retain hawkers to stay on in their trade and jobs.
Let me touch a bit about NEA-managed and Town-Council-managed hawker centres. Besides social enterprises which manage hawker centres, the Town Councils also manage hawker centres.
NEA, with its resources and expertise, has been able to uphold high operational standards in the NEA-managed hawker centres, whereas the Town Councils face some limitations, due to their smaller budgets and also fewer specialised resources, as they were primarily set up to serve residential estates. Town Councils primarily rely on S&CCs from stallholders, which are usually insufficient to cover the extensive maintenance costs required to match NEA standards.
This resource gap is particularly evident in our Central District hawker centres, such as People's Park Complex, Albert Centre and Chinatown Complex, which serve not only local residents but also a significant number of tourists. These prominent centres managed by Town Councils require substantial maintenance to uphold the standards expected of national landmarks, yet the Town Councils often lack the necessary funds and specialised management expertise.
So, in light of these challenges, I propose that NEA categorise or tier the types of hawker centres and even coffee shops and allocate its resources and expertise accordingly. I do not think that NEA should take over the running of all hawker centres, but I do urge NEA to assume responsibility for managing and maintaining key national iconic hawker centres, such as Albert Centre, People's Park and Chinatown Complex, that serve mostly non-residents versus residents. By doing so, NEA can apply its specialised expertise and substantial resources to ensure that these centres continue to reflect the high standards associated with Singapore's hawker culture.
Alternatively, if taking over these iconic hawker centres is too daunting for now and actually needs further review, then I urge NEA to consider providing a resource package or support framework for these specific centres, acknowledging the unique demands placed on them as tourist hotspots and cultural icons.
Next, on the need to look beyond financial incentives to sustain and grow Singapore's hawker culture. In a survey quoted in a 2024 Lee Kwan Yew School of Public Policy article, \"Cooking or Cooked: The Future of Singapore's Hawker Culture\", 87% of respondents stated they do not want to be hawkers, quoting long working hours and lack of interest. Hawking is also perceived to be a job that reaps modest income.
These root causes are not easy to solve and will take more than financial resources and incentives. Are all hawkers and hawker centres equal? Which ones should be managed by the State and which ones by Town Councils or social enterprises? If the Government were to subsidise the costs of operating hawking businesses, especially in housing estates with predominantly Singapore residents, then can or should they reserve the right to at least control the rental and ensure budget meals for Singaporeans? \"Budget meals\" is not a dirty term. Actually, it is quite useful. These are some of the questions that we have to and need to be reckoned with, as we review how to support and promote hawker culture.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, hawker culture is a cornerstone of our heritage. The root issues of declining margins and the reluctance of younger Singaporeans to enter this industry are not easy to resolve and need to be recognised. So, let us work together – Government agencies, Town Councils, social enterprises, hawkers and citizens – to ensure that this heritage remains accessible and affordable for generations to come. With this, I support the Motion as amended by hon Member Edward Chia.
Mr Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.
Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, I thank the Member Leong Mun Wai for raising this Motion and Member Edward Chia for his amendments. We all care about our hawkers.
What has been made clear in the debate thus far is our collective passion for sustaining our hawker culture by ensuring that hawker centres remain affordable and accessible, helping hawkers address current operating challenges, such as the increasing cost of ingredients, the rising costs of running a stall and a manpower crunch. We also need to put focus on attracting and empowering the next generation of hawkers to continue this tradition as ageing veterans retire, preserving our culinary heritage while innovating to meet evolving tastes.
It is also clear that the experiences of our hawkers are varied. Different SEHC managers, different locations, different rental rates, different offerings and pricing strategies and, indeed, different hawker aspirations and expectations, lead to different experiences. So, there are no silver bullets. The Government has introduced many programmes to help, such as, on the supply side, the Hawker Development Programme, Hawker's Productivity Grant; and targeted rental, financial and skills development assistance; on the demand side, we are all familiar with the CDC Vouchers scheme.
We can see the Government continuing to invest in new and upgrading hawker centre infrastructure and refining its policies to sustain our hawker culture. For example, the recent move to allow hawkers to hire workers on LTVPs in order to relieve manpower shortages.
Sometimes, the issue is not the policy, but the implementation. For example, improvements are probably needed in the operating processes and practices of specific SEHCs. Perhaps, we could incorporate 360 feedback from customers and especially hawkers, to become inputs into PQM tenders and ongoing performance assessment of SEHCs, to help them improve. After all, hawkers are very important stakeholders in the ecosystem.
I will focus my speech on the community aspect of hawker culture. Beyond the good and affordable food, our hawker centres have long been about community. Places where people from all walks of life come together with their friends and families, share stories, celebrate milestones – except perhaps a first date for Gen Zs, by the recent report – and enjoy our culinary heritage.
As a Woodlands resident and third-generation hawker, Deen, observed, the veteran hawkers like his grandmother are the salt-and-earth people. Their fellow stallholders and their customers, whom they know by name, are their community. Sure, sometimes, there would be disagreements between hawkers, especially when they sell the same type of food, but, generally, hawkers within a hawker centre get along. They give back, too, as a community, to the community.
Deen shared how when a hawker wanted to give free meals to, say, a mosque, the whole row of stalls would chip in. It is their way of doing good while also gaining goodwill within the community and marketing their hawker centre and their own food. Even today, many of us have probably seen hawkers quietly dishing out meals to needy residents for only a few coins in return, without much fanfare, affording them dignity along with their food.
Given this community spirit, it is only right that beyond Government policies, beyond actions to be taken by NEA, SEHCs and other ecosystem players, we look to the wider community to be engaged in sustaining our hawker culture. There is much that we, as a community, can do to support hawkers while ensuring that anyone, regardless of their circumstances, can enjoy a good meal.
In Woodlands, during the COVID-19 pandemic, I started our Belanja-A-Meal @ Woodlands or BAM@Woodlands programme at Kampung Admiralty Hawker Centre and coffee shops in my division. It is a Pay It Forward programme. People can buy extra meals at over 30 participating hawker stalls or make an online donation, while low-income residents can redeem free meals of their choice – 10 meals a month for each member of their family. Volunteers top up the available meals at each stall every week to ensure that residents always have a good selection. All of this is facilitated by a nifty little app built by volunteers in our Woodlands Digital Office.
This short summary belies the community spirit that underpins this programme. The relationship is not at all transactional. Many of our hawker stalls give more value than the $4 we pay them for each BAM meal. Our stallholders refer to us customers who they believe would benefit from the BAM programme. We sign them up and also get them other help that they can benefit from beyond BAM. They also tell me when their customers share with them their problems and encourage them to approach me for help at my Meet-the-People Sessions. Many of our stallholders are regular contributors to BAM@Woodlands themselves, especially after a few big redemptions in a day can wipe out their balance of free meals. And the community has really rallied behind it. Let me share some of the heartwarming reasons people wrote on why they were donating.
Mak Kai Chong, a regular donor donating $10 to $20 each time, wrote: \"I want to contribute to my community and I find the BAM idea fantastic. If I have a little more than I need, I try to live kindness and care through action rather than being an observer.\"
Yong Sit Lin, who donated $100, wrote: \"I donated so that people in need can have a good meal.\"
Marie Ong, who donated $1,000, wrote: “I always believe that to be able to help others in need or to create positive change is a beautiful thing! I love to see the smile on everyone’s faces and spread love and joy around.”
Amalina Mutalib, who donated $10, wrote: “I donated because I know what it feels like to feel hunger.”
An anonymous donor who donated $20 wrote: “I have the tendency to lose my wallet and forget where I put it. I found my wallet today and I take is as a sign that God wants me to donate!”
Muhammad Faqih Karamy, who donated $10, simply wrote: “I sayang Sembawang.”
Finally, an anonymous donor who wrote: “I like MP Mariam as I have been following her on Facebook and her projects have shown how much she cares for people, not just her constituents. Way to go, Ms Mariam!\"
I had to think twice about reading that last one out, but the point is really not to toot my own horn, but to share the insights, that Singaporeans care and are happy to help others enjoy good hawker meals. We just need to provide the platforms. Beyond the general public, we had great support from Northwest CDC to start it up, and corporate donors and patrons who made significant donations.
In addition to helping our residents in need, BAM@Woodlands was a great help to our hawkers during the dark days of COVID-19 when business was low and continues to be a source of business today. It has also strengthened the bonds between hawkers and the community. I will share some examples.
Mdm Suryati Pokol, who until recently ran Warung Lorong Fatimah at Kampung Admiralty, wrote: “Thank you for being with me when the times were down... You bring the BAM plan to us. It was a splendid thought that I will make it happen for the Woodlands residents and make customers to be my new friends, and they supported me very well”.
In 2021, a stall assistant at Woodlands North Plaza met with a horrific car accident that left him in a coma for months and huge hospital bills. Not knowing where else to turn to, his colleagues spoke to our volunteers who had been engaging with them on BAM@Woodlands. Our volunteers helped them to set up a crowdfunding appeal. Within a week, it raised $200,000 to help Ah Ji pay for his hospital bills and rehabilitation.
Two of our stallholders at Kampung Admiralty, Mr Peh and Ms Chen, have even become our patrons, contributing to our Building Fund for the upgrading of Woodlands Community Centre which, when opened, will serve our community for years to come.
Now in its fourth year, BAM is still growing and has been expanded to other parts of Sembawang GRC, including to my colleague Ms Poh Li San's ward in Sembawang West. To date, more than 70,000 free meals have been redeemed, with more beneficiaries joining the programme every month. Despite their own costs going up, many stalls have absorbed the price increases without requiring our BAM@Woodlands beneficiaries to top up the difference. But I do not take our hawkers for granted and will be revising the $4 we pay them for each meal in the new year.
To me, BAM@Woodlands embodies the kampung spirit of our Woodlands Community at its finest. Hawkers and the community supporting one another.
I believe we can do more to scale up such initiatives across Singapore. By working with local organisations, grassroots and hawkers themselves, we can launch programmes similar to Belanja-A-Meal in every constituency. Imagine a network of hawker centres where every meal bought could contribute to someone else’s meal, where acts of kindness ripple outwards, creating a culture of giving, of mutual support. By expanding programmes like this, we, the community, can help ensure that our hawker centres continue to be vibrant, inclusive spaces that reflect the Singaporean spirit. Mr Speaker, in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Hawker centres are part of our living heritage. We all have our favourite hawker stalls where our families will come together to catch up and enjoy a good meal, sometimes going across the country. When I was living overseas, every trip home meant through a list of our favourite hawker food, which included mee mamak at West Coast and satay at Haig Road.
We know it is not easy to be a hawker, with long hours and a less that comfortable work environment, always on your feet. Hawkers today face many challenges – increasing cost of ingredients, increasing operating costs and manpower shortages.
We must also support our younger hawkerpreneurs. These younger hawkerpreneurs want to bring new ideas and concepts that cater to the evolving tastes of their customers and dream of expanding their business. This is not new. How many of us had our first taste of Western food at a hawker center? One example is Mak’s Place, started by a Chinese Muslim couple. Their story tells of how they saw a gap in the market for Halal Chinese food and started with a hawker stall in 1999. After two years, they started Mak’s Place, the hawkerant in Changi, selling the same good food at reasonable prices, in a more comfortable ambience with air conditioning, while giving back to the community in many ways, including providing free food to the less fortunate, providing jobs and mentoring to ex-offenders, and food and medical care to community cats.
Many in our community want to follow in their foot steps. They want more flexibility to experiment with their menus and to make it easier for them to scale and expand their footprint and team, when the concepts are successful – whether it is opening stalls in other hawker centres, opening a hawkerant, cafe or restaurant. We must empower and support them.
The Government has launched programmes to support our hawkers, including young hawkers, and has continuously reviewed its policies to do so. But we in the community can also do our part.
One of the sources of inspiration in our hawker culture is how it has united the community, fostering a spirit of togetherness and generosity. Initiatives like BAM@Woodlands are a good example of this. We launched BAM@Woodlands during COVID-19 to support our hawkers whose businesses were impacted and to provide our residents in need with free meals of their choice. People can buy extra meals to be given away at participating hawker stalls or make an online donation that we would then channel to the hawkers.
This simple idea has been embraced by the community and continues to grow. We have now launched BAM in other parts of Sembawang GRC. Over the past four years, it has provided more than 70,000 free meals to hundreds of families. It has also strengthened the bonds between our hawkers and our community. Our hawkers regularly participate in our community initiatives, especially during festive occasions when everyone is always looking to do good and perform charitable works.
For example, Mdm Suryati Pokol, who ran Warung Lorong Fatimah at Kampung Admiralty Hawker Centre, donated more than 100 bottles of kuih raya to our kuih raya donation drive. Low-income families were able to choose their favourite kuih during the Sinar Ramadan grocery distribution at our community store, Store@Woodlands.
Deen and his young team set up Begerack at Bukit Canberra Hawker Center. He sells burgers and putu piring. They are a regular feature at our community events with their very popular putu piring. Begerack sponsored free hair cuts by skilled barkers from Sleek & Trendy Cut, set up by Upu, an ex-offender, to get our low-income residents ready for Raya.
For the past four Ramadans, Woodlands Community Centre has used the BAM platform to provide 1,000 free buka puasa meals every week at our halal hawker stalls. Ramadan BAM is open to people of all races and backgrounds, to share in the spirit of giving of iftar which as Muslims we believe multiplies our fasts and rewards. This programme has also helped to introduce new stalls to our residents, such as when the halal food court Cantine opened at Admiralty Place.
We can do more to scale up such initiatives like this across Singapore. By expanding programmes like these, we, the community, can help ensure that our hawker centres continue to be vibrant, inclusive spaces that reflect the Singapore spirit.
(In English): Mr Speaker, in conclusion, our hawker centres are a symbol of our shared history and values, where we find comfort and community. To sustain and grow our hawker culture, we must take a holistic approach. This includes Government support but also community initiatives and efforts to empower the next generation of hawkers. Let us not under-estimate what we, the community, can do. If we care enough about it, we must work together to preserve this precious part of our identity, so that future generations can continue to enjoy and contribute to a vibrant hawker culture. I support the amended Motion.
Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Shawn Huang.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong): Mr Speaker, central to this Motion is the issue of cost of living and the important role played by hawker centres in ensuring Singaporeans have access to good, affordable food.
Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon will be speaking about the Government's policies to keep food affordable and enable hawkers to earn a living and fair income. Before he does so, I would like to share how the Government has been supporting Singaporeans with cost-of-living pressures. This Government understands Singaporeans' concerns and anxieties about high prices. We have taken decisive action to help and will not hesitate to do more if necessary.
First, the Government has taken actions to tackle inflation. A big part of the inflation that we are facing has external causes. The COVID-19 pandemic and the wars in Europe and the Middle East have contributed to rising food, energy and transport prices globally. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) acted quickly to tighten monetary policy five times. The stronger the Singapore dollar meant that inflation did not reach the highs seen in other countries. Inflation has now fallen significantly from its peak. Hawker food inflation, fallen, compared to the earlier part of this year. Overall, core inflation in 2024 is expected to continue to decrease and to drop further in 2025. MAS' monetary policy will continue to ensure the medium-term price stability.
Second, we have introduced a comprehensive package of measures to cushion the impact on households and enhanced it several times. Even as inflation has moderated, we know that Singaporeans still feel the impact of higher prices. Hence, we have enhanced the Assurance Package several times since it was first introduced in 2022, to help Singaporeans cope with rising costs of living. And today, we have enhanced the Assurance Package to more than $10 billion, comprising cash payouts, MediSave top-ups, CDC Vouchers as well as additional U-Save and S&CC rebates.
In particular, the Government has been giving out CDC Vouchers to Singaporean households every year since the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. The number of participating hawkers has grown over time. Half of the CDC Vouchers can be spent at hawkers and heartland merchants. This means that CDC Vouchers not only help Singaporean households with their cost of living, but also support our hawkers. There is more support on the way. In January 2025, every Singaporean household will receive another $300 in CDC Vouchers.
In the coming months, all adult Singaporeans will also receive between $200 and $600 in cash payouts. The Assurance Package is on top of the permanent GST Voucher, or GSTV, scheme that already supports lower- and middle-income Singaporeans and households with daily living expenses, including food. We introduced this scheme in 2012 and have enhanced it over the years.
Most recently, we have increased the GSTV cash amount in 2023 so that eligible Singaporeans can receive up to $850 in cash each year. We also implemented a personal income tax rebate of 50% tax payable for the year of assessment 2024, capped at $200, so that the benefits go mostly to middle-income workers.
Ms Hazel Poa has proposed more help for vulnerable groups, such as food discounts and more CDC Vouchers for the lower-income. In fact, this is what the Government has been doing. When you add up all these measures, for example, a middle-income household with two young children will get about $4,400 in rebates, payouts and support this year.
A lower-income household with two young children will get about $6,500 and a retired elderly couple with no income will get about $12,400. Over the years, we have continued to enhance our measures that provide more targeted support to those who are more in need.
For example, in Budget 2024, the Government announced an increase in the quarterly Silver Support payments and an income threshold to qualify for support to provide more help to low-income seniors. On top of the national schemes, the CDCs and grassroots organisations also have their own schemes. We have heard what hon Members Edward Chia, Liang Eng Hwa and Mariam Jaafar have highlighted and what they have done for their community.
Third, the Government stands ready to do more to support Singaporeans, should it be necessary. The Government will continue to monitor global conditions closely. For example, an increase in geopolitical and trade tensions may lead to higher commodity prices and reverse the decline in imported costs.
The broad-based support that we have provided over the past few years will help every family, but we recognise that there may be still gaps for some households. For these households, we will continue to review and update our social support schemes. We are also heartened that many in society have come together to help with cost of living, especially for the more vulnerable groups. Importantly, we will continue to sustain real income growth for Singaporeans.
We do this by creating good jobs for Singaporeans, we help them upgrade their skills and earn a higher pay. It is a more sustainable way to manage price pressures by ensuring that our incomes grow faster than inflation. Let me reiterate the Government's approach.
We cannot control external factors like wars or disruptions, but a stronger Singapore dollar has helped to keep inflation rates in Singapore lower than elsewhere. We have rolled out significant and broad-based support measures over the past few years to help Singaporeans with higher cost of living.
We stand ready to do more to help Singaporeans if needed in a sustainable, fair and effective way, with more help to lower- and middle-income Singaporeans. We will continue to listen to Singaporeans' concerns and take necessary measures to address these concerns. We will continue to help Singaporeans sustain real income growth through higher productivity and enhanced skills.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Sim Ann.
The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Ms Sim Ann): Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak. The main subject of our discussion today is hawker centres and my colleague Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon will be setting out the Government's approach to hawker centres. However, some speakers, including Mr Leong Mun Wai, made reference to the \"Budget Meal\" schemes in HDB coffee shops. Also, we know that HDB coffee shops are often mentioned together with hawker centres, although they are regulated differently. So, I would like to take this opportunity to make a few points.
Sir, like hawker centres, coffee shops in our HDB heartlands are integral to Singaporeans' daily lives. They are important social nodes in the community and provide a variety of cooked food options at similar price points to hawker centres. HDB plans for the provision of coffee shops and other commercial amenities in new HDB developments carefully to ensure that HDB residents have convenient access to cooked food options and other daily needs. Most residents have access to commercial facilities, such as shops, food courts or coffee shops, within 400 metres of their homes, or an approximately five- to 10-minute walk.
By planning for a good supply of coffee shops and other F&B options in every HDB town and estate, we ensure that residents have options to choose from. The competition will also help to moderate cooked food prices overall. Having said that, over the years, as wages rise, more consumers can afford and are prepared to pay for higher-end meal options and operators have, therefore, responded to these trends.
We have seen coffee shop menu items change, expand and increase in price points over time. The Government continuously pays attention to ground concerns about cost of living and recognise the need for our heartland coffee shops to maintain some lower-priced meals and drinks to cater to those who may not be able to spend as much on cooked food. This includes lower-wage workers and retirees.
This would have been hard to achieve if we had continued to leave things entirely to market forces. The Government, therefore, needed to intervene, but in a measured way that takes business sustainability into account. To strike this balance, the Ministry of National Development and HDB proactively put in place the \"Budget Meal\" initiative in 2018.
Budget meals are full meals that are priced affordably, as compared to the average price of meals sold at nearby eating places. Typically, they are priced at $3.50 and below. Since 2018, all new HDB rental coffee shops that are tendered out to operators must provide budget meals. This is done under the Price Quality Method tender framework, also known as the PQM tender framework. Under this framework, operators were required to provide six budget meals as well as a budget drink.
I want to take this opportunity to thank Mr Louis Chua for affirming the PQM method. I wish to clarify that HDB does not, as Mr Leong Mun Wai had suggested, require coffee shops to offer budget meals below market prices. The prices should be affordable, compared to surrounding options, but we do not require them to be lower.
Having gained some experience with implementing budget meals at new HDB rental coffee shops, in April 2023, HDB extended the budget meal requirement to rental coffee shops that are up for tenancy renewal. This move coincided with a period of rising food and energy prices and sustained inflation caused by disruptions following the war in Ukraine and extreme weather.
We know that consumers view coffee shop prices as an everyday expenditure and are sensitive to across-the-board price increases. Hence, budget meals became relevant not just to lower-income groups but to everyone who cared about cost of living. We are glad that the initiative has helped more families to stretch their household budget.
At the same time, we are mindful of the need to strike a balance between residents' needs for affordable food options and the operators' and stallholders' business sustainability. Unlike what Mr Leong Mun Wai has asserted, we do not require every stall in an HDB-owned coffee shop to offer budget meals. Generally, an operator of an HDB rental coffee shop is required to provide four to six budget meals.
This requirement can be met by different stalls in the coffee shop and it is also possible for there to be stalls within an HDB-owned coffee shop that do not participate in offering budget meals. Operators and stallholders have the flexibility to propose the budget meals that they wish to offer during the tender or tenancy renewal process and are at liberty to determine the prices of all other meals that they offer.
We are constantly engaging the industry and monitoring feedback from consumers as well as feedback from operators and stallholders and we are prepared to make adjustments to the scheme where necessary. Last year, HDB and GovTech worked together to launch the BudgetMealGoWhere website to help residents locate HDB coffee shops offering budget meals more easily and conveniently.
This website now includes listings of recommendations from the public, submitted through the Great Budget Meal Hunt, a related initiative which we launched earlier this year to crowdsource recommendations of budget meals in HDB coffee shops. In the past six months, 126 privately-owned HDB coffee shops have also started offering budget meals and drinks. We call these community budget meals.
Stalls in privately-owned HDB coffee shops that have voluntarily committed to provide budget meals will display the community budget meal decal in red and blue. More than 440 rental and privately-owned coffee shops are providing more than 1,100 budget meals island wide. This means that, on average, you can find budget meal options at one in two HDB coffee shops.
We are on track to have all 374 rental HDB coffee shops offer budget meals by 2026 and will continue to engage other operators of privately-owned coffee shops to come on board.
HDB supports budget meal providers in several ways.
First, for existing HDB rental coffee shop operators, we provide a 5% rent rebate for the first year of tenancy renewal to help them adjust to the new requirements of providing four budget food dishes and two budget drinks. The rebate starts as soon as the new requirements are in place and operators are required to pass on the rental discount to participating stall operators. We will intervene if stallholders tell us this did not happen.
Also, at the same time, HDB has kept stable the rent it has been collecting from its coffee shops. Over the last five years, HDB did not increase the rent for 97% of HDB-owned coffee shops at renewal.
We also stepped up efforts to raise publicity for these coffee shop operators and stalls. Not only do we want to raise awareness of the budget meals, but we also want to give recognition and generate interest so that more may visit these coffee shops and bring business to all stallholders.
In closing, Sir, although HDB coffee shops are regulated differently from hawker centres, we share the same commitment as MSE and NEA to maintain policies that deliver affordable food while being mindful of sustainable businesses and livelihoods. Sir, I support the proposed amendments to the Motion.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Limit for Senior Minister of State's Speech","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Leader.
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the course of this debate, there have been quite a number of queries or comments directed to the National Environment Agency or the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment.
Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon will be responding to those queries but, as they are quite extensive, Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon's speech?
Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon's speech\". – [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":"Hawker Culture","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon.
The Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Dr Koh Poh Koon): Mr Speaker, our hawker centres are an integral part of Singaporeans' daily lives and our national identity. They are vibrant melting pots of diverse and affordable local food that tell stories of Singapore, how different cultures interweave into a unique heritage of who we are as a people. They are community dining rooms where Singaporeans from all walks of life gather, socialise, interact over good food in an informal setting.
Hawker centres are special and quite different from food courts and restaurants. Our hawker centres are special because of the hawkers that make them come to life. They are our community kitchens, where hawkers thrive as masters of their craft to serve comfort food beloved by Singaporeans and famous worldwide.
These hawkers often specialise in specific heritage dishes, such as Hainanese chicken rice, Nyonya laksa, nasi lemak or roti prata. I know this is the time of the day when everyone gets hungry, but I just cannot help but mention some of these delicacies in our hawker centres.
Our hawkers work long hours, often more than 14 hours a day, especially on weekends and public holidays, to serve us our comfort food. Many have dedicated their lives to perfecting specific dishes, often passing down skills, special recipes and cultural traditions from one generation to the next.
Each dish is unique to a particular hawker stall because it is infused with the special recipe and the master touch of the hawker. The flavour of char kway teow from Hong Lim Park Hawker Centre is different from the one at Zion Riverside Food Centre and I like both of them. Yes, doctors do eat char kway teow as well, but I must say, please do it in moderation.
These two char kway teows, they are my favourites and, I am sure, they each have their own hardcore supporters. Like many of you, I go to different hawker centres to savour the authentic differences in flavour, even of the same dish. Each hawker centre has its own character and a different mix of food choices. This is why we all have our own choice of favourite hawker dishes, even our own choice of favourite hawker centres and we often debate endlessly on which hawker centre has the best chicken rice or where we can find the best nasi lemak.
While some hawkers have done well and opened stalls in other hawker centres, and some have even ventured out into the restaurant space, as noted by Mr Keith Chua, the vast majority of stalls at our hawker centres are generally run by stallholders themselves, who prepare each dish meticulously with their unique touches as it is ordered, and retain its individuality, unlike a franchise. So, we can all agree that if a hawker centre becomes replaced by franchises, the texture and the nature of a hawker centre as we know it today, will be quite different.
Hawker centres are such a unique and central part of our national identity that in December 2020, hawker culture in Singapore was inscribed onto the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.
Singaporeans and Members of this House across both sides of the aisle will agree with me, that this unique Singaporean institution must be nurtured, supported and protected to ensure that our hawker centres and hawkers can thrive for generations to come. Some of our hawker heroes are gathered at the Gallery today – even at this time, some of them have stoically stayed on. I would like to acknowledge their presence and thank them for coming down today even as we discuss this important issue late into the evening. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
To keep this unique character of our hawker centres, our hawker policy will need to reflect three fundamental objectives and principles. First, to ensure that hawker centres remain our community dining room, providing Singaporeans with affordable food options. Second, to ensure hawkers have a decent livelihood and so, ensure that there is long-term sustainability of the hawker trade. Thirdly, to preserve our unique local hawker culture and the identity that is unique here.
These principles apply regardless of how we run our hawker centres, whether they are managed by NEA or by operators under our newer SEHC model. I will address the different operating models later in my speech.
I listened to Mr Leong Mun Wai's speech and that of many other Members today. No one will disagree with the three objectives I spelt out earlier. Each of them are important. But in trying to achieve all three objectives at the same time, we must recognise that there are inherent tensions that, sometimes, pull in opposite directions.
For instance, addressing consumers' desire for lower food prices can inadvertently run counter to our wish to support our hawkers in making a decent living. Without a decent income, it will be difficult to attract young Singaporeans, who have many career options, to enter this trade. Similarly, allowing more foreigners to work in our hawker centres may alleviate cost and manpower concerns for our hawkers, but it could dilute our local hawker culture and identity, and change the feel and nature of our hawker centres. As such, there is a need to strike a balance between the interests of all parties.
Singaporeans face cost-of-living pressures on many fronts, especially in recent years due to global inflation. Global food prices have been volatile in recent years due to supply chain disruptions resulting from climate change and geopolitical events. Several Members have said so as well. We feel this impact keenly because Singapore imports over 90% of our food.
Singaporeans are understandably concerned about how much they pay for food at our hawker centres. Hawkers, like all of us, also feel these pressures, as the cost of ingredients form a large part of their operating cost, as you have heard from some of the speakers earlier as well.
In pricing their food, many hawkers struggle between keeping food affordable for their loyal customers while trying to raise prices to cover the increases in ingredient and manpower costs. This is a struggle that many of us in the House, I believe, can empathise with.
I know that a good number of hawkers have kept their food prices unchanged over the years. One of our hawkers is here with us today. Mr Melvin Chew, who runs Jin Ji Teochew Braised Duck and Kway Chap at Chinatown Complex Market and Food Centre, shared with me recently, that he had maintained his food prices for over 20 years since the 2000s to offer $3 meals to his customers. While he had previously considered raising prices, I understand he decided to maintain his $3 meals to benefit the older folks staying in the area. It was only after the pandemic that he raised prices to $4 to cope with the rising business costs.
Another example is Mr Macheal s/o Aumeer Ali. Macheal sells wanton noodles at Tanglin Halt Market. He maintained his prices at $3.50 over five years to serve the seniors from Tanglin Halt Estate who form most of his clientele. Only in late-2023 did he increase prices to $4, due to rising costs over the years.
It is not easy for hawkers to earn a fair living. Our hawkers are generally mindful of the profile of the customers they serve and they try their best to hold off any price increases. But hawkers need to be able to price their food realistically and adjust them from time to time.
I echo the anecdote that Mr Edward Chia shared in his speech, about Mr Zuhairi who runs Project Penyek at Senja Hawker Centre. The worries shared by Mr Zuhairi about the rising cost of just one ingredient, chilli, as well as ingredient wastage when customers prefer just to eat the different part of a chicken, may sound quite trivial for us who wonder why there is so much fuss about just a little bit of extra sambal or picking the part of the chicken that we order. But these are the cost components that have a direct impact on a hawker's earnings, which are already not high to begin with.
Absorbing price increases of ingredients would effectively mean a pay cut for a hawker, on top of the already slim margins. I am sure many Singaporeans can empathise with this, even as price increases are not always easy to accept for anyone.
There is another dimension to this, which is that hawkers inherently face limitations to how much they can sell and earn, because they operate the stalls themselves. Many earn less than $1 per meal that is served. But let us take just for illustration, a hawker who manages to make a $1 profit per bowl of noodle he or she sells. He or she will need to sell 200 portions of meals a day for six days a week, in order to earn the $5,000 median income of an average Singaporean. Most do not sell as many meals or earn as much per portion of food they sell. As Mr Edward Chia's example has highlighted, many hawkers barely make 30-cents or 40-cents per meal that they sell.
Over the years, the income of a typical hawker has remained lower than the average Singaporean and corresponds to around the second lowest income decile, which means the lowest 20% in 2022. This low income is also a point noted by Mr Leong Mun Wai earlier in his speech.
Like everyone, our hawkers need an income that is sustainable over time. This has implications for the sustainability of the hawker trade. Today, the median age of our hawkers is 60 years old. As our ageing hawkers gradually retire, we will need new blood to sustain the hawker trade. At present, fortunately nearly all of our cooked food stalls are occupied. But if hawkers cannot make a decent livelihood, the hawker trade would become much less attractive to our younger generation who have many more career options. This is a point also noted by Mr Louis Chua earlier.
Another tension arises as we try to help hawkers manage their manpower costs while we seek to preserve the \"local\" identity of our hawker culture and heritage. Our policy of only allowing Singaporeans and PRs to be stallholders at hawker centres serves to safeguard this precious aspect of our Singaporean identity.
I recognise that our hawkers face the practical challenge of hiring non-locals to ease manpower constraints. But a full liberalisation for foreign manpower may alter the nature of our hawker centres significantly. So, these are competing tensions and there are, unfortunately, no easy solutions. Our recent moves seek to strike a careful balance, by allowing more LTVP or LTVP+ holders – who have nexus and ties to Singaporean families – to be stall assistants, which would hopefully help in some way.
The Government fully acknowledges the impact of global inflation on the affordability of hawker food and the livelihoods of hawkers. We know the difficult operating environment and challenges our hawkers face, as well as Singaporeans' desire for affordable hawker food. These are difficult tensions to balance and there is no simple solution or easy fix.
We agree with Mr Leong Mun Wai that the Government has a role to play in supporting our hawkers. That is what the Government has been doing. For decades now, since we gathered itinerant street hawkers into our hawker centres and, through our policies, sought to provide hawkers with a conducive operating environment.
As we have restarted building hawker centres from 2011, we set out to better address the needs of Singaporeans. In so doing, we also set out with a forward-looking mindset to test and explore new models that would allow us to safeguard hawker livelihoods and consumers' needs, while keeping our hawker centre landscape responsive to an evolving operating context. I will explain more about the SEHC model later.
We need to find a way, as a society, to keep hawker fare affordable, while ensuring that hawkers can earn a fair living. Underpinning this solution must be a strong social compact that brings all stakeholders together.
The Government foots the cost of building hawker centres and sets policies to support our hawkers and provide them with a conducive operating environment, to ensure that they are able to provide Singaporeans with affordable food at our hawker centres. The local community and private sector have a role in driving ground-up initiatives to support both hawkers and patrons and we heard many examples earlier. Consumers can support our hawkers by patronising them and being prepared to pay a fair price for hawker food to uplift the livelihoods of our hawkers.
The Government has implemented policies to support our hawkers by providing a conducive operating environment. We review these policies regularly to ensure that they are aligned with operating realities on the ground and for hawker centres to serve the needs of both hawkers and consumers. We recognise the cost pressures that hawkers face. In fact, according to an NEA survey, on average in 2023, cost of food ingredients accounts for nearly 60% of the operating cost. Manpower cost comes in second at 20%. Rental made up less than 10% of operating costs in hawker centres. Mr Leong Mun Wai also acknowledges that rent is not a major cost component in his speech earlier.
While Government does not regulate hawker food prices, NEA has measures in place to provide a conducive operating environment for hawkers.
First, on manpower costs, we have been paying close attention to two aspects: improving access to manpower and improving hawkers' productivity. The income of hawkers is very much dependent on how many meals they can serve a day, especially during peak hours. There is only so much that one pair of hands can do. We understand hawkers' challenges in hiring stall assistants. This is something we need to balance with safeguarding the local identity of our hawker culture. We do so by ensuring that being a stallholder at NEA's hawker centres remains reserved for Singapore Citizens and PRs. In doing so, we also ensure low barriers to entry for Singaporeans who wish to enter the F&B business through the hawker trade.
In Mr Leong Mun Wai and Mr Louis Chua's speeches earlier, they suggested allowing one Work Permit holder per stall to work as stall assistants. The suggestion is not inconceivable actually and there are real needs that the hawkers face in sourcing for manpower. But there are differences between hawker centres and other food establishments.
Private coffee shops and F&B establishments operate like SMEs, so they are subjected to the usual quota system that MOM applies to all operating businesses here in Singapore. Our hawker centres, on the other hand, are an integral part of our cultural heritage. They are unique and their local nature is something we want to preserve, which is why we thought very carefully about making such moves. This is why we calibrate any relaxation on restrictions on who can work at our hawker centres very carefully. As I have said earlier, full liberalisation of manpower in hawker centres would significantly alter the makeup and the feel of these centres.
There is really no science to this question. It is really about what we are all prepared to accept as a society. Are we prepared to accept that the hawker centre that we are familiar with changes in nature to something quite different? So, I think this is something that will probably have to evolve over time.
If Members recall, in the early 2010s, there was significant concern among Singaporeans about seeing more foreigners working in hawker centres. And this very issue was raised in this House, which Mr Edward Chia has earlier on also shared with Members what transpired in Parliament in 2010. So, we need to strike a balance. As some Singaporeans may still not be able to accept seeing a significant alteration in a make-up of hawker centres, we will adjust and evolve our policies to take these views into account.
Having said that, we do want to help ease some of the manpower challenges our hawkers face. This is why at Parliament last month, I had announced that starting from 1 January 2025, NEA will allow hawkers to hire LTVP or LTVP+ holders with Letters of Consent (LOC) or Pre-approved LOCs to work as their stall assistants at hawker centres managed by NEA and NEA-appointed operators, regardless of family ties.
Of course, many Members would be aware that prior to this, stallholders could only appoint such LTVP or LTVP+ holders to work as their stall assistants if they had a spousal relationship and even then, on a case-by-case basis. Now, hawkers can hire from an expanded pool of these potential stall assistants who are already part of a Singapore family nexus.
This is one example of how we continually review and adjust our policies to adjust to changing circumstances. But the reality is that each additional headcount is an added cost to our hawkers. So, a more sustainable approach to manpower is to make every person more productive. Therefore, NEA has implemented measures to support hawkers in enhancing their productivity, which can help lighten the pressures of their manpower constraints.
At the centre level, the Productive Hawker Centres (PHC) programme provides up to 70% tiered subsidy for centres to adopt centralised dishwashing for up to four years. At the individual stall level, the Hawkers' Productivity Grant (HPG) provides 80% co-funding for hawkers to purchase kitchen automation equipment and digital solutions, such as queue management systems.
A key business cost hawkers deal with is raw materials. Ms Hazel Poa raised the suggestion on centralised procurement to moderate such costs. This is not a new suggestion. I believe in an earlier Parliamentary Sitting, Mr Melvin Yong did raise one of these suggestions in a PQ. This centralised procurement idea is already present at some SEHCs, where operators have tapped on their network in the F&B and food supply sectors to offer bulk purchasing services. With such services, their stallholders have the option to secure preferential rates for raw ingredients.
But from our experience, there are limitations. So far, the uptake among stallholders has not been widespread as most already have established relationships with their existing suppliers or are quite particular about the source and quality of the ingredients. Remember what I said earlier about the unique nature of our hawker centres is that each stall is run by the hawkers themselves, with unique recipes and special touches. Everyone has something they want to put as special to differentiate themselves from their competitors. Nonetheless, we will continue to support such initiatives where it benefits our hawkers.
Apart from manpower, the Government has also implemented measures to ensure reasonable rent for hawkers and to address concerns on rent. By keeping rent affordable, we can help make the cost of doing business lower for our hawkers, even if it is not by a large percentage, because rent is less than 10% of the operating cost.
Generally, stall rentals at hawker centres are lower than nearby eating establishments, such as coffee shops, food courts and small eateries. For majority of cooked food stallholders in our hawker centres, the median rent is around $1,250 per month and has remained relatively stable for the past 10 years. This has been the case even while overall prices have continued to rise over the decade. This also means, therefore, that the rent is now a smaller component of their costs compared to 10 years ago.
The Government also extends generous subsidies to a segment of our Pioneer hawkers, who make up around 30% of cooked food stallholders. For them, the rent is heavily subsidised at about $300 per month and this can be transferred to the immediate family members of the pioneer hawkers at the same low rent. I believe Mr Melvin Chew whom I spoke about earlier is also a beneficiary of this legacy system.
Let me now touch on rent at NEA-managed hawker centres. The Government builds hawker centres and does not use rent for cost recovery. Let me say that again: the Government builds hawker centres and does not use the rent for cost recovery. The rents are, in fact, determined by what the tenderer bids for and can be as low as $1.
The PSP and Mr Louis Chua raised the issue of rent and the bidding system for stall rentals. Our policy is for non-subsidised stalls in NEA-managed hawker centres to be allocated via a tender system in which the stalls are tendered to the highest bidder, who pays the bid price for the first tenancy period of three years. This process is open, transparent and straightforward for prospective hawkers to understand. It is not a complicated system.
A bidding system enables market mechanisms to work at hawker centres. The process encourages prospective hawkers that are committed and serious to come forward and submit a bid. Before doing so, prospective hawkers would have to take into account the operating realities, business costs and decide on what kind of food they wish to sell.
They know that what they bid will be what they have to pay. Once the stall is opened, consumers will decide. The quality and the price of the food will determine how well the stall will fare and how sustainable the stall will be.
This market mechanism has helped to shape our current hawker centre landscape. It is responsive to consumers' demands and changing expectations for hawker food, and it is fair for both hawkers and consumers. Those who can offer tasty meals that consumers feel are value for money will continue to do well, while those who are priced too high and do not meet consumers' taste expectations will eventually exit.
This works in tandem with other measures by the Government to moderate hawker stall rents, which we regularly review and improve.
Today, there is no reserve rent or minimum bid price. This enables bidders to obtain stalls at low rental rates. In fact, over 300 stalls were obtained at bids below $100 over the last three years. A few in 2023 and 2024 even won bids with rents as low as $1. So, it is not a myth. There are stalls which are going at $1 bid price.
We saw that subletting of stalls led to higher rents in the past. So, we moved in 2012 to disallow such subletting.
After the first tenancy period of three years, rental is adjusted towards the Assessed Market Rent. We recently reviewed and changed this policy to stagger the downward adjustment of tendered rent over a longer period, in fact, over two tenancy renewals instead of one. This will also discourage prospective hawkers from putting in excessively high tender bids.
It is not a perfect system, but collectively, our rental policies at NEA-managed hawker centres have served us reasonably well. Occupancy rates for cooked food stalls have remained high, averaging above 95%.
In 2023, the median successful tender price for cooked food stalls was about $1,800 and about one in five cooked food stalls were awarded at tender prices at or below $500. So, some key numbers here. One in five awarded below $500; more than 300 stalls paying less than $100 a month, some even at $1. In fact, 44% of bidders were actually able to secure their bids below the Assessed Market Rent. So, our system has actually kept rental prices reasonably affordable; in fact, a good number below the Assessed Market Rent. Stall demand remains healthy: in fact, vacant stalls put up for tender received an average of 7.2 bids per stall and are successfully re-tendered within three to six months.
So, overall, the tender system is working. We have made recent changes and we expect to see some positive impact. We will continue to review, taking in suggestions and feedback from Members and from hawkers themselves to continue improving the system.
There are many views on the current price tender system model and what might be a better alternative that could replace it. Even the PSP itself has different views and proposed different options as well. For example, Mr Leong Mun Wai suggested one method based on percentage of gross turnover with a base rent. But this will require a point-of-sale system for every stall in order to be able to track what the takings really are. Ms Hazel Poa also proposed that we abandon the tender system and change it to a balloting one. She also suggested perhaps a fixed rent model as well. As Mr Keith Chua noted, there really would not be a perfect system. But we will keep trying. For example, we also started to do the price quality method at our SEHC models where rent is pre-determined and stalls are awarded by the operators. So, we are open to trying different methods and see what works best.
Let me take this chance to address some of the suggestions that Ms Poa has raised, one of which is to abandon the tender system to a balloting one. Again, this is not a new suggestion. I remember Mr Melvin Yong asking me in a PQ before, probably just about a couple of months ago. Let me explain that while balloting could provide an equal chance to all to obtain a stall at an upfront fixed rate, what balloting could also do is to encourage frivolous applications and excess demand for stalls at popular locations. This may not be fair to prospective tenderers with a genuine intent to set up a new stall because they will see their chances dwindle as more people come in and crowd into that space for a limited number of stalls. And such a situation will not benefit patrons as well.
Ms Poa also suggested a fixed rent model to keep rental costs under control. But the question we must ask is: what price will we use to predetermine the rent? Let us just say we use the assessed market rent, which is professionally determined by valuers. Then, in that case, all prospective hawkers will end up paying this price.
But under today's system, as you heard me say earlier, the tendered rent for about 44% of stalls is actually below the Assessed Market Rent, based on our 2023 data. In fact, as I said earlier, 20% pay less than $500. So, this will definitely help with their business costs. So, under a fixed rent model, close to about half of tenderers will see their rent much higher than it is today.
Mr Louis Chua also proposes a rental cap. I thought it is useful for us to understand how a rental cap could distort the market dynamics. If we set any cap threshold, we give the bidders the assurance that the bids will not go beyond a maximum ceiling. So, that is the upside of a rental cap. However, doing so could also encourage bidders to bid more competitively towards that threshold in order to outprice the competition to secure the stall. So, that could well mean the end of the $1 bid stalls that we have in the system today. This could in turn lead to overall bid prices trending higher and the whole allocation system will no longer be fair and meaningful. Even at less popular centres, the rental cap may also have an unintended consequence by inadvertently setting a price point that drive lower rentals upward toward the cap, as I have explained.
Mr Louis Chua also proposes the Government take back control of all hawker centres. I thank him for his confidence in the Government and the way we manage our hawker centres. In fact, today, the Government already oversees all hawker centres and we have been able to achieve reasonable rents and conducive environment for hawkers through our policies for ensuring accessible and affordable food options.
The Government has been responding to evolving needs and at different points in time, we have tried different management models in order to bring benefit to Singaporeans. While our systems are not perfect, we have worked in partnership with our hawkers and operators to address these. We will continue to listen and engage, and fine-tune what needs to be improved.
I must also say that we should allow some space for the private sector to thrive in this space so there is a diversity of options for both hawkers and consumers. Some hawkers eventually do venture out to other F&B spaces to scale and grow. So, I think we should not do it in a way that actually squeezes out the room for private sector to also be able to thrive in the scene.
At the end of the day, we must ensure that whatever we do is transparent, easily understood by the tenderers and will lead to better outcomes. We must make sure that the cure that we are all proposing is not going to be worse-off than the issue we are trying to resolve, to the detriment of hawkers and consumers.
As Mr Leong has also noted, rent is not really the major cost factor. What hawkers need is customers footfall and fair pricing so that they can have a decent margin and an income on the goods that they sell. Because even if the rent is free, no footfall equals to no income. So, we have to be quite clear that rent being a small component is not going to be the one that will make our hawkers fare better.
We continue to monitor the trends closely, as well as the attention that hawker stall rent has attracted recently. A small percentage of bids can be quite high, especially at popular hawker centres. For example, the recent bid for a stall at Marine Parade Central Food Centre that Members have mentioned.
I must say that this outlier bid is the only one at that level of $10,000 in the last five years. Out of our 7,000 cooked food stalls, only 4% of rent today are above the Assessed Market Rent of $1,250. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment\", Official Report, 13 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 147, Correction By Written Statement section.]
This means that these people are still in the first tenancy term, because at the end of the third year, this 4% that is above the Assessed Market Rent on today's policy, will revert to the Assessed Market Rent.
So, we have to be quite careful not to abandon a system that has actually worked quite well and benefited many hawkers, just because of a small number of outliers.
There may be situations where prospective tenderers put in overly high bids upfront to secure their preferred stall, expecting their rents to be adjusted downwards to Assessed Market Rent after the first three years. Such bids may not be realistic and may distort prices over time, if they proliferate. So, while the numbers, as I said, are small today, other tenderers could be disadvantaged from entering the hawker trade. We want to nip this in the bud and discourage such extraordinarily high bids.
I announced last week that we will implement two measures to encourage more realistic bidding behaviour that better consider actual market conditions. First and quite important, we will make available more information and online business cost estimation tools. We are introducing this to assist and encourage tenderers to make a more informed decision and to bid realistically, when they submit a tender bid for a hawker stall. We are working on the details, which we plan to make public early next year.
However, some tenderers may still choose to submit excessively high bids and this is where our second measure comes in. We will stagger downward adjustment of tendered rent over a longer period, over two tenancy renewals instead of one. Doing so serves to deter prospective hawkers from submitting unrealistic bids. After the initial three years, stall rental will be adjusted to 50% of the difference between bid price and Assessed Market Rent when tenancy is renewed. This rental rate will be in place for three more years before fully adjusting to Assessed Market Rent from the seventh year onwards. This new policy takes effect from NEA’s ongoing tender exercise this month. I want to assure existing stallholders that you will not be affected.
Of course, we recognise this is not a cure-all and tenderers could still submit high bids, if they assess that they have a viable business model with that bid. Nonetheless, we hope that these changes will work hand-in-hand to encourage prospective hawkers to bid in a more considered and realistic manner moving forward. We will continue to monitor the tender bidding behaviours closely and review our tenancy policies from time to time to ensure that they stay relevant.
I would now like to turn to the issue of operating models. But before I do so, allow me to reiterate that regardless of how we manage our hawker centres, whether it is by NEA, or operators appointed under our SEHC model, our fundamental principles remain the same – hawkers and consumers remain at the heart of our policies.
There have been many comments about the SEHC model by Members today. Let me start by setting the context of why we first adopted the SEHC model.
In 2011, when we restarted building hawker centres, this was with Singaporeans in mind, to meet the community’s rising needs for access to a variety of food options at affordable prices, especially in areas under-served with F&B options.
Building hawker centres alone was not enough. We also needed to set up our new centres for success. This meant exploring new models and being open to different approaches that would allow us to achieve our objectives to safeguard hawker livelihoods and consumers’ needs, while adapting to an evolving operating context far different from when we first started building hawker centres to resettle street hawkers.
Foremost on our minds was to ensure that our new centres would be vibrant. Vibrancy is important not just to hawkers but consumers as well. There was a time when residents were unhappy that hawker centres were not opening long enough to serve their dining needs. In fact, this issue was raised before and debated in Parliament too, back in the 2000s. In recent years, we have also received feedback from residents and the community about operating hours for hawker centres and the need to ensure they are vibrant.
In short, managing hawker centres can be a complex undertaking. Hawker centres need to be vibrant with good visitorship and footfall. They need to provide a diverse food mix that responds to the evolving needs of changing demographics and be adaptable, and set up with the necessary conditions to be viable and sustainable for the long term. All these require the right business acumens to put together. Government agencies do not have the abilities or instincts to operate businesses.
This is the context for developing the SEHC model. We assessed the SEHC model to have various benefits.
First, SEHC operators possess industry knowledge and experience. They can leverage their expertise in F&B and stall management to ensure the vibrancy of new centres. Indeed, many have done so by developing a variety of localised programmes, including initiatives tailored to the community to drive visitorship and incubation programmes to provide business advice and support to aspiring hawkers.
Second, SEHC operators can leverage their F&B networks to curate food mix and support stallholders to fine-tune their menu, such as through food tastings. This supports both hawkers and consumers, allowing the hawker centres to feature food that meet patrons’ expectations, which in turn supports hawkers’ businesses.
Third, SEHC operators can introduce new and innovative practices to support stallholders in navigating changing operating contexts and industry developments, such as onboarding onto digital and online ordering platforms. This helps our hawker centres evolve and keep up with trends.
Good curation and visitorship are important ingredients for a vibrant hawker centre. These allow hawkers to thrive and earn a fair livelihood. In turn, when hawkers find it viable to operate stalls for longer hours, a centre can better meet the dining needs of the residents and community. These are the objectives that had to be met – and we believe can be met – by the SEHC management model.
As with any models, there will be operational issues that we need to continuously calibrate and make adjustments from time to time. We will continue to engage SEHC operators and hawkers to make necessary changes, as and when needed.
The SEHC model was put in place in 2011. Today, 14 out of our 121 hawker centres are managed by SEHC operators appointed by NEA. In developing the model, we sought to strike a balance between ensuring: patrons’ needs for a hawker centre are met, including access to affordable food options and meals across the day; and hawkers' needs for a conducive operating environment to make a reasonable livelihood. The SEHC operator pays Assessed Market Rent, but also bids for a management fee from the Government to operate the centre as part of the tender. So, the cost of operating an SEHC is partially borne by the Government. We have safeguards in place to ensure that operators do not profiteer and are expected to work closely with NEA as well as hawkers, to consider the interests and needs of both hawkers and residents.
In Mr Leong Mun Wai's speech earlier, he claimed that the operator of Jurong West Hawker Centre, JW50 Hawker Heritage, paid $4.86 million to Government to manage Jurong West Hawker Centre. I just want to clarify that this is actually incorrect. This amount is actually the management fee the Government pays to JW50 Hawker Heritage to run the centre which I have earlier mentioned. So, they do not pay us $4.86 million. We pay them $4.86 million.
In fact, NEA pays this to JW50 over a span of nine years. So, as you can see, this is at a significant cost that is borne by Government over time.
As you heard from Mr Ang Wei Neng earlier, when he shared about the Jurong West Hawker Centre, the hawkers who are there pay about $1,000-plus for rental, which is quite similar to what other hawkers in NEA-managed hawker centres also pay.
This kind of management model is also not the kind of business environment for hawkers that you could find in many other cities. Mr Leong gave the example of New York city. I believe that Mr KF Seetoh will be very familiar with the kind of high rental and labour costs that are faced by hawkers, given his experience with Urban Hawker in New York. I think Members who are interested can Google Mothership – there are quite a few articles written about this. I think Mr Edward Chia had shared earlier that some hawkers that are operating in New York face high rental costs, operating costs, ingredient costs, manpower costs and some of them have actually exited as well.
This is an illustration of how through our investment in hawker centres. Through our various policies, we have tried to keep costs low and manageable for hawkers here, so they can continue to thrive.
Let me talk about rent and operating costs in the SEHC model. When submitting tender proposals, prospective SEHC operators must also include their proposed stall rentals and other operating costs that would be charged to stallholders. To provide stability for stallholders, upon award of the tender, operators are not allowed to vary hawkers’ rent and other operating charges over the tenancy term and must keep costs transparent.
Furthermore, under NEA’s Staggered Rent Scheme, operators are required to implement lower rentals in the first two years of the centres’ operations at 80% and 90% of stall rent respectively. This helps new stallholders coming into these new centres manage operating costs as they build their clientele, while the centre gradually establishes itself.
Second, to ensure fair operating conditions for hawkers. I would like to address the specific concerns raised by Mr Leong about tenancy agreements. Such conditions are part of the tenancy agreements between the SEHC operators and the stallholders. The operators put in place the necessary conditions to account for the needs of the community. For example, operating hours specify that stallholders must open their stalls for a specific number of days and hours. This serves to ensure that centres would be vibrant and have sufficient stalls in operation to serve meals for residents throughout the day.
Nevertheless, conditions are also in place to take care of the well-being of our hawkers. NEA provided guidelines on the terms of such tenancy agreements, including on termination clauses, liquidated damages clauses and operating hours. For instance, on operating hours, stallholders are not required to work more than five days a week or eight hours a day. These are guidelines that operators need to comply with before using their tenancy agreements with stallholders. Operators are also required to explain the tenancy agreement to stallholders in simple terms for the stallholders' understanding, before they sign it. Once again, there is a fine balance needed to look after the interests of both our hawkers and our community, for whom hawker centres are built for.
Third, to ensure that operators serve the hawkers and the community in accordance with SEHCs’ agreement with NEA, operators must plough back at least 50% of any surpluses into programmes that benefit the hawker centres and/or their stallholders. You can imagine that SEHC operators may generate operating surpluses in some years and incur losses in some other years. But when surpluses are available, operators have run initiatives to raise footfall and business levels to benefit stallholders, such as providing shuttle bus services at Yishun Park Hawker Centre and organising festive events at Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre. Some operators have also tapped on their surpluses to help the stallholders reduce their operating costs, such as for cleaning.
Also, SEHC operators, as part of their tender proposals, must propose ways to ensure affordable food options are available. It is for the SEHC operators to propose and set a price. It is not for NEA to dictate what is a reasonable price. This is some flexibility we accord them and they will take market conditions into account when they put up a proposal.
So far, operators have committed that all stalls in their centres will provide at least one value meal option. This is not an attempt to force hawkers to sell all of their dishes at low prices. Instead, the intent is for operators to work with hawkers to offer a range of food offerings at different price points. This provides more choices for patrons if they want or need it and is especially intended to support those with lower-income.
However, value meals only account for around 5% to 20% of meals sold in SEHCs, so it is actually not the bulk of the revenue source for hawkers at SEHCs. Hawkers therefore still retain flexibility to offer other food items and sell them at appropriate prices, so that they can continue to earn an overall fair living.
Hawkers are not expected to make a loss selling value meals. SEHC operators can propose to revise the price of such value meals options, which NEA will review based on the market situation and the stallholders’ ability to make a fair livelihood. This has, in fact, been done before, at Ci Yuan Hawker Centre, where the price has been reviewed and adjusted, based on feedback from operators and hawkers.
NEA remains open to consider other suggestions that operators may propose, based on their viability and feasibility to ensure that sufficient affordable options are provided at the SEHCs. SEHC operators must also engage hawkers through regular Hawker Feedback Group sessions. These are held at least once every quarter, where operators gather feedback and ideas from their stallholders to improve the hawker centres and the hawkers’ livelihoods.
NEA has worked closely with hawkers and operators as well as other stakeholders to refine the SEHC model over the years. We will continue to listen to concerns and input to evolve and improve the model as we go along.
Sir, with our efforts over the years, the SEHC model is generally working well. Our SEHCs have brought overall benefits to hawkers and patrons alike, and are well-established within their communities. SEHC operators have curated food stalls in their SEHCs to ensure good quality and variety, and kept their centres open for all three meals to meet patrons’ dining needs. Average occupancy at SEHCs remains high with low stall turnover, comparable to NEA-managed centres.
While the comparison in termination numbers at SEHCs as compared to NEA-managed hawker centres cited by Mr Leong are factual – he said about 8% versus 3% – they do need to be put into context. The average termination rate cited for SEHCs, which is the 8% cited by Mr Leong, also accounted for new SEHCs that have just opened and are starting out. During this period, new centres tend to have some attrition and this is a natural part of business volatility. When businesses at new SEHCs move into a steady state, stall termination tend to stabilise and in fact, are no different compared to NEA-managed hawker centres.
There continues to be high interest in applying for stalls at SEHCs, such as those recently opened at Anchorvale, Buangkok and Woodleigh. Based on NEA’s recent surveys, over 97% of patrons and stallholders were overall satisfied with SEHCs, which is comparable to the satisfaction level at NEA-managed centres. Also, SEHCs have performed better in cleanliness, centre management and place-making activities.
Operating costs for stallholders at SEHCs, including rentals, remain manageable. The median stall rent at SEHCs is comparable to non-subsidised stalls at similar NEA-managed hawker centres. When comparing rental, it should not just be based on absolute rental, but one should also consider aspects such as stall size and amenities in the centre.
Nonetheless, we do not take all this for granted. We also recognise that some operators have done better while others have faced implementation challenges along the way, especially when they first get started. This is also why we renew the management of SEHCs via an open tender after the incumbent operators’ final tenancy term. It is a transparent process that allows incumbents that have done well to be considered favourably, while weeding out poorer-performing operators if necessary. Such a system enables healthy competition between the SEHC operators and motivates them to refine and improve their management models over time.
As we roll out the SEHC model to more new hawker centres, we will continue to monitor the implementation of the SEHC model closely and work with hawkers and operators to ensure that our new hawker centres continue to serve the interests of patrons well and ensure the well-being of our hawkers.
Next, I will address the concerns raised about the affordability of food at hawker centres. Today, our hawker centres across our island continue to provide the most affordable cooked food options for Singaporeans. That is why we often receive requests from residents to have a hawker centre in their neighbourhoods, even when it is already well served by other F&B outlets. As MPs on the ground, we often get such requests.
Our key focus therefore must be to ensure a sufficient supply of hawker stalls to cater to residents in all regions. We are committed to doing so and we will continue maintaining our existing hawker centres as we as we build new ones. Fourteen new centres are currently in operation and the locations of the other six centres have been announced.
The Government does not directly regulate or control food prices across the board. Doing so would also distort the true cost of hawker food, which would in turn depress our hawkers’ earnings. This would result in an unsustainable hawker trade, discourage new hawkers from joining the trade and would eventually affect everyone if affordable hawker food becomes less available. It is not prudent in the long run and hawkers would bear the brunt while also experiencing the same cost-of-living pressures just like everyone else.
We have to be careful about over-regulating across the board. Broadly speaking, market competition is an important self-regulating force for hawker food prices. We have been talking about affordable food, but “affordable” might not necessarily equate to “cheap”. They are actually two different things. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, hawkers consider various factors when pricing their food, including operating costs and the need to remain competitive with other stalls. I have spoken to hawkers, a young hawker, one of them, Darren, who shared that many of them practise what he would say “honest pricing”, in which they price their food to reflect the true cost and quality of ingredients, and apply a reasonable but modest profit margin to sustain their livelihood. Hawkers know that consumers are discerning and they need to be honest with their pricing.
In allowing the market to function, another hawker, Mr Noorman from Nasi Lemak Ayam Taliwang, I think he is there in the gallery as well, he said, \"We can let our hawkers and their customers find the right balance of where the price point for hawker food should be\". And over time, this enables a sustainable hawker centre landscape that is responsive to both hawkers’ and consumers’ needs.
To help Singaporeans cope with cost-of-living concerns, you heard from Senior Parliamentary Secretary Shawn Huang earlier that the Government has introduced broad-based measures such as providing CDC Vouchers under the enhanced Assurance Package. As you heard, these vouchers can be used at participating hawker stalls, to help both the households and the hawkers. Thus far, around $650 million of CDC Vouchers that has been disbursed have been used at participating heartland shops, including stalls across all hawker centres.
I am heartened to hear from Mr Edward Chia’s speech that hawkers at Senja Hawker Centre shared that these CDC Vouchers have contributed directly to their revenue and brought in new customers for their businesses. The Government is looking at more ways that we can support Singaporeans and hawkers, and will announce more details when ready.
I am also heartened that many businesses and community groups are also stepping up and doing their part to help Singaporeans and hawkers. Various MPs also shared their local initiatives, but I will just share maybe a couple more.
In 2023, the Marine Parade Citizens’ Consultative Committee, the Marine Parade Merchant’s Association and Katong Joo Chiat Business Association worked together with some hawkers in three hawker centres and coffee shops to launch a Value Meal@Marine Parade initiative for patrons. In September 2024, the Marine Parade constituency also launched the Marine Parade Family Vouchers for eligible families to use at its neighbourhood merchants, markets and hawker centres.
These are measures, ground-up activities that also go to help both those in need and the hawkers themselves. Meaningful ones. The private sector has also introduced similar initiatives, and you heard from Mr Chia earlier, for example, DBS’ ongoing Support Our Heartlands initiative and their earlier \"5 Million Hawker Meals\" scheme that was shared. I am deeply encouraged by these initiatives which support our hawkers and the broader community, and I hope to see many more of them as we continue to uplift and safeguard our hawker culture.
I agree with Mr Leong, that to safeguard our hawker trade for future generations, one of our key priorities is to nurture a new generation of young hawkers to take over the reins. To attract more Singaporeans to join the hawker trade, we need to first ensure that hawkers are able to earn a fair living, work in a clean and comfortable environment, and receive the support that they require. These underpin our policies, as I have mentioned earlier.
NEA has been working closely with hawkers and stakeholders to attract new hawker entrants and equip them with skillsets to boost their chances of success. This includes three key programmes that NEA runs to help aspiring hawkers to kickstart their businesses: the Incubation Stall Programme, Hawkers’ Development Programme and the Hawkers Succession Scheme.
Mr Leong and Mr Louis Chua proposed setting up a hawker academy to be a focal point for training young aspiring hawkers in Singapore. In fact, we already have a similar academy in place. Under our current Hawkers Development Programme, NEA and SkillsFuture Singapore appoints the Asian Culinary Institute under Nanyang Polytechnic to provide training to aspiring hawkers and equip them with the necessary skills for their businesses, such as business strategy and business pricing. So, that concept is already in action today.
We are encouraged to see aspiring hawkers enter the trade through these means, with some choosing to preserve traditional recipes, while others infuse new, creative and innovative ideas to modernise hawker fare. This diversity contributes to the richness and depth of our evolving hawker culture.
Furthermore, SEHC operators also run various incubation programmes to support their stallholders to ease into the hawker trade. After all, it is in their interest to make sure that the hawkers succeed in their centres. For example, Fei Siong Social Enterprise Pte Ltd introduced the Entrepreneurship Programme at Woodleigh Village Hawker Centre. The programme provides mentorship and support for young hawkerpreneurs in areas such as culinary skills, stall set-up, menu creation and marketing activities. Fei Siong also provided financial assistance, such as purchasing cooking equipment at interest-free instalments.
Collectively, the programmes by NEA and SEHC operators have helped to inject younger entrants into the hawker scene. To date, over 70 hawkers have joined the trade through these programmes, with a median age of 37. We will continue to review the programme outcomes and identify other areas to better encourage and support aspiring hawkers to enter and stay in the hawker trade. We will provide more details next year.
Mr Leong proposed that hawker centre management be taken over by a new Government agency to be called Hawker Singapore. Again, I thank him for putting his trust in the Government to manage our hawker centres well. But in fact, I would say that we already have a dedicated division now in NEA called the Hawker Centres Group looking after this with place managers on the ground that interact closely with our hawkers. Therefore, what he is proposing is a re-organisation of an existing dedicated team that is already functioning.
But what is more important is that whatever entity that oversees the management of hawker centres should be plugged in to the day-to-day concerns of individual centres and be responsive to its evolving needs. This is what our place managers does on a day-to-day basis, and our SEHC operators are also able to do this, too. NEA works closely with hawkers, as well as industry associations, like the Federation of Merchant Associations of Singapore, and we assign place managers to each hawker centre so that the nexus is tight.
I turn back now to the Motion that is being debated today. Sir, external circumstances, such as inflation, have presented challenges for our hawkers and Singaporeans alike, especially in recent years. We deeply understand these sentiments. For hawkers, increases in operating costs, especially for ingredients, can mean having to absorb some of these costs or making the difficult decision to raise prices for customers.
For Singaporeans, having to pay 50 cents or a dollar more for hawker meals could feel like a dent in their wallets, as prices of other daily essentials also add up. As the Government, and with the support of our local community and the private sector, we are doing what we can to mitigate the impact of these rising costs.
I want to thank Members who have acknowledged the practical realities we operate in and for reaffirming the Government's efforts to do right by our hawkers. At the heart of the debate today is how we can sustain and grow our invaluable hawker culture so that it continues to thrive. This is something that the Government is fully committed to do. But we must recognise that there are often competing objectives and, as consumers, we can all play an important role in this, too.
Many Singaporeans are worried about the impact of global inflationary pressures on the cost of living, and understandably so. However, for hawkers to earn a fair living, they need to price food realistically. While price increases are not always easy to accept, we must remember that how much a hawker can sell a bowl of rice or noodles for is dependent on how much Singaporeans are prepared to pay. Ultimately, hawkers need the support of consumers. We must form a strong social compact to ensure that our hawker culture can continue to thrive and Singaporeans can continue to enjoy hawker fare for many more generations to come.
Mr Speaker, allow me to conclude. We all want our hawker centres and hawker culture to continue to thrive, but it entails a fine balancing act. Overall, the Government has taken a calibrated and long-term view in crafting our policies. We have put in place comprehensive measures that strike a careful balance between ensuring affordable hawker food options and supporting hawkers with a conducive business environment, while also safeguarding the long-term sustainability of the hawker trade, local hawker culture and heritage. This would not have been possible without the readiness and commitment from our hawkers and hawker associations to work with the Government. I thank them for their input and their partnership, which have helped us improve our policies to balance between competing objectives and chart the best way forward for both hawkers and Singaporeans. We may not always get this right the first time. With your inputs and feedback, and as circumstances change, we will review and adjust our policies. We have done so in the past and we will continue to fine-tune and improve.
What is important in all of these adjustments is that our hawkers must be able to earn a fair livelihood. This is critical for our hawker culture to thrive for a long time. Without our hawkers as torchbearers, our hawker centres will be empty and our hawker culture will disappear. This is why I support the proposed amendment from Mr Edward Chia. I invite Members to join me in expressing support as well, because Mr Chia is right that the Government should continue its support for hawkers and hawker culture so that Singaporeans can continue to enjoy good and affordable hawker food while ensuring that hawkers can earn a fair livelihood.
The year 2025 will be our 60th year as an independent country. It will also mark the fifth anniversary since the UNESCO inscription for hawker culture in Singapore. Hawkers have always played an integral role in building our country and hawker culture has been an important part of our national Singaporean identity. As I announced last week at the Singapore Hawkers Seminar and Awards, in conjunction with these milestones, the Government will be reviewing measures to further support hawkers and revitalise our hawker culture. We will announce more details during the Committee of Supply debates next year.
To Members of this House and to all Singaporeans, I want to assure you that safeguarding our hawker culture remains an important priority for this Government. We are committed to work together with our hawker community and our stakeholders to do so. Together, we can sustain our hawker culture to thrive for generations to come. Sir, allow me to speak in Mandarin now.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, our hawker centres are an integral part of Singaporeans' daily lives and our cultural identity. They are vibrant melting pots of diverse and affordable local food that tell stories of Singapore – how different cultures interweave into a unique heritage of who we are as a people. They are community dining rooms, where Singaporeans from all walks of life gather, socialise and interact over good food in an informal setting. Hawker centres are special and quite different from food courts and restaurants. Our hawker centres are special because of the hawkers that make them come to life. They are our community kitchens where hawkers thrive as masters of their craft to serve comfort food beloved by Singaporeans and known worldwide.
These hawkers often specialise in specific local dishes such as Hainanese chicken rice, nasi lemak, Nyonya laksa or roti prata. They work long hours, often more than 14 hours a day especially on weekends and public holidays to serve us our comfort food. Many have dedicated their lives to perfecting specific dishes, often passing down skills, recipes and cultural traditions from one generation to the next.
Each dish is unique to a particular hawker stall. The flavor of char kway teow from Hong Lim Park Hawker Centre is different from the one at Zion Riverside Food Centre and I like both of them. They are my favorites and they each have their own die-hard followers. Like many of you, I go to different hawker centres to savour the authentic differences of the same dish. Each hawker centre has its own character and a different mix of food choices.
This is why we all have our own choice of favorite hawker dishes and often debate endlessly on which hawker centre has the best chicken rice and where the best nasi lemak can be found.
While some hawkers have done well and opened stalls in other hawker centres, and some have even ventured out into the restaurant space, the vast majority of stalls at our hawker centres are generally run by stallholders themselves, preparing each meal with their unique touches as it is ordered and retaining its individuality, unlike a franchise.
Hawker centres are such a unique and central part of our national identity that in December 2020, hawker culture in Singapore was inscribed onto the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.
I think Singaporeans and Members across both sides of the aisle will agree, that this unique Singaporean institution must be nurtured, supported and protected, to ensure that our hawker centres and hawkers can thrive for generations to come. Some of our hawker heroes are gathered at the gallery today – I would like to show appreciation to their contributions and welcome and thank them for coming down today as we discuss this important issue.
To keep this unique character of our hawker centres, our hawker policy will need to reflect three fundamental objectives and principles: to ensure that hawker centres remain our community dining room, providing Singaporeans with affordable food options; to ensure hawkers have a decent livelihood and so ensure that there is long-term sustainability of the hawker trade and attract young people to join the trade; and to preserve our unique local hawker culture and identity.
I think no one will disagree with these objectives. Each of them are important. But in trying to achieve all three objectives at the same time, we must recognise that there are inherent tensions that sometimes pull in opposite directions. For instance, addressing consumers’ desire for lower food prices can inadvertently run counter to our wish to support our hawkers in making a decent living. Without a decent income, it will be difficult to attract young Singaporeans who have many career options to enter this trade. Similarly, allowing more foreigners to work in our hawker centres may alleviate cost and manpower concerns for our hawkers, but it could dilute our local hawker culture and identity and change the feel of our hawker centres. As such, there is a need to strike a balance between the interests of all parties.
Singaporeans face cost-of-living pressures on many fronts, especially in recent years due to global inflation. Global food prices have been volatile in recent years due to supply chain disruptions resulting from climate change and geopolitical events. We feel this impact keenly because Singapore imports over 90% of our food. Singaporeans are understandably concerned about how much they pay for food at our hawker centres. Hawkers, like all of us, also feel these pressures, as the cost of ingredients form a huge part of their cost, which is 60% to 70%.
In pricing their food, many hawkers struggle between keeping food affordable for their loyal customers while having to raise prices to cover the increases in ingredient and manpower costs. This is a struggle that many of us in the House empathise with.
I know that a good number of hawkers have kept their food prices unchanged over the years. One of our hawkers, Mr Melvin Chew, who runs Jin Ji Teochew Braised Duck and Kway Chap at Chinatown Complex Market and Food Centre, shared with me that he had maintained his food prices for over 20 years since the 2000s to offer $3 duck rice to customers. I understand he tried to maintain his $3 meals to benefit the older folks staying in the area. It was only after the pandemic that he raised prices to $4 to cope with rising business costs.
It is not easy for hawkers to earn a fair living. Our hawkers are generally mindful of the profile of the customers they serve and they try their best to hold off raising prices of their food. But hawkers need to be able to price their food realistically and adjust them from time to time. Absorbing price increases of ingredients would effectively mean a pay cut for a hawker, on top of slim profit margins. I am sure many Singaporeans can empathise with this, even as price increases are not always easy to accept.
There is another dimension to this, which is that hawkers inherently face limitations to how much they can sell and earn, because they operate the stall themselves. Many earn less than $1 per meal served. But let us take, for example, a hawker who manages to make a $1 profit per bowl of noodle. He or she will need to sell 200 portions a day for six days a week, in order to earn the $5,000 median salary of Singaporeans. Most do not sell as many meals or earn as much per meal. As Mr Edward Chia’s example has highlighted, many hawkers barely make a 30-cent or 40-cent margin per meal they sell.
Like everyone, our hawkers need an income that is sustainable over time. This has implications for the sustainability of the hawker trade. Today, the median age of our hawkers is 60 years old. As our ageing hawkers gradually retire, we will need new blood to sustain the hawker trade. But if hawkers cannot make a decent livelihood, the hawker trade would become much less attractive to our younger generation who have many more career options.
Another tension arises as we try to help hawkers manage their manpower costs while we seek to preserve the “local” identity of our hawker culture and heritage. Our policy of only allowing Singaporeans and PRs to be stallholders at hawker centres serves to safeguard this precious aspect of our Singaporean identity. I recognise that our hawkers face the practical challenge of hiring non-locals to ease manpower constraints. But a full liberalisation for foreign manpower may alter the nature of our hawker centres significantly. These are competing tensions and there are no easy solutions.
We know the difficult operating environment and challenges our hawkers face, as well as Singaporeans’ desire for affordable hawker food. These are difficult tensions to balance. And there is no simple solution or easy fix.
We agree with Mr Leong that the Government has a role to play in supporting our hawkers. That is what the Government has been doing. For decades now, since we gathered itinerant street hawkers into our hawker centres, and, through our policies, sought to provide hawkers with a conducive operating environment. And as we restarted building hawker centres from 2011, we set out to better address the needs of Singaporeans. In so doing, we also set out with a forward-looking mindset to test and explore new models that would allow us to safeguard hawker livelihoods and consumers’ needs, while keeping our hawker centre landscape responsive to an evolving operating context. I will explain more about the SEHC model later.
We need to find a way as a society to keep hawker fare affordable, while ensuring that hawkers can earn a fair living. Underpinning this solution must be a strong social compact that brings all stakeholders together. The Government foots the cost of building hawker centres and sets policies to support our hawkers and provide them with a conducive operating environment, to ensure that they are able to provide Singaporeans with affordable food at our hawker centres. The local community and private sector have a role in driving ground-up initiatives to support both hawkers and patrons and consumers can support our hawkers by patronising them and being prepared to pay a fair price for hawker food to uplift the livelihoods of our hawkers.
Let me now touch on rent at NEA-managed hawker centres. The Government builds hawker centres and does not use rent for cost recovery. The rents are determined by what the tenderer bids for. Our policy is for non-subsidised stalls in NEA-managed hawker centres to be allocated via a tender system, in which stalls are tendered to the highest bidder, who pays the bid price for the first tenancy period of three years. This process is open, transparent and straightforward for prospective hawkers to understand.
A bidding system enables market mechanisms to work at hawker centres. The process encourages prospective hawkers that are committed and serious to come forward and submit a bid. Before doing so, prospective hawkers have to take into account operating realities and business costs and decide on what food they wish to sell. Once a stall is open, consumers will decide. The quality and price of food will determine how well the stall fares and how sustainable the stall will be. This market mechanism has helped to shape our current hawker centre landscape. It is responsive to consumers’ demands and changing expectations for hawker food, and fair for both hawkers and consumers.
This works in tandem with other measures by the Government to moderate hawker stall rents, which we regularly review and improve. Today, there is no reserve rent or minimum bid prices. This enables bidders to obtain stalls at low rental rates. In fact, over 300 stalls were obtained at bids below $100 over the last three years – a few in 2023 and 2024 won bids with rent as low as $1! After the first tenancy period of three years, rental is adjusted towards the Assessed Market Rate. We recently reviewed and changed this policy to stagger the downward adjustment of tendered rent over a longer period. This will also discourage prospective hawkers from putting in excessively high tender bids.
Collectively, our rental policies at NEA-managed hawker centres have served us well. However, any system will have its pros and cons. For example, some Opposition Members have suggested that we abandon the tender system to a balloting one or other options. Let me first explain the benefits of a bidding system.
While balloting could provide an equal chance to all to obtain a stall at an upfront fixed rate, what balloting could also do is to encourage frivolous applications and excess demand for stalls, especially at popular centres. This may not be fair to prospective tenderers with genuine intent to set up a new stall as they see their chances dwindle.
Others have suggested a fixed rent model to keep rental costs under control. But what price will we use to pre-determine the rent? Let us say we use the Assessed Market Rate. Then all prospective hawkers will end up paying this price. But under today’s system, the tendered rent for about 44% of stalls is below the Assessed Market Rate, based on 2023 data; 20% of bidders pay rents below $500. This low rent helps with their business costs. If we adopt a fixed rent model, then nearly 50% of hawkers will pay much higher rentals.
We will stay open to consider different models. In fact, we have tried out price-quality models at SEHCs where the rent is predetermined, and stalls are curated by the operators. In summary, when making policies, we must ensure transparency so that bidders can understand easily, while also bringing better outcomes.
We continue to monitor the trends closely, as well as the attention that hawker stall rent has attracted recently. A small percentage of bids can be quite high, especially at popular hawker centres, for example, the recent bid for a cooked food stall at Marine Parade Central Food Centre which exceeded $10,000. There may be situations where prospective tenderers put in overly high bids upfront to secure their preferred stall, expecting their rents to be adjusted downwards to Assessed Market Rate after the first three years.
I announced last week that we will implement two measures, to encourage more realistic bidding behaviour that better consider actual market conditions. First, we will make available more information and online business cost estimation tools. We are introducing this to assist and encourage tenderers to make a more informed decision and bid realistically. However, some tenderers may still choose to submit excessively high bids.
Hence, we will stagger downward adjustment of tendered rent over a longer period. Doing so serves to deter prospective hawkers from submitting unrealistic bids. After the initial three years, stall rental will be adjusted to 50% of the difference between bid price and Assessed Market Rate when tenancy is renewed. This rental rate will be in place for three more years before fully adjusting to AMR from the seventh year onwards.
Nonetheless, we hope that these changes will work hand in hand to encourage prospective hawkers to bid in a more considered and realistic manner moving forward. We will continue to monitor the tender bidding behaviours closely and review our tenancy policies from time to time to ensure that they stay relevant.
There have been many comments about the SEHC model by Members today. I want to reiterate that regardless of how we manage our hawker centres, whether it is by NEA or operators under our SEHC model, our fundamental principles remain the same. Hawkers and consumers remain at the heart of our policies.
In 2011, we restarted building hawker centres. This was with Singaporeans in mind, to meet the community’s rising needs for access to a variety of food options at affordable prices. Building hawker centres alone was not enough. We also needed to set up our new centres for success. This meant exploring new models and being open to different approaches that would allow us to achieve our objectives to safeguard hawker livelihoods and consumers’ needs while adapting to an evolving operating context.
In addition, foremost on our minds was to ensure that our new centres would be vibrant. There was a time when residents were unhappy that hawker centres were not opening long enough to serve their dining needs. In fact, this issue was raised before and debated in Parliament too, back in 2010. In recent years, we have also received feedback from residents and the community about operating hours for hawker centres.
This is the context for developing the SEHC model. We assessed the SEHC model to have various benefits. First, SEHC operators possess industry knowledge and experience. They can leverage their expertise in F&B and stall management to ensure the vibrancy of new centres. Second, SEHC operators can leverage their F&B networks to curate food mix and support. Third, SEHC operators can introduce new and innovative practices to support stallholders in navigating changing operating contexts and industry developments, such as onboarding onto digital and online ordering platforms.
Good curation and visitorship are important ingredients for a vibrant hawker centre. These allow hawkers to thrive and earn a fair livelihood, and as a result, a hawker centre can better meet the dining needs of the residents and community. We believe these objectives can be met by the SEHC management model.
As with all models, there will be operational issues that we need to continuously calibrate and make adjustments from time to time. We will continue to engage SEHC operators and hawkers to make changes where necessary.
Today, 14 out of our 121 hawker centres are managed by SEHC operators appointed by NEA.
In developing the model, we sought to strike a balance between ensuring patrons’ needs for affordable food options and meals and hawkers' needs for a conducive operating environment. We have safeguards in place to ensure that operators do not profiteer and are expected to work closely with NEA as well as hawkers, to consider the interests and needs of both hawkers and residents.
First, on rent and operating costs. When submitting tender proposals, prospective SEHC operators must also include their proposed stall rentals and other operating costs charged to stallholders. Upon award of the tender, operators are not allowed to vary hawkers’ rent and other operating charges. Furthermore, under NEA’s Staggered Rent Scheme, operators are required to implement lower rentals in the first two years of the centres’ operation.
Second, to ensure fair operating conditions for hawkers. Such conditions are part of the tenancy agreements between the SEHC operators and the stallholders. For example, operating hours specify that stallholders must open their stalls for a specific number of days and hours. This serves to ensure that centres would be vibrant and have sufficient stalls in operation to serve meals for residents throughout the day. Nonetheless, conditions are also in place to take care of the well-being of our hawkers. For instance, on operating hours, stallholders are not required to work more than five days a week or eight hours a day. These are guidelines that operators need to comply with, and operators are also required to explain the tenancy agreement to stallholders in simple terms for stallholders’ understanding before they sign it.
Third, to ensure that operators serve the hawkers and the community. In accordance with SEHCs’ agreement with NEA, operators must plough back at least 50% of any surpluses into programmes that benefit the hawker centres and their stallholders. Operators have run initiatives to raise footfall and business levels to benefit stallholders, such as providing shuttle bus services at Yishun Park Hawker Centre and organising festive events at Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre. Operators have committed that all stalls in their centres will provide at least one value meal option. I would like to emphasise that value meals only account for around 5% to 20% of meals sold in SEHCs. Hawkers still retain flexibility to offer other food items and sell them at appropriate prices, so that they can continue to earn an overall fair living. Hawkers are not expected to make a loss selling value meals. SEHC operators can propose to revise the price of such value meals options, which NEA will review based on the market situation and stallholders’ ability to make a fair livelihood.
With our efforts over the years, the SEHC model is generally working well. Based on NEA’s recent surveys, over 97% of patrons and stallholders were overall satisfied with SEHCs. Average occupancy at SEHCs remains high with low stall turnover and there continues to be high interest in applying for stalls at new SEHCs.
Nonetheless, we do not take all this for granted. We also recognise that some operators have have faced implementation challenges along the way, especially when they first started. This is also why we renew the management of SEHCs via open tender after the incumbent operators’ final tenancy term. It is a transparent process that allows incumbents that have done well to be considered favourably, while weeding out poorer-performing operators if necessary. Such a system enables healthy competition between the SEHC operators and motivates them to refine and improve their management models over time.
As we roll out the SEHC model to more new hawker centres, we will continue to monitor the implementation of the SEHC model closely and work with hawkers and operators to ensure that our new hawker centres continue to serve the interests of patrons well and ensure the well-being of our hawkers.
External circumstances such as inflation have presented challenges for our hawkers and Singaporeans alike, especially in recent years. We deeply understand these sentiments. For hawkers, increases in operating costs, especially for ingredients, can mean having to absorb some of these costs or making the difficult decision to raise prices for customers. For Singaporeans, having to pay 50 cents or a dollar more for hawker meals could feel like a dent in their wallets, as prices of other daily essentials also go up.
As Members have mentioned, the Government, with the support of our local community and private sector, are doing what we can to mitigate the impact of these rising costs.
The core of today's debate is how to ensure our hawker culture continues to thrive. The Government will spare no effort in supporting hawkers and the hawker trade. Consumers also play a crucial role. Many Singaporeans are concerned about the impact of global inflation on the cost of living. However, for hawkers to earn a decent income, they must consider the reality and set reasonable prices for their food. Hawkers need consumer support. We must establish a strong social compact to ensure that hawker culture can flourish.
Hawker centres are our community dining rooms, providing affordable food for Singaporeans. It is because of the efforts of generations of hawkers that Singapore's cuisine has become world-renowned. After Singapore's Independence in 1965, resources were invested to gradually relocate street vendors to hawker centres so that hawkers could operate their businesses safely, comfortably and hygienically in a conducive environment, while diners could eat happily with a peace of mind. With changing times, the Government has continuously explored different operating models, so that hawker centres can keep pace with the times, adjust to the changing business environment and safeguard hawkers' livelihoods while meeting consumers’ needs.
The Government appreciates hawkers' contributions and understands the various challenges they face, including rising cost pressures and changing consumer needs. The Government is committed to continue listening to feedback and to review and improve relevant policies with an open mind, with the aim to ensure hawkers' livelihoods and the long-term sustainability of the hawker trade and attract younger generations of Singaporeans to join this profession. Of these many goals, one is also to preserve our unique local hawker culture and ensure it is not replaced by franchises. We will also work closely with hawkers and value their feedback. Here, I want to pay tribute to our hardworking and resilient hawkers! Let us work together to support and protect our hawker culture, so that it can thrive for generations to come.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa: Allow me to first correct a misunderstanding by Senior Minister of State Koh. He mentioned that there is an inconsistency in our proposals for rent between mine and Mr Leong Mun Wai's. I just want to clarify that there is no inconsistency. In my speech, I used the term pre-determined rent, not fixed rent. So, pre-determined is either a fixed rent of $500 per month or 3% of gross revenue. In my English version, I did not go into the details because it was already covered by Mr Leong. But in my Chinese portion, I did mention this.
I have two clarifications for Senior Minister of State Koh. He mentioned that the Government will ensure that the SEHC operators do not profit excessively. Can I ask how the Government does that? Do you monitor the profitability level of the operators, for example, their return on equity ratios? If so, can Senior Minister of State Koh share the data?
The second clarification is: he mentioned that NEA has guidelines on rental contracts. Can I ask whether there is any legal force behind those guidelines? What are the consequences if rental contracts deviate from those guidelines?
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, in the model in which we work with the SEHC operators, we pay them a management fee so that they actually can operate the hawker centres. If there are any extra profits that they gain, 50% of it must then, as I said in my main reply, be put into providing programmes that enhance the activities of the hawker centre. So, there will be an audit conducted by NEA on their actual earnings so that we can make that decision and make sure that there is no extra profiteering involved. Sorry, can I have the Member's second question?
Mr Speaker: Ms Poa, do you want to turn on your mic?
Ms Hazel Poa: The NEA guidelines on contract terms, whether there is any legal force behind it and what are the consequences for deviating from those guidelines?
Dr Koh Poh Koon: I think the guidelines are meant to guide the behaviour between the operator and the hawkers that are working at this hawker centre. So, if there are issues in which the contract that is drafted is actually in violation of the guidelines, NEA will take a look at it and give relevant penalties. Or should the offence be egregious, at the next contract renewal term, this operator will not be favourably looked upon and the operator will not be able to get the next contract renewal.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua, you have a clarification?
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis: My apologies, Speaker, for prolonging this, but just a few clarifications.
First, in terms of the point on hiring of foreign workers, I appreciate the Senior Minister of State's point of not ruling it out. But I mean, as mentioned in my speech, if we look at, for example, just any other food court that we have, I think foreigners already run stalls. So, as an intermediate step, would the Government consider allowing Malaysian work pass holders to work in our hawker centres, because I mean, as HDB policy suggests, Malaysians are already quite culturally similar, so they are exempt from SPR quotas and all of that.
Secondly, in terms of the price tender system, again, I mentioned the PQM model, which Senior Minister of State Sim Ann has acknowledged and I think Member Mr Liang has also talked about. So, given that this is already being practised by a lot of Government agencies like HDB, Town Council and so on, would it consider a pilot for hawker centres which are particularly notorious for high rents, whether it is Marine Parade or Newton?
In a similar vein, given concerns about the highest price bidder actually winning the tender, could the Government also consider a pilot whereby it could consider second price tenders instead, whereby the winner will still be the highest bidder, but they will pay the second bid? And this will help to mitigate some of the concerns that Senior Minister of State has raised. I think my colleague, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, has also talked about this in the context of HDB coffee shops.
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank the Member for raising this clarification. I think on the issue of foreign workers, in my speech, I did say that actually, there is no science to it. It is about what society can accept over time as the population ages, workforce dwindles and the nature of hawker centres may evolve and the society is prepared to accept.
But now we have just made a move to liberalise through LTVP+. So, that provides an additional expanded source of potential labour that the hawkers can tap into. Let us see what this move does and what the effect is first, before we decide whether it is appropriate to make further moves.
The comparison with food courts is not exactly a correct one because there is a difference with hawker centres where we want to preserve the UNESCO heritage. In a hawker centre, the stallholders themselves operate the stalls. That is one of the requirements that they cannot outsource to someone else to manage the stalls. They have to tend to the stalls themselves so that they are the ones who ply the trade. But once we change the model to one in which the stall owners can now hire a certain complement of foreign workers or even local workers for that matter to run the stall instead of themselves, you are then turning it into potentially a franchise model where now the actual operator is not the one cooking. It is someone else doing the cooking and this person becomes a business owner hiring different workers, local or otherwise, to work across different stalls rather than he himself running the stall with his own special touch, special recipe.
So, there is an inherent change in the nature of how hawker centres will become. I think that is something where we are still trying to make sure we hold fast to the original concept of what a hawker stall and a hawker centre is. But in time to come, when demographics change, there may well be a need for us to make further moves. But let us see what the current measures help the hawkers first.
On PQM, in my speech, I did say that today, in some of our SEHCs already practise PQM. So, it is not something that we are averse to; it is something that we already tried in our SEHCs. But it is easier to be done when there is actually an operator who has a business concept behind it, who has a certain idea how that particular centre is to be run in terms of placemaking and programming, so that, with a price quality matrix, he selects a certain complementary type of stalls to operate in there with a certain business model in mind. Whereas in the typical NEA-managed hawker centre, which is running through a bidding system, it really is more of a kind of mix that is determined by what the market wants, rather than a placemaker per se trying to curate and decide which stall can run in a hawker centre. I hope you understand what I am trying to get at with the different models between what the SEHC is and what a typical NEA-managed hawker centre is like.
The third point is about awarding the highest bidder but making him pay the second highest bid. I think that will make the second highest bidder a bit aggrieved, would it not? If you are going to award the second highest bid, then why did I not get it, but you give it to the highest bidder? Because I think to be fair and transparent, the highest bidder actually should be the one to be given the stall. But as I said, if the concern is about outlier bids, today, the outlier bids are a rare occurrence. They are not the norm. In fact, the one that got everybody's attention is actually the only one in the last five years.
Like I said, the vast majority of bids – 44% of them – got the bids below the Assessed Market Rent, which means close to half of the stalls actually pay in the first tenancy term less than the Assessed Market Rent. And the number of bids that are in that stratospheric range is actually a very small number. I hope we would not discard a system that has worked well and benefited a large number of hawkers just because of one outlier bid.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think anyone in the Chamber would tolerate me for another 40-minute speech. Sir, as a result, I frantically summarised what I wanted to say, while Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon was speaking. But I must also admit that I have never felt that I had that much power over this Chamber before.
I think my speech will be about 15 minutes, a summary in English, and then a summary in Chinese.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank first of all, all the officeholders and Members who participated in this debate. I also thank the Workers' Party for supporting most of the points that PSP has raised. I am glad that based on the amended Motion put forward by Mr Edward Chia, all of us have agreed on the importance of safeguarding our hawker culture, which is an important national institution and cultural inheritance, and the need to provide help to our hawkers to continue to provide good and affordable food and earn a fair livelihood at the same time.
I thank Senior Minister of State Koh for the very comprehensive explanation of the Government policies – I indeed learned a lot from it. However, I think to summarise my concerns, there are these following issues which I think if the Government does not tackle further, the prospects and livelihoods of our hawkers will not improve that much and will threaten the sustainability of our hawker culture on the long term. So, I hope the Government will continue to consider these four points that I raised.
Firstly, about the social enterprise model, I think so far, we are still not sure what is the actual contribution made by the social enterprise model, vis a vis the problems that the model has brought about. In PSP's view, we think that the corporatised culture of a social enterprise model is actually not compatible with the free sole proprietor spirit of individual hawkers.
And if you take into consideration the possibility of conflict of interest between the private operator and he operating a social enterprise hawker centre, we are of the view that it may be better off for experienced civil servants of the Hawker Centres Group to actually provide more help to the management of the hawker centres. That is one of our points and that is why we say, bring the whole thing up as the new Government agency, Hawker Singapore.
The second point, while we appreciate the advantages that Senior Minister of State Koh has shared with us about the tender system, there is still an unanswered question as to why is there a need for the system to also cater for a renewal system that is so peculiar, specifically, a high tender bid will be reduced to a lower Assessed Market Rent after the initial three years. Is it not better off to have a system whereby the bidder continues to pay as he bid? Or after three years, a new bidding again for the same stall.
So, we still think that this kind of tender system did contribute to the escalating prices in our HDB coffee shops and food courts. And that is one of the major causes of escalating cooked food prices in the long run.
The third point, we also disagree that while you allow the coffee shops and the food courts to employ Work Permit holders, you do not allow the individual hawkers to do so. In doing so, you are putting them at a disadvantage. And in order for us to preserve the distinctive Singaporean character of our hawker culture, we must ensure the individual hawkers are competitive vis a vis the corporatised hawkers. If you disallow that to the individual hawkers, then you continue to make them the underdogs.
And my last point, you may have a lot of competing objectives, but to impose budget meals and discounts to hawker meals, imposing the cost on the hawkers is an objective that you can do without.
Those are the main points that I would like to say.
Sir, in closing, two months ago, we debated a Bill for an important group of essential workers that deserve our attention – the platform workers. I regard our local hawkers as another group of workers essential to the functioning of our society that really need our attention. Exemplified by many of my Chinatown neighbours in the past, our Pioneer hawkers started off as humble folks who just want to earn enough to feed their families. They worked very hard but are satisfied with getting meagre profits. As a result, we were able to enjoy cheap and good hawker food for a long time.
Today, in the 21st century, hawkers are facing tremendous headwinds, with high rental, shortage of manpower, unfair competition and increasing constraints from corporatisation, and also the persistent societal expectations to provide cheap and good food. This situation is not sustainable. At the rate we are going, our traditional hawker culture which is based on the hard work and enterprise of individual hawkers will slowly wither away.
Corporatisation of the hawker trade is a natural development of the market economy, but we can ensure a more level playing field for our individual hawkers to thrive and flourish. The current pride of our hawkers is at least partly due to the policies by the Government. The onus is now on the Government to consider our suggestions to provide better support for hawkers in the future. Sir, Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, PSP has put forward a Motion to protect our hawker culture, calling on the Government to review policies related to hawkers and hawker centre management, and to provide better support for hawkers to maintain and develop Singapore's hawker culture.
The hawker culture is not only a part of Singaporean identity but also a UNESCO intangible cultural heritage. Hawker centres, as \"people's kitchens\", provide Singaporeans with delicious and affordable food, offering a buffer against high living costs.
At the same time, the hawker industry provides an ideal entrepreneurial platform for young, aspiring business owners. Promoting hawker food domestically and internationally, winning over hearts and palates worldwide, is a way for Singapore to enhance its soft power, which will bring significant economic benefits. Therefore, PSP believes that protecting and preserving hawker culture is crucial.
However, the challenges faced by hawkers are threatening the survival of this unique culture. Thus, PSP calls on the Government to re-examine its policies.
In today's Motion, PSP has put forward six policy recommendations, which my colleague Hazel Poa has also introduced in Chinese in her speech. PSP believes these six policy changes will revitalise our hawker culture, making Singapore's hawker food shine brighter on the international stage while ensuring hawker centres continue to provide affordable food for Singaporeans.
Mr Speaker, two months ago, we debated the Bill for platform workers, an important group of workers worthy of attention. Our local hawkers are another crucial group maintaining societal operations, equally deserving of our attention.
Singapore's Pioneer hawkers have provided us with good quality, affordable food through hard work and low profits. But under current pressures of high rentals, manpower shortages and competition from corporatised hawkers, individual hawkers face enormous challenges. At the current rate, traditional hawker culture based on individual hawkers' diligence and entrepreneurial spirit will gradually decline.
In today's debate, PSP has put forward some policy recommendations, hoping to spark more public discussion and help create more space to maintain and develop our hawker culture. We hope the Government will consider our suggestions and let Singaporeans judge which policy proposals are more beneficial for Singapore in the long run.
I hope everyone in Parliament agrees that hawker centres and hawkers must thrive so that we can continue to enjoy delicious and affordable hawker food, and maintain and develop our country's unique hawker culture.
(In English): Sir, having made my points clear, the PSP is ready to support the amended Motion, which is not too different from the original Motion tabled by me. This is to show that this House is united in our support for hawkers. Sir, I beg to move, as quickly as possible, please. [Laughter.]
Mr Speaker: After five-and-a-half hours of debate, any clarifications for Mr Leong?
I am glad to say that we have now come to the conclusion of the debate. I shall put the questions on the amendments to the House for decision.
We have three amendments proposed by Member Mr Edward Chia. We will deal with the amendments first.
Amendment No 1, in line 1, to delete \"review\" and insert \"continue its support for hawkers by regularly reviewing\".
[(proc text) Question, \"That Amendment No 1 be made\", agreed to. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: I did not hear any Noes, but is there anyone who wants to record their dissent? No? Good.
Amendment No 2, in line 2, to delete the words \"to provide better support for hawkers\" and insert \", which will help\".
[(proc text) Question, \"That Amendment No 2 be made\", agreed to. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Amendment No 3, at the end of line 3, to add \"while enabling hawkers to earn a fair livelihood\".
[(proc text) Question, \"That Amendment No 3 be made\", agreed to. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: The amendments have all been agreed to. The original Motion as amended is now before the House.
[(proc text) Original Motion, as amended, agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, (proc text)]
[(proc text) That this House calls on the Government to continue its support for hawkers by regularly reviewing its policies relating to hawkers and the management of hawker centres, which will help to sustain and grow Singapore’s hawker culture so that Singaporeans can continue to enjoy good and affordable hawker food while enabling hawkers to earn a fair livelihood. (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":"The Road to Decarbonising Our Corporations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, before I beg to move that Parliament do adjourn, I would like to thank all the hawkers who came today and for staying with us through this very long debate. We greatly appreciate them. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Sir, it has been an exceedingly long day and, of course, a unique form of torture to debate delicious hawker food on an empty stomach. Therefore, I appreciate all Members who are choosing to stay, so there is not just a soliloquy between the Minister of State Alvin Tan and myself. I cannot promise that a speech on \"The Road to Decarbonising Our Corporations\" will necessarily be all that riveting, but I will do my very best.
Mr Speaker, this House had, on two prior occasions, raised separate Motions on stepping up our nation's efforts to tackle the climate emergency. Following these debates, the Government announced revised targets for our long-term carbon footprint, peaking at 65 megatons of carbon dioxide emissions (MtCO2e) over the next few years, before tapering down to 60 MtCO2e by the end of the decade, to achieve the net-zero target by 2050.
As a net energy importer, these are undeniably ambitious targets. Still, ensuring that our planet is livable in the future, requires that we be bold in setting goals that are adhered to not only by our Government, but also our households and businesses. Today, therefore, I wish to speak about our road toward decarbonisation, with an eye specifically for our nation's corporations.
I will speak about three related issues: first, I will touch on why focusing on the carbon emissions of the big players alone is not quite good enough; second, I will discuss who we need to train to ensure that our carbon transition efforts eventually succeed; and third, I will explain what role finance can play in all this. I shall close with thoughts on why climate mitigation efforts need not, in fact, undermine our business competitiveness.
The current slate of policies aimed at decarbonisation is comprehensive. In theory, this involves two major steps: decarbonising energy production and electrifying industry, transport and construction. In practice, this encompasses a diverse mix of policies: carbon taxes, energy efficiency standards and grants, shifting our transportation infrastructure toward electrification and sourcing electricity from alternative sources, both in terms of energy type as well as geographically.
While the Government has, appropriately, taken the lead in these, we will only succeed when businesses are also aligned with the programme. And this requires widespread buy-in by companies that, understandably, face a bottom line and are primarily responsive to their shareholders, who may or may not share the C-suite's enthusiasm for incorporating environmental goals. Ensuring that pro-environment sentiment is widely shared by companies and their shareholders is, therefore, crucial for success.
The bluntest measure for addressing emissions is our carbon tax. This was recently raised to $25 per megaton, from a miserable $5 and, will step up to $45 in 2026, before reaching a range of between $50 and $80 by 2030. While this remains below the preferred range for the Workers' Party, not least because it remains somewhat below the median in other advanced economies as well as the costs of carbon capture, we acquiesce to this increase, given how it is, nevertheless, superior to the original status quo.
We have also spoken about how the tax could be adapted according to the contemporaneous state of the economy, to allow firms some latitude to adapt to prevailing macroeconomic conditions.
I had, moreover, previously explained why I believe a broad-based carbon tax is not only consistent with public finance principles, but also ensures psychological buy-in from all carbon generators. To be clear, this would be everyone.
I wish to return to this theme here, in the context of businesses. In Singapore, the overwhelming majority, an estimated four-fifths of carbon emissions, are accounted for by just 50 facilities, spread across the manufacturing, power, water and waste. While we may argue that this would largely absolve us from worrying too much about how the remaining companies contribute to emissions, I believe that this mindset is mistaken.
This is also because climate change is a global problem and if corporations, including those that are not the primary source emitters, fail to seriously consider their total carbon footprint, they may inadvertently outsource their midstream or downstream activities to other emitters without well-defined carbon action plans. Inattention to midstream activities, such as electricity usage, raw material and equipment procurement and commuting and travel policies, could undermine the upstream efforts by their home country governments.
Similarly, downstream choices by firms, decisions over their distribution network or how they deal with the end-of-life treatment of their products, all contribute toward the ultimate impact that corporations impose on the climate.
This is becoming increasingly observed, recognised by observers. It is no longer sufficient to pay attention to only so-called Scope 1 emissions, which are the sources an organization owns or controls directly. Scope 2 emissions, which are caused indirectly by a company based on where it chooses to buy its energy and how it uses it, also matter; as does Scope 3 emissions, which are those not covered by Scope 1 or 2, but are nevertheless created by a business' value chain.
Responsible businesses are also getting on board. This includes more than nine out of 10 Fortune 500 companies and these standards have been road-tested by diverse firms across the world, such as 3M, Acer, Airbus, Coca Cola, Mitsubishi, Pfizer and Shanghai Zidan.
In Singapore, listed companies will be required to make mandatory climate-related disclosures, consistent with the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), by 2025; and this will extend to large non-listed companies by 2027. This will include their Scope 1 and 2 emissions, but only listed companies will be required to do so for Scope 3 emissions from 2026. Larger, non-listed firms are not expected to do so before 2029, which strikes me as an excessive amount of leeway.
Shortening this timeline by a year, for instance, would ensure that they are held to the same standards and expectations as the locally-listed firms. Doing so will also prevent Singapore from losing its competitive edge and status as a global exemplar of climate leadership.
On its part, the public sector has, appropriately, stepped up. The Government commenced its reporting effort in 2023, with the GreenGov.SG report. To complement this report, Statutory Boards will also publish annual environmental sustainability disclosures, starting this fiscal year. Such disclosures will offer an important demonstration effect, showing not only what the Government is doing to advance environmental sustainability, but also what is achievable by the private sector.
Ultimately, a mandatory monitoring and reporting regime will require clear and uniform environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards. This, in turn, also calls for a whole new set of \"green skills\": the ability to perform corporate carbon accounting, manage firm assets with an eye toward sustainability and provide reporting on a company's ESG impact. Such capabilities are key to Singapore's long-term survival and adaptability in a carbon-constrained world. But they are also presently scarce, a fact that has been repeatedly highlighted as important needs in the multiple editions of the Skills Demand for the Future Economy report.
A Green Skills Committee was set up in 2023, under the auspices of the Ministry of Trade and Industry. The group, comprising representatives from Government, unions, industry and academia, placed their focus on two areas: clean energy and sustainability reporting. If we take this signal seriously, there will be a need to further ramp up training for companies, so that they will be equipped to deliver their climate and sustainability reports at international standards. Similarly, there has to be a body of professional assurance providers that are prepared to audit these emissions reports.
Institutes of Higher Learning will be crucial to help fill this gap. The number of sustainability-related courses supported by SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) almost doubled to nearly 500 in 2023, up from about 250 in 2022. A quick search on the MySkillsFuture website lists 134 courses related to sustainability reporting, with the most affordable course starting at just $84 for eligible Singaporeans. If this sounds like a marketing pitch, it is probably a good time for me to declare that I am, in fact, employed at the business school which offers such sustainability-related education.
Still, impending compliance requirements will steadily accelerate the demand for skills in sustainable finance, carbon management, decarbonisation and sustainability risk assessment. These capabilities must be seen as central to Singapore's long-term survival and adaptability in a carbon-constrained world. Businesses need to be able to hire professionals with such tools and skills; and afforded time to train and groom their existing workforce in acquiring green skills and competencies.
A study by Arup and Oxford Economics estimates that there could be as many as 170,000 green-related jobs, across all sectors, by next year. Although the Government's own Environmental Services Industry Transformation Map is more modest, pointing to around 1,600 professional, manager, executive and technician (PMET) jobs, the ones that are most likely to be filled by locals by this time.
To further support upskilling and reskilling in the sector, the Government can offer tax deductions or subsidies for employers with a clear training roadmap, in partnership with accredited or approved training providers. Of course, training providers must also be kept accountable, with education materials subject to checks for accuracy and subject to update and improvement. Such consistent review should be required to secure SSG-accreditation.
The Economic Development Board (EDB) and Enterprise Singapore currently provides funding support for large companies to cover their first sustainability report, which have to be consistent with ISSB's standards. But with over 600 listed companies in Singapore, all of whom will be required to make climate-related disclosures, they will have their work cut out for them.
More can also be done, however, for our small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Workforce Singapore launched a Career Conversion Programme for Sustainability Professionals (CCP-S) in December 2022, aimed at supporting SMEs in their pursuit of sustainability. However, it remains unclear what the take-up rate for the proposed target of 200 CCP-S professionals is and how many of these will be operating out of SMEs.
And unlike multinationals with substantial budgets that they can dedicate to fulfilling such objectives as well as public reputations and reporting requirements to do so, SMEs are often forced to be selective about the aspects of sustainability that they wish to invest time and resources into. Direction on what such firms would focus on will undoubtedly be appreciated and the Government can work on a set of guidelines for priority targets.
SMEs will also need to be able to plan for shifting regulations and community expectations, especially when they venture abroad. Smaller firms do not have the same capacity to tailor their market research to not only the traditional needs of consumers as well as cost constraints, but also environmental and regulatory considerations. Hence, Enterprise Singapore will need to expand the scope to also provide advisory and assistance on how SMEs can best embed sustainability into their overseas ventures.
Just like how we cannot succeed in our climate-mitigation efforts by focusing only on large firms, we, likewise, cannot expect to get to net zero by relying only on public sources of green financing. After all, our public expenditure needs are vast and the investment gap that has to be met by companies adapting to higher carbon prices, even larger.
This is where ESG financing comes into the picture. There is already a burgeoning sustainable finance ecosystem in Singapore, with lending by both private sector financial institutions as well as public sector entities. Green, social and sustainability loans have exploded to $30.4 billion last year from just $3.3 billion six years ago; as has bonds, rising from $1 billion to $7.4 billion over the same period.
By 2030, the Government and statutory boards are expected to issue green bonds that amount to $35 billion, up from $2.1 billion last year. Still, we should not allow the usual hype over ESG financing to eclipse some of the very real challenges on the ground. Some financiers have suggested that there is still insufficient, reliable data on green projects to assure them that corporate actions do not merely account to greenwashing. This reprises the concern that I raised earlier, about the need for high-quality standards for reporting and professionals.
In the medium run, it may be worthwhile exploring whether subsidies for the green transition should always be directly channeled to businesses or whether there is room to do so via responsible financial intermediaries, who will be in a position to scrutinise business activities and ensure that they truly adhere to green best practices.
Some have argued that sustainable projects must entail a \"green premium\", such that borrowing costs would be higher than the market rate for comparable brown opportunities, with the shift toward ESG-conscious investing, implying that pollutive enterprises now frequently face higher costs of capital, as perhaps they should, if we expect to wean ourselves off such dirty technologies in the longer run. Yet the evidence remains amply unclear as to whether responsible investing must necessarily imply inferior returns.
Mr Speaker, I have offered three practical suggestions for how businesses in Singapore can embrace the carbon transition.
First, we need to broaden the base for carbon taxation, both to include smaller players as well as stages higher and lower in a firm's value chain. Second, we have to monitor our progress with transparent reporting, which, in turn, has to be supplemented by workers with green skills. Finally, the financial sector must play a role in providing the funding to move things along, which they will only be able to do well if they have access to reliable ESG data.
Allow me to close by addressing one of the most common, knee-jerk fears to the pursuit of climate objectives especially held by businesses: that it will raise costs and, hence, undermine competitiveness. This claim, while seemingly intuitive, is, at best, incomplete. While the explanations for why going green may not only be environmentally but also financially sustainable are both complex and multifaceted, the logic can be expressed in a more straightforward manner.
Think about any kind of investment: whether it be in knowledge or the latest technology or even old-school buildings and equipment. These investments always take time before they pay off. Businesses do not set aside earnings for research and development, artificial intelligence or capital expenditure for fun. They do it because they expect, years, perhaps, even decades down the road, they will be in a more profitable position with these investments, than without.
The same can be said for spending on sustainability and green technology. While it may sometimes seem like the money goes directly into a cost black hole, in reality, these are truly investments, which will pay off more in the future.
These may be direct. For example, over the past decade, solar and wind power have become cost-competitive with fossil fuels, even without any financial support. They may also be indirect. After all, if irreversible climate change were to become entrenched, business costs will, themselves, be elevated by higher insurance and other business costs due to natural disasters, as we have observed in countries as diverse as Bangladesh, Mexico, Poland, Spain and Thailand.
In the meantime, any old brown job that is being displaced means new jobs will also, inevitably, be created. While there is no sugarcoating how companies will have to dig into their pockets, at least in the near term, to decarbonise, in the future, they will reap the benefits of their green investments, which will not only be better for their own bottom lines, but also for the only planet that we all inhabit, too. So long as we, as a society and economy, continue to direct technological change in favour of clean, rather than dirty inputs, we will also be able to ultimately realise the dream of sustainable growth for our companies and communities, of course, our children.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Alvin Tan.
The Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan): Sir, I thank the Member for his Adjournment Motion and Members for staying up until almost 10.30 pm.
Sir, the Government recognises the importance of encouraging all companies to decarbonise while also maintaining our economic competitiveness. This balance is key in every single decision we make to move Singapore towards a low-carbon future.
Amidst international efforts to address climate change, Singapore must and in fact, we will do our part. We have set a clear direction to reach net zero by 2050. To meet our commitment, we must take, as the Member said, bold steps. But we must also pace ourselves carefully, consider global and technological developments and, of course, the impact to our companies and to our people. We have made decisive moves at the national level.
Please allow me to touch on some of these moves.
First, the carbon tax, which the Member raised. The carbon tax is a primary lever in our decarbonisation toolkit. It sends an economy-wide signal to our companies to decarbonise. I thank the Member and the Workers' Party for supporting our carbon tax and note that he had re-emphasised that the carbon tax that we have set is not quite high enough and still below the preferred rate for the Workers' Party.
That said, we must be mindful and careful about the carbon tax rate. In fact, we were the first in our region to implement such a carbon price. Today, the carbon tax targets large direct emitters responsible for about 80% of our total carbon emissions. This coverage is one of the most comprehensive already in the world and it rises to 90%, if you account for excise duties on transport fuels.
We are also striking a delicate balance between covering this final 10% of emissions and the added administrative burden, including of reporting and verification. We need to balance between that as well as the burden to our companies and to our people. The carbon price is scheduled to reach $50 to $80 per tonne of CO2-equivalent by 2030 which is aligned with our international climate commitment and sets a clear direction in our decarbonisation journey.
The Member also talked a bit about our energy mix. Besides setting a price on carbon, we have also intensified our efforts to decarbonise our power grid, which will help all companies address their Scope 2 emissions.
First, we are maximising our use of solar energy, which is the most viable source of renewable energy available to us. Second, as the Member knows, we have raised our ambition to import up to six gigawatts of low carbon electricity by 2035 up from the current four gigawatts. Third, we are exploring nascent low-carbon alternatives, such as hydrogen, geothermal energy and newer, nuclear energies and assessing how they can be applied to Singapore. Minister Tan See Leng talked about that earlier this morning. Fourth, we are also engaging industry players to address demand.
Sir, these moves are important in our green transition. We recognise that companies in this world face both opportunities as well as challenges as we make this transition to net-zero together. First, the opportunities. More large corporates are setting science-based climate targets, including here in Asia.
What does that do? Well, it generates higher demand for clean energy sustainability solutions and carbon credits for those hard-to-abate emissions. It also generates new green growth opportunities in areas, such as offshore wind and carbon services and trading. At the same time, we also acknowledge that companies face challenges to adopt these low carbon alternatives and operations.
For example, they may need to deploy new technology that is probably more expensive and less proven, and make adjustments to their processes with possible downtime in their production. Capital providers and clients are also increasingly demanding that companies report and reduce their emissions. Workers, as the Member mentioned, may also need different skills to take on new or transformed roles. All of these transitions take time.
Therefore, we are supporting our companies at different stages of their sustainability journey, to build capabilities, develop their decarbonisation plans, access financing and to train, upskill and reskill our workers. We are working with our trade associations and chambers (TACs) and financial institutions in this endeavour.
The Member talked about measurement and reporting. This is an important first step for a company to understand its baseline emissions and develop a decarbonisation strategy. Here are some ways we are helping; the Member enumerated some ways too.
Companies under Singapore’s phased climate reporting requirements can get started early on their ISSB-aligned reports, by using the Sustainability Reporting Grant introduced by EDB and Enterprise Singapore, a point made by the Member.
SMEs can also use our SME Sustainability Reporting Programme to prepare their first sustainability reports and this is much more affordably, with the help of appointed service providers. SMEs can also tap the Singapore Business Federation's Emission Factors Registry and the Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS') Gprnt to adopt digital solutions to smoothen their carbon accounting and reporting process.
In fact, Gprnt can help an SME automatically translate its day-to-day activities and data from local digital platforms, such as Myinfo Business and Corppass, into a basic sustainability report. With the company's consent, Gprnt can directly share this report with financing and supply chain partners, which will help these SMEs cut down their reporting time and costs.
Beyond that, we are also helping companies as they chart and implement their decarbonisation strategy, working with industry players, such as the Sustainability Alliance, which comprises 18 TACs. TACs, such as the Singapore Logistics Association, have been working very closely with my colleagues at Enterprise Singapore to develop sectoral sustainability playbooks to guide companies on practical, sector-specific steps to the green transition. I launched this playbook with SLA in February.
We also have \"Queen Bee\" companies, which are important. Companies, such as City Developments Limited and SingPost, are helping their suppliers build capabilities in emissions measurement as well as decarbonisation, to better meet their sustainable procurement criteria.
The Member also talked about financing. Let me touch into funding and financing. The Government provides funding to help companies to implement green initiatives, with higher support levels for SMEs. Companies and SMEs can use the Energy Efficiency Grant and, for larger companies, the Resource Efficiency Grant for Emissions to implement energy efficiency projects and enjoy longer-term energy efficiency gains.
They can also use the Enterprise Development Grant – Sustainability. This is a scheme which provides up to 70% support for sustainability projects, which is higher than for other project categories. Let me give an example.
This particular grant helped a local company called Mlion Corporation to build an innovative B2B steel marketplace for pre-owned construction steel materials. Beyond opening up a new revenue stream, the platform has facilitated the use of pre-owned steel instead of new steel and helping this company, whom I have met before, save about 25,000 tonnes of carbon emissions in its first year. So, by using that, you are already seeing some savings.
Beyond this funding financing is important. So, the Member's point about green finance is key. That is why we are catalysing private green capital to support companies in their transition, leveraging Singapore’s status as a sustainable finance hub.
In fact, as the Member observed, Singapore is ASEAN’s largest market for green, social, sustainability and sustainability-linked bonds and loans, accounting for over half of the ASEAN market.
And local companies can use MAS’ Sustainable Loan Grant and Bond Grant Schemes to obtain green and transition financing and to defray the cost of external reviews to validate the sustainability credentials of such loans and bonds.
We have also recently expanded our Enterprise Financing Scheme – Green, which provides enhanced risk share to catalyse lending to SMEs, with around $350 million in green loans to date.
Enterprise Singapore also recently launched programmes with DBS and United Overseas Bank to offer preferential financing rates for sustainability action, including decarbonisation and green initiatives.
Finally, the Member talked about skills. Companies need talent to drive this low-carbon transition. That is why we are indeed reskilling and upskilling workers to take on these newly created roles.
The Member mentioned the Green Skills Committee, which we launched last year. It is developing skills and training programmes in areas such as sustainability reporting and assurance.
SSG is also working with the Institute of Banking and Finance to extend its accredited sustainable finance courses beyond financial institutions. This is to build sustainable finance capabilities among real-economy companies, particularly our SMEs.
Enterprise Singapore and EDB also recently partnered the Nanyang Technological University to establish the Carbon Markets Academy of Singapore. This will offer courses to train 300 professionals to take on jobs in the carbon services and trading sector over the next three years.
So, there is a comprehensive suite of training. These are examples of how we are preparing our people for this green transition.
Mr Speaker, Sir, it is getting late. And it is really fitting that we close what is likely our last Parliamentary Sitting of the year on this very important issue. Why? Because it concerns the future of our island nation.
Climate change, Mr Speaker, is an existential threat to Singapore. As an island, we are vulnerable to rising sea levels. And as a densely populated tropical city, we are vulnerable to severe heat stress.
On our part, our Government will continue to set clear direction and build an enabling environment for the green transition. We will chart forward-looking decarbonisation pathways and partner industry to build green capabilities. But beyond government and businesses, we all too, as consumers, must also play an important role in this green transition. We could choose low or zero-carbon alternatives in our lifestyles, for example.
Sir, advancing the green transition —
Mr Speaker: Minister of State, you should round up. Last 10 seconds.
Mr Alvin Tan: Advancing the green transition is not just a good to do. It is a must do, if we are to secure the survival of our island nation. Sir, I am proud that this House continues to stand together with our people and our businesses in our important mission to secure a competitive, low-carbon future for Singapore.
Mr Speaker: It has been a long day.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 10.34 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":"Introducing Video Recording when Taking Statements for Investigations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"20 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs what is the progress on the introduction of video recording in taking statements for law enforcement investigations.
Mr K Shanmugam: Video recording of interviews, or VRI, was first introduced in 2018 for rape cases. Last year, we updated Parliament that VRI has been expanded to include other offences, such as serious sexual offences like aggravated outrage of modesty and sexual assault by penetration, as well as child abuse, maid abuse and non-capital drug-related offences. We also updated that we have started expanding VRI to vulnerable suspects investigated for non-capital cases, specifically for young suspects where there is no Appropriate Adult in attendance, and offenders with mental disabilities.
Since then, we have expanded VRI further to cover trafficking in persons and more sexual offences, including the sexual penetration of minors, and procurement of sexual activity with person with mental disability or by deception. We have also completed the expansion of VRI to all non-capital cases involving the vulnerable suspects I mentioned earlier.
Moving forward, we are carefully studying how we can expand VRI to more cases, including capital cases and interviews with victims or witnesses.
One issue is that VRI is resource-intensive. With VRI, there is no written signed statement. Transcripts have to be prepared to facilitate investigation and Court processes. They have to be checked against the video footage for accuracy. This means that officers have to review the whole duration of the video recorded, and each interview can be a few hours long.
There are also additional administrative procedures involved, such as setting up and ensuring functionality of the VRI facilities, replaying the VRI footages for the interviewee, sending the footages for transcribing and so on. We have streamlined some of these processes, but the fact remains that conducting VRI takes up far more of the investigation officer’s time compared to a written statement.
The speed of transcription is another consideration, and even the fastest turnaround time takes days. This is not ideal for time-sensitive cases, such as capital cases, where officers need to review the transcripts quickly to conduct follow-up investigations. While technology, such as speech-to-text transcription, can help augment manual transcription, it is not yet at the accuracy that avoids the need for time-consuming verification against the interview footage. We are reviewing whether we should develop in-house transcription capability to better support the expansion of VRI.
We remain committed to expanding the use of VRI, at a pace that is supported by adequate infrastructure, resources and technology.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data for Female Participation on Boards and in C-suite Roles, and Steps to Address Institutional Factors Causing Gender Inequality","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Social and Family Development with reference to the speech at the CBD Leadership-in-Action event (a) what number and percentage of the 25.3% of female board directors mentioned are (i) executive directors and (ii) non-executive directors respectively; (b) what proportion of senior management or “C-suite” roles of the top 100 SGX-listed companies are performed by female executives as of June 2024; and (c) what further steps can be taken to address possible institutional factors that cause gender inequality in specific roles, levels and sectors.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Government works with the Council for Board Diversity to encourage board diversity, particularly women’s participation on boards. Currently, women’s participation on the boards of the top 100 SGX-listed companies is 25.3%, a more than three-fold increase from 7.5% in end 2013. Of the 25.3% of women on the boards of the top 100 SGX-listed companies, 19 women or 9.1% of them are Executive Directors, and 189 women or 90.9% of them are Non-Executive Directors.
The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) will continue to work with the Council for Board Diversity and stakeholders to better support women to fulfil their leadership potential. To enable us to better understand the current landscape of female leadership in the private sector, MSF is conducting a study to determine the proportion of women in C-suite positions, such as Chief Executive Officers and Chief Financial Officers.
The Government is committed to ensuring both men and women are able to achieve their career aspirations to the fullest. This includes addressing challenges that could limit their ability to participate fully and progress in the workplace.
To better support women in entering and thriving in the workforce, we are taking a stronger stance against workplace discrimination through the upcoming Workplace Fairness Legislation. We also continue to work closely with the tripartite partners to encourage family-friendly workplace practices that help employees better manage their work and caregiving responsibilities. The Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests, which will take effect on 1 December 2024, will help employers and employees engage in open discussions about flexible work arrangements so that mutually beneficial arrangements can be found.
Beyond legislation and policies, stakeholders, such as educational institutions, employers and the community, also play important roles to support and empower women to pursue and fulfil their career aspirations and leadership potential without being hampered by stereotypes. For example, in the area of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or STEM, we are heartened to see an increase in female participation in STEM education and workforce. Almost four in 10 students enrolled in STEM courses in our Institutes of Higher Learning in the past five years are female. According to a report published by the Boston Consulting Group and the Infocomm Media Development Authority in 2020, women make up 41% of the tech workforce, well above the global average of 28%.
It takes a whole-of-society effort to foster fair, inclusive and progressive workplaces. The Government will continue to work with industry and the community to shift mindsets and enable women to fulfil their aspirations and leadership potential.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress of Review of F1 Contracts and Tender Processes, and Lapses Uncovered","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Ministry has completed the review of the Formula 1 contracts and tender processes as stated during the Parliamentary session in February 2024; (b) if so, what specific irregularities or compliance lapses have been identified in the review; and (c) whether the Ministry will publicly release the full findings to ensure transparency and restore public confidence.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Minister Grace Fu had indicated in Parliament that the Government was reviewing the terms of our Formula One (F1) contracts. The Singapore Tourism Board (STB) would also conduct an audit of the 2022 race.
The review of the F1 contracts between the Government and Singapore GP Pte Ltd is ongoing.
STB completed the audit covering the disbursement of grants and procurement matters relating to F1 from 2019 to 2022. The audit concluded that STB’s internal controls were satisfactory, with no significant findings.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Factors in Pricing of Adult Monthly Travel Pass","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the average monthly public transport fare expenditure for adult users who commute to work using public transport; (b) how is the pricing of the Adult Monthly Travel Pass (AMTP) determined; and (c) what is the average value utilised by AMTP holders based on equivalent adult fares for trips taken in a month.\n
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Public transport is heavily subsidised in Singapore so as to keep fares affordable. The average monthly expenditure for adult commuters, based on per-card usage, is estimated to be about $45. Among Adult Monthly Travel Pass holders, their average expenditure without the pass would be about $140 per month.
The Adult Monthly Travel Pass is to help heavy users of public transport manage their costs. The pricing of the pass is regularly reviewed by the Public Transport Council as part of its annual Fare Review Exercises. It is currently set at $128 and will remain unchanged in the latest fare adjustments.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trend of Charges for In-vitro Fertilisation Treatments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the costs for in-vitro fertilisation treatments at public hospitals and private clinics respectively have increased over the last 10 years; and (b) if so, what is the rate of increase.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The cost of in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycles at public Assisted Reproduction (AR) centres has increased by about 2% a year over the past decade. The Ministry does not track the cost of IVF at private AR centres.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Full-time Resident Employees Who Received Only Seven Days of Paid Annual Leave in First Year of Employment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower what is the breakdown by industries of the number of full-time resident employees aged 25 to 64 who in their first year of employment received only seven days of paid annual leave.
Dr Tan See Leng: As mentioned in our earlier reply to a related Parliamentary Question read on 14 October 2024, out of the 228,900 full-time resident employees aged 25 to 64 who were in their first year of employment in 2023, 18,800 employees or 8.2% received only seven days of paid annual leave. [Please refer to \"Full-time Resident Employees Aged 25 to 64 Receiving Only Seven Days Paid Annual Leave in First Year of Employment\", Official Report, 14 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 142, Written Answers to Questions section.]
Detailed estimates broken down by industry are not available.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Reach Out to Elderly Men Seen Eating Leftovers at People's Park Centre Hawker Centre","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry has made efforts to identify and reach out to elderly men who have allegedly been eating leftovers in the hawker centre at People's Park Centre and, if so, what assistance has been rendered to these elderly men.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Social Service Offices (SSOs) do reach out to such individuals and render assistance where needed. The interventions provided could include financial assistance by our SSOs. This was the support provided when our SSO reached out to such an individual recently at People’s Park Centre. This individual was previously given (a) ComCare assistance which had also been renewed twice; and (b) two rounds of assistance from the community. Therefore, he is not unfamiliar with how to seek support from ComCare. However, for reasons best known to himself, he did not apply for further renewal of ComCare. When we reached out to him, he told us he did not do so because he was relying on his savings for his basic living expenses. He had also over the period received Silver Support Scheme payouts, Government payouts, such as GST Vouchers and Assurance Package totalling $5,950. The man explained that he ate leftovers at the hawker centre out of a desire to be frugal. In reality, there was no need for him to do so.
After proactively reviewing his sources of income, we provided ComCare assistance to him again and advised him to seek renewal when needed. We also advised him to use the ComCare to purchase his own food and not to eat leftovers. We will continue to monitor his well-being, give him financial assistance as long as he needs it, and ensure he is taking adequate steps to care for himself.
As the Government cannot know of every individual in need, we need the community to bring to our attention those who seem to need help. If you see anyone in the community whom you feel requires assistance, do help us by bringing the case to our attention. Reports can be made to the ComCare hotline at 1800-222-0000, or at the nearest SSO or Family Service Centre.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Initiatives for Active Development of New Music Festivals in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry whether any plans are underway for the active development of new music festivals in Singapore.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Singapore Tourism Board (STB), the National Arts Council and our cultural institutions, such as the Esplanade, actively curate and hold a wide range of music festivals in Singapore. They showcase different genres of music from Singapore and the world that appeal to locals and international visitors. These include homegrown music events like the Sundown Festival, the AXEAN Festival, Baybeats, and the Alex Blake Charlie Sessions.
STB and the agencies are always looking to introduce new concepts in Singapore that will be the first of their kind in the region. An example is the upcoming Yuewen Music Festival 2024, which will debut in Singapore in December 2024. The festival will feature an exciting line-up of C-pop, K-pop and J-pop artistes as well as global disc jockeys.
STB also supports innovative new concepts, such as Sessions, an ambient music experience by homegrown producer, 24OWLS, that launched in October 2024.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Feedback on Loud Noises from Use of Mobile Devices on Public Transport","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport (a) for the past five years, how many cases of feedback has the Ministry received from public transport commuters on loud conversations carried out by fellow commuters using voice recording messaging or from playing loud videos on handphones on buses or trains; and (b) what measures have been taken to address this issue.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: This question was addressed in the written reply issued for Question No 50 for Oral Answer for the 12 November 2024 Parliament Sitting. [Please refer to \"Discouraging Commuters from Blaring Videos or Music Loudly from Mobile Devices while on Trains and Buses\", Official Report, 12 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 146, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"HDB Estates with Pneumatic Waste Conveyance Systems and Cost-Benefit Analysis on Them","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development (a) which HDB estates currently have a Pneumatic Waste Conveyance System (PWCS) installed; (b) what is the breakdown of each system’s monthly operational costs per dwelling unit, including maintenance and electricity; (c) how do the monetised cost savings compare quantitatively to traditional waste disposal methods; (d) who benefits directly from these savings; (e) who bears the operational costs of the system; and (f) whether there is an evaluation process in place for assessing PWCS’ cost savings and return on investment.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Pneumatic Waste Conveyance System (PWCS) is an automated waste collection system that uses high-speed suction via an underground pipe network to collect household waste. About 40 Housing and Development Board (HDB) precincts in Ang Mo Kio, Bukit Batok, Chua Chu Kang, Jurong East, Punggol, Sengkang, Tampines, Tengah, Toa Payoh, Woodlands and Yishun have been installed with PWCS.
Compared to conventional waste collection methods, the costs of building, operating and maintaining PWCS is higher. The operating cost breakdown varies depending on system specifications and localised factors. The current higher costs with using PWCS is primarily borne by (a) the Government, for infrastructure and system deployment; and (b) the Town Councils for operations and maintenance. Furthermore, each set of PWCS infrastructure and system is typically built to serve a few precincts. In areas that are still being progressively built up, the cost per dwelling unit incurred by HDB and the Town Councils will be higher at the start but should gradually decline as more dwelling units are added to reap economies of scale. In recognition of the higher costs incurred by Town Councils with PWCS precincts, HDB currently provides them with a grant, at $2 per month per dwelling unit served by the PWCS.
The Member asked who benefits from the savings from the adoption of PWCS.
First and foremost, residents benefit. PWCS enables a cleaner and more efficient waste collection process, compared to conventional methods. As the waste is conveyed through sealed pipes from throw-points to a bin centre, the PWCS reduces disamenities to residents, such as pest infestation, odours and exposed waste. Furthermore, space required under conventional methods, such as service roads and localised bin centres, are freed up for other amenities, such as bigger playgrounds or fitness areas.
Second, the PWCS is also designed to be more manpower-efficient than conventional methods in the long run. Instead of collecting waste from each block and each chute under the conventional method, PWCS waste from a few precincts only needs to be collected from one single centralised location.
The Government regularly reviews the implementation of the PWCS and will continue to support the Town Councils where needed, especially those adopting PWCS for the first time in their towns.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Move to Issue Additional COEs on Car-lite Ambitions and on Switch to Distance-based Road Charges","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the anticipated impact of planned increase of 20,000 additional COEs on Singapore’s \"car-lite\" ambitions; and (b) whether the Ministry expects the plans to result in increased adoption of private car use for transport.
31 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Transport what are the specific parameters which the Ministry will take into consideration in deciding when to start distance-based charges under the ERP 2.0 system in view of the additional 20,000 COEs to be injected into the vehicle population in Singapore.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: These questions have been addressed in the reply to Questions No 3 to 6 for Oral Answer at the 12 November 2024 Sitting. [Please refer to \"Review of Zero Vehicle Growth Policy, Vehicle Quota System and Rebates Given High COE Prices, Increased E-vehicles Adoption and Rollout of ERP 2.0\", Official Report, 12 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 146, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Preventive Measures in Place following Breach of Confidence over Exchange of Prisoners' Letters","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs in light of the Court of Appeal ruling that the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) and Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) acted unlawfully by disclosing and requesting prisoners’ letters, including confidential correspondence with their lawyers (a) how will prisoners' correspondence be handled by SPS and AGC going forward; (b) how will attorney-client privilege for prisoners be ensured; (c) what actions are being taken against the officers and decision-makers responsible for the breaches; and (d) what remedies will be provided to affected prisoners or their families.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Court of Appeal ruling was delivered in a case brought by 13 Prisoners Awaiting Capital Punishment (PACPs) at the time of application. In essence, they filed legal proceedings seeking various remedies, on the basis that the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had breached their right to confidentiality under civil law, as SPS had extended copies of their correspondence to AGC.
It has been explained to the Court of Appeal why these documents were disclosed to AGC. Most of these documents were shared with AGC, in the context of scheduling the executions of PACPs. SPS’ practice was to keep AGC informed of developments involving these PACPs, and to seek legal advice on whether there were any relevant pending proceedings, or issues which could give rise to such proceedings, that would require the capital sentence to be held in abeyance. This approach was adopted out of an abundance of caution. The officers who disclosed the documents believed in good faith that they could be shared with AGC, for the purpose of seeking legal advice on scheduling, and ensuring that PACPs’ rights were not infringed in terms of further steps being taken with regard to their sentences.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the relevant prisoners’ consent, or an order of Court, should have been obtained for the disclosure.
The Court of Appeal said that three out of the 13 prisoners were entitled to damages, but only nominal damages of $10 each, for a breach of copyright. The Court of Appeal was of the view that there was no basis for the prisoners’ claims for further damages.
The Court also noted that no breach of confidence arose from SPS officers opening or perusing any of the documents, because they were entitled to do so under the Prisons Regulations. In addition, the Court of Appeal also accepted in an earlier decision which also dealt with the disclosure of prisoners’ correspondence1, that although there was oversight by AGC when it received correspondence from SPS, there was not an attempt to seek any advantage in Court proceedings.
Since May 2020, SPS and AGC have instituted a policy that a prisoner’s correspondence will not be sent by Ministry of Home Affairs or SPS to AGC, unless the prisoner’s consent, or an order of the Court, has been obtained.
Our agencies do their best to carry out their responsibilities in accordance with the law. Occasionally, there may be lapses. Here the lapses were such that the Court ordered $10 in damages each, to three of the applicants. SPS has put in place measures to prevent a reoccurrence.
In this case, the officers were acting in good faith. AGC and SPS have reminded their officers of their obligations following the Court’s decision. No further action will be taken against them as there is no basis to do so.
The Member has also asked how attorney-client privilege for prisoners will be ensured. Under the Prisons Regulations, letters to or from a prisoner’s legal adviser cannot be copied or withheld. However, this privilege cannot be at the expense of ensuring security and good order of prisons, which is SPS’ foremost responsibility. This matter will be considered carefully.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Gobi a/l Avedian and another v Attorney-General and another appeal [2020] 2 SLR 883"],"footNoteQuestions":["32"],"questionNo":"32"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lessons on Oil Spill Prevention, Detection and Mitigation Following Recent Spate of Incidents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport in light of the various oil pollution incidents which happened within our Singapore port waters this year (a) what are the further lessons learnt on the (i) prevention of oil pollution, (ii) early detection of oil pollution and (iii) mitigation measures to prevent or minimise the spread; and (b) what are the effects of oil pollution to our waters and coastal areas.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: This question have been addressed in the reply to Question Nos 7 and 8 for Oral Answer at the 11 November 2024 Sitting. [Please refer to (a) \"Adequacy and Effectiveness of Oil Sighting and Alert Mechanisms, and Maritime Incident Response and Mitigation Strategies\", Official Report, 11 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 145, Oral Answers to Questions section; and (b) \"Inspection for Structural Integrity of Oil Pipelines, Measures to Prevent Oil Spills and Penalties for Recent Incidents\", Official Report, 11 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 145, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inclusion of Disclosures on Human Capital Management in SGX's Sustainability Reporting Requirements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Ministry will consider expanding SGX's sustainability reporting requirements to include disclosures about human capital management, such as the working conditions inside a firm, to reflect that fair and progressive treatment of workers is material to the quality of value created by the business.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): As shared previously in this house on 7 February 20241, companies listed on the Singapore Exchange (SGX) are required by the exchange's listing rules to disclose all matters or developments that have significant business impact. [Please refer to \"Inclusion of Tripartite Standard for Contracting with Self-Employed Persons in Sustainability Reporting by SGX-listed Firms\", Official Report, 7 February 2024, Vol 95, Issue 122, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
This is in line with international standards and covers reporting on environmental, social and governance factors, which include human capital management. For instance, companies commonly make human capital-related disclosures in areas, such as working conditions, occupational health and safety, diversity and inclusion. SGX will continue to monitor international developments and good practices in this area.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Publication of Projected Investment and Interest Income of Pioneer and Merdeka Generation Funds","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is the dollar value of the projected investment and interest income over the remaining lifetime of the Pioneer Generation Fund and Merdeka Generation Fund, respectively; (b) whether the sum total of the projected investment and interest income and current fund balances are currently projected to exceed the estimated liabilities of both funds; and (c) whether these figures can be published in the Government Financial Statements annually and, if not, why not.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Government reviews the estimated liabilities and the utilisation trends of the Pioneer Generation (PG) and Merdeka Generation (MG) Funds to ensure the sufficiency of the Funds. Due to the long-term nature of the Funds, we do not seek to exactly match liabilities each year, but will top up these Funds, where necessary, to honour the commitments to our PG and MG seniors. As at 31 March 2024, the estimated liabilities of the PG Fund and MG Fund are $6.11 billion and $5.78 billion respectively. The fund balances of the PG Fund and MG Fund are at $5.52 billion and $5.55 billion respectively.
The rate of return of the PG and MG Funds is pegged to the weighted average tenor of the monies in the respective funds. This information is published in the annual financial statements of the PG and MG Funds. The dollar value of the projected investment and interest income of the PG and MG Funds, over their remaining lifetimes, are not published as they are dependent on the utilisation of the funds and the remaining fund balances.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"New Pre-feasibility Study on Nuclear Energy Using Small Modular Reactors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Government is planning to conduct another pre-feasibility study on nuclear energy, specifically, on the use of small modular reactors in Singapore, given technological advances since the last study in 2012.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Government has not made any decision on the deployment of nuclear energy in Singapore or to conduct another pre-feasibility study on nuclear energy. While newer technologies, such as small modular reactors, could potentially be suitable for Singapore, they remain at a nascent stage and have not been deployed on a commercial scale yet. We are focusing on building capabilities to better assess the suitability of these technologies for Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of Workers Hired as Employees and as Freelancers in Creative Industries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what current proportion of the about 63,000 workers in the creative industries are (i) employees and (ii) freelancers; (b) what is the average ratio of employee to freelancer for creative (i) micro-enterprises (ii) small enterprises and (iii) medium to large enterprises; and (c) for the past 10 years, what is the multiplier of the indicated value-add per worker to the average pay of (i) employee and (ii) freelancer.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: In 2022, there were about 76,000 workers in the creative industries, of which, 82%, or 62,000, were employees and 18%, or 14,000, were freelancers. Of the employees, 44% worked in micro-enterprises, 32% in small enterprises and 24% in medium to large enterprises. These employees generated a value-add of about $184,000 per worker, or around 3.3 times the median annual income of employed residents in the creative industries. We do not track companies' engagements of freelancers or the value-add generated by freelancers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extremist Websites or Internet Domains Banned in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Home Affairs how many extremist websites or Internet domains are banned in Singapore to prevent extremist narratives from taking root.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Government has blocked more than 50 Internet domains that were found to contain extremist content. However, it is not possible to block all extremist content. New websites, containing extremist content, are constantly emerging and bad actors will continue to find ways to get their message across while avoiding detection. Determined individuals will find ways to circumvent our blocking.
That is why public education and outreach remains essential to countering extremist narratives. The Internal Security Department (ISD) has been working with Government agencies and community partners on outreach efforts to strengthen the community's resilience to extremist ideologies. The public also plays an important role and we encourage members of the public to contact the ISD Counter-Terrorism hotline at 1800-2626-473 (1800-2626-ISD) or report via the SGSecure app, if they are concerned that someone close to them may be at risk of being radicalised.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improving Landline Emergency Services Hotline for SCDF and SPF and Alternative Contact Avenues During Outages","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether there are plans to improve the use of landline emergency services hotline for the Singapore Civil Defence Force and the Singapore Police Force; (b) what are the measures taken to ensure that emergency services remain contactable in the event of future landline outages or other similar incidents; (c) whether there are alternative emergency services contact other than the landlines; and (d) if so, what are the steps taken to raise awareness of these contact avenues.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Member may refer to Parliamentary Question No 71, which was addressed during the 11 November 2024 Parliament Sitting. [Please refer to \"Back-up Contingency for Essential Hotlines to Enhance Robustness Against Telco Disruptions\", Official Report, 11 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 145, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
Information on emergency contact channels are available on the Singapore Police Force and Singapore Civil Defence Force websites.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Steps to Ensure Oil Spills Are Cleaned Up and Not Endanger Human and Marine Life","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in respect of the estimated five tonnes of oil reported to have overflowed during the bunkering operations off Changi (a) what are the steps taken by the Ministry with its agencies and other bodies to ensure that the waters around the affected area are cleaned up and do not endanger human and marine life; and (b) what are the plans by the Ministry to work with the relevant agencies and MPA to ensure that such incidents do not happen again.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Member may refer to written Parliamentary Question No 11 answered on 12 November 2024's Sitting, on the oil spill incident which occurred on 28 October 2024. [Please refer to \"Impact on Local Wildlife and Environment from Oil Spill off Changi on 28 October 2024\", Official Report, 12 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 146, Written Answers to Questions section.]
For more details on measures that have been implemented by agencies to reduce the risk of oil spill incidents, the Member may also refer to the response by Minister of State for Transport, Mr Murali Pillai, to Parliamentary Questions on the recent oil spill incidents at the 11 November 2024 Parliament Sitting. [Please refer to \"Adequacy and Effectiveness of Oil Sighting and Alert Mechanisms, and Maritime Incident Response and Mitigation Strategies\", Official Report, 11 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 145, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inclusion of Presence of Pollutants from Oil and Chemical Spills in Water Quality Advisories on NEA Website","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry will consider (i) reflecting information on the presence of pollutants from oil and chemical spills in its water quality advisories for popular recreational beaches that are published on the NEA website and (ii) placing regularly updated physical signages with water quality advisories at popular recreational beaches.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency (NEA) regularly publishes information on the water quality at popular recreational beaches on NEA's website and the myENV mobile application. These include advisories indicating whether a beach is suitable for primary contact activities, i.e., swimming, during pollution incidents which might impact the water quality at our beaches. Such advisories take into account the possible presence of pollutants related to the pollution incident. In addition, when necessary, NEA places physical signages advising the public against swimming at affected beaches.
We encourage the public to check the NEA website or the myENV mobile application for the most updated information on the water quality of recreational beaches.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Initiative to Adopt Aspects of Japanese School Lunch Programme to Foster Civic-mindedness and Responsibility Among Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has considered adopting certain aspects of the Japanese school lunch programme, such as involving students in serving, cleaning up and recycling, to foster civic-mindedness and responsibility among students; and (b) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the initiative for students to clean their own classrooms, including whether the initiative is ongoing and whether the scope and duration can be expanded to further instill these values in students.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Schools are committed to nurturing citizens of good character and teaching our students to be civic-minded and responsible. Through \"everyday responsibilities\" in Character and Citizenship Education (CCE), students take on daily cleaning duties of their classroom and common areas in school. This is Singapore's way for students to learn about the dignity of labour and the fulfilment of serving their community, that achieves the same intent as Japanese schools' lunch duties. Schools also design Values in Action experiences, such as service learning, recycling drives and energy conservation efforts, to enable students' civic participation. We seek and appreciate the support of parents and society in our CCE programmes to inculcate such values in our young.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Timeline for Completion of Dedicated Public Access Route to Indoor Sports Hall at North View Primary School","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Derrick Goh asked the Minister for Education with the completion of the new Indoor Sports Hall at North View Primary School in 2022, when will the dedicated public access route to the Indoor Sports Hall be completed so that Nee Soon Link residents can resume booking and using it for activities under the ActiveSG Dual-Use Scheme.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The dedicated public access route to the Indoor Sports Hall (ISH) at North View Primary School was completed in June 2024. For safety and security purposes, Closed Circuit Televisions are now being installed. The ISH is expected to be available for public booking, under the ActiveSG Dual-Use Scheme, in January 2025.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Students' Usage of School-Issued Devices for Non-educational Purposes by Bypassing Restrictions Placed","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education with regard to school-issued devices given out in secondary schools, over the past five years, what is the data on (i) students' usage of these devices for gaming and social media instead of on educational purposes (ii) the number of school-issued devices that were intentionally reset back to factory settings by students to bypass restrictions and (iii) the number of students who managed to bypass restrictions placed on the school-issued devices using other methods.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: This Question has been addressed in the Ministry of Education's response to Parliamentary Question No 42 at the 11 November 2024 Sitting and Member may refer to the response. [Please refer to \"Ensuring Proper Use of Personal Learning Devices in Schools to Effectively Support Students' Learning\", Official Report, 11 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 145, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Top Three Most Commonly Breached Bond Terms Signed under Care and Protection Orders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what are the top three most commonly breached bond terms signed under a Care and Protection Order in cases of non-compliance by parents which are followed up on by the Child Protective Service (CPS); and (b) how many such cases involve the CPS removing the child from the home.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The top three most commonly breached bond terms include, failing to attend required counselling sessions with professionals, defaulting on scheduled review sessions for the child's safety plans and not cooperating with check-ins by professionals on the child's wellbeing.
In cases where parents fail to comply with these terms, the Child Protective Service (CPS) would address the issue by discussing the potential consequences of non-compliance with the parents and collaborating with them to reinforce their commitment to these conditions. This approach has been effective, with most parents ultimately meeting the requirements of the court orders. It has been uncommon for CPS to remove a child due to a breach of bond terms.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Children under Care of Child Protection Services and Number Ineligible for Fostering","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many children are currently under the care of Child Protection Services; (b) how many of them are being taken care of by (i) Government agencies and (ii) non-Government agencies; (c) whether the current capacity is sufficient; and (d) how many of these children are not eligible for fostering and what are the reasons for their ineligibility.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Currently, there are around 1,150 children under the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) Child Protective Service's care, placed with foster parents, in children's homes or in MSF's Youth Homes. As of September 2024, around 47% are in foster care, 48% in children's homes and 5% under Care and Protection Order in MSF Youth Homes. The current capacity across these care options is sufficient.
We try to place children in foster care, where possible. However, immediate placement with a foster family may not always be possible due to specific needs, such as specialised support for children with special needs; or logistical challenges, like the foster home being too far from the child's school, which could, in turn, disrupt their routine and stability. In such cases, we ensure alternative arrangements that best support the child's wellbeing until a suitable foster match becomes available.
MSF regularly conducts outreach to encourage more families to offer their homes as foster parents, such as the annual Fostering Open House where potential applicants can find out more about fostering. Members of the public interested in fostering can register their interest through MSF's website.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Freelancers and SEPs Eligible for Government Paid Leave Scheme and Plans to Increase Awareness and Take-up Rate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Social and Family Development for each year since 2019 (a) what are the numbers of freelancers and self-employed persons who are eligible for each unique Government paid leave scheme, respectively; (b) what are the numbers of persons from this group who have submitted claims yearly for each unique scheme during the same time period, respectively; and (c) how does the Ministry plan to increase (i) awareness and (ii) absolute take-up of the schemes.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Based on household and labour force survey data, we estimate that an average of about 1,500 and 4,100 self-employed mothers and fathers, per year, were eligible for Government-Paid Maternity Leave (GPML) and Government-Paid Paternity Leave (GPPL), respectively, between 2019 and 2022. An average of about 1,000 self-employed mothers and 1,200 self-employed fathers had submitted claims for GPML and GPPL, respectively, over the same period.
We estimate that an average of about 31,100 and 25,300 self-employed parents, per year, were eligible for Government-Paid Child Care Leave (GPCL) and Extended Child Care Leave (ECL), respectively, between 2019 and 2022. An average of about 5,400 and 1,400 self-employed parents had submitted claims for GPCL and ECL, respectively.
The above numbers for self-employed persons include eligible freelancers, as the survey data does not differentiate between the two groups. Freelancers will, similarly, need to have been engaged in a particular trade, business, profession or vocation for a continuous period of at least three months and have lost income from ceasing to be actively engaged during the leave period to be eligible for the Government-paid leave schemes. Data for 2023 is not yet available.
The Government has been working with tripartite partners to raise awareness and take-up of the various Government-Paid parental leave schemes to those eligible, including among self-employed persons and freelancers. For instance, information on these schemes have been disseminated through publicity efforts on Government platforms as well as through our tripartite partners' networks. For those who require more specific advice, we have also partnered with the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) to conduct webinars as well as clinics at NTUC's Freelancers and Self-Employed Unit Centre, to guide them through the leave reimbursement process. We will continue our efforts to encourage take-up of our parental leave schemes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Take-up Rate of Enabling Mark Since 2020 and Incentives to Encourage Adoption","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what has been the take-up rate of the Enabling Mark since its introduction in 2020 and whether it shows an upward trend; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider introducing financial incentives to encourage more employers to adopt it as a form of recognition for progressive employment practices.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Since the Enabling Mark accreditation was introduced in October 2020, the cumulative number of organisations that have received Enabling Mark accreditation has increased from 89 organisations in 2021 to 246 organisations in 2024.
The Enabling Mark is a national-level accreditation framework for organisations to benchmark and recognise their best practices and outcomes in disability-inclusive employment. It also serves as a roadmap for organisations to systematically chart their progress and strengthen their inclusive practices over time. Organisations that have applied for the Enabling Mark accreditation appreciate that the framework supports them in their journey to improve inclusive employment practices and, also, enables them to build a positive corporate image by demonstrating their efforts in inclusive hiring.
We have put in measures over the years to support employers to strengthen inclusive employment practices. Under the Open Door Programme, employers can tap on customised employment support from trained job coaches as well as grants to support job redesign and workshops to prepare them and their employees without disabilities to interact, hire, integrate and retain employees with disabilities in their organisation.
In addition, employers receive wage offsets through the Enabling Employment Credit, for employees with disabilities earning below $4,000 per month. We will also introduce a new Employer Development Grant, from 1 January 2025 onwards, to empower employers to build up their inclusive hiring capabilities. This will enable them to scale up efforts to hire persons with disabilities and support their long-term retention.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Curb Vaping in Schools and Reduce Availability of E-vaporisers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health in view of the recent increase in number of individuals caught and fined for possessing or using e-vaporisers, especially among youths, what additional preventive, educational and enforcement measures are being planned or implemented in collaboration with agencies like the Ministry of Education and the Health Promotion Board to curb vaping in schools and institutes of higher learning.
17 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health (a) how effective are current enforcement strategies in reducing the availability and use of e-vaporisers, including their online availability; and (b) whether the Ministry can provide updated statistics on recidivism rates among individuals previously penalised for vaping offences.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Various agencies, led by the Ministry of Health (MOH), have been working together to improve effectiveness of enforcement against vaping. We stepped up enforcement operations at the land, sea and air checkpoints, heartland areas, malls and central business district as well as at major events, such as the Formula 1 race, National Day Parade and music festivals. We also streamlined the processes, so that enforcement officers from the Singapore Police Force, National Environment Agency or National Parks Board can issue digital Notices of Composition on the spot to vaping offenders.
At the same time, the Health Sciences Authority has stepped up enforcement against online advertisements and sales of e-vaporisers and has worked with platform owners to remove about 6,000 offending listings in the first three quarters of 2024. In 2023, a total of about 3,000 listings were removed.
Among those penalised for vaping-related offences, about 15% were repeat offenders.
Enforcement against vaping is a long-term effort. Many studies have shown that vaping is at least as harmful, if not more harmful, than cigarette smoking. Yet, we are fighting against an industry that is deliberately targeting young people, disguising harmful substance as cool lifestyle habit with a fruity taste. We will need more effective public education efforts, to inform the public of the harms of vaping. This would include working closely with the Ministry of Education, schools and Institutes of Higher Learning.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Private Ambulance Providers' Response Time and Training and Qualifications Required Compared to SCDF Personnel","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the average response time for private ambulance providers to reach a patient's location; (b) whether private ambulance providers are required to obtain the same standard of training qualifications and expertise as compared to SCDF ambulance personnel; and (c) under what circumstances in a medical emergency will private ambulance providers advise a patient or their family to call for an SCDF ambulance.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: While the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) ambulances are activated for life-threatening medical emergencies by calling 995, private ambulances are activated for less urgent cases. Hence, Ministry of Health does not track response times for private ambulance providers arriving at the patients' locations.
That said, we regulate private ambulance services, which must, at all times, maintain valid certification, undergo periodic re-certification every two years as well as ensure that their personnel are properly qualified and attend regular skills refresher training.
Importantly, licensed ambulance providers are required to properly triage a patient before conveyance. Where the provider assesses that it cannot safely convey the patient, the provider must make appropriate alternative arrangements, such as calling for an SCDF ambulance, for the safe and timely conveyance of the patient. In the event of a life-threatening medical emergency, the public should call for an SCDF ambulance in the first instance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Research Conducted on Caring for Seniors to Better Understand Informal Carers' Needs and Well-being","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry is conducting or has plans to conduct further research into (i) the estimates of informal care time and monetary costs associated with those caring for seniors aged 75 and above and (ii) time-use studies for informal carers to better understand the needs and well-being of informal carers.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: There have been various Ministry-funded research done on ageing and caregiving, such as those conducted by the DUKE-NUS Centre for Ageing Research and Education (CARE); Retirement and Health Study by the Central Provident Fund Board; the National Council of Social Service's Quality of Life of Caregivers study; and the Agency for Integrated Care's regular engagements with caregivers. Caregiving involves significant sacrifice and commitment and there have been many initiatives to support them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Active Ageing Centres Set Up in Public and Private Estates Since January 2024 and Challenges Faced","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Health (a) how many new Active Ageing Centres (AACs) have been set up since January 2024; (b) of these, how many AACs were set up in private estates; and (c) what are the challenges of setting up new AACs.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: We have set up 214 Active Ageing Centres (AACs) thus far, including 60 new AACs since January 2024. As a result, the number of seniors living in private housing estates that are within the service boundary of an AAC have increased by about 10,000 to around 29,000 in the past year alone.
A key challenge of setting up new AACs is to find sites that are accessible to seniors, especially in the private estates. Besides accessibility, we will also consider whether the sites have adequate space and basic utilities needed to run programmes for seniors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Providing Media and Persons Opportunity to Correct Inaccurate Information Before Issuing Correction Direction under POFMA","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) why it is the established practice for the Government to approach mainstream media outlets to correct inaccurate information instead of issuing a correction direction under the Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act 2019 (POFMA); and (b) why does the Government not provide non-mainstream media outlets or other persons with the opportunity to correct inaccurate information before issuing a correction direction under POFMA.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 (POFMA) allows the Government to address online falsehoods expeditiously, by requiring the correct facts to be put up alongside the falsehood. This establishes an honest and factual basis for public discourse on issues of public interest.
Accredited media outlets have long established practices to publish editor's notes or corrections if there are inaccuracies in their reports. Such processes allow the Government to work with accredited media to quickly clarify any factual errors in a timely manner. Non-accredited media outlets as well as individuals do not have such established processes for clarifications and corrections to be made.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Current and Projected AI-specific Computing Power Available and Plans for National Cloud","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what is the estimated total of AI-specific computing power currently available in Singapore's data centres; (b) whether there are plans to establish a national cloud for AI research and education; (c) if so, what percentage of this computing power does it aim to secure; (d) what legal frameworks are being considered to mandate contributions from private AI data centres to such a national cloud; and (e) how do these potential frameworks compare to those in other leading AI nations.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Singapore is a regional data centre hub with a total capacity exceeding 1.4 gigawatts. We have one of the highest concentrations of data centres in the region and our operational data centre capacity per capita exceeds that of regional markets, such as Beijing, Hong Kong, Seoul, Sydney and Tokyo. To support continued growth and innovation in Singapore, we aim to provide at least 300 megawatts of additional capacity in the near term and more through working with the industry to explore green energy deployments. The amount of AI-specific compute resources available in these data centres depends on the workloads that the private and public sectors expect to process and how these workloads are distributed. It changes dynamically in response to needs and available alternatives.
Our compute needs for AI research are being met through a combination of on-premise and commercial cloud capacities. This approach is more responsive to demand than mandating contributions from private data centres.
The National Supercomputing Centre (NSCC) is a significant contributor to the compute resources available for our research ecosystem, including for AI research. The launch of the ASPIRE 2A and 2A+ research supercomputers in October 2024, which have 30 PFLOPS of aggregated compute power, will help to address the growing demand for high performance computing resources, complement existing infrastructure and enable new research opportunities. NSCC is also developing the next supercomputer that will enhance Singapore's high performance computing capabilities to support national research initiatives.
Developing Singapore's compute infrastructure is vital to support our National AI Strategy 2.0 ambitions. We are actively working with industry partners to avail access to the compute resources needed to maintain our global competitiveness.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Minimum Age Requirement for Purchase of Red-eared Slider Turtles as Pets","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider implementing a minimum age requirement for the purchase of red-eared slider turtles as pets.
Mr Desmond Lee: Under the current pet shop licence conditions, licensed pet shops are not allowed to sell dogs, cats and rabbits to individuals who have not reached 16 years of age. To promote responsible retailing and discourage impulse buying, the National Parks Board (NParks) will study if there is a need to implement a minimum age requirement for the purchase of other animals.
In addition, NParks actively conducts education and outreach programmes to raise public awareness on responsible pet ownership. For example, NParks reaches out to the public, including students, through platforms, such as the Pets' Day Out events, webinar series, talks, roving exhibitions, school plays and a resource package for schools.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Appeals Received and Acceded to by HDB Relating to Ethnic Integration Policy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for National Development in 2023 and 2024 (a) what is the number of appeals related to the Ethnic Integration Policy received by HDB; (b) how many appeals were acceded to; (c) of the appeals acceded to, how many were assisted through the buyback assistance measure; and (d) what is the breakdown of the above figures by ethnicity.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) provides a range of assistance measures for flat owners who face genuine difficulties selling their flats when the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) quotas have been reached. These include giving them more time to sell off their existing flat if they have purchased another one, or waiving the EIP limits in exceptional circumstances to allow them to sell their flat to buyers of any ethnic group. In cases where waiving the EIP limit may lead to further imbalances in the proportion of the various ethnic groups in blocks or neighbourhoods, HDB may consider buying back flats from eligible EIP-constrained flat owners.
In 2023 and 2024, HDB received 693 EIP-related appeals from flat owners. HDB acceded to 211 appeals, including helping 8 households with the buyback measure. The breakdown by ethnic group is in the table below.
25 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is HDB’s policy regarding the disposal of flats that have been compulsorily acquired or bought back via the Ethnic Integration Policy buyback assistance measure; (b) how many of such flats currently remain under HDB ownership; and (c) whether HDB has any plans to sell or rent these flats to the public and, if so, how.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) currently owns about 150 units that have been compulsorily acquired by HDB or bought back via the Ethnic Integration Policy buyback assistance measure. These units will generally be offered for sales progressively via HDB’s Sale of Balance Flats exercises and open booking of flats.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Outcome of Investigation into Partial Collapse of Two Shophouses Along Syed Alwi Road","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for National Development whether he can provide an update on the outcome of the investigation into the partial collapse of the two shophouses along Syed Alwi Road.
Mr Desmond Lee: On 8 October 2024, an explosion occurred, which led to a partial collapse of two commercial shophouse buildings at 84 and 85 Syed Alwi Rd. Two persons were conveyed to hospital for minor injuries due to the incident.
The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) issued a Dangerous Building Order and Closure Order to the owners of both shophouses. Under these orders, the owners of both shophouses jointly appointed a Professional Engineer to advise on safety, investigation and permanent rectification measures. Hoarding was also erected to restrict access and ensure public safety by the same evening.
The buildings are currently assessed to be structurally stable. All debris at the area has been removed. While investigations are ongoing, preliminary findings by the Singapore Civil Defence Force revealed that the explosion was likely caused by a build-up of flammable gas in unit 84.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reason for Warning Instead of Financial Penalties for Contractor for Using Non-compliant Paint for HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for National Development why was a warning issued to the contractor for using non-compliant paint, which resulted in algae-stained walls on HDB blocks in Sengkang and Punggol, instead of imposing financial penalties on the contractor.
Mr Desmond Lee: The algae-stained walls earlier found at Anchorvale Parkview and Matilda Court in Sengkang and Punggol had resulted from the incorrect type of paint used by the contractors. In determining the appropriate action to be taken against contractors, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) assesses each case holistically, taking into consideration the severity of the lapse and the remedial actions taken by the contractor. For this case, upon being informed by the respective Town Councils of the algae growth, the contractors took responsibility and followed up promptly to rectify the problem. HDB has assessed that issuing a warning letter to the contractors is sufficient.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Knowledge and Skills Gaps Identified in Singaporean Core Workforce and Interventions Needed to Address Them","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what are the gaps in the Singaporean core workforce identified by foreign chambers of commerce in term of (i) specialised skills (ii) technical skills (iii) knowledge and (iv) experience including overseas exposure; and (b) what are the interventions which the Ministry is undertaking on its own or with other Ministries and parties to address such gaps in the next three years.
Dr Tan See Leng: Feedback from foreign chambers of commerce often highlight a shortage of technical skills, particularly in information technology (IT), as well as relevant experience, including overseas experience, as some of the obstacles in hiring locals for certain jobs. The Ministry of Manpower's Job Vacancies Report 2023 found that over 40% of professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMET) vacancies that were unfilled for at least six months were hard to fill due to a lack of necessary specialised skills or work experience, particularly in IT roles, like software developers.
These challenges are driven by rapid technological advancements and other developments, which lead to jobs transforming and requiring new skills. To support Singaporeans to acquire these emerging skills, the Government invests heavily in upskilling through programmes providing industry-recognised training, such as Workforce Singapore's (WSG's) Career Conversion Programmes and SkillsFuture Singapore's SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme. The Government will provide jobs and skills insights to empower Singaporeans to take charge of their careers and plan ahead, through the 17 Jobs Transformation Maps that provide job-level insights on emerging skills and the CareersFinder digital service that provides personalised, data-driven jobs and skills recommendations.
In addition, the Government supports businesses to expand opportunities for Singaporeans to gain overseas experience. The Economic Development Board has introduced the Global Business Leaders Programme to support companies sending Singaporean employees with leadership potential on overseas postings. WSG will launch the Overseas Markets Immersion Programme for local employees with limited overseas experience, providing valuable on-the-job training abroad.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Underlying Causes and Actions Taken in Recent Oil Spill Incident During Bunkering Operations Off Changi","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Transport whether there are any underlying causes of the recent oil spill incidents in Singapore's waters, such as the management of vessel traffic and other operating protocols.
30 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Transport in light of the recent oil spill during bunkering operations for a vessel off Changi (a) what are the investigations and measures taken to ensure that such bunkering operations do not result in overflow; (b) what oil spill containment measures have been activated to contain the oil spill in the affected area; (c) whether these measures are sufficient; and (d) what measures will be taken against any errant or negligent party that have caused this oil spill incident.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: I thank the Members for their questions. These Questions have been addressed in the reply to Parliamentary Question Nos 7 and 8 for Oral Answer at the 11 November 2024 Sitting. [Please refer to \"Adequacy and Effectiveness of Oil Sighting and Alert Mechanisms, and Maritime Incident Response and Mitigation Strategies\", Official Report, 11 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 145, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for Current Structure of COE Categories and Impact of Increase in Number of COEs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry can elaborate on the rationale for the current structure of COE categories, especially regarding the use of power output as the basis for categorisation, in view of the influx of new electric vehicle brands which has crowded the pool of COEs in Category A and impacting COE prices and affordability for families; and (b) what adjustments are being considered to balance sustainable EV adoption with accessibility to and affordability of mass-market family cars.
32 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Transport in respect of the injection of COEs from February 2025, whether the Ministry can conduct a study on how the increase in the number of COEs will impact the point-to-point transport sector in terms of the number of taxis and private-hire vehicles.\n
Mr Chee Hong Tat: I thank the Members for their questions. These Questions have been addressed in the reply to Parliamentary Question Nos 3 to 6 for Oral Answer at the 12 November 2024 Sitting. [Please refer to \"Review of Zero Vehicle Growth Policy, Vehicle Quota System and Rebates Given High COE Prices, Increased E-vehicles Adoption and Roll-out of ERP 2.0\", Official Report, 12 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 146, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allowing Online Registration for Child Concession Card Via LifeSG App","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Transport whether the Government will consider allowing parents of children who are eligible for a Child Concession Card to apply for it online via the LifeSG app and have the card delivered to their registered home address after verification via Singpass. \n
Mr Chee Hong Tat: All concession cards require an identity verification check before they are activated. This is done in-person to ensure that the card has been received by the correct person before it can be used.
Currently, children below age of seven enjoy free travel on public transport. Child concession cards serve as proof of concession status and are not necessary for children below 0.9 metres in height, who are assumed to be eligible. Parents of children who are below the age of seven but are taller than 0.9\tmetres, can obtain child concession cards to allow their children to travel for free.
Parents can apply for the card and verify the identity of their child in person at any SimplyGo Ticket Office or Ticketing Service Counter and the card will be issued and activated on the spot. As switching to online applications will not remove the need for in-person verification, it does not make the process more convenient for parents who require child concession cards.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Status of Investigation into Collision of Singapore-registered Vessel onto Bridge in Baltimore in US on 26 March 2024","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Transport whether he can provide an update on the status of the investigation by the Transport Safety Investigation Bureau into the collision of the Singapore-registered container vessel, the Dali, onto the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, United States on 26 March 2024.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Ministry of Transport's Transport Safety Investigation Bureau is participating in the marine safety investigation led by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) of the United States in accordance with the International Maritime Organization guidelines.
The NTSB released its latest investigative update into the incident on 11 September 2024. Investigations by NTSB are still ongoing.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"The Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Koh Poh Koon): Out of our 7,000 cooked food stalls, only 4% of rent today are above the Assessed Market Rent of $1,250. [Please refer to \"Hawker Culture\", Official Report, 13 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 147, Motions section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Dr Koh Poh Koon circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual correction to my speech during the Motion on Hawker Culture during the Sitting on 13 November 2024. My reply should read as follows:
The Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Koh Poh Koon): Out of around 7,000 cooked food stalls, only 4% of rent today are above their Assessed Market Rent which has a median of around $1,250.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":2673,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20241113/annex-Annex 1.pdf","fileName":"Annex 1.pdf","sectionType":"BP","file":null}],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":6278,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Sun Xueling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20241113/vernacular-Sun Xueling CDAC 13Nov2024_Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Sun Xueling CDAC 13Nov2024_Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6279,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Hazel Poa","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20241113/vernacular-Hazel Poa CDAC 13Nov2024 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Hazel Poa CDAC 13Nov2024 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6280,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Hany Soh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20241113/vernacular-Hany Soh CDAC 13Nov2024 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Hany Soh CDAC 13Nov2024 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6281,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Wan Rizal","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20241113/vernacular-13 Nov 2024 - Dr Wan Rizal - Child Devt Co-Savings (A) Bill.pdf","fileName":"13 Nov 2024 - Dr Wan Rizal - Child Devt Co-Savings (A) Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6282,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Hazel Poa","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20241113/vernacular-Hazel Poa Hawker 13Nov2024 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Hazel Poa Hawker 13Nov2024 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6283,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Yeo Wan Ling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20241113/vernacular-Yeo Wan Ling Hawker 13Nov2024 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Yeo Wan Ling Hawker 13Nov2024 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6284,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Poh Li San","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20241113/vernacular-13 Nov 2024 - Ms Poh Li San - Motion Hawker Culture.pdf","fileName":"13 Nov 2024 - Ms Poh Li San - Motion Hawker Culture.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6285,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Poh Li San","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20241113/vernacular-Poh Li San Hawker 13Nov2024 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Poh Li San Hawker 13Nov2024 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6286,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Ang Wei Neng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20241113/vernacular-Ang Wei Neng Hawker 13Nov2024_Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Ang Wei Neng Hawker 13Nov2024_Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6287,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Mariam Jaafar","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20241113/vernacular-13 Nov 2024 - Ms Mariam Jaafar - Motion Hawker Culture.pdf","fileName":"13 Nov 2024 - Ms Mariam Jaafar - Motion Hawker Culture.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6288,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Koh Poh Koon","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20241113/vernacular-Koh Poh Koon Hawker Motion 13Nov2024-Chinese (MSE) .pdf","fileName":"Koh Poh Koon Hawker Motion 13Nov2024-Chinese (MSE) .pdf"},{"vernacularID":6289,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Leong Mun Wai","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20241113/vernacular-Leong Mun Wai Hawker 13Nov2024-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Leong Mun Wai Hawker 13Nov2024-Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}