The following question stood in the name of Miss Cheng Li Hui \t–
1 To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs with regard to the airspace and maritime boundary delimitation issues facing Singapore and Malaysia (a) whether these issues were discussed during the Malaysian Prime Minister's official visit to Singapore in November 2018; (b) whether bilateral relations are now affected; (c) whether the leaders and foreign ministries of Singapore and Malaysia are in communication to deal with the issues and to prevent escalation of tensions; and (d) what is Singapore's position on territorial integrity and sovereignty.
2 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs with regard to the intrusions into Singapore's waters by Malaysian vessels (a) what measures can Singapore take if Malaysian vessels continue to intrude and remain in our waters; and (b) what is the way forward if the issue persists and cannot be resolved bilaterally.
3 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs as Singapore and Malaysia shares a common sea boundary which gives rise to various issues cropping up from time to time (a) whether there is a hotline between Singapore and Malaysian leaders for quick direct communication between the two countries; and (b) what is the current channel for top political leaders to contact each other to diffuse any escalation of conflicts.
4 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) whether Singapore will bring up its current sea boundary issue to the UN Law of the Sea Conference for a permanent settlement; and (b) for countries that share common sea boundaries, what is the international protocol when one country intends to extend its port limits.
5 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he can provide an update on the situation involving intrusions by Malaysian vessels into Singapore's territorial waters off Tuas.
6 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken, following the intrusion of Malaysian vessels into Singapore waters, to ensure an outcome that respects Singapore's sovereignty as well as rights under international law.
7 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) what are the implications of Malaysia's latest Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) issued by the Civil Aviation Authority of Malaysia to establish a permanent restricted area in the airspace over Pasir Gudang with effect from 2 January 2019; and (b) what is the recourse that Singapore can consider pertaining to the latest NOTAM.
8 Prof Lim Sun Sun asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what are our preparatory safeguards with respect to food and water security as well as the supply of foreign labour from Malaysia.
9 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he can elaborate on why the Government had on 12 December 2018 filed a declaration under Article 298 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to ensure that maritime boundary delimitation disputes affecting Singapore cannot be unilaterally brought for adjudication by any state.
10 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he can provide an update on matters between Singapore and Malaysia following the meeting with the Malaysian Foreign Minister on 8 January 2018.
11 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he can (i) clarify the status of the maritime borders off Tuas West, (ii) confirm whether the Malaysian Government communicated its intention to Singapore to deploy vessels in October 2018 into the waters off Tuas West and (iii) provide a timeline of Singapore's actions and responses to the deployments to date.
12 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether there are contingency plans to address Malaysia's decision to impose a permanent restricted area for military operations over Pasir Gudang so as to ensure the safety of civil aviation flying into and out of Seletar Airport and to preserve Seletar Airport's position as an aviation maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) hub.
13 Mr Mohamed Irshad asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) what is the impact of the establishment of a permanent restricted area over Pasir Gudang on civil aviation in Singapore; and (b) whether the Instrument Landing System (ILS) for Seletar Airport has any impact on the height of the buildings being built in Pasir Gudang.
14 Mr Mohamed Irshad asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he can provide an update on intrusions by Malaysian vessels into Singapore's territorial waters off Tuas.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): \tQuestion No 1.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Speaker, with your permission, I propose to address all the issues raised from Question Nos 1 to 14 during my Ministerial Statement at 1.30 pm.
\tMr Speaker: Okay. Miss Cheng Li Hui, Question No 15.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reason Behind Improperly Sterilised Equipment at Tan Tock Seng's Dental Clinic and Preventive Measures Put in Place","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Miss Cheng Li Hui –
15 To ask the Minister for Health (a) what is the reason why eight packs of dental instruments at Tan Tock Seng's dental clinic were not being thoroughly sterilised; (b) what measures are currently in place to ensure the proper sterilisation of dental instruments and whether they are sufficient; (c) whether there is a need to strengthen staff compliance with the sterilisation process in licensed healthcare institutions that house central sterile supply departments; and (d) how often are audits conducted in such institutions.
16 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health with regard to recent incidents of improperly sterilised equipment at dental clinics (a) what measures are currently in place to ensure the proper sterilisation of dental instruments in public and private clinics; (b) what training is being done to ensure staff compliance with the sterilisation process in licensed healthcare institutions; and (c) how often are audits or checks conducted in such institutions.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Question No 15.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Health): Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I take Question Nos 15 and 16 together?
Mr Speaker: Please proceed.
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Thank you. Patient safety is of utmost importance to our healthcare institutions. We are disappointed with the lapse at the Tan Tock Seng Hospital's (TTSH's) Dental Clinic, which had led to the use of eight packs of dental instruments that had not undergone the final step of sterilisation, and we apologise for the incident.
Within our public healthcare institutions where reprocessing and sterilisation of instruments are conducted, there are standard operating procedures in place to ensure that these processes are completed properly. There are at least three layers of checks. First, the mechanical parameters of the sterilisation machinery, such as temperature, pressure and time, are recorded. Staff operating the machines would check the parameters after each cycle of sterilisation to ensure that the parameters are correct to achieve effective sterilisation.
Second, a chemical indicator affixed outside the pack of instruments to be sterilised would reflect a colour change to verify that sterilisation was complete and effective. Only then should the staff in charge of sterilisation release the instruments for storage and use.
Third, end-users should ensure that the instrument has been sterilised before use by verifying the change in colour of the chemical indicator as well as checking the integrity of the packaging.
Staff who perform sterilisation processes would have to undergo proper training. In our public healthcare institutions, such training is a basic requirement of a new staff’s orientation programme. Competency assessments are also being conducted before staff are deemed competent for the function. In addition, staff are regularly sent for further training and re-assessments in order to maintain their competencies.
The public healthcare institutions also conduct routine internal audits on various critical functions, such as the sterilisation process and workflow. Depending on the institution’s internal work processes, such internal audits may take place as often as once every six months, involving various departments, such as Infection Control and/or Quality Assurance. The audit findings are typically shared at learning platforms, where improvements and recommendations will be made system-wide.
The National Healthcare Group (NHG) has conducted an investigation and the Ministry has received its review report on 8 January 2019. NHG’s investigations showed that the incident was a result of human error, with a lapse in adherence to the established sterilisation process and verification protocol. On 28 November 2018, a staff from TTSH Dental Clinic loaded instruments, which have undergone manual cleaning and disinfection in an ultrasonic washer, into the autoclave machine for the final stage of steam sterilisation. However, the staff did not initiate the steam sterilisation cycle. Subsequently, the packs were unloaded and stored without realising that the packs had not undergone the final step of sterilisation. These packs were not verified for sterility before use. After the instruments were recalled, eight packs were unaccounted for and could have been used on patients. NHG's investigations also revealed supervisory lapses in the sterilisation workflows and escalation of the incident.
Following the incident, TTSH has reinforced safety controls across the hospital to improve vigilance and adherence to processes, so as to prevent any recurrence. Specifically, safety controls for the TTSH Dental Clinic have been fortified in the following key areas.
Firstly, strengthening the Dental Clinic's onsite sterilisation process and ensuring strict adherence by dedicated staff tasked to carry out sterilisation of the instruments. Specifically, the steps of loading the autoclave machine and starting of the sterilisation cycle must be linked. The unloading of packs after the sterilisation cycle must only occur after verification of sterilisation.
Secondly, ensuring strict adherence to the pre-procedure protocol to check for the sterility of instruments before use.
Thirdly, optimising the workflow to improve the reliability of the sterilisation process to reduce the probability of human error.
Fourth, strengthening incident reporting frameworks and ensuring escalation protocols are well understood and adhered to by staff.
And fifth, refining training, competency assessments and regular audits to reinforce staff compliance and understanding of the importance of safety checks that are built into the system, and with full adherence to all processes.
The NHG Review Committee has also recommended new standards for critical steps in the sterilisation process, improved organisation and supervisory management of sterilisation processes, and clarity in incident escalation process. Some examples include (a) designating a single operator to perform the entire sterilisation process, and (b) ensuring identification of operators of critical steps to enable tracking and traceability in the event of sterilisation failures. The Ministry will closely monitor the implementation of remedial actions and standards of care at TTSH through follow-up compliance audits, focusing on the area of reprocessing and the sterilisation of instruments.
Counselling and disciplinary actions were recommended for 18 management and staff involved in the incident. These include warnings as well as financial penalties.
Immediately after the incident, the Ministry has also instructed all public and private healthcare institutions to further strengthen their systems and ensure staff awareness and strict adherence to all processes for patient safety and care. These include reminding healthcare institutions to: (a) heighten vigilance throughout the sterilisation process and check that instruments used are properly sterilised before being used; (b) step up on competency trainings for all staff; and (c) ensure periodic internal quality audits are conducted on the sterilisation process, as well as the delivery of sterilised instruments to the users.
We have also asked all healthcare institutions to conduct immediate safety reviews of all their sterilisation processes and to ensure that staff are compliant with the processes.
The Ministry also conducts random ad hoc audits at selected institutions to check on their state of compliance. This is in addition to the routine inspections of all public and private healthcare institutions which we conduct every two to five years as part of the process of licence renewal. Healthcare institutions with non-compliances have to rectify them and further inspections are made to verify that such non-compliances have been duly addressed.
The Ministry will review the findings of the NHG review report, consult relevant domain and technical experts, and consider further actions to be taken to reduce the risks of a re-occurrence across the healthcare sector. A review of local practices will be undertaken to ensure that they are up-to-date and aligned with the best available evidence for safe sterilisation and disinfection of used instruments. We will then share the learning points across the healthcare system to improve patient safety.
While we note that the risk of infection to affected patients is extremely low in this incident, it is nonetheless a serious breach of the institution’s infection control system. Our healthcare institutions need to be more vigilant to enable the detection and mitigation of incidents expeditiously. In this regard, the Ministry would be working with the healthcare institutions to further enhance the culture of vigilance amongst healthcare professionals so as to promote safe and good quality patient care. The Ministry is also conducting its own investigation and will consider if further regulatory actions are necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Restraint Policy for Persons in Custody","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Home Affairs what is the restraint policy for persons in custody, particularly those who may be vulnerable, such as the elderly.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Home Affairs (Mr Amrin Amin) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Persons-in-Custody (PICs) are restrained for a number of reasons. One reason is to prevent them from escaping. Another important reason is to prevent them from causing harm to others or themselves. The public will not find it acceptable if any of these things happened.
We have, nevertheless, recently reviewed the policy and have made some changes. We will, as a general position, not restrain a PIC known to the relevant enforcement officers to be below 16 years old or aged 65 and above when the PIC is being arrested. But if the PIC is suspected of committing serious crimes like murder, rape or drug trafficking, or if the escorting officer assesses, for example, that there is a risk of the PIC escaping or causing harm to others or self, then he or she is likely to be restrained. Any indication of unstable or irrational behaviour could also be reasons for coming to such conclusions. We will have to go by judgements made by officers on the spot.
\tThis exception policy will not apply to PICs under Prisons' custody, which will include convicted prisoners and persons in remand. That means persons below 16 and above 65 will be under restraint when under Prisons' escort.
Mr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. I just wanted to ask a further supplementary question on the restraint policy for those with intellectual disabilities.
\tMr Amrin Amin: For PICs with intellectual disabilities, we will treat them no differently from other PICs as they might exhibit non-compliant behaviour and attempt to escape or hurt others without any tell-tale signs. Thus, we will restrain them by default if the PIC is between 16 and 65 years old.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress of Efforts to Uplift Private Security Industry","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"18 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the progress of efforts to uplift the private security industry, in terms of its capacity to complement law enforcement and the career prospects for private security personnel; (b) what are the main challenges in uplifting the private security industry; and (c) how does the Government intend to enforce the enhanced regime in the Private Security Industry (Conduct) Regulations effective January 2019, taking into account the diverse profile of security personnel currently in the industry.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): The private security industry is an important partner in our efforts to keep Singapore safe and secure. To uplift the industry, the Security Industry Transformation Map (ITM) was launched in February 2018. The ITM aims to shift the industry away from its current manpower-intensive service model, to one that integrates skilled manpower and technology to deliver higher quality security services. We want to achieve outcomes of high performing security agencies, more meaningful and better-paying jobs for security officers, and also better security for Singapore.
We are making good progress. On the demand side, to encourage buyers to adopt outcome-based contracts which integrate manpower and technology, we have launched a tailored guide for the industry, as well as a training course for procurement officers. The Government will take the lead, with all Government agencies adopting outcome-based security contracts progressively from the middle of this year. This is significant, as Government contracts amount to over $350 million per year, which is about one-fifth of industry demand.
On the technology front, the Infocomm Media and Development Authority and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) launched the Security Industry Digital Plan in July 2018 to provide security agencies a step-by-step guide on adopting digital technology. Funding is available for security small and medium enterprises to adopt pre-approved digital solutions under the Productivity Solutions Grant.
To uplift security officers and improve the attractiveness of the industry, the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) for the industry was enhanced in November 2018, to place stronger emphasis on skills and competencies. The exemption given to the security industry, which allows them to exceed the Ministry of Manpower's statutory limit on overtime, will be removed from January 2021, so that officers will no longer work excessive hours. PWM wages will increase by at least 3% per year till 2024. To open new opportunities to experienced officers, a new Specialist Diploma in Security Consultancy by Temasek Polytechnic will commence in April this year.
MHA has also reviewed our regulations to support the security ITM. For security agencies, the annual Security Agencies Grading Exercise was reviewed in 2018 to give greater weight to technology adoption and training.
Security officers, too, have an important part to play in the industry’s transformation. As part of efforts to enhance the professionalism of the industry, MHA has made certain Code of Conduct breaches that pose a risk to public safety and security compoundable offences under the Private Security Industry Regulations. Our aim is not a punitive regime, but to deter and take targeted action to address unprofessional behaviour, such as sleeping or consuming alcohol on the job, as this may lead to security lapses.
First time offenders will generally be given warnings, as has been the practice previously. However, the Police Licensing and Regulatory Department now has the flexibility to impose a composition fine if a security officer repeatedly or egregiously breaches the Code of Conduct, whereas previously it only had the more severe options of suspending or revoking his licence. Only in the most severe or recalcitrant cases would penalties, such as licence suspension or revocation, and prosecution be considered.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
\tMs Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I have three supplementary questions for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary.
The first is, in her answer, she mentioned – and I think it is welcomed – that the exemption given to private security companies are not to pay overtime or, rather, to require the officers to work overtime is going to be removed progressively in the coming years. But my question is whether there is also a move towards better working conditions in terms of shorter shifts, for example, instead of the 12-hour shift, to move to an eight-hour shift, because that would be important for the quality of the service provided.
The second question is comparison of the regime now for the private security versus the Police. We do know that for the Police, for similar conduct breaches, such as sleeping or being absent without official leave, there is the option of departmental action, meaning that there could be a reprimand or a reduction in rank, and the person would still continue in service. So, I would like to ask for the private security industry, maybe the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can elaborate on the middle-road approaches before we actually go to prosecuting or citing the person for an offence under the regulations, which are effective this month.
My final question is that, under the new conduct regulations, there is one sub-paragraph which says that it would be an offence for a private security officer not to respond promptly to any request for assistance by a person who has been injured or suffered loss on the premises. Now, given that, in that sense, the baseline for entry and the training level for private security officers on the whole is not very rigorous, what is expected of the officer to comply with this section of responding promptly to a request for assistance? Are they required to intervene, prevent injury and so on? Some elaboration on that would be useful.
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for her three supplementary questions. On the first question, the removal of the overtime exemption, currently there are security officers who could be potentially working 90 hours a week. So, with the removal of the overtime exemption, we hope to remove this exemption that was given to security agencies and bring it down to 72 hours or less.
Actually, employees as well as the security agencies do not have to wait till January 2021. They are encouraged to move on to these new working hours as soon as practically possible, and also to ensure that their wages are protected with the PWM that I had talked about earlier. Many of the security officers will see their minimum base wage increase by approximately a minimum of 3% per year all the way to 2024. So, that is the first point.
On the second point, already currently in the private security landscape where the security officer was seen to be sleeping on the job or consuming alcohol on the job, which is unprofessional conduct, some of the security agencies are already taking measures, such as the docking of pay, for instance, of the security officer.
So, even with the new code of conduct amendments, which move some of the code of conduct breaches over to the regulations, the Police and the authorities will actually take a very calibrated approach, a very targeted one. So, we will look at the actual egregiousness of the offence that was committed, and we will look at the range of penalties that are available.
I think my answer to that second part actually also answers the third question that the Member had.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
\tMs Sylvia Lim: Speaker, just to follow up with two other questions. First is whether the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can specifically confirm or otherwise about whether there is a move to move to shorter shift hours for security officers. That means, currently, it is quite common to have 12-hour shifts, and whether there is actually a move to try to go into eight-hour shifts.
Last of all, related to the issue of the requirement to respond promptly to request for assistance, I just like to highlight that you do have deployment situations where a security officer may be quite alone in the guard post. He is supposed to be there to man and record entrance and so on. And if somebody runs to him to say that he needs help and so on, what is expected of that person? Is the person expected to leave the post to attend to the situation or is it all right for him to just try to call for help? Maybe the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can elaborate on that.
\tMs Sun Xueling: I will take the second question first. On that point, the assessment has to be made as to how big a security lapse it could be if the security officer were to leave his position. So, the authorities will take a case-by-case approach. As I mentioned, they will look at the action that has been taken. They will look at the potential penalties, there is a range of options. And as I mentioned, the authorities will actually take a very calibrated and targeted approach. Actually, the new penalties now allow for them to do so. Because, previously, under the old set of regulations, the authorities really only had two options: either to give a warning or to basically revoke or suspend the security officer. Now, the authorities can compound the offence. So, if there were any transgressions, they will look at the offence and see whether or not it warrants a lower amount of fine. And whether or not they actually implemented that will depend on how serious the security transgression was, and they will definitely look at the circumstances of the case.
With regard to the Member's first question on the movement towards shift hours, definitely the Security Industry Transformation Committee, which has been very instrumental in looking at the Security Industry Transformation Map, wants to have better working conditions for our security officers. So, definitely, where possible, and the security agencies are able to adjust their working hours, they would encourage the security agencies to move towards shorter working hours.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government’s Position on Court Ruling to Award Adoption to Man in Same-sex Relationship","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"19 Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what is the Ministry's position on the recent High Court ruling to award adoption to a single man in a same-sex relationship, of his biological child born through an overseas surrogacy.
20 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what implications there are with regard to other Government policies, including education and housing, that need to be reviewed given the recent High Court ruling to award adoption to a single man in a same-sex relationship, of his biological son conceived through a surrogacy done overseas.
21 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry will (i) ban commercial surrogacy in Singapore, (ii) prohibit agreements to pay for surrogacy in Singapore or overseas and (iii) disallow adoptions arising from commercial surrogacy whether such surrogacy occurs in Singapore or overseas.
\tThe Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 19 to 21 together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Desmond Lee: Thank you. Let me begin by recapping the facts of this case that is the subject of these Parliamentary Questions, so as to provide this House with the context to my response.
Sir, the applicant in this case is a male Singaporean in a long-term relationship with another man. When the two men enquired about adopting a child, they were advised that the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) was unlikely to recommend the adoption of children by parties who were in a same-sex relationship.
Both of them then went to the United States (US) for commercial surrogacy and paid a total of US$200,000 to a private company there. Under the terms of the surrogacy contract, the arrangement was for the surrogate mother to carry the baby to term, deliver him and then give up her rights over him. The child was born in 2013 and was handed over to the applicant and his partner.
The child is a US citizen and has been brought up in Singapore by the two of them in the same household. The applicant later applied to Court to adopt the child. In February 2017, the Family Justice Court ruled against the adoption. The applicant then appealed to the High Court. In December 2018, the High Court, which comprised three judges, allowed the adoption to proceed.
Following the ruling, the applicant and his partner gave media interviews, reported locally and abroad, describing the challenges that same-sex parents faced when wanting to conceive and raise their own children in Singapore, and shared about the process they went through to start a family in Singapore via overseas surrogacy.
Understandably, the High Court's decision to grant the appeal has evoked a diverse range of emotions and reactions amongst Singaporeans and raised questions about the implications of this case. These fall broadly into two categories.
First, around the definition of marriage, family and future conceptions of family in society, some Singaporeans are concerned whether this ruling sets a precedent to allow homosexual couples to legally adopt children in Singapore and, in so doing, mainstreams same-sex parent households here. Others, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) activists, say that this case is a step towards the recognition and legalisation of same-sex relationships.
Second, on commercial surrogacy, some have asked whether this ruling legitimises commercial surrogacy carried out overseas, especially in light of the complex ethical questions surrounding this practice. Members' questions today reflect this range of views and reactions. Indeed, these emerging issues and divergent attitudes have become increasingly salient in our society.
LGBT persons have a place here in Singapore and are entitled to their own private lives. Just like other Singaporeans, they have access to opportunities and social support, such as education, employment and healthcare, and should, like all Singaporeans, not be subject to prejudice and discrimination. However, we must be mindful that a push for rights and entitlements which the broader society is not ready for, or able to accept, will provoke a pushback, and can be very socially divisive. A push to use legislation or the Courts to precipitate social change involving issues as deeply held and personal as this polarises society.
While we recognise that there are increasingly diverse forms of families and households in Singapore, the prevailing social norm in our society is still that of a man and woman marrying and having and bringing up children within a stable family unit. This is also the family structure that the Government encourages. Most of us would agree that it is ideal for children to grow up in families anchored by strong and stable marriages. This is reflected in the differentiation we maintain in policies and benefits to encourage and support parenthood within marriage.
It follows from this that the Government does not encourage planned and deliberate single parenthood as a lifestyle choice. Specifically, we do not support the use of Assisted Reproduction Technology or surrogacy by singles to conceive children, for the purpose of forming single unwed parent households. Hence, In-Vitro Fertilisation or other Assisted Reproduction Procedures at licensed assisted reproduction institutions are available in Singapore only to married couples who experience difficulties in natural conception.
Over time, social attitudes have evolved to greater accommodation of homosexuals. The Government's policy is not to intrude or interfere with the private lives of Singaporeans, including homosexuals and their relationships or partnerships. However, we do not support the formation of family units with children and homosexual parents, through institutions and processes, such as adoption.
Therefore, MSF did not support the appeal by the homosexual couple to adopt the child that they had conceived through surrogacy overseas, after they had been informed that the Government would not support the application to adopt the child because this would have been contrary to public policy.
In raising this objection, MSF had carefully considered the welfare of the boy. Two important aspects were considered. First, the child is not stateless but is a citizen of the US. Second, the child remains with the father and will be cared for. The father has full parental rights and responsibilities, even if the adoption was not granted. In fact, the Women's Charter obliges parents to provide for their children, regardless of the children’s legitimacy status.
The High Court stated that they had reached their decision in this case \"with not insignificant difficulty\". The Court affirmed the public policy against the formation of same-sex family units and recognised that granting the adoption would violate it. This was, however, weighed against the interest of the child's welfare. Based on the specific facts of this case, the Court allowed the appeal to allow the child to be adopted. We respect and accept the Court's decision.
Following the Court's judgment, MSF is reviewing our adoption laws and practices to see how they should be strengthened to better reflect public policy which, in turn, is a reflection of the values of our broad society today. For instance, while the welfare of the child should always be a very important consideration in adoption proceedings, we are looking at whether the Adoption of Children Act needs to be amended so that a better balance can be struck when important public policy considerations are involved.
We are also studying the issue of surrogacy carefully. This is a complex issue with ethical, social, health and legal implications for all parties involved. For commercial surrogacy in particular, concerns have been raised about the exploitation of women and commodification of children. These issues are not trivial and warrant careful study and discussion. Persons who are considering surrogacy should take this into account from the outset while making their decision, as such factors could have a significant impact on the child.
Today, surrogacy cannot be carried out in Singapore at any licensed healthcare institution that provides assisted reproduction services. Parents who have gone overseas for surrogacy and who come back to apply for adoption of their surrogate children will have their applications assessed on a case-by-case basis. They will also be scrutinised by the Courts during the adoption hearings. Prior to this, the Courts have granted adoption of 10 children born abroad as a result of surrogacy. These children were all born to married couples applying jointly to adopt their child, and who had resorted to surrogacy because the couples were infertile.
While an adoption order serves to make a child legitimate under the law, it does not on its own guarantee benefits and privileges, such as citizenship, education or housing. Access to housing will continue to be determined by prevailing criteria, in line with public policy supporting parenthood within marriage. All Singaporean children, regardless of their legitimacy status, will receive Government benefits that support their growth and development, including healthcare and education benefits.
Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
\tMr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): I thank the Minister for his response. Commercial surrogacy, in my view, where a woman's womb is rented for money, is demeaning to the child and to the woman. It commodifies the life of a baby. Life is formed for a commercial price, then bought and sold. This is exploitative.
My supplementary questions are: would the Minister agree, for these reasons, that commercial surrogacy should be prohibited? Further, it can be argued that a substantial amount of commercial surrogacy is undertaken by women who are poverty-stricken and it is, therefore, exploitative of them. So, my second question is, for those additional reasons, does the Minister agree that commercial surrogacy should be barred? Thirdly, to make these principles even clearer, could the Minister consider amendments to the Children and Young Persons Act, the Penal Code and the Adoption Act? And I am very willing to work with MSF, as a Member of Parliament, to make the necessary amendments in the law to reflect those principles.
\tMr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member for his questions. Surrogacy is an issue that is fraught with ethical concerns. The Member has rightly pointed out that some have argued against the commodification of children, against the exploitation of women. And others, on the other hand, say that this offers a way out for couples who are otherwise unable to bear their own children. Some women, for instance, have, due to medical reasons, had their wombs removed. And even though they get married and wish to have their own children, are unable to do so, and that could be why some of them go overseas and undergo surrogacy. Because of the ethical considerations and the practical concerns about surrogacy, it is not permissible currently in Singapore to be carried out at healthcare institutions.
So, our position currently, as it stands, is that we do not allow it in Singapore. But where couples for whatever reason go overseas and come back, it is scrutinised on a case-by-case basis, ultimately with the gatekeeping by the Courts, who will look at the application. Thus far, all surrogate adoptions have been by married couples, men and women who have had medical reasons why they cannot otherwise conceive and these are then assessed by the Courts holistically.
As to whether we should completely prohibit surrogacy by Singaporeans within Singapore or all over the world, and whether we should amend the legislation to do so, it is something that we must consider holistically and carefully, keeping in mind the wishes, aspirations and concerns of mothers who would otherwise not be able to conceive their own flesh and blood.
Mr Speaker: Prof Fatimah Lateef.
\tProf Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): I thank the Minister for his response. I note that the Ministry will be reviewing the adoption framework on a more generic basis, but with specifics to the case itself, can I just find out whether the Ministry will be involved at all in monitoring or surveillance of this child during his growing-up years? For example, will school counsellors be alerted? What about management of expectations of the child and also their psychological and mental well-being? Will there be any involvement of the Ministry on these grounds?
\tMr Desmond Lee: I think the Member alludes – I may be wrong – in part, to concerns that the child who is brought up by two parents in Singapore who are of the same gender may result in this child having difficulties adjusting to mainstream society in schools and preschools, in the working environment, and so on and so forth. But whether or not MSF needs to then come in to monitor and provide surveillance on the child, it is something quite altogether different. Certainly, for any child, or any children in Singapore for whom legitimate concerns are raised about their welfare, then MSF will come in and take a look. This child that has hitherto been taken care of by the biological father and his male partner, we are concerned about the formation and mainstreaming of same-sex parent family units in Singapore, but when it comes to the welfare of the child, we have to act on the basis of whether there are concerns or otherwise.
Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
\tMr Christopher de Souza: I thank the Minister for his response and I take it to heart that there are some men and women in marriage who find it difficult to conceive. But to resort to commercial surrogacy where you are paying for a womb overseas, renting a womb, does bring about ethical concerns. And there is always the option in Singapore for a married man and woman to explore adoption. So, there is an adoption of another child. So, there is a route to create a family unit with children. Would the Minister consider that as a route?
\tMr Desmond Lee: We will take all the Member's suggestions into consideration as part of this overall review. Certainly, the Member is quite right that adoption of unrelated children or even of related children who had to be given up by other family members is and remains an option. So, ultimately, the concerns over surrogacy as well as commercial surrogacy remain. In some jurisdictions, they have permitted altruistic surrogacy. In others, they go the whole hog to allow commercial surrogacy. And in some jurisdictions, they say they have put in safeguards to ensure that those who step forward to offer surrogate services are not exploited. But we need to study this holistically and see what works for Singapore and what Singapore's broader society is prepared to accept or not to accept.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Preventing Disruptions at Changi Airport Caused by Drones","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"22 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Transport whether Changi Airport is vulnerable to disruptions caused by drones similar to those at London's Gatwick Airport and, if so, to what extent.
23 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Transport what measures does the Government have against drones or other unmanned aerial devices that may disrupt flight operations in and around airports in Singapore.
24 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport what measures are in place to prevent or stop drones from operating in the vicinity of our airports and affecting flight operations and schedules.
25 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport what are the measures to ensure that flying drones does not disrupt the air traffic around Changi Airport.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 22 to 25 together, please?
\tMr Speaker: You may. Please proceed.
\tDr Lam Pin Min: Mr Speaker, we encourage safe and responsible use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) because of their potential benefits. At the same time, we recognise the need to address safety and security concerns that could arise from errant and irresponsible use of UAS.
UAS are prohibited from flying within five kilometres of any airport in Singapore without a permit. Law enforcement officers also conduct regular surveillance patrols around the airport and respond to sightings of unauthorised UAS. Over the past three years, there were eight reports of unauthorised UAS within five kilometres of Changi Airport. None of these cases involved intrusions into Changi Airport.
We have countermeasures to deal with safety and security threats posed by UAS. These efforts are coordinated with the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). However, due to security considerations, it would not be appropriate for me to go into the details. We will continue to monitor developments globally and collaborate with foreign counterparts and industry partners to study and implement additional measures when required.
Mr Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har.
\tMs Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. Learning from the Gatwick Airport incident, I think there were two issues, and I would like to pose two supplementary questions.
Firstly, how can perpetrators be easily identified? Secondly, what anti-drone technology can the authorities deploy to track the drone signals? And how can they disrupt the operation of rogue drones?
\t
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Ms Foo for those supplementary questions. They are very pertinent to the safety and the security of our aerodromes. First of all, I would like to state that the enforcement agencies have been building up our capability to counter safety and security threats posed by UAS. This includes the ability to detect and identify UAS to locate its operator as well as the capability to take down the aircraft safely. To enforce the restriction of flying of UAS, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) has engaged the Auxiliary Police to conduct regular surveillance patrols around Changi as well as Seletar airports. Of course, the Auxiliary Police Officers would also be activated to respond if air traffic controller or pilots of aircraft report sightings of such activities.
With regard to the Member's supplementary question on the efforts to neutralise rogue UAS, CAAS' approach is to consider both cooperative as well as uncooperative UAS. For cooperative UAS, we intend to develop a centralised flight management system that will actually provide an island-wide situational picture of UAS activities through tracking solutions, and this will allow us to zoom in on individual UAS, check if they are operating under valid permits, as well as to issue alerts to operators if they are found to be contravening regulations.
As for uncooperative UAS, CAAS actually collaborates with Changi Airport Group, Defence Science and Technology Agency, MINDEF as well as MHA to neutralise either by forcing down or destroying rogue UAS swiftly, but such counter UAS technology or solutions are classified and, for security reasons, I am afraid I would not be able to go into the details on it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":" Measures to Reduce Incidence of Mass Food Poisoning","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"26 Mr Yee Chia Hsing asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether there are additional measures which can be introduced to reduce the incidences of mass food poisoning or gastroenteritis.
27 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what are the causes of the spate of mass food poisoning incidents in November 2018; and (b) what will the Government do to heighten awareness of and compliance to safe food handling standards.
28 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what is the Ministry doing to step up enforcement on food and beverage outlets to ensure that they adhere strictly to hygiene practices; and (b) what guidance is the Ministry providing to these outlets to make improvements.
29 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether there is an assessment on whether the current measures and penalties in place have been efficient in improving food safety; (b) what is the total number of food establishments and caterers whose licences have been suspended for failing a hygiene inspection in the past five years and the breakdown of the number for each year; and (c) whether technology has been adopted to equip inspectors in carrying out their jobs more efficiently and effectively.
The Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources): Sir, with your permission, may I take Question Nos 26 to 29 together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Thank you. In October, November and December 2018, there were five reported food poisoning incidents involving Team Catering Pte Ltd, Tung Lok Catering, FoodTalks Caterer & Manufacturer, Spize Restaurant at River Valley and Mandarin Orchard Hotel.
The joint investigations by the Ministry of Health, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) and the National Environment Agency (NEA) confirmed that there were no links among the incidents. In the case of Spize Restaurant, it was a Salmonellosis outbreak of unusual severity which suggests that the food was heavily contaminated. There was strong evidence of poor personal hygiene and food handling practices by food handlers leading to contamination of ready-to-eat food and the environment. The operator was also found to have seven unregistered food handlers and preparing food outside of the licensed premises.
In the case of Team Catering Pte Ltd, a number of possible commonly found pathogens were identified from the human stool samples, including Clostridium Perfringens and enteropathogenic E coli, and several hygiene lapses as well as poor kitchen habits were identified, including improper storage of knives and poor housekeeping.
In the case of FoodTalks Caterer & Manufacturer and Tung Lok Millennium Pte Ltd, while the causative pathogen could not be identified for both outbreaks, several food hygiene lapses were found at their premises, for example, no proper segregation between raw and ready-to-eat food in the same chiller compartment, no provision of handwashing facilities, and cockroach infestation.
For the case at Mandarin Orchard Hotel, the outbreak was caused by environmental contamination of the Grand Ballroom with norovirus, a common virus that causes gastroenteritis, which was propagated by poor environmental and personal hygiene practices, such as improper cleaning of vomitus and banquet servers continuing to work while ill.
NEA has taken tough actions against the food operators who have violated the law. The operating licence of Spize Restaurant at River Valley Road was terminated and NEA will also press charges against the operator in Court. The operating licences of Tung Lok, as well as the ballroom and affected kitchen in Mandarin Hotel, will remain suspended until the operators have complied with the requirements imposed by NEA, which include sanitising the affected areas, reviewing the processes and rectifying the lapses. For the lapses found at FoodTalks, NEA will be issuing summonses to the operator. For selling food that is found unfit for human consumption, operators may face a penalty of up to $10,000 for the first offence and, in the case of repeat offenders, a fine of $20,000, or imprisonment of three months, or both.
NEA and AVA have stepped up surveillance and engagement of all food operators. Advisories were issued to remind all food operators to adhere to good food hygiene and safety practices. NEA conducts regular inspections on food caterers, and, in 2018, NEA conducted more than 2,400 checks. On top of these routine checks, over 900 additional inspections have been conducted since last month on food operators that provide catering services or that have substantial catering operations. NEA also conducted face-to-face engagement with key representatives from the Association of Catering Professionals Singapore as well as the Restaurant Association of Singapore to further reinforce the importance of food hygiene and safety.
In addition, from 21 December 2018 onwards, staff appointed as Food Hygiene Officers (FHOs) at premises suspended by NEA are required to go for training to be recertified for the Workforce Skills Qualifications' (WSQ's) Conduct Food and Beverage Hygiene Audit qualification. The FHOs of the suspended food establishments must be properly trained and recertified before they can recommence operations. An average of about 110 food establishments has been suspended annually in the past five years due to hygiene lapses.
NEA and AVA have also been working to strengthen the overall regulatory framework for food operators in the lead up to the formation of the Singapore Food Agency. For instance, the penalty regime for food operators involved in significant food poisoning incidents will be tightened. The total composition amounts will be increased and those who commit serious hygiene offences will be prosecuted in Court. In appropriate cases, NEA will also press for deterrent sentences to be imposed by the Court.
Even as we operate a stringent regulatory regime, food operators must bear the ultimate responsibility to serve safe and clean food to their customers. They must ensure that their premises are kept clean, food handlers practise good hygiene, and the food is prepared in a safe way for consumption. I urge all food operators to train their staff on proper hygiene practices and put in place adequate food safety measures, including ways to better monitor kitchen operations, such as using closed-circuit television or conducting more regular checks to ensure good hygiene practices. NEA will continue to monitor the food operators closely and we are prepared to tighten the enforcement further if necessary.
NEA has leveraged technology to equip officers with tablets and mobile workforce solutions, allowing them to access the licensees’ information on the go, plan inspections efficiently and be alerted to food-related incidents quickly for swift response. We will also enhance NEA's website and the myENV app to make it easier for consumers to check the food hygiene records of the operators. We are also looking into measures to better notify the public about a food operator's licence suspension. Consumers are urged to engage only licensed caterers and consume catered food within the stipulated \"consume by\" time period. Consumers who come across poor hygiene practices in food establishments should provide feedback to the authorities for further investigation.
Mr Speaker: Ms Tin Pei Ling.
\tMs Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. I have a few clarifications to make. One, I would like to ask, for caterers, there is a food delivery portion. So, in terms of the delivery, sometimes they may outsource to a logistics company, for example. Does that compliance come under the purview of the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources and NEA? If so, what are the steps being taken to ensure that food safety at the highest standards is still being complied with?
Second, now and then, with all these incidents, I believe that there might be tightening of measures to ensure compliance and safety. How do we ensure that, apart from putting up on the websites, the latest changes or updates are being communicated effectively to the entire chain? So, whether it is those who are preparing at the restaurants or those who are then in charge of the delivery itself, what is NEA doing to ensure this?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: The licence will be issued to the food caterer to ensure that they prepare food in a safe way for consumption and, of course, until delivery, because even at delivery, when the food is put out for consumption, there is also a time stamp and they are to ensure that the food is safe for consumption and it must be consumed by a certain period. So, for the logistics, whether they outsource or they use their own transportation, they need to ensure that it is done in a safe manner and that the food will not be contaminated along the way.
I take note of the Member's question that, increasingly, more deliveries might be outsourced and this is something that we continue to look at to see how we can strengthen our overall regulatory framework for the food caterers. As I have noted earlier, in the lead-up to the formation of the Singapore Food Agency, we are already looking at how we can strengthen the overall regulatory framework for food operators. This includes various things, not just reviewing the composition fines, that is, raising the composition fines, which means that, subsequently, the Court fines will also be increased. We are also adopting a stricter stance in the administration of enforcement actions, too, so sending more of the food operators who infringe and have serious lapses to Court and pressing for deterrent sentences. But as the Member has also rightly pointed out, how can we ensure greater visibility of food operators who had been suspended, as well as accessibility to this information? So, one of the things we are looking at is having a quick link on our website so that you can easily access the information on the caterers who have been suspended, and even having a \"push\" notification, through the myENV App, of caterers who would have been suspended. We are also looking at other ways of strengthening this regime.
Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): I have one supplementary question. I note that regular checks are conducted on outlets. What I would like to know is whether surprise checks are also conducted in addition to such regular checks because, for regular checks, probably the operators would know when NEA might be coming. I am not sure, but if there are no surprise checks being conducted, I hope that this can be done.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: We do unannounced checks and, just to let Members know, we actually adopt a risk-based approach to inspections. As I have said for last year, for food caterers, we have actually done 2,400 inspections, in addition to 900 inspections since last month, and this is actually not all. For the whole of 2018, they have actually done 77,000 inspections, not just for licence renewal, but unannounced inspections. And it is risk-based, as in those operators who have a higher risk. For instance, food caterers who cater to a large number of people and a big volume of food as well as variety, there will be more frequent checks for such operators.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yee Chia Hsing.
\t
\tMr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. Actually, I am quite shocked at the incident at Spize, where there were unregistered food handlers and a total disregard for basic safety. I understand from news reports that eggs that were meant to be discarded were sent to another outlet. I am very happy to note that NEA is increasing the penalties. Currently, the penalties only allow for fines at the first offence. Can I ask, with the revised penalties, is there a jail sentence even for such incidents, for first offence, where it is a total disregard for basic food safety?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: When there are very serious lapses, for instance, food poisoning leading to death, we are going to Court to press for a deterrent sentence, in addition to fines.
Mr Speaker: Ms Rahayu Mahzam.
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the comprehensive answer. I just wanted to ask, in particular, in relation to the assessment on the effectiveness of the measures that we have put in place. I think in the food industry, some of the difficulties faced include the high turnover of staff who are handing the food and working in the restaurants. I am wondering if we are also looking at the assessment of how the food preparation is done and where are the specific areas where there are lapses, especially in terms of training. When staff members leave, they need to retrain and make sure that consistent standards are held. And I am wondering if there are efforts in looking at the food preparation process in the different food establishments, to see whether we can improve on training and in making sure that the consistency is maintained in the whole course of the restaurant's lifespan when they are running the business.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for her questions. Indeed, with regard to training, all food handlers have to undertake and complete the basic food hygiene course, and then to be registered before they can be allowed to handle food at these licensed premises. So, we take a very serious view of unregistered food handlers under the demerit point system. Under the system, such an offence would be considered a very serious lapse.
We are looking at reviewing the training curriculum for food handlers under the basic food hygiene course. But in addition to that, we require, for instance, establishments which are also allowed to cater food, that means, they have a licence to, in addition, cater food. We require them to have a food hygiene officer, as well as implement a food safety management system. That is the reason why from 21 December 2018, we require any licensed premises that are suspended to get their FHOs to train again and be recertified under the WSQ course. That really is to ensure that there is also good supervision. When they are suspended, they have to review and resubmit their food safety management system to us for approval again to be recertified.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review Qualifying Income and Other Criteria for Workfare Income Supplement Scheme ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"30 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Manpower given the increase in income for the 20th and 30th percentiles of income earners since 2016 (a) when was the qualifying income ceiling for the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) last revised using these percentiles as benchmarks; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider raising the WIS income ceiling as well as increasing the WIS payouts from the next financial year to assist low-income workers deal with rising costs of living.
31 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the progress of the review on the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) Scheme; (b) whether there are studies being commissioned to find out what is considered a \"living wage\"; and (c) whether there are studies to consider extending coverage to those who are not in formal employment.
\tThe Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, may I take Question Nos 30 and 31 together, please.
Mr Speaker: Please do.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: The Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) Scheme was launched in 2007 as a broad-based measure that raises incomes of lower-income workers. WIS payouts are targeted at those with limited household support, with more going to older workers. For example, a 65-year-old earning $1,200 monthly would receive $300 more each month through WIS. In 2017, 407,000 workers received WIS payouts amounting to $650 million.
WIS is regularly reviewed to ensure the target groups continue to be helped. Since inception, the qualifying income ceiling has been raised three times, with the most recent revision being effected on 1 January 2017. The Ministry of Manpower is conducting its regular review of the WIS scheme to ensure that it continues to provide meaningful support to lower-income workers. We will take into account the increases in income over the past few years and announce the results of the review when ready.
Most WIS recipients also receive other forms of Government support to help meet their living needs. So, WIS is not the only mechanism through which we help our low-wage workers. Nearly all our WIS recipients receive U-Save rebates and over 90% receive Goods and Services Tax (GST) Vouchers. Nearly four in 10 also receive outpatient medical subsidies under the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS). Overall, a 65-year-old worker earning $1,200 a month would receive Government transfers comprising Workfare, Silver Support and GST Vouchers amounting to nearly six months' salary, or $7,000 annually. Those with children receive other forms of support if eligible, such as subsidies for childcare and student care.
This approach of going beyond wage supplements, to provide further support based on the varied needs of individuals and families, is more responsive than any \"living wage\". Beyond transfers, we also support skills upgrading. So, it is not about handouts and transfers. It is also about advancement. It is about advancing workers to be able to be more productive and higher skilled. With better skills, our workers can access better wages and better jobs. Government-funded programmes, such as the Workfare Training Support, Adapt and Grow initiative and SkillsFuture, provide active support to promote jobs and skills upgrading in all sectors of the economy, so that lower-income workers can progress along with the rest of the workforce.
In fact, as a result of these efforts, real wage at the 20th percentile grew faster than at the median. Between 2012 and 2017, incomes before Government transfers at the 20th percentile of workers grew at 4.2% per annum, or roughly about 20%, over the last five years, faster than median income growth of 3.4%, or about 16%, over the last five years, in real terms. Like other Singaporeans, our lower-income also have the opportunity to build up assets. Among WIS recipients, 75% own their homes. That is a significant statistic. Because very few places in the world – in fact, I do not think you will find one – where low-wage workers own their own homes, are able to build up assets.
We recognise that there are workers not in formal employment. Although their incidence in Singapore is generally low, we are concerned about the risks informal workers face. For example, they would have little recourse if their employers failed to make timely payments or compensation for work injury, or if their services were unfairly terminated. The lack of stability also does not enable planning on the part of the individual and impedes his ability to build up his Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings for home ownership, healthcare and retirement. We should, hence, avoid unwittingly blurring the difference of such work arrangements for workers, or creating an avenue for employers to have reduced or no obligations for these workers with weak bargaining power. This is also why our focus is to help individuals access formal work arrangements.
Through Workforce Singapore (WSG), we seek to bring informal workers back into formal employment. Those in need of financial assistance can also approach the Social Service Offices (SSOs). Members would be very familiar with these, as they have helped many of our low-income Singaporeans. SSO officers assess the needs of each family holistically and work together with WSG and the National Trades Union Congress' Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) to facilitate employment assistance where needed. In the meantime, informal workers continue to be eligible for other support, such as U-Save rebates, GST Vouchers and CHAS.
Mr Speaker: Ms Rahayu Mahzam.
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): I thank the Minister of State for the comprehensive answer. I just wanted to explore a little bit on the possibility of actually looking into studies. I appreciate the challenges and the concerns in making sure our workers are put into formal employment. But there are concerns for those who are in informal employment. They already have other challenges and, usually, a lot of them are in transition as they are trying to get into better jobs. But in the midst of training, they will need income to assist their families. So, the reality of life is that they do require some support, although there is some other assistance. It is still quite hard to meet their daily demands, especially so with the rising costs. I am wondering if we could at least look into it and have some studies in some way where we could use WIS as a motivator so that they can be recruited into formal employment eventually.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank the Member for her question. If you look at the informal worker today, the challenge is that because they do not have a formal contract and they are outside of the CPF system, it is very difficult to gauge what their monthly salaries are, for example, or if they are contributing. Our long-term goal is really to help them build up their retirement adequacy. Therefore, I think it is better that we move them into formal employment. But I hear the Member. It is something that we could look at.
Generally, the long-term goal is to work through the other schemes and the SSOs, for example, today, where you have multi-layered support, not just in terms of Workfare. But you also have social support, you have formal employment search services that we could provide through WSG and e2i.
That is where we are today. Certainly, for such workers, we know they are vulnerable and, therefore, I think the direction is still to move them towards formal employment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Visit of Delegation from House of Councillors of Japan","subTitle":"Presence in Gallery","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Order. On behalf of hon Members, I would like to extend a warm welcome to the honourable Mr Chuichi Date, President of the House of Councillors of Japan, and his delegation, who are present in our Gallery. Welcome. [Applause.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Demographic and Socio-economic Profile of HDB Applicants in Last Two Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Mr Zainal Sapari –
32 To ask the Minister for National Development (a) what is the total number of applications for HDB rental flats in the last two years; (b) what is the demographic and socio-economic profile of these applicants; (c) what is the percentage of rental flat applicants who have owned an HDB flat before; (d) what are the reasons why applications are not successful; (e) what are the usual circumstances that lead to the applicant needing rental housing; and (f) what housing options are available when family support is not forthcoming for the applicants in terms of alternative accommodation.
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Question No 32.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for National Development): The Housing and Development Board's (HDB's) public rental flats cater to households with no viable housing options or family support. In the last two years, an average of about 7,300 households requested for rental flats each year. The demographic and socio-economic profile of these households is varied. Ninety percent had a household income of $1,500 or less. Seventy percent applied alone or as a pair. About 40% were divorced or widowed, and a similar proportion were married.
Applicants cited various reasons for needing rental housing, such as the inability to afford a flat after divorce or due to loss of employment or medical issues. Close to half of the households in public rental have owned an HDB flat before.
The most common reasons for unsuccessful applications include having sufficient budget to buy a flat, not meeting the citizenship requirement, or having family support for alternative accommodation.
In cases where family support is not forthcoming, HDB will refer them to a Family Service Centre for mediation or counselling assistance. If mediation is unsuccessful, and the applicants cannot afford to buy a flat, HDB will be prepared to offer an interim rental or a public rental flat.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Allow Grandparents and Grandchildren to Be Considered as Family Nucleus under Public Rental Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"33 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider allowing grandparents and grandchildren to be considered as part of a family nucleus when renting an HDB flat under the Public Rental Scheme.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) assesses all requests for a public rental flat on a needs basis. For households that do not meet the eligibility criteria, such as grandparents requesting to rent with their grandchildren, HDB will look into their individual circumstances and assist them with rental housing if they are unable to buy a flat and have no other housing options or family support.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Include Telecommunications Operators’ Call Centres in Regulator's Quality of Service Standards","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Mr Murali Pillai \t–
34 To ask the Minister for Communications and Information whether the Quality of Service standards imposed by IMDA on its regulated telecommunications operators may be expanded to cover the management of these operators' call centres which are contracted to deal with and resolve subscribers' requests for assistance and complaints.
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Question No 34.
\tThe Minister for Communications and Information (Mr S Iswaran): Mr Speaker, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) focuses its regulatory efforts on key telecommunication services for the development of Singapore's digital economy. So, IMDA sets minimum Quality of Service (QoS) standards for the performance of these key telecommunication services, such as fixed line telephone, mobile, Internet access and fibre connection services. IMDA regularly verifies service providers' compliance with these QoS standards and takes enforcement action in the event of breaches.
IMDA does not impose regulatory requirements on customer service and call centre experiences. Instead, market competition is used to elicit improvements as service providers compete by providing better customer service.
\t
IMDA tracks consumer satisfaction through the Consumer Awareness and Satisfaction Survey (CASS) and provides this feedback to the service providers so that they can make improvements. CASS 2018 showed that consumers are generally satisfied with their telecommunication service providers, and consumer satisfaction has improved in several areas, including the hotline waiting time, time taken to resolve complaints, and competency of service providers’ customer service officers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Protect Personal Data of Facebook Users in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"35 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Communications and Information in view of the security breach in personal data of Facebook users in USA, whether there are any measures to protect the personal data of Facebook users in Singapore.
\tThe Minister for Communications and Information and Minister-in-charge of Trade Relations (Mr S Iswaran): Mr Speaker, organisations that collect, use and disclose personal data in Singapore, including Facebook, are required to comply with the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) 2012. Among other things, PDPA requires organisations to notify individuals of the purposes for which they are collecting, using or disclosing personal data, to obtain consent where required, and to make reasonable security arrangements to protect the personal data under their possession or control.
The Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) monitors data breach incidents closely and will take appropriate enforcement actions if it assesses that PDPA has been breached. In doing so, PDPC works with its regulatory counterparts in other jurisdictions to share information on incidents, and with the relevant organisations to inform and help affected individuals.
With respect to Facebook's security breach in September 2018, Facebook reported that a feature allowing Facebook users to see what their own profiles looked like to others had a vulnerability which enabled attackers to view Facebook users' accounts without permission. Upon learning of the security vulnerability, PDPC immediately contacted Facebook to request for additional details, such as whether Singapore users were affected and the measures Facebook was taking to prevent a recurrence of such vulnerabilities. PDPC ensured that Facebook alerted affected users and advised them of the steps they could take to protect themselves. PDPC is also closely monitoring that matter, including the investigation in the United States and other related developments and will assess whether further action is necessary.
Meanwhile, I also want to take this opportunity to stress that all of us have a role to play in protecting our personal data. Users of Facebook and other social media platforms should make full use of these platforms’ security features to protect their personal data, such as selecting their preferred option in the privacy settings of social media platforms. Users should also be careful about the personal data that they share online, so as to minimise the impact should a data breach occur.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prevalence of Regular ActiveSG Users","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"36 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what is the prevalence of regular ActiveSG users, that is, the percentage of users who use their credits on a weekly basis; (b) what other metrics does the Ministry rely on apart from utilisation rates to measure ActiveSG's success in encouraging Singaporeans to lead active lifestyles; and (c) what plans are being considered by the Ministry to boost participation in ActiveSG.
\tThe Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have a total of 1.63 million ActiveSG members, of which of about 14% use their credits weekly. However, transactions involving ActiveSG credits do not reflect the level of activity among ActiveSG members, as one member can book a facility on behalf of his group, and this excludes those who access our free-to-play facilities, such as our sports stadia.
Since the launch of ActiveSG in 2014, national sports participation has increased. In financial year 2017, our public sports facilities recorded close to 17 million visits, and the National Sports Participation Survey reported that 68% of respondents participated in sports at least once a week.
The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth and SportSG are committed to encouraging Singaporeans to lead active and healthy lifestyles. ActiveSG has continually introduced innovative programming at our sports centres, such as Aqua Zumba, Bokwa and Piloxing, and launched various ActiveSG Academies and Clubs to encourage youths and seniors to learn to play different sports. The 2018 edition of GetActive! Singapore, our week-long celebration of National Day through sports, also reached out to more than 800,000 participants.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Leveraging SG Arts Plan to Emphasise Importance of Arts Education","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"37 Mr Terence Ho Wee San asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth what can the SG Arts Plan do to emphasise the importance of arts education not only for the purpose of grooming artists, but also for the creation of arts ambassadors, audiences, patrons, collectors and future chairmen/board members of arts and cultural agencies.
\tThe Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Speaker, strengthening arts education is an important component of the National Arts Council’s (NAC's) Our SG Arts Plan launched in October 2018. Not only does early exposure to the arts nurture creative thinking and help our children develop empathy and confidence, it also paves the way for arts appreciation and participation to be a way of life for them as they grow up. Therefore, strong arts education programmes will produce many future arts supporters and audiences, patrons, collectors, art ambassadors and leaders of arts and cultural organisations.
Together with the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth, NAC works closely with partners from the public, private and people sectors to enhance opportunities for our young people to engage with the arts. Some examples include initiatives like the NAC’s Artist-in-School Scheme, where arts professionals work with schools, including preschools, on specialised workshops or courses.
Ninety-eight percent of the Ministry of Education (MOE) schools participate in NAC’s Arts Education Programme (NAC-AEP) which aims to build broad appreciation of the arts and deepen knowledge. In 2016, over 3,000 NAC-AEP programmes were taken up by schools.
In 2018, museum-based learning was incorporated as one of the core learning experiences for Primary 4 students in MOE's primary arts syllabus. NAC also piloted a performing arts-based learning experience for lower secondary students in 2017, where over 5,000 students attended a concert programme which included pre- and post-concert learning.
The School of the Arts (SOTA) provides an immersive learning environment to realise students' artistic and academic potential. SOTA is working to broaden access to its high-quality educational experience to artistically inclined youths from all walks of life. While not all graduates from SOTA become practitioners, many go on to work in other professional fields while remaining strong supporters of, and volunteer their time in, our arts scene.
At the tertiary level, our universities and arts institutions, such as the Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts and LASALLE College of the Arts, offer both undergraduate and postgraduate arts-related courses.
As part of Our SG Arts Plan, NAC will build on existing efforts to, first, further support arts educators and instructors to improve the quality of arts education; second, grow research to explore the impact of early exposure to the arts to improve programmes; third, continue to increase access to the arts; fourth, deepen its engagement with schools and nurture distinctive schools in the arts; and fifth, support early childhood arts education.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Local Representation in Universities and Effectiveness of Universities’ Talent Grooming Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"38 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Education (a) whether there are updated figures on local representation in academia in universities; (b) how successful have the Singapore Teaching and Academic Research Talent Scheme, the NUS President's Assistant Professor Scheme and the NTU Nanyang Assistant Professorship Scheme been; (c) how much has been invested in these schemes; and (d) what have been the benefits and key impact of these schemes and the views of faculty about these schemes.
\tThe Minister for Education (Mr Ong Ye Kung): The number of Singaporean academics as a proportion of all faculty members in our autonomous universities (AUs) has remained fairly stable at about 50% over the last 10 years.
The Ministry of Education (MOE) started the Singapore Teaching and Academic Research Talent (START) Scheme to develop Singaporean academics and to supplement existing schemes at the various AUs. Under START, 91 scholarships have been awarded over the past four years. As it is relatively new, most of the scholarship recipients are still studying. Of the 16 who have completed their studies, 13 are holding faculty positions in our AUs, with the rest returning to join the AUs later this year. START recipients have already demonstrated involvement in impactful, locally-relevant projects in areas, such as language and palliative care.
The National University of Singapore (NUS) Presidential Young Professorship (PYP) Scheme and the Nanyang Technological University's (NTU’s) Nanyang Assistant Professorship (NAP) Scheme aim to attract top local and foreign academics to the AUs. Thus far, NUS and NTU have granted a total of 91 awards.
Together, the three schemes provide various forms of support for aspiring and young academics at different stages of their studies and careers. This comes in the form of financing support during Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) or post-doctorate stints, mentorship from faculty members and research grants.
On average, MOE and the AUs have invested around $11 million per year on these three schemes since 2015.
We will continue to work with our AUs to build a strong Singaporean Core in our faculty. It is critically important that we have a strong core of local academics in our AUs.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.
\tMr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): I thank the Minister for the answer. Just a few supplementary questions. I have spoken on this topic in previous sessions. In stating that there is about 50% of local representation in our universities, I would like to ask the Minister whether there are any particular faculties where stints are under-represented in terms of the local academics in these faculties.
First, in terms of universities, are there certain schools which are lacking? And then, within the universities, are there certain faculties where the number of local academics is lacking? If so, what are the measures that will be taken to boost these numbers?
Mr Ong Ye Kung: When it comes to Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM), by nature, the research and teaching are international. In fact, the more international inputs you have, the richer the experience in terms of student learning as well as the richer the research outcomes. For arts and social sciences, it is a bit more complex because students and faculty who are here also need to understand the Asian context, the Singapore context, the history, the geography of Singapore that define who we are. So, beyond having diversity in terms of knowledge and background, we particularly need a strong Singapore Core in arts and social sciences. So, my short answer is, that will be our focus.
What measures can we take? We are actively discussing with the autonomous AUs, not just now, but for the past year or two. PYP, NAP and START are such schemes that could help build up arts and social sciences' local faculties in these areas. But there are also other practical steps that we are discussing with all our AUs and we will implement them in time to come.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.
\tAssoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): I thank the Minister for his response. I have two supplementary questions. The first is whether the Minister could share more on the age profile of Singapore versus foreign faculty. This is because, anecdotally, it seems that many Singapore faculty are concentrated in the older side of the profession because they pre-date our opening up of the sector to foreign faculty.
The second supplementary question is if the Minister could share more on the academic ranks and positions held by Singapore versus foreign faculty because there is a difference between holding a tenure track or tenured position, and holding, for example, a teaching position which is much less secure and is less flexible.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: The age profile of faculty, I am afraid, I do not have those data with me. We do have those data. If the Member would file a Parliamentary Question, we are happy to answer. But we do watch those data. How is it that we have 50% local academics over the past 10 years? Because we do watch those data and make sure that it is not just the stock that matters but also the flow, which is why we need a START scheme so that we bring in young local academics from young.
The second question is on the positions. Local academics hold a variety of positions. I would not say it is particularly skewed. Fifty percent applies to the whole academic faculty as well as tenured positions. As Members know, it is also important for us, especially in comprehensive universities like NUS and NTU, that we do not just focus on the tenured professorships. It is also very, very important to recognise that the primary mission of our AUs is actually to educate the young and develop them. So, teaching and practice professorships are, in fact, very important, too. And I really hope to see – and that is one point that Mr Seah Kian Peng asked – that we can elevate teaching professorships to be really on par with tenured research professorships.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar.
\tDr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Speaker, I declare my interest as a faculty member in a local AU. We have two comprehensive universities. Is there an over-emphasis on publication, academic research and university ranking that we compromise the quality of teaching amongst our faculty? Anecdotally, again, when a particular university wanted to chase university rankings, a lot of foreign faculty members were brought in based on their past publication of research and not so much on the quality of teaching, which then has an impact on our students. Could something be done about this?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: First of all, we should be clear high ranking is not bad. Actually, to be ranked high internationally is something we should be proud that NUS and NTU have all been ranked high. If you ask most universities or most governments whether they wish to have a university that ranks high, whether it is Quacquarelli Symonds or Times Higher Education, they will say, \"I wish we have NUS and NTU\". Because when you rank high, you can attract good talent, you can attract good students and there is a whole vibrancy around the whole campus. However, if you also ask most academic leaders around the world, education ministers around the world, not everyone is happy with the ranking system because of the rubrics. It is just a bit too blunt, a bit too focused on research and not so much on teaching. And even within research, too much focus on publications rather than translational research, or the impact of the research. And nobody has really cracked the puzzle how else to measure and to have a robust international ranking system. And we must know these shortcomings and make sure that the Ministry and universities work together, ensure that we know the multifaceted missions of our AUs and make sure we carry out our work in a way that fulfils all these missions and not blindly chase rankings. We are very well aware of that in the Ministry Headquarters and so are the leaders of our AUs.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Ministerial Statement. Minister for Foreign Affairs.
[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":"Singapore-Malaysia Relations","subTitle":"Statement by Minister for Foreign Affairs","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Speaker, Members of the House have posed several questions on Singapore-Malaysia relations. Let me start by sharing with the House and fellow Singaporeans the approach that we have taken in our relations with Malaysia under the Pakatan Harapan government. I had touched on this briefly in July last year, but I think it is worth restating some of these points.
Since Pakatan Harapan's victory in the Malaysian general election in May 2018, Singapore has consistently expressed our hope for good and mutually beneficial relations with the new Malaysian government. We want to continue working closely with Malaysia, at both the federal and the state levels. We do so on the basis of equality and mutual respect. And this means working through any differences and outstanding issues amicably, constructively and in accordance with international law and international norms. We believe that both countries need to deepen our strategic trust and develop new areas of cooperation. A constructive and positive working relationship with our closest neighbour is also important for the region, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in particular, where Singapore and Malaysia have many shared interests.
So, last August, when Malaysia sought Singapore’s agreement to defer the Kuala Lumpur-Singapore High Speed Rail Project up to 31 May 2020, we agreed to do so, and we concluded a formal agreement with Malaysia to achieve this deferment. We agreed in the spirit of good neighbourliness and hoped that this would set the tone for a positive and fruitful relationship with Malaysia’s new government.
Since then, we have maintained this cooperative approach with several high-level bilateral visits and exchanges. Prime Minister Lee hosted Prime Minister Mahathir for an official visit to Singapore in November last year, in conjunction with the 33rd ASEAN Summit. During the meeting between the two Prime Ministers, they acknowledged that there would always be elements of both competition and cooperation, but both of them saw a bright future for Malaysia and Singapore.
In any close relationship with complex historical legacies, problems will arise from time to time. This is to be expected between such close neighbours. The only question is how we approach these problems. In the past couple of months, two sets of difficult issues have flared up between Singapore and Malaysia. These include, first, the maritime issues surrounding Malaysia’s purported extension of the Johor Bahru Port Limits, and second, airspace issues arising from Malaysia's objections to the new Instrument Landing System (ILS) procedures for Seletar Airport, and its sudden promulgation of a permanent Restricted Area over Pasir Gudang, that disrupted normal operations at Seletar Airport which, in fact, have been conducted safely and efficiently for many decades. Both of these sets of sudden actions upset the status quo that has been in place for many years. These actions did not bode well for our bilateral relationship. They created the risk of a dangerous downward spiral of measures and countermeasures. They were serious enough that Prime Minister Lee felt it was necessary to send Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean and Minister Heng Swee Keat as special envoys to call on Prime Minister Mahathir on New Year's eve to convey a serious message from Prime Minister Lee expressing his grave concerns.
Arising from Prime Minister Lee’s communication with Prime Minister Mahathir, I met Malaysian Foreign Minister Saifuddin Abdullah last week to discuss these outstanding issues. We agreed on measures to help keep the situation on the ground calm in order to allow discussions to take place in a more conducive atmosphere.
There has been strong public interest in these matters. So, today, I would like to set out the facts of each issue and highlight the steps that both countries have taken to find a constructive way forward.
Let me, first, deal with the Johor Bahru Port Limits. With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I display some slides on the screen?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please. [Slides were shown to hon Members.]
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Thank you. On 25 October 2018, Malaysia unilaterally extended the Johor Bahru Port Limits into Singapore Territorial Waters off Tuas. Members of the House, may I refer you to this map which is displayed, which reflects Malaysia's unilateral extension to the hatched area. The waters in this area are tight, less than 24 nautical miles wide. This purported extension goes beyond even Malaysia’s own territorial sea claims according to Malaysia's own 1979 map, which Singapore has consistently rejected. The inescapable conclusion is that the new Johor Bahru Port Limits transgress into what are indisputably Singapore Territorial Waters. Singapore has long exercised sovereignty and patrolled these waters without any protest from Malaysia. However, since late November 2018, Malaysian government vessels started intruding into these Singapore Territorial Waters.
We have protested the purported extension and these intrusions. We have also increased our security presence in the area in order to safeguard our waters and sovereignty. I am sure Members of this House would join me in commending our security agencies which have been acting professionally, responsibly, and with restraint, in order to minimise the risks of untoward incidents at sea. In response to Malaysia’s provocative actions, on 6 December 2018, we extended Singapore’s own port limits off Tuas. Our extension was done in accordance with international law and remained well within Singapore Territorial Waters.
On 10 December 2018, the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a press statement committing to \"take all effective measures to de-escalate the situation on the ground\". Despite this statement, daily intrusions by Malaysian government vessels into our territorial waters have continued. These intrusions do not help Malaysia's legal case. All they do is to raise tensions and endanger navigational safety in the area. There is a need to calm the situation at sea.
It was in this context that I met Minister Saifuddin on 8 January 2019. Members would have read the Joint Press Statement that we issued after our meeting. In summary, we agreed to establish a working group, headed by the Permanent Secretary of Singapore's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Mr Chee Wee Kiong and the Secretary General of the Malaysian Foreign Ministry Mr Muhammad Shahrul Ikram Yaakob. This working group will discuss both the legal and operational matters in order to de-escalate the situation in the waters off Tuas and they are to report to both Minister Saifuddin and me within the next two months.
Singapore believes that maritime boundary delimitation is best resolved through negotiations, to reach an amicable settlement acceptable to all parties. If negotiations are unsuccessful, Singapore is prepared to settle such disputes by recourse to an appropriate international dispute settlement procedure. However, the dispute settlement should be on terms that are mutually agreed to by both parties and it is for this reason that Singapore filed a declaration under Article 298(1)(a) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). We filed this declaration on 12 December 2018. This declaration means that other States Parties to UNCLOS cannot unilaterally commence third-party arbitration or adjudication against Singapore in respect of maritime boundary disputes. Singapore likewise cannot unilaterally commence third-party arbitration or adjudication against other UNCLOS States Parties for such disputes. It has to be by mutual agreement: both sides have to agree to the terms of third-party arbitration or adjudication in the event that bilateral negotiations are unsuccessful.
Singapore remains committed to finding an amicable resolution through dialogue with our Malaysian partners and this is what the working group led by the two Foreign Ministries will try to achieve.
Next, airspace. On airspace, there have actually been two developments. First, the new Instrument Landing System (ILS) for Seletar Airport. Put simply, an ILS is an aid for pilots to land safely at an airport during bad weather or when there is low visibility conditions. Seletar Airport actually meets all the relevant requirements of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) on airport design and operations. Planes have been safely flying in and out of Seletar Airport for decades, using the same flight routes. But we did not previously have an ILS. We now installed the ILS at Seletar Airport at the request of Firefly, a subsidiary of Malaysian Airlines. Firefly had agreed to move its operations to Seletar Airport by 1 December 2018. But Firefly informed the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) that the Civil Aviation Authority of Malaysia (CAAM) required all Malaysian carriers to only operate to airports with an instrument approach. Ironically, CAAS was actually trying to facilitate Firefly’s operations at Seletar by installing the ILS, the same ILS which Malaysia has now objected to.
CAAS sought early consultation with CAAM on the implementation of the ILS procedures at Seletar. CAAS formally approached the Malaysian agency in December 2017 but received no response for almost a year. CAAM only replied in November 2018, objecting for the first time to the proposed ILS procedures, and citing alleged consequences on the future development of Pasir Gudang. Despite this delay, CAAS addressed all their concerns.
It is important to note that the ILS uses exactly the same flight paths that aircraft landing at Seletar have used all along for visual flights. Flight procedures, such as those for the Seletar ILS, are a basic element of civil aviation, which inform pilots on what they need to do in order to land or take off safely. There have been claims that the ILS flight path will more strictly restrict the height of buildings below it. This is untrue. The ILS imposes no additional requirements or limitations preventing Malaysia from developing tall buildings in Pasir Gudang or operating tall ships in Pasir Gudang Port. There were allegations that Pasir Gudang will not be able to have buildings higher than five stories because of the ILS.
But if Members drive across the Causeway and drive around Pasir Gudang, you will see that there are, in fact, already structures that are as tall as 105 metres, and this, by the way, is taller than many Housing and Development Board (HDB) blocks. You can see from the satellite photograph – which I want to emphasise was obtained from open sources – that there are, indeed, existing high-rise developments in the Pasir Gudang area.
So, the ILS has not and will not prevent the building of tall structures, as alleged by Malaysia. And we have consistently stated that if Malaysia has any new plans for new developments, we are prepared to discuss and to adjust the ILS procedures, if necessary. Ultimately, the purpose of the ILS procedures is to improve safety and facilitate flights and, in this case, especially for Malaysia’s own Firefly, which services many smaller Malaysian airports.
CAAS met CAAM on 29 November 2018 to address their concerns. Following this meeting, CAAS published the ILS procedures for Seletar Airport on 1 December 2018. This was done in accordance with Singapore's responsibilities under the relevant ICAO requirements. So, it published the ILS procedures in accordance with our responsibilities under the relevant ICAO requirements as well as the bilateral arrangements between Singapore and Malaysia. And to give the aviation community time to prepare for the ILS, it set the effective date for the implementation of ILS as 3 January 2019, a timeline which is entirely in line with international norms.
During this period, on 12 December 2018, CAAM issued a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). And this NOTAM unilaterally declared the airspace over Pasir Gudang as an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) operation area from 13 to 28 December 2018. This NOTAM was subsequently cancelled on 20 December 2018.
But, subsequently, on Christmas Day, 25 December 2018, CAAM issued another NOTAM, this time, declaring a permanent Restricted Area over Pasir Gudang between 2,000 feet and 5,000 feet altitude, for \"military activities\" and that this Restricted Area would take effect from 2 January 2019. This Restricted Area would force flights operating to and from Seletar Airport to spiral up and down close to the airport in order to traverse above the Restricted Area at 6,000 feet. Malaysia’s action contravened established ICAO procedures. All over the world, and this is a point worth emphasising, aviation is, by nature, transboundary. CAAS, as the air traffic services provider for the area, was neither informed nor consulted even though these actions affected current civil aviation operations out of Seletar Airport. It cut through an established international aviation route, and it affected flight efficiency and safety.
Malaysia’s declaration of a permanent Restricted Area escalated what was initially a matter concerning ILS procedures, which is a norm for many airports around the world, into a much more serious issue affecting all flights operating at Seletar Airport from the north. This was not helpful for commercial aviation in the area and, furthermore, damaged the overall tenor of our bilateral relationship.
At our meeting last week, Minister Saifuddin and I agreed that Singapore would suspend the implementation of the ILS procedures at Seletar Airport, and Malaysia would also suspend the permanent Restricted Area, for a period of one month in the first instance. This mutual suspension went into effect simultaneously at midnight on 9 January 2019 and this has allowed normal operations to resume at Seletar Airport, with aircraft able to fly their normal established flight paths over Pasir Gudang in and out of Seletar. Unfortunately, Malaysia’s Firefly will still be unable to start operating at Seletar due to its own Malaysian regulator’s requirement. We also agreed that the Transport Ministers from both countries should meet soon for discussions on these measures and to resolve the issues. The Transport Ministers, I believe, have agreed to meet later this month.
Mr Speaker, I strongly believe that both countries share a common interest in safe and efficient international civil aviation operations. After all, this has brought great economic benefits and tourism to both countries and, indeed, to our region. As such, I look forward to the resolution of these issues in an amicable fashion.
There are other issues that we have to deal with. Singapore will do our best to discuss all outstanding bilateral issues with Malaysia in a calm, reasonable and focused manner. This approach extends to other issues beyond the Johor Bahru Port Limits and the Seletar ILS procedures. For example, Malaysia had earlier expressed their intention to review the 1974 Operational Letter of Agreement on airspace arrangements in southern Johor, and we had responded that we would review their proposal when we received it. Such discussions on air navigation arrangements involve consultations with international stakeholders and cannot be done overnight. In the meantime, in the interest of civil aviation safety, air traffic operations must continue according to the current arrangements and in accordance with ICAO requirements.
Another matter that Malaysia has raised is the price of raw water sold to Singapore under the 1962 Water Agreement. Prime Minister Mahathir raised this with Prime Minister Lee when they met last November. Both Prime Ministers agreed that the two Attorneys-General respectively would meet for discussions to better understand each other’s positions on whether Malaysia still had the right to review the price of water under the 1962 Water Agreement. The Attorneys-General subsequently met in December 2018. Unfortunately, their discussions were overshadowed by the new issues that had arisen over the Johor Bahru Port Limits and the Seletar ILS procedures. But the two Attorneys-General will meet again to continue their discussions.
Let me be very frank and let me emphasise that I do not expect a quick or smooth resolution to all these issues. As an example, Singapore was scheduled to host a meeting on the Joint Ministerial Committee (JMC) for Iskandar Malaysia this morning. The meeting was to be chaired by Minister Lawrence Wong and Malaysian Economic Affairs Minister Azmin Ali. This meeting would have involved Singapore and Malaysian Ministers and officials, as well as Johor officials, including the Menteri Besar Osman Sapian. But most regrettably, the Menteri Besar staged a publicised visit to the Malaysian Marine Department (MMD) vessel anchored in Singapore Territorial Waters off Tuas on 9 January 2019.
This intrusion by the Johor Menteri Besar went against the spirit of the agreement between Foreign Minister Saifuddin and me just the day before. It undermined the goodwill and trust that are necessary for further cooperation between the two countries, and especially cooperation involving Johor. Therefore, it made it untenable for us to proceed with the JMC meeting this morning.
Singapore formally protested the intrusion via a TPN, a diplomatic note, to Malaysia, and we proposed to postpone the meeting to a later date. Malaysia agreed. I also informed both Minister Saifuddin and Minister Azmin of this postponement, and I should add that my discussions with both Ministers, both before and after the Johor Menteri Besar’s actions, have been amicable and constructive, and we have focused on trying to resolve issues and not to wind things up. Minister Azmin met me yesterday. This morning, he also met Minister Khaw Boon Wan and Minister Lawrence Wong to discuss several bilateral projects which he is in charge of.
Mr Speaker, despite these current difficulties, Singapore still hopes to work with Malaysia for better relations, and for closer cooperation that will benefit the people, the citizens of both sides. But both sides must act in good faith, in compliance with international law and norms, and honour existing agreements.
Mr Speaker, foreign policy begins at home. The strength of Singapore’s diplomacy depends on domestic unity and resilience, and the fact that we cannot be intimidated or bought. This is the foundation for our diplomacy even as we seek good relations with all our friends and neighbours within a rules-based international order. This is why Total Defence and our investment in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) are so important. Resilience includes improving our water supply infrastructure, namely, NEWater and desalinated water, strengthening our food security by diversifying our food sources, and ensuring that we have a strong, diversified labour market. As a small state with limited resources, the quest for security and resilience has been a constant, relentless imperative for us since Independence. It is not something that we look at only in times of unease. I am confident that we can continue to rely on strong bipartisan support from this House, and the unity of purpose among all Singaporeans, as we strive to ensure that Singapore’s independence, territorial sovereignty, safety, security and prosperity are secured for this generation and those to come. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have one clarification. The flight path for Seletar airbase is the same, whether with ILS or without ILS. But from what we heard from the Malaysia Transport Minister Anthony Loke, he kept saying that it will prevent the development of Pasir Gudang, especially the tall buildings. So, I would like to ask whether the Minister, Anthony Loke, has different calculation or miscalculated, or is he, as how my residents put it, I quote, \"frying roti prata\"? Perhaps, my favourite Minister for Transport, Mr Khaw Boon Wan, who is meeting with him, will seek a clarification on this.
Mr Speaker: Minister.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: I thank the Member for her usual colourful allusions. What I will state is Minister Khaw and Minister Loke are due to meet, hopefully, by the end of this month. I do not want to engage in speculation as to the basis for his calculations and assumptions. I think it is best that both sides meet, set out their respective concerns and find a constructive way forward.
Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, Singaporeans consider the recent act by the Johor Chief Minister as an affront towards Singapore's sovereign rights. Ultimately, we have to look at these emotive issues through cold, calculative lenses by taking deliberate steps to advance Singapore's interests, and our resolve to take such steps should not be underestimated. One solution is third party arbitration. Of course, there are other routes. My question for the Minister is: what positive actions and active steps can Singaporeans do to protect and preserve our sovereign rights?
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Well, first of all, our current actions are designed precisely to protect and assert our sovereignty and our sovereign rights. The second point is that we do need more bilateral consultations. We do need negotiations to resolve these issues. I believe these issues are solvable, but it needs to be a frank, open, candid, sincere exchange of views.
As for Singaporeans, I mentioned just now that foreign policy begins at home, the unity of purpose, the calm way in which Singaporeans have responded to this. Calmness does not mean passivity. But actually, both countries, and I think especially the businessmen on both sides, are aware of how our economies are intertwined, and these sorts of disputes are unnecessary and unhelpful. So, calmly, resolutely, firmly asserting our sovereignty and our rights, and then quietly taking appropriate actions is probably the wisest course at this point in time. I do not want to speculate as to other measures which we would have to consider at appropriate times.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I just have one supplementary question for the Minister. From the bilateral talks and discussions, both official and non-official, does the Minister sense that the Malaysian government is sincere in resolving the various bilateral issues between the two countries on a win-win basis?
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Thank you, Mr Singh. It is a salient question, but actually, more complicated than it sounds. First of all, we start on the basis that we are two sovereign nations. But we are two sovereign nations with a complicated history and, therefore, we must always expect problems to arise. We must never be surprised by problems. They will arise and, as I said just now, the only question is how we approach these problems and, as to the point behind the Member's question, the spirit behind our attempts to resolve this problem.
When dealing with foreign policy, I find it very useful to clearly separate in my mind national interest from personal ties and personal relationships. Let me explain. In the case of Singapore, our top, paramount imperative is to protect our sovereignty and independence, and our national interests. Our second imperative is to abide by international law. Our third imperative is to fully honour all agreements which we have solemnly entered into. Because, after all, if you do not honour past agreements, what value do future agreements have? It is only after you settle these three things – national interests, international law, and abiding by agreements – then the individuals, the Ministers, the officials and the agencies come into it.
I would like to share with Members a discussion which I had with Minister Azmin last night. We both concluded that it is important that Ministers and officials keep the attitude of trying to solve problems, not aggravate them, not make them worse. Specifically, to the Member's question, I can quite confidently state for the record that in all my interactions with Minister Saifuddin and Minister Azmin, I have found them to be sincere, constructive, helpful, and I believe both of them. I hope they also reflect a larger body of opinion within Malaysia. Understand that the long-term interest of Singapore and Malaysia is best secured by working together, resolving differences, expanding areas of collaboration, and looking for new things that we can do.
One point which I also discussed with Minister Azmin who is, as Members know, in charge of economic affairs, I said, look, the world is changing at such a rapid manner. We need to focus on updating, upscaling, transforming our economies and working together, and not be caught using unnecessary bandwidth fighting unnecessary conflicts.
So sorry to give the Member a long answer. But my short answer to the Member is that as far as the two whom I have interacted most intensively with, the answer is yes. I do detect sincerity on their part. But never, never make the mistake of assuming that personal ties can be a replacement for national interests, international law or complying with agreements.
So, we always aim for good interpersonal ties, we always talk about friendship between countries. But remember that friendship between countries is to advance national interest. You never compromise national interest in order to have better relations. So, it is a discipline which I always maintain in all my relations with my counterparts. I am pretty sure if you spoke to Minister Saifuddin or Minister Azmin, they would say something pretty much the same. And I do my best to make sure I am never the cause, the source of a problem. I try to be helpful.
Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Minister, I applaud Singapore's approach in taking a calm, sensible approach to the problems. But one of the things that causes me great concern is that there definitely have been very constructive sounds coming out of MFA, and after the meeting on 8 January 2019 with Minister Saifuddin, there was a commitment to de-escalate. Yet, less than two days after that, five vessels came into our waters. Shortly after that, the Johor Mentri Besar came in. So, it may well be that the Minister's counterparts are sincere, but does that reflect the entire Malaysian government?
If they are not able to properly control or represent the rest of the Malaysian government, what can Singapore do in the event we get further intrusions into our waters or airspace? Obviously, one option is bilateral discussions, which we are doing. But if one side is being sincere, and the other side is not, or is not able to follow through with actions, what can we do? I would be grateful for the Minister's thoughts.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Thank you. In popular parlance, it is called \"good cop, bad cop\". We do not play those sorts of things. I cannot speak for Malaysia, but I can speak for Singapore. I always say the same thing to all my counterparts that Singapore does not have the luxury of saying different things to different people. In any case, we believe it is this reputation for consistency and constancy that adds to our reputation of reliability and integrity. So, that is the way we deal. Sometimes, it may come across as we are boringly consistent, and we seem to studiously avoid chest-thumping and other manifestations of nationalism. But I would submit that this is the appropriate posture for a small, tiny nation-state like Singapore. Not that we are passive, not that we give in, but consistency.
Now, specifically, dealing with a counterpart or another country which may not obey the same conventions and rules. In the case of the recent intrusion by the Johor Menteri Besar, in fact, he did that the day after the bilateral meeting with Foreign Minister Saifuddin, and as I said just now, is completely against the spirit of the meeting and against the spirit of the agreements. Could we just let it pass in the name of, well, we just had a successful meeting, we are getting along, let us not sour that? No, the answer is we cannot just let it pass. We had to take action. That is why we had to postpone the meeting of the 14th Joint Ministerial Committee for Iskandar Malaysia.
So, my point is, do not take Singapore's consistency, and some would say even predictability, for granted. We will always take appropriate measures to safeguard our interests, and any country dealing with Singapore must not assume that it is cost-free to embark on any adventures or antics against us. There will be consequences. So, I hope Members appreciate this fine line that I am trying to follow, to be resolute, but to be calm, to quietly but clearly protect our interests. It does not mean we do not have sharp elbows. And sometimes, if we have to do it, we will do so. But again, as I said, it is still early days, so let us see how this evolves.
The other point I would make, especially for younger Singaporeans, is that the nature of the relationship between Malaysia and Singapore will always be unique and special. And we must never be surprised, both at the upside and the downside. It is, in psychological parlance, what you would call an “emotionally labile” relationship. We must not be caught surprised or flat-footed about it. I believe we should not aggravate the emotional angst but, at the same time, we must also firmly protect our interests and to tell the other side that there will be consequences for actions that are taken against Singapore.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
Mr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think Singaporeans treasure the close relationship with Malaysia. Many Singapore companies employ Malaysians, and they are essential for us doing business. Singaporeans also love to go to Malaysia for sightseeing and to shop and dine. Last month, Minister Shanmugam said that Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) officers had worked their guts out to clear the crowds at the Causeway so that Singaporeans can pass through the checkpoint better. So, in the midst of these sea and air disputes, what is the message that we want to send to Singaporeans to help to manage this relationship better?
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Maybe that is something the Member should express rather than me.
Mr Speaker: Mr Alex Yam.
Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, I add my voice to commend the firm, measured response so far. And Malaysia has certainly provided Singaporeans with a valuable national education lesson. However, amongst some Singaporeans, there is confusion. Because provocation after provocation, so far, what we seem to be doing is, every time something happens, we say, \"Don't do it again.\" We are firm about it, but then it happens again, and we say, \"Don't do it again.\"
Dozens of red lines may have been crossed. To use the same popular parlance that the Minister had used earlier, will there be a point in time that this good cop has to be a bit of a bad cop, for our northern neighbours to understand clearer and beyond doubt that any further provocation will be met with an equal reaction on our part?
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: That is another very good question, which requires an answer. But I hope that Members also appreciate that as the Foreign Minister, by definition, there are some things which I cannot say and I should not say. But I want to clear up this confusion that they are the ones who have the licence to provoke and that we respond, but without an equal and opposite response. Newton's Third Law in Diplomacy. Let me try to address it then, at several levels.
The first level starts domestically. We need to maintain unity of purpose, consensus and a collective spirit to stand united. Because what if that domestic consensus is eroded or broken? My words will carry no weight in any international negotiations. That is one.
The second, maybe the Member should ask Minister Ng Eng Hen tomorrow. But I have already said and I only have one sentence on the SAF. But to say Total Defence and our investment over decades in the SAF make a big difference; it makes a big difference. There are some incidents which I cannot relate today. But simply knowing that we have a credible and strong SAF again makes diplomacy much easier.
Third, in the spirit of candidness, sincerity and openness, we are trying to resolve these issues, because, in fact, for the specific issues that have been raised, I can see a way forward to resolve all of them. And so long as there is a possibility, a probability of resolving it, then our current tack of making sure the situation remains calm and that we do not allow the situation to escalate out of hand into what I described just now as a downward spiral of measures and countermeasures, it is still the appropriate thing to do.
Fourth, I also said that despite our attempts to be constructive and to keep the avenue open for a negotiated settlement, our neighbours must not believe that they can take actions without impact, without consequences on themselves. So, I am not going to enumerate them now. But this concept that for every action you take there are consequences, we will do so quietly but effectively. It is the usual Singaporean way. So, that is where we are at.
Red lines are not something you draw lightly and not something which you should pronounce publicly without having carefully thought through all the consequences and without communicating those considerations clearly and unambiguously to the person you are negotiating with on the other side. And I hope Members of this House and Singaporeans will understand that some of these are best conducted behind-the-scenes, quietly, and that is why I do not believe in megaphone diplomacy.
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, earlier on, the Minister mentioned about Singapore honouring our agreements. Indeed, Singapore more than honoured our agreements on many occasions; just last week, we supplied an additional six million gallons per day (mgd) of treated water to Johor state. I want to ask the Minister whether the Johor authorities appreciate what Singapore had done and, if not, should we look at reviewing the terms again on how we supply treated water to Johor?
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Minister Heng Swee Keat has reminded me to tell Members that this additional assistance is over and above the agreement. But the Member has brought up an important issue, water, and the Water Agreement. I have stated our position several times in this House. To us, the 1962 Water Agreement is sacrosanct. Why is it sacrosanct? It is because this agreement was guaranteed by both governments. In the case of Malaysia, at the federal level, and in our case, the Singapore level, at the point of Independence. It remains one of the key appendices to our Declaration of Independence. That is why, it is, in that sense, sacrosanct. But even beyond that, beyond Independence, it is a foundational principle of Singapore's operating system, that we fully honour all agreements that we enter into.
Now, specifically for water, apart from the issue of the price of raw water and the price of treated water, which are stipulated in the agreement, the volume of water that Singapore is obliged to sell to Malaysia, in fact, is only five mgd, strictly speaking, 2% of 250 mgd. But the Member has quite rightly pointed out that, actually, in practice, for quite some time and, in fact, if you ask Minister Masagos today how much water he is supplying to Malaysia, he will tell you 16 mgd. That is 11 mgd more than what the Water Agreement provides for. Why do we do it? We do so out of goodwill. We do not do it because of an imposition from the Water Agreement. We do it out of goodwill. And out of goodwill, we have also priced the additional treated water at 50 sen per 1,000 gallons, which everyone knows is a subsidised price. So, again, I want to make these two points. We have been religiously observant of our obligations. Yes, we have done additional things out of goodwill. We hope this goodwill will be reciprocated.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Ministerial Statement.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Precious Stones and Precious Metals (Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to regulate persons who carry on a business of regulated dealing or as intermediaries for regulated dealing, so as to prevent money laundering and terrorism financing, and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) on behalf of the Minister for Law; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Act (Chapter 333A of the 2001 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister for Health (Mr Gan Kim Yong) read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act (Chapter 309 of the 2011 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister for Health (Mr Gan Kim Yong) read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman) (for the Minister for Foreign Affairs): Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Sir, in 1997, Singapore became a State Party to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (CWC). In 2000, Singapore enacted the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act, or CWPA for short, to give effect to our international obligations under CWC.
Under the CWPA, Singapore established a licence system to control various activities involving chemicals listed under CWC, known as \"scheduled chemicals\", for a permitted purpose. The licence system requires all entities involved in such activities to apply to Singapore Customs, which is our National Authority for CWC, for a licence.
In a small and densely populated city-state like Singapore, any use of chemical weapons can lead to catastrophic effects.
Allow me to remind Members of what transpired in Japan on 20 March 1995, when thousands of Tokyo residents boarded the subway, unaware of the horrific events that were about to transpire. That day, a coordinated sarin gas attack carried out by the cult Aum Shinrikyo killed 13 people and injured thousands. It was later found that in the years leading to the attack, the cult had transported tonnes of chemical precursors to its laboratory for the manufacture of sarin.
More recently, events involving the alleged use of chemical weapons have gravely threatened the international norm against the use of chemical weapons. Last year, we witnessed two supposed chemical attacks in the United Kingdom involving a nerve agent that caused deaths and serious injury. The year before, a nerve agent was reportedly used in our own region to assassinate an individual in Kuala Lumpur International Airport.
Sir, as these attacks have demonstrated, we cannot rule out the possibility that actors with ill intent could get their hands on toxic chemicals and weaponise them. Should such an incident occur on our own shores, the consequences would be profound. It is incumbent upon countries to take measures to ensure the safety and security of their population against the use of chemical weapons on their own soil. I believe all Members would agree that Singapore should do its utmost in this regard.
Prior to this Bill, the CWPA already provides for controls on the movement of all scheduled chemicals into and out of Singapore. It also provides for controls on the movement within Singapore of Schedule 1 chemicals, which are the most dangerous category of chemicals. However, the CWPA does not impose controls on the movement of Schedules 2 and 3 chemicals within Singapore. These chemicals have a range of industrial and chemical purposes but could also be weaponised or used in the manufacture of chemical weapons. As a matter of national security, it is important to ensure that the movement within our borders of all scheduled chemicals which could be used for illicit ends are subject to the proper controls. This is the main objective of the amendments that are being enacted in the present Bill.
Let me now turn to the salient provisions of the Bill.
First, to ensure proper controls for the movement of all scheduled chemicals within Singapore, clause 6 enacts new sections 9A and 9B of the CWPA. Section 9A requires prior approval to be obtained from the Director-General of Customs here before a person transports a prescribed scheduled chemical exceeding a prescribed quantity within Singapore. It is known as \"Transport Approval\". This Transport Approval can only be granted to certain licensees under the CWPA. This means that, in addition to a CWC licence obtained by a licensee in relation to the use of certain prescribed chemicals, that licensee must also obtain a Transport Approval to transport the prescribed scheduled chemicals within Singapore. This framework has been benchmarked against existing practices by the National Environment Agency (NEA) and the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF), which control the transportation of hazardous substances and petroleum and flammable materials respectively. Section 9B allows the Director-General to cancel or suspend a Transport Approval if necessary. An example is if the CWC licensee is convicted of an offence under the CWPA after a Transport Approval was granted.
Second, the current requirement for record keeping under the CWPA is limited to information and records for purposes of the CWC. Clause 8 would now require any person who transports prescribed scheduled chemicals exceeding a prescribed quantity within Singapore to keep records in relation to that transport.
I now turn to the proposed amendments which will provide additional powers to the Director-General and national inspectors, which include Customs or Police Officers. These powers will allow them to carry out their new roles relating to the control of the transport of scheduled chemicals.
First, the proposed amendments under clause 9 expand the scope for the Director-General to seek information relevant to the transport of any prescribed scheduled chemical within Singapore in contravention of CWPA. The existing CWPA only allows the Director-General to seek information with regard to a declaration which Singapore is required to give under CWC.
Second, the scope of \"inspection power\" and \"compliance purpose\" have been expanded to cover the transport of prescribed scheduled chemicals. New inspection powers have been included, such as the sealing of samples taken in relation to the transport of any prescribed scheduled chemical and requiring the owner to send the sample for analysis and bear the costs and expenses arising from the analysis. Such powers will be useful when a national inspector suspects a contravention of the CWPA and has to ascertain if the chemical transported is a prescribed scheduled chemical exceeding a prescribed quantity. This will help ensure the responsible transport of any scheduled chemical within Singapore in accordance with CWPA.
Other existing powers, such as interviewing persons working on premises, have also been broadened to include persons found within a vehicle. Clause 10 provides for these changes.
Third, national inspectors will be empowered to take additional action if they have reason to suspect that a vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of the new section 9A. The new powers will allow national inspectors to: (a) stop and board the vehicle; (b) seize any item from the vehicle which the inspector reasonably believes to be the subject matter of, or connected with the commission of, an offence under section 9A; and (c) arrest an individual under certain circumstances. Clause 12 provides for these changes.
In the event that any item is seized, clause 12 allows the Director-General to determine the premises for its storage. The owner must bear the reasonable costs and expenses arising from the storage. This ensures that safe and secure premises are used to store the seized items, which may contain chemical weapons.
I move on to the final set of amendments which expand the scope of matters for which the Minister may make regulations under the CWPA. The proposed amendments under clause 14 allow the Minister to prescribe the fees for an application for a Transport Approval, or for any purpose under the CWPA. This gives the Minister flexibility to impose fees if the need arises. The current CWPA only allows the Minister to prescribe fees in relation to a licence application, extension or renewal.
In addition, regulations may now prescribe imprisonment for up to two years instead of just fines, on the conviction of any offence prescribed in the regulations. This permits regulations to specify imprisonment as a punishment on conviction of an offence in relation to the transportation of scheduled chemicals, among other things.
Sir, the Bill will have limited impact on the commercial operations of our companies in the chemical and other industries.
In September 2018, Singapore Customs conducted an industry consultation and reached out to 101 companies. These companies include current CWC licensees and member companies under the Singapore Chemical Industry Council. Based on the feedback received, the companies were generally amenable to the proposed amendments. The companies also submitted suggestions, most of which were accepted and incorporated into the proposed amendments. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Prof Fatimah Lateef.
Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, this is an important Bill and, indeed, as we get more advanced and industrialised, our demand and acquisition for such chemicals will inevitably increase as well. Today, more and more industries are using some of these elements, which have the potential to become weaponised, in the wrong hands.
I have a few clarifications for the Minister.
Firstly, are there certain criteria and screening processes involved for persons joining and working in certain industries, such as the criteria that are available on who will be using and handling these chemicals, for people and employees, for example, using chemicals that have the potential to become weaponised? Are these criteria clearly set out and are the employees familiar with these criteria and how often are they renewed and updated? Is there some kind of accreditation for these employees?
Secondly, for the transportation process itself, are there requirements for the vehicles used to transport these items to be clearly marked and labelled? Are there special signages, logos or emblems used for these purposes as well?
Thirdly, transport of these items can take place in various ways. It could be from specific locations to another location within Singapore. How about the transfer of chemical weapons or related chemicals within the same campus or institution but, probably, from one building to the next or within the same building but to another premises? What about the regulations and requirements for such transfers? Are these also subjected to some kind of framework?
Fourthly, what are the trainings for these \"authorised persons and national inspectors” that are mentioned in the Bill? They would probably have to go through some niche area themed training as they will be given the power to even seize the items and weapons that are involved.
I hope to have some clarifications on these issues and hope to support the Bill with the clarifications.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Mohamad Maliki.
Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Prof Fatimah Lateef for her support for the Bill and for some of the clarifications that she has highlighted. First, let me say that a chemical attack on our shores could claim lives and have serious and permanent health consequences for those affected. Although the risk of a terrorist attack in Singapore involving chemical weapons is low, we cannot rule out the possibility that it might happen. Therefore, we must adopt a proactive approach by ensuring that proper procedures are in place, so that we are well-prepared to address any future threats or incidents. With these amendments to the CWPA, we can better manage the risks involved.
Prof Fatimah Lateef asked whether there were certain criteria and screening processes for persons joining and working in industries dealing with these chemicals. The main and alternate CWC licence applicants are screened for any red flags, such as violations of United Nations sanctions, before a licence is granted to them. As part of the licence conditions, these licensees are obliged to ensure the safe and secure handling of the chemicals. Drivers will also be screened before they are issued with a Hazmat Transport Driver Permit (HTDP). Note that only drivers with an HTDP are allowed to transport CWC scheduled chemicals exceeding a prescribed quantity. This and other requirements for transporting such CWC scheduled chemicals will be prescribed in the subsidiary legislation.
Prof Fatimah Lateef also asked whether there were requirements for the vehicles used to transport these chemicals to be clearly marked and labelled. There are existing industry standards on labelling, such as the Singapore Standard for Hazardous Chemicals and Dangerous Goods. Customs is studying these standards and will include them as part of the Transport Approval requirements, where relevant. The details of these requirements will be prescribed in the subsidiary legislation.
Prof Fatimah Lateef asked if the transport controls applied to the transfer of toxic chemicals within the same campus or institution. The current amendments cover the transport of prescribed scheduled chemicals in a vehicle by public road. Therefore, the transport of scheduled chemicals within a company's private premises is not covered. However, as CWC licensees, companies have an obligation to ensure the safe and secure handling of chemicals within their own private premises. For example, for the storage or handling of higher-risk scheduled chemicals, chemical companies are required to adopt mandatory security measures.
Finally, Prof Fatimah Lateef had a question about training for authorised persons and national inspectors who may have to seize these toxic chemicals. The current amendments seek to empower a national inspector to seize any item from a vehicle that the inspector reasonably believes to be the subject matter of, or connected with the commission of, an offence under the new section 9A. In the event that toxic chemicals must be seized for further investigations, the authorised persons and national inspectors may tap on the expertise of SCDF and NEA. These agencies have experience in the management of items which similarly require careful handling, such as petroleum and flammable materials and hazardous substances. This will ensure that seizure is done in a safe and secure manner.
Mr Speaker, these amendments will provide us with the necessary tools to manage the risks of a possible threat or incident involving chemical weapons. They will strengthen Singapore’s regulatory regime on the CWC-scheduled chemicals and enhance public safety and security.
[(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. – [Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman.] (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":"Payment Services Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Education (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Technology is transforming the world of payments. In particular, financial technology (fintech) has opened up opportunities for more convenient, faster and cheaper payments.
At the same time, new payment methods give rise to new risks. This has necessitated a review of our regulatory framework. Further, services that were previously provided separately and regulated separately are now merging.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) currently regulates various types of payment services under two Acts, first, the 2006 Payment Systems (Oversight) Act, or PS(O)A, and the 1979 Money-Changing and Remittance Businesses Act (MCRBA). The Bill combines the PS(O)A and MCRBA into a single Payment Services Act.
The Payment Services Bill provides a forward-looking and flexible framework for the regulation of payment systems and payment service providers in Singapore. It provides for regulatory certainty and consumer safeguards, while encouraging innovation and growth of payment services and fintech. In drafting the Bill, MAS has taken reference from regulatory frameworks in various other financial centres – Australia, Hong Kong, Japan and the United Kingdom (UK).
Let me outline the broad approach underpinning the Bill.
First, we are adopting a regulatory structure that recognises the growing convergence across payment activities which I just mentioned. For example, payment and remittance services are now often provided as one product to customers.
Second, we are expanding MAS’ regulatory scope to include more types of payment services, such as digital payment token services and merchant acquisition. The Bill includes provisions that level the playing field for banks and non-banks, and that enhances user protection.
Third, we have adopted a modular and risk-focused regulatory structure, so that our rules are tailored to the scope of services being offered by any provider. A modular approach gives MAS the flexibility to regulate payment service providers that offer one, two or more parts of the payment value chain. It also enables MAS to respond quickly to fast-changing payment solutions and business models. A risk-based approach enables MAS to impose proportionate regulatory measures on each type of payment service provider, depending on the scale of their activities.
MAS has conducted public consultations on the Bill and has engaged extensively with the industry. It has been well-received. MAS has considered all the feedback and, where appropriate, has taken them into account in preparing this Bill. Mr Speaker, let me now take the Members through the key areas of the Bill.
The Bill comprises two regulatory frameworks: a designation regime and a licensing regime.
The designation regime enables MAS to designate significant payment systems to ensure the stability and market efficiency of the financial system.
Designating payment systems for financial stability reasons is a power that is already provided under the PS(O)A, and that will be retained. However, the Bill provides for an additional basis for designation, which is to ensure efficiency and competition in the financial system. This is because a payment system that becomes widely used and dominant can be used to shut out competition and new, innovative players. Hence, for competition reasons, MAS can designate a payment system if it is widely used in Singapore, or its operations have an impact on the operations of other payment systems in Singapore.
The second framework is quite a complex one. It is a licensing regime to allow MAS to regulate a wide range of payment services in a manner that matches the scope and scale of services provided by each provider, and that can respond flexibly to market developments, as I have explained.
The services can be grouped into seven types: account issuance, domestic money transfers, cross-border money transfers, merchant acquisition, e-money issuance, digital payment token dealing and exchanges, and money changing.
Service providers may offer different combinations of these services, and the licensing regime will regulate them according to the risks they pose.
MAS will not impose requirements uniformly across all licensed payment service providers. We will have three classes of licences. A licensee may be (a) a money-changing licensee, (b) a standard payment institution, or (c) a major payment institution. These three classes will be broad enough to deal with the different combinations of payment services that a service provider may offer. Each service provider needs to hold only one of the three licences. And in line with our risk-based approach, the regulatory requirements for each class of licence differ according to the risks posed by the scope and scale of services provided by the licensee.
This is how it will work.
First, money-changing licensees can provide only money-changing services. They will continue to be regulated under the Bill in largely the same way as it is under the existing MCRBA, as the attendant risks have not changed. The regulation is quite narrow in scope, as these are over-the-counter services often offered by small businesses, such as sole proprietors, with limited risks.
Second, standard payment institutions may provide any combination of the seven defined payment services but below specified transaction flows or e-money float thresholds. They will be regulated more lightly, and the regime mimics a “permanent sandbox” environment to encourage innovation and enterprise. So, this is where fintech companies will play.
Third, major payment institutions can go above the specified thresholds. As the scale of their operations would pose more risk, they will be subject to more regulations.
This new licensing regime is a more comprehensive and robust framework than what current legislation provides. We will be regulating new services, as well as expanding the scope of activities under the services we currently regulate.
Services that MAS will now be regulating are domestic money transfers, merchant acquisition, and digital payment token (DPT) services. We will be among the first few financial services regulators in the world to introduce a regulatory framework for DPT services, and this is more commonly understood as cryptocurrency dealing or exchange services, but we call it DPT in this Bill. As we have stated in Parliament before, while there may be some potential in these DPT services, they also carry significant money laundering and terrorism financing risks (ML/TF risks) due to the anonymous and borderless nature of the transactions they enable. Under the Bill, all providers of DPT dealing or exchange services in Singapore will have to meet anti-money laundering and counter financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) requirements. So, AML/CFT is to counter ML/TF. I will be using more of that later; so, just to be clear.
We are also recognising new activities under the services we currently regulate. The definition of e-money in the Bill will go beyond stored value or prepaid services, such as public transport cards, to include, now, e-wallets, that is, any monetary value that is held for future payment transfers between individuals or with corporates. This means that e-money issuers have an obligation to protect the value held in major e-wallets for consumers and merchants.
Further, under the Bill, we will regulate inward remittance services in addition to outbound remittance services that are currently regulated.
The Bill will also clarify that a person will be presumed to carry on a business of providing a payment service even where the payment service is only incidental to the person’s primary business. The intent is to dis-apply the 2017 Singapore High Court decision in Chinpo Shipping Co (Pte) Ltd v Public Prosecutor, which suggests that the undertaking of remittances that are purely incidental to a primary business of ship agency and ship chandelling would not have constituted the carrying on of a remittance business under the MCRBA.
Mr Speaker, I will now elaborate on how the Bill will mitigate the four key risks that are common across many payment services: first, loss of customer monies; two, ML/TF risks; three, fragmentation and lack of interoperability across payment solutions; and four, technology risks, including cyber risks. Proper oversight of these risks will both protect the public and facilitate a vibrant payment services sector.
The first key risk is that customer monies entrusted to payment service providers may be lost, such as when the service provider becomes insolvent. The Bill requires major payment institutions to safeguard customer monies from loss through the institutions’ insolvency using any of the following means: first, an undertaking or guarantee by any bank in Singapore or prescribed financial institution to be fully liable to the customer for such monies; two, a deposit in a trust account; or three, safeguarding in such other manner as may be prescribed by MAS.
However, we also want to ensure that measures are not too onerous or stifling. That is why we adopted three classes of licences. So, for example, standard payment institutions are not subject to the safeguarding requirements which are for major payment institutions, but the standard payment institutions must disclose this to their customers so that the customers can make informed decisions on which payment service or provider best suits their needs.
The second risk is that payment services may be used for ML/TF, such as through illicit cross-border transfers, anonymous cash-based payment transactions, structuring of payments to avoid reporting thresholds or the raising or layering of assets or funds for ML/TF purposes. MAS studies the business model of each payment service to determine where regulatory measures should be imposed. The appropriate AML/CFT requirements will be imposed on relevant licensees through Notices issued under the MAS Act. MAS will also provide guidance to the industry.
A third risk is that payment solutions in Singapore become fragmented. We have deliberately allowed many e-payment solutions to come on stream in Singapore. This provides choice for consumers. But the downside is that it can also be confusing. MAS has been persuading the industry to undertake various measures to ensure that the solutions are interoperable within an open architecture. For example, we worked with the banks to implement PayNow to make instant payment transfers more convenient for consumers and businesses. So, today, I can use the PayNow feature from the app of one bank to pay a friend who is banking with a different institution. And the money I transfer goes directly into his bank account, and that is open architecture interoperability at work. We also worked with the industry to introduce the Singapore Quick Response (SGQR) \tCode, which allows different e-payment schemes to be accepted via a single standardised and unified QR code.
This Bill will give MAS formal powers to ensure interoperability of payment solutions in the interests of consumers and market development. The Bill will provide MAS with the powers to mandate the following outcomes: one, a designated payment system operator or major payment institution must allow third parties to access any payment system it operates, and the access regime imposed must be fair and not discriminatory; two, a major payment institution must participate in a specified common platform or equivalent arrangement to achieve interoperability of payment accounts; and three, a major payment institution must adopt a common standard to make widely-used payment acceptance methods interoperable.
MAS will exercise these powers judiciously. We will continue to employ its powers of persuasion with the payment players before using its interoperability powers as a last resort.
Finally, technology risk. The Bill will give MAS powers to impose technology risk management requirements, including cybersecurity risk management requirements, on all licensees. We will require payment service providers to ensure there is adequate risk governance and implementation of adequate controls, particularly in areas, such as user authentication, data loss protection and cyberattack prevention and detection.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill right-sizes regulations, depending on the risks posed by the payment service provider. This means tailoring our regulations to the activities of the licensees, such as opening accounts, issuing e-money, transferring money within Singapore and overseas, and providing e-payment solutions to consumers and merchants.
It must, therefore, follow that if the licensees wish to do more, then they must be subject to more regulatory measures. Licensees, therefore, cannot engage in consumer lending or banking activities, such as accepting deposits and granting loans, unless they hold the appropriate licence under the Banking Act or the Moneylenders Act.
Banks perform a vital economic function of intermediating savings. They take in deposits and on-lend these funds back into the economy to help it grow. To protect depositors' interests, banks are subject to much more stringent prudential regulation and supervision, such as on the amount of capital and liquid assets they must hold, how much concentration risk they can take, and how they manage repayment risks and make provisions against those risks.
Non-bank payment service licensees do not perform similar economic functions, and do not face similarly stringent regulations. Accordingly, e-money issuers will not be allowed to on-lend any customer money or use any customer money to materially finance their own business activities. Additionally, withdrawals of Singapore dollars will not be allowed from e-money accounts held by Singapore residents. This is consistent with the objective of the Bill, which is to promote greater adoption of electronic payments, in lieu of cash services. It will also preserve the privileges of our Free Trade Agreement partners, whose banks have been accorded access to automated teller machines and cashback services.
Finally, personal payment accounts will be subject to a stock cap, which is the maximum amount of funds that can be held in a personal payment account at any given time. They will also be subject to an annual flow cap. This is the maximum cumulative amount of yearly outflows from the personal payment account, other than to the user's designated bank accounts. The stock and flow caps were calibrated with due regard to consumer needs and existing industry practices and will be set initially at $5,000 and $30,000 respectively. These caps will not apply to merchant payment accounts that cater to business uses.
These caps help to further protect customers by limiting a customer's potential loss from his e-money account. This also enables the e-money safeguarding measures to be simple and low-cost, different from deposit insurance that banks have to undertake. More importantly, the caps will ensure continued stability of the financial system, by reducing the risk of significant outflows from banks deposits to non-bank e-money which can undermine the stability of our banks.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill is a necessary piece in Singapore's Smart Nation journey. It will help us build a technologically robust smart financial centre that preserves stability while facilitating innovation and growth in the payments landscape. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, the payment landscape has been evolving in recent years. With more services going cashless, we have seen an increase in the number of payment services and activities. To maintain our reputation as a global financial hub and to facilitate smooth transactions, we have to keep up with these changes. Meanwhile, these changes also bring along with them new risks, so we must stay vigilant and guard against these risks.
By expanding the scope of regulated activities beyond existing facilities and services under the new Payment Services Bill, merchants and consumers can be assured of better protection from MAS across a wider range of payment activities. This will, in turn, lead to greater confidence and more widespread use of e-payment services. Overall, not only will we expect a more secure environment for all to conduct transactions, we can also look forward to increased innovation in payment services.
This is a Bill which I foresee will be followed up by more amendments in the near future as the payment services landscape continues to evolve and grow. Although it is important to adopt international standards and guidelines, it would be unwise to adopt a reactive stand and wait for these guidelines to be finalised. One feedback is that the banks have shut their doors to the virtual currency industry. Many, including digital exchanges, have had their bank accounts closed. New applications were rejected according to the Digital Exchange Association protem committee members, whom I had the opportunity of having a focus group discussion with. I also note that late last year, MAS expressed readiness in helping cryptocurrency firms to set up local bank accounts. Mr Speaker, Sir, what is the progress? How many firms have asked for help and what is MAS doing to help them?
Next, on the digital banking licence, I understand that the Hong Kong Monetary Authority has a much more liberal approach and they were considering giving approval to allow some cryptocurrency firms to conduct banking activity, including taking deposits and lending. Perhaps the Minister could clarify if Singapore is looking into issuance of digital banking licences to such firms. If we are to position ourselves as a fintech hub, doing so would help to improve financial inclusion.
Another issue is whether there could be more transparency by requiring payment providers to disclose the fees charged, what benefit the payment providers benefit from on-selling of any third-party products, and whether these providers are related to parties in a transaction.
Next, on the regulation of Crypto Custodians, whether MAS is considering this so that the man-in-the-street is protected. These are the businesses which hold the monies of their customers. Should there be guidelines like what percentage of customers assets should be kept in \"hot\" or \"cold\" wallets?
These days, many of us use e-services that come with their own e-wallet, where consumers can deposit money in advance so it is ready on the go. But while convenient, problems like system errors and hacking incidents mean that consumers should be wary of incurring possible losses as a result. If the e-payment company goes out of business, this money is also not protected. Mr Speaker, Sir, in recent times, we saw how Mobike pulled out abruptly from the local bike-sharing market, leaving users in the lurch.
The Minister mentioned in his speech that major payment institutions are required to safeguard their customers' monies through an undertaking or guarantee by any bank in Singapore or prescribed financial institution to be fully liable to the customer for such monies or have a deposit in a trust account. However, to avoid stifling innovation and advent of new payment services, the smaller payment services providers are not subjected to the same requirements. Instead, they would be required to inform their customers that their monies are not subjected to safeguarding requirements.
I appreciate the Minister's intentions to encourage smaller, experimental companies to set up and establish their businesses here. Certainly, being less rigid towards the newer players has its benefits and will help the e-payment industry grow. Nevertheless, it will be necessary to establish a set of mandatory policies on how such advisories should be administered. Certainly, it would be inappropriate to put the advisory in small print in the terms and conditions, which many people already do not read or find difficult to comprehend. The advisory must be published somewhere easily visible and it should be accompanied by further explanations on the risks involved.
Furthermore, I think that these smaller payment service providers should still be required to set aside a deposit, in lesser amount than that of the major payment service providers. Sometimes, when a company has to undergo insolvency, it leaves behind some issues that take up additional resources to resolve. For example, the Land Transport Authority had to impound bikes and follow up with Mobike to ensure their bikes are removed. The monies from the fund can be used to fund such operations. Moreover, I believe it will help to hold these companies to greater accountability. Experiential and risk-taking behaviour should be encouraged, but when large sums of money from the public are involved, one cannot afford to be too free with it.
Despite the proliferation of online services, it would still be wise to limit the use of e-money to the smaller day-to-day transactions. I note that the prescribed cap on personal stored-value balances is kept at $5,000 and $30,000 respectively for stock and flow caps respectively. Several big players have earlier expressed disagreement with the cap amounts. Alipay, Wirecard and Paypal have said that the caps will slow down the growth of e-payments. And this is understandable as these are reputable companies often dealing with high value goods and services as well as the remittance of large amounts of money and purchase of investment products. Transferwise and Revolut outright raised objections, saying that their business models would be affected.
The Minister has said in his speech that these caps will not be applicable to merchant payment accounts that cater to business uses. While I think that this should put to rest some of the concerns expressed by the payment service providers, there are personal accounts that frequently deal with larger figures. Moreover, some companies already have safeguards in place for dealing with higher amounts. Transferwise, for example, requires the provision of further document for sending amounts of more than US$10,000 and above, in line with international wire regulations.
I would like to ask the Minister how the caps were arrived at. While we want to manage the pace of deposit outflows and safeguard financial stability and limit potential losses, we also do not want to stifle businesses. In the near future, I believe we can only expect more businesses to introduce their own apps and payment services. This means transactions will go up in value, and these caps, while adequate now, may become too prohibitive in the future. Are there plans to make exceptions for certain e-payment platforms, or revise the caps on a regular frequency to reflect the growing extent of e-money usage for major transactions in the near future?
Having a number of different payment platforms can lead to increased inconvenience and frustration. No one wants their smartphones to be filled with e-wallets and payment apps, which no doubt takes up precious storage space, as we all probably know. A multitude of apps to choose from also means more confusion over payments, especially for the older users. The decision to mandate participation of a common payment platform and common standard is an important move. It allows for payment systems to be interoperable, as what Minister has mentioned just now, and makes e-payments more user-friendly. I have a question: what is the Ministry's forecast on our progress with regard to this aspect? How soon can we expect to move to this common platform? Can the affected merchants expect any assistance from the Ministry or MAS for that matter?
Mr Speaker, I am pleased to also note that certain cryptocurrency activities will now be regulated. The regulatory focus will be on ML/TF, as the Minister has mentioned. But such regulations will give cryptocurrency players more clarity and confidence. The feedback from the ground is that regulations are welcomed by local players and gives more confidence to the market. Will these regulations also serve as a positive signal to the overseas fintech industry in terms of our openness to see more of such activities on our shores?
As the current regulations do not cover user protection for public use of virtual currency, what are the Minister's plans for a public consultation to formulate relevant policies? In the recent Group of 20 (G20) meeting last year, country leaders have called for international cryptocurrency taxation. This is a testament to how fast the industry is moving globally, and a sign that we need to step up on further regulations in terms of personal transactions. I note that Singapore's MAS has been fully supportive of the G20 and the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). But I hope that as we make new rules and impositions on our financial institutions and others, we do not impose too much a burden on them.
Jobs are among the main benefits that would come from the diversification of the financial sector, and the development of the fintech sector. In enhancing our licensing framework, we must ensure that it does not inhibit overseas businesses. To stay accessible to overseas markets, it would also be prudent to keep up with the international standards so that we maintain our reputation as a safe yet convenient place to do business. May I ask the Minister how unique is the licensing framework to Singapore in this regard, and how different are the regulatory structures from those of other countries?
My last point is with regard to exclusions and royalty points. I note with concern some exclusions from licensing under the Bill, namely, limited purpose e-money, incidental payment services by licensed entities, and loyalty programmes and limited purpose virtual currency. May I ask why these are excluded? And some of these things are practically being traded like cash on online forums and selling platforms for a profit. So, unlike regular goods and services, these items are partial or full substitutes for currency payments on specific platforms. One potential abuse problem I see with regard to virtual currency is that underaged users would purchase in-game assets through other platforms because they do not have credit cards. Are there plans to license these virtual currencies under the Bill in future as well?
In conclusion, I hope that as we become more tech-savvy, we would not overlook the less digitalised people in our community and also senior citizens and those less tech-savvy people who would otherwise be alienated in the process. Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Speaker, Sir, the MAS currently regulates the various types of payment services under two Acts, namely, the PS(O)A and the MCRBA. The Payment Services Bill that is now up for Second Reading is an attempt to consolidate the regulation of payment services, which had previously been under two separate Acts, while clarifying and increasing protections for consumers in order to encourage and sufficiently regulate electronic payments. The Bill covers a whole gamut of activities, including money changing and cross-border transfers.
The Bill proposes a dual-track regulatory framework, one intended for major payment institutions, while the other is intended for smaller players. As a PricewaterhouseCoopers report put it, the approach is a \"broadening of the licensing regime for payments activities to create certainty for a wider spectrum of payment services providers\" and \"a departure from a product-based licensing model towards a more flexible activities-based and risk-based licensing model\".
Speaker, Sir, before I proceed, I declare my interest as the Chief Executive Officer of a research consultancy that undertakes studies in financial services, among other industries.
Sir, on the whole, this Bill strikes the right balance between putting in place protections for the consumer and the country on the one hand, and not over-regulating so as to stifle innovation and, hence, consumer choice on the other. I do not oppose this Bill. I do, however, have a number of clarifications to seek.
Firstly, under this Bill, payment service licensees will not be allowed to offer credit facilities. Does this mean that such payment service providers are only prohibited from earning interest or other income from providing credit services, or does this extend to such service providers being prohibited from, for example, allowing very short-term, small-scale overdraft to be run on e-wallets at zero interest?
Secondly, there is a clear consensus that end-customers of payment services should understand the full extent of risks they will be exposing themselves to by using different payment systems. Will payment service providers, including standard payment licensees as well as exempt payment licensees, so to speak, be required to provide such explanations to their customers and will the requirement be sufficiently prescriptive in terms of the language used? One reason I ask this is because clause 13 states that persons may apply to be exempt from many of the provisions of the Bill. One issue facing users of electronic financial services is that explanation of risks is often couched in very wordy, arcane and legalistic language – risks, such as, for example, that e-money floats are not safeguarded by MAS regulations for standard payment services licensees. Would payment service providers be encouraged and required to make available simple and clear risk statements, for example, available with one click on a typical user interface? Having said that, I do acknowledge that the longer and legally comprehensive statements also have to be provided and acknowledged by customers alongside such simpler summaries.
I would also like to ask what measures are in place to promote greater financial literacy among customers of financial services in relation to the risks associated with e-money and virtual currencies.
Thirdly, in relation to the Bill's provision that a licensee would need to move from a standard to a major licence if the average monthly float over the previous calendar year exceeds $3 million and $6 million respectively for different sets of activities, what is the transitional timeframe given to the company, since it will only realise that it has breached the threshold after the breach has occurred, as it were?
Section 4.8 of the MAS consultation paper read: \"A standard Payment Institution that wishes to upgrade its licence to a Major Payment Institution Licence will need to apply for a variation of licence before the thresholds are breached.\"
I understand that MAS did address this issue in point 4.8 of its consultation response paper. I would just seek to clarify if, as was suggested in that response, payment service providers that realise they have breached the thresholds would be required to apply for an upgrade of their licence by a set date every year as part of an annual licence review cycle; or, instead, would be given a fixed period of grace time to make that application from the time when there is evidence that the threshold was breached?
Fourthly, Sir, the Bill bans cash withdrawals from stored-value balances for reasons of AML and combating the financing of terrorism (CFT) risk. Section 3.15 in the consultation response paper states that cash withdrawal is not allowed because the aim of this Bill is not to promote cash and also because of restrictions imposed by Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) that require this to be the exclusive provenance of qualifying full banks. However, it would appear that withdrawals of non-Singapore dollars and by non-Singapore residents are exempt. It is not clear why the latter is permitted and the former is not, since withdrawals of non-Singapore dollars and by non-Singapore residents may also raise similar AML and CFT concerns. Would MAS consider allowing limited withdrawals of cash from stored value balances up to a maximum cap to limit the AML and CFT downside risk and to the extent that it is FTA-compliant, so as to increase convenience for users of stored value balances who, for various reasons, may feel it necessary to use small amounts of cash for day-to-day expenses purposes?
Fifthly, this Bill regulates virtual currency intermediaries for AML and CFT purposes. The MAS consultation paper response opines that the public use of virtual currency is not yet significant enough to warrant a need for user protection, going on to state that amendments to payment services legislation may be needed in future to respond to changes in the fast-developing world-wide virtual currency and virtual currency regulation space. I would like to ask what would be the timeframe within which the Government envisages that virtual currency user protection legislation may need to be enhanced. I would also like to ask if MAS is monitoring the ownership and attitudes towards virtual currency domestically, so as to be in a better position to judge when interventions are advisable.
Lastly, Sir, I would like to query the e-wallet size restriction of $5,000 and transaction flow cap of $30,000. It is noted that five respondents to the MAS consultation paper felt that these caps would slow the growth of the e-payments industry while three additional respondents felt that the caps were set too low, and two respondents wanted better clarity on the rationale for imposing caps. The MAS response to this feedback was that the caps were set at those levels to limit the customers' potential loss since e-money is not protected by deposit insurance. There could potentially be demand from some customer segments for larger e-money transaction sizes using e-wallets. These caps could limit the scope for new entrepreneurial business models emerging catering to these segments, which could, in theory, scale up their business overseas and create good jobs for Singaporeans to support such export sales. Would the Government consider raising the caps on a case-by-case basis if sufficiently strong, concise and plainly worded risk warnings were given to customers, which customers were required to acknowledge? A minimum annual taxable income floor could also apply to those customers where caps are raised, to protect the most vulnerable group of customers.
Mr Speaker: Prof Lim Sun Sun.
Prof Lim Sun Sun (Nominated Member): Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak on the Bill. I wish to focus on the consumer protections that will be strengthened with this Bill. Specifically, the Bill will regulate the issuance of e-money, so that the funds we have in our e-wallets, including those for peer-to-peer transfers, will be protected by legislation. Personal e-wallets will also receive additional safeguards in the form of e-wallet and transfer limits, thereby according greater protection to vulnerable users, such as the elderly. These measures will help to boost consumer confidence in e-payments and give our fintech sector a further shot in the arm.
Indeed, e-payments have deep roots in Singapore. Over three decades ago, in March 1985, the Government launched the National Campaign to Minimise Cash Transactions to urge Singaporeans to undertake more financial transactions electronically, so as to increase productivity, reduce costs and make cashless transactions a way of life. This three-month campaign successfully convinced more Singaporeans to switch to receiving their salaries through direct credit to the bank, pay bills electronically via General Interbank Recurring Order (GIRO), and make purchases through the Electronic Funds Transfer at Point of Sale service.
With that historical context in mind, we need to ask why Singapore is not even further ahead in realising our vision of a cashless society. While Singapore is widely regarded as a fintech hub, it is also common to hear observations that we lag behind our regional neighbours in areas, such as mobile payment. Our relatively slower adoption of mobile payment is somewhat anomalous, considering Singapore's early embrace of cashless payments.
Being a first mover can, indeed, be a mixed blessing. Precisely because of our more mature financial ecosystem, consumers are well-accustomed to, and very well-served by the Network for Electronic Transfers (NETS) and credit cards. The relative advantage of newer e-payment systems is thus not as significantly felt. Cash also remains king. An MAS-commissioned KPMG study in 2016 found that cash is used in 60% of all non-stored value facility transactions. Cash is also the favoured payment option for small-value transactions, such as in hawker centres, convenience stores and taxis. The introduction of automated cash collection machines in hawker centres and supermarkets may also further entrench our reliance on cash. Yet, the benefits of going cashless are considerable. The same KPMG study estimated that processing cash and cheques in terms of their storage, transportation, security and incineration costs S$2 billion per year or around 0.5% of our gross domestic product (GDP).
In many respects, therefore, e-payments are eminently superior and we must zero in on the probable causes of consumer resistance to the newer e-payment services out there.
I have heard concerns, even from acquaintances in their 20s and 30s, that they do not use e-wallets or mobile payment because they are not confident of their security or reliability. Indeed, the results of PayPal's \"Digital Payments: Thinking Beyond Transactions\" survey released in August 2017 found that 51% of Singapore consumers surveyed expressed privacy concerns. Sixty-three percent said that more payment methods meant more confusion for consumers, and 53% found it challenging to keep up with fast-moving digital trends.
Separately, there is also feedback that e-payment interfaces should be much more intuitive so that they can help speed up transactions. Currently, some e-payment methods involve several steps that may yet require more time per transaction than by just paying with good old cash. Overall, there is also the problem of too many e-payment platforms and choices, and we need to accelerate systems integration to overcome the current fragmentation. So, I welcome the Minister's assurance in that regard. The launch of the SGQR code is one positive step in that direction.
Another often heard reservation about the shift towards cashless payments is that people will become desensitised to the value of money and will, therefore, develop reckless spending habits. Such an aversion to e-payments rests on the belief that physically parting with your money gives one the sense of pain and loss and can help instil frugality. Such concerns, well-founded or otherwise, can be easily addressed with some critical design interventions. Stored value e-wallets already highlight the amount remaining in the account, and provide a helpful log of all recent transactions. Additional features, such as those allowing users to set a savings target for each month, can also help to nurture good financial habits, including fund management, budgeting and credit management.
Taken together, therefore, all these concerns highlight three salient points of action for addressing consumer resistance to e-payments in general. These are trust, design and communication. I, therefore, welcome the additional consumer protections introduced by this Bill that will help to shore up consumer confidence and trust in e-payments. I also look forward to MAS' implementation of the E-Payments User Protection Guidelines at the end of this month.
At the same time, however, I would like to ask the Minister whether there will be greater attention paid to (a) enhancing the design of e-payment services so that transactions can be speedier and more intuitive, and (b) addressing concerns about the negative impact of e-payments on personal financial habits.
Also, with the burgeoning market in e-payment providers out there, some consumers are clearly experiencing cognitive overload and perhaps even choice paralysis. Hence, I would like to propose to the Minister that public education efforts be stepped up to better communicate to consumers the various options, protections and incentives that they enjoy with the different emerging e-payment methods out there. In particular, I would especially welcome targeted education for the elderly who are less well-acquainted with digital devices and platforms and may, therefore, be especially anxious about our shift towards a cashless society. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] To build a Smart Nation, we must rely on technologies to achieve the vision of a cashless society. We need to strengthen consumers’ trust and confidence in e-payment. The consumer protection provisions in the Bill will help boost consumer confidence. At the same time, we also need to improve the design of e-payment interfaces so that it is easier to use. We need to guide the public, especially the elderly, on how to use these apps.
(In English): In conclusion, Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the issues I have raised, I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, the growth of the payment services sector has been marked by tremendous innovation in technology and business models, often called fintech. Payment services can generate economic value beyond just transferring money. Today, payment services firms use financial data and their customer relationships to provide analytics, business process outsourcing, marketing and credit services. Stripe and Square, two leading United States (US) payment services firms, provide an increasing array of business services to merchants. The Payment Services Bill should allow for a competitive market that promotes all types of innovation in payment services, between fintech firms and traditional financial institutions. After all, Singapore is a small market, but innovations developed here may allow our payment services firms to reach millions of consumers abroad.
There are several aspects of the Bill that may affect innovation and competition.
Section 20 prohibits payment services licensees from offering credit services. A firm with only a payment services licence will have to tie-up with a financial institution, or apply for the appropriate licence, to offer credit services. This is an important safeguard because of the risks posed by unregulated consumer lending. However, we should also ensure this does not unduly restrict the potential economic value created by payment services firms. Consumers and merchants alike may benefit from innovative short-term credit facilities that could be less costly than traditional credit cards and consumer loans. High frequency consumer payments data may well allow for low-risk small-scale consumer lending. This may be a key area of growth, as Singapore fintech firms expand regionally to reach millions of consumers who now have little access to credit. Being able to trial such services in Singapore could be useful. I wish to ask if we have sufficient regulatory flexibility, perhaps through the MAS Sandbox, to allow payment services firms to trial innovations that may include credit facilities, with appropriate safeguards.
In addition, section 20 also prohibits payment services licensees from using customer funds from e-money to materially finance their operations. While this is an important safeguard, it may also increase the cost of capital for providing e-money services. We should be careful to avoid making e-money services less competitive than alternatives, such as direct transfers from deposit accounts or credit facilities. I wish to ask if, in practice, payment services licensees will be allowed to reduce or manage the cost of capital by investing customer funds in liquid, low-risk instruments, such as Government securities.
This issue of the cost of capital is also relevant for section 23, which requires major payment institutions to safeguard customer monies with third-party financial institutions. While safeguards are vital for public confidence, this may make fintech firms dependent on traditional financial institutions, who are their direct competitors. Some respondents to MAS' public consultation on the Payment Services Bill expressed the concern that traditional financial institutions can be hostile to fintech firms, especially where emerging technologies, such as cryptocurrencies, are involved. I wish to ask what measures will be taken by MAS to ensure that a competitive market exists for safeguarding services, including directly providing such services as a last resort.
Sections 25 to 26 and 51 to 54 on interoperability and the access regime address this problem of barriers to entry created by network effects. Payment services firms operate large consumer and merchant networks. This can be socially beneficial when there are economies of scale, or economies of scope in providing services, such as analytics, marketing or business process outsourcing. But networks obviously also can create barriers to entry. The Payment Services Bill will allow for mandated interoperability and an access regime, which can ensure that networks are not abused to stifle competition and innovation. I wish to ask if the Minister could discuss what types of market tests, thresholds or other behaviours could be construed by MAS as requiring enforcement of these provisions. Public discussion of such tests may, in fact, prevent anti-competitive behaviour by payment network operators.
Finally, our regulation must remain flexible to promote innovation and growth. Defining the threshold in the Bill to define a licensee as a Major Payment Institution seems somewhat inflexible. I wish to ask if such limits could be defined instead in subsidiary legislation by MAS. In fact, the Bill already allows for such flexibility by specifying the section 24 e-wallet transaction limit as a \"prescribed amount\" to be determined by MAS. I wish to commend MAS for responding to feedback from the public consultation which asked for more flexibility on the e-wallet transaction limits. It will be useful if the Minister could share his thinking on what the initial prescribed amounts for transaction limits are likely to be and the principles behind how regulators will review these limits periodically to support innovation while safeguarding the public.
A second issue for regulatory flexibility is that as fintech firms become systemically important, their key appointments will be subject to more oversight by MAS regulation on Fit and Proper persons. Now, some fintech firms have expressed concern whether regulators appreciate the different human capital requirements for key appointment holders between fintech firms and traditional financial institutions. Many fintech firms are headed by entrepreneurs with technology backgrounds rather than financial backgrounds. It will be useful if the Minister could assure the fintech industry that MAS will take these concerns into account when applying the Fit and Proper criteria.
Mr Speaker, the Payment Services Bill will regulate an important and rapidly growing part of our financial services industry. It is important to ensure that both fintech firms and traditional financial institutions can compete fairly to deliver innovation and growth for all Singaporeans. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Mohamed Irshad.
Mr Mohamed Irshad (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker and hon Members of Parliament, I support this Payment Services Bill as it will streamline payment services under a single legislation by combining the PS(O)A and the MCRBA, taking into account new developments in payment services and various risks they pose with expanded scope of regulated payment services.
It is a very comprehensive, well considered, globally researched and, above all, publicly consulted and reviewed. The Bill commendably sets out to protect Singaporeans in a digitised world. At the same time, the Government has been mindful not to immediately overreact and, therefore, over-regulate. They have seemingly found a way to effectively achieve both outcomes.
With regard to the Bill, firstly, I would like to seek clarification on section 10 on annual fees of licensees. Are there any guidelines as yet for the prescribed annual fees for the three classes of licences?
Secondly, in the Consultation Paper by MAS, e-money is clearly defined as follows: \"An e-wallet is funded with e-money. This e-money is denominated in fiat currency. This is an important distinction from virtual currency which is defined as any digital representation of value that is not denominated in any fiat currency.
In section 3.15 of the MAS Consultation Paper, it is mentioned that \"the full definition of virtual currency and e-money are set out in the proposed Bill in Annex B\". It refers to an Annexure B in the Bill for definitions of \"virtual currencies\". However, the Annexure is not to be found in the proposed Bill document. Can the hon Minister clarify this point?
Thirdly, I refer to section 19 of the Bill on prohibition against exchanging e-money withdrawn from payment account for Singapore currency. It seems to be wanting to prohibit exchanging e-money for Singapore currency.
It states under section 19(1)(a), that a licensee that provides an e-money account is to prohibit a customer from (i) withdrawing e-money and (ii) exchanging that e-money \"withdrawn\" for Singapore currency at any of the licensee’s places of business.
On this point, can I check why there is a need to exclude an issuer from also doing transactions? For example, if the licensee is a bank, when I open an e-wallet with a bank and then one year later I want to cash that e-money back out, the provision in this part of the Bill seems to be trying to prohibit me from doing just that. Again, I would like to seek further clarification on the intended outcome that this section is trying to achieve.
In some jurisdictions payment system providers are also able to provide loans and credit facilities to customers. This Bill explicitly forbids such provision of services. Is there another proposed Bill to cover such businesses in the digital age that would encompass e-money, e-wallets and virtual currencies and so on?
It is very hard for a specific country to frame regulations in the digital age of global cross-border businesses. I feel some of the legislation falls short of this global consideration. Having said that, once again, it is a commendable start for Singapore, who leads the world in framing such forward thinking rules of conduct. However, when it comes to innovation, perhaps we can take a leaf from China, specifically WeChat and AliPay.
Singapore was at the forefront of digital innovation, especially for financial innovation. So, where are we now compared to before? As a financial hub, we need to keep innovating to stay ahead and to compete globally. What is the Government’s plan to ensure our financial institutions stay creative and innovative?
Quoting Mr Lim Siong Guan, former Head of Civil Service and former President of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation, he said, \"To ensure the country's continuing success and survival, Singaporeans need to be a people who embrace innovation and excellence and be prepared to go out of their comfort zones, to create a new economic ascent.”
We need a culture of innovation. The spirit of innovation must be made an integral part of our character and personality as a nation and a society. There should be a deliberate, conscious, national effort to get such cultural transformation across all sectors of society. Startups and innovation have become an integral part of culture in countries, such as Finland, Estonia and Israel. Singapore has to get there and be exceptional in our own ways. This, I believe, should be a cultural change and a mindset change and not simply a case of encouraging innovation.
In Singapore, we are inclined to pile accolades on people who have achieved top grades and got gold medals and leave others unnoticed and unmentioned. This is a severe cultural challenge for changing values in society, to value best efforts, as opposed to disproportionately rewarding the super As and gold medalists. There needs to be far more awareness in society on how to notice and nurture the best efforts of others around us.
Culture takes time to shape or reshape. It is an intergenerational challenge which needs committed leadership and consistency of effort, behaviour and action.
Prof Rosabeth Moss Kanter of Harvard Business School has pointed out that financial results are a \"lagging indicator\" of a company’s health. \"They tell you what you have just done. They do not predict the future. Culture is a leading indicator. Culture predicts the future.\"
She adds that culture is \"more important in some ways than strategy\", and that \"if you are not thinking about building your culture for survivability and sustainability, then you are not leading\".
These are strong words, but nonetheless words of wisdom. I believe that what Prof Kanter says of business applies just as much to nations. GDP employment figures are a lagging indicator. National culture predicts the course of progress and development of countries.
To deal with a future which is uncertain and rapidly changing, a culture of innovation is what Singapore needs to build up to be a nation of enterprise and innovation, especially in today's context, where technology and the world move too fast.
This Bill reflects a desire to be innovative but in a suitably cautious manner. However, the very essence of innovation means much of the innovation may not succeed in the end. We need to be willing to try, to change as we go along, and even to abandon what we started off with. If we are too cautious, we would undermine the innovative spirit itself and fail to promote a widespread national culture of innovation so necessary to propel Singapore ahead.
With those words of caution and encouragement, Mr Speaker, I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Anthea Ong.
Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, before I start, may I once again invite the House to take a 3-breath 30-second mental pause with me. Thank you for your indulgence.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I am in support of the Bill. The payments landscape has changed considerably with the introduction of various types of payment services. The Payment Services Bill seeks to broaden the scope of regulated activities and allow for separate regulatory frameworks for major payment institutions and smaller players.
However, please allow me to highlight a significant area of consideration in the implementation of the said Bill and related regulations.
According to a World Bank Report published in April 2018, migrant workers in Singapore sent a grand total of at least US$5.6 billion in remittances to the top five remittance destination countries alone. These countries were China, Malaysia, India, Pakistan and Indonesia.
Mr Speaker, I am sure we will all agree that US$5.6 billion – and that is just the remittances to five countries – makes our migrant workers a decidedly significant stakeholder in the payments landscape. It is, therefore, not just the right, but also the smart thing to do for us to be intentional and inclusive of their banking and payment needs.
The one million migrant workers on Work Permit rely on payment and remittance services to pay their existing debts and transfer money to their families. Yet, current options to remit money are limited. Many work punishing hours with only Sundays off, which they then spend travelling long distances to queue for hours to perform remittances, rather than resting.
While most of us have registered bank accounts with financial intermediaries that afford us an array of payment and e-banking options with fintech, we must not forget the people who do not. Take, for example, Iris, a domestic worker from the Philippines. She does not have a bank account because: (a) she remits her money in cash, a total of $800 to $1,000, every month at Lucky Plaza to support her two sons in college; and (b) most banks have a prohibitive minimum balance, under which account holders have to pay Fall Below Service Fees. Without a bank account or a digital wallet, Iris is excluded from our financial e-transaction system. She is not alone. According to a report by KPMG, 75% of foreign domestic workers are paid in cash.
In addition, remittance agencies charge $5 to $12 for every transaction. This chips away at the already low wages these workers receive. High remittance charges and the lack of remittance options also cause workers to turn to illegal means to remit their money, in addition to the need for money to reach their families urgently in times of emergency.
Allow me to share the experience of Nayan, a Bangladeshi, who did not resort to these illegal options when he encountered an emergency situation, yet paid a hefty price nonetheless. Nayan's mother suffered a stroke and needed to be admitted to a city hospital with better facilities. Unfortunately, this happened during a work day. So, he could not remit the money immediately until he completed his basic duty at 4.30 pm before heading to a remittance centre in Farrer Park. The treatment was, therefore, delayed for his mother, creating implications for her chance of a full recovery. Further, Nayan had to forgo 5.5 hours of overtime work which resulted in loss of income for him.
I am sure we will all agree that what I have just shared about Iris and Nayan can be called anything but effective. It is the elephant in the room in our quest towards building a Smart Nation, a cashless economy, and an inclusive society.
Mr Speaker, heeding the call made earlier by Minister Ong Ye Kung to encourage greater adoption of e-payments, there is an urgent need for financial inclusion and greater adoption of e-payments for our migrant workers. Employers of S Pass holders – those earning $2,200 and above per month – are required to pay their salaries through electronic means, but this requirement is not extended to the one million employees who are Work Permit holders, a lower wage category. Work Permit holders can request for electronic payments from employers by law, but many refrain from doing so for fear of job loss and repatriation. Yes, some may, indeed, prefer to receive cash, but many whom I have spoken with do that because they do not know any other trusted options, yet.
Mandatory electronic payment of salaries by employers will automatically allow for one million migrant workers to be part of our financial system so they do not remain unbanked or underbanked as rapidly fintech threatens to leave them behind. This gives them access to more payment and remittance options, lower or zero fees, as well as the benefits of speed and security. As an illustration of my point, the Post Office Savings Bank's (POSB's) jolly app waives the fee – though it does state for a limited time only, so, hopefully, that stays for a long time – for remittances made to India, Indonesia, Bangladesh and the Philippines but requires employers to open bank accounts for wage payments.
Sir, I mentioned earlier that understanding the needs of our migrant workers is not only the right thing to do, but also the smart thing to do. US$5.6 billion is a significant opportunity for the fintech sector to tap into for innovative products in e-payments. The Smart Nation question to ask is: how can we harness this Payment Services Bill to make this opportunity available to the thriving fintech sector if the majority of these funds – the US$5.6 billion – are unbanked or existing outside of the e-payment system? Traditional financial institutions and newer players are collaborating to bring exciting new fintech products and services to the market, and US$5.6 billion in remittances by migrant workers is definitely one.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]
We all know the fabled success of Grameen from Bangladesh in financial and social innovation for the unbanked and underbanked. Perhaps, if we include our migrant workers fully in our financial system, a fintech equivalent of Grameen from Singapore might just be birthed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is easy to think of payment services as being merely transactional. Yet, for the many thousands of migrant workers like Iris and Nayan, sending money home – efficiently, reliably and affordably – is a very human activity for them. It connects migrant workers to their families, gives them a sense of purpose for their struggles and, in some ways, empowers them to have dreams and aspirations for a better life. It is, therefore, a responsibility and opportunity for us to include them in the implementation of this Bill with legislation and education. After all, we know that the way forward for us as a Smart Nation goes beyond just the best laws and the latest payment technologies; it is how we stay human and inclusive.
Sir, I hope to hear from the Minister on our financial inclusion strategies and implementation, including but not limited to our migrant workers. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of this Bill, which reflects the delicate balance that has to be struck between the Government’s roles of regulating risks and promoting innovation in the payments industry. This balance is struck by the calibrated approach taken in applying safeguards relating to standards of consumer protection, anti-money laundering controls, and cybersecurity. Beyond this, the Bill also recognises that regulation may be beneficial, even necessary, for competition and innovation.
In the 2016 Singapore Payments Roadmap report commissioned by MAS, the limited adoption of electronic payments was attributed to decentralised governance and lack of coordination of infrastructure. This suggests that the payment systems market, when left to its own devices, does not lead to the best outcomes for consumers. This Bill addresses this by providing MAS with regulatory powers relating to interoperability, allowing the regulator to play the role of innovator as well. That said, I would like to seek some clarifications and make proposals for the businesses that raise funds through the Initial Coin Offers (ICOs).
Firstly, MAS had indicated that the Bill will regulate any entity, whether local or foreign, as long as it provides payment services and has a clear nexus to Singapore. Section 5(1) prohibits any person from providing any type of payment services in Singapore without a licence, if a licence is required. Many of the definitions of the various payment services refer to the provision of services to persons in Singapore, but the provider himself does not have to be in Singapore to be required to obtain a licence. Certainly, the provision of payment services that affect individuals in Singapore will raise similar risks, whether or not the provider is physically located in Singapore or overseas. Can the Minister clarify how it intends to enforce these provisions against non-Singapore businesses that do not operate in Singapore?
Further, these foreign businesses may already be regulated in their home jurisdictions. For instance, payment services based in Hong Kong would be subject to the Payment Systems and Stored Value Facilities Ordinance 2015, while those based in the UK are regulated by the Payment Services Regulations 2017. How would the local regime interact with those of other countries? For instance, would designations under foreign regimes be recognised in Singapore?
Next, in the Singapore Payments Roadmap report mentioned earlier, KPMG noted that the lack of interoperability between electronic payment systems was a cause of limited adoption and high costs of electronic payments. Establishing interoperability was a key topic discussed by the Payments Council at its inaugural meeting in August 2017.
The Bill addresses this by providing MAS the powers relating to access regimes, common platforms and common standards. Section 25 and 26 give MAS broad powers to direct that payment service providers ensure interoperability between payment accounts and payment system, and between payment systems. Division 4 of Part 3 of the Bill allows MAS to impose access regimes to payment systems.
Alongside MAS’ regulatory powers, the Payments Council plays an advisory function and is tasked with promoting the interoperability of systems. It set up an industry taskforce in August 2017, which developed the SGQR Code to consolidate multiple payment schemes.
Another agency which is concerned with innovation and competition in the payments industry is the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS). CCS has undertaken inquiries into alleged infringements by payment systems, clearing the NETS Affinity Programme of abuse of dominant position in 2007 and clearing Visa’s Multilateral Interchange Fee system of anti-competitive behaviour.
Further, CCS had commissioned the New Zealand consultancy company Castalia to study the competitiveness of card payment systems in Singapore. Can the Minister clarify how MAS will work with the Payments Council and CCS in exercising its powers relating to interoperability?
Further, will the Minister look into establishing a regulatory body to exercise specific oversight over competition and innovation for payment systems? The Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) in the UK provides a model for this. While there is also a general competition regulatory body, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the PSR has a narrower focus on payment systems. The co-existence of PSR alongside CMA demonstrates that payment systems give rise to sufficiently unique competition concerns arising from the network effect to require a separate regulatory body.
Lastly, section 41 provides that MAS may require participants, operators and settlement institutions to provide information relating to a payment system. This includes information relating to operations, pricing, participation and any other information that MAS may require for the purposes of the Act.
Can the Minister clarify whether this would include information of payment systems users? If so, are there any limits on the information that MAS can require? For instance, would MAS be able to obtain aggregated user data or individually-identifiable information?
I also like to raise concerns about the ascendancy of ICOs which accompanied the rise of blockchain and cryptocurrency. ICO is a method of fundraising used by businesses to build blockchain-centric projects.
Based on a report by ICObench, an authoritative rating body, Singapore has the second highest number of ICOs on ICObench’s platform, with 524 ICOs launched and US$2.1 billion raised. Both statistics indicate that Singapore is favoured by businesses seeking to raise funds through ICOs.
While platforms that issue digital tokens will be regulated under the proposed regime, those within the industry have expressed concerns to me that there should be greater regulatory oversight over businesses that operate on those platforms and raise funds by offering ICOs. According to a report by ICO advisory firm Statis Group, 80% ICOs in 2017 were scams.
As such, I urge MAS to improve its regulatory coverage to build a more robust financial system for the growth of the ICO market. Will the Ministry consider the following proposals in future reviews of the payment services regime?
First, I propose that all businesses that conduct an ICO must register themselves with MAS. MAS should maintain a central registry of key persons involved in an ICO. Presently, there is no way for investors to conduct background checks on founders of businesses with an ICO campaign. Such a central registry will help investors easily perform due diligence on their investments.
Second, MAS could conduct public campaigns to raise awareness about ICOs, its potential windfalls and its pitfalls. This will improve retail investors’ ability to differentiate good projects from scams.
Finally, our legislation presently does not cover acts of wrongdoing in the conduct of a business that offers an ICO. For example, these businesses are not obliged to provide full disclosure in deployment of funds raised. This entails a risk of potential fraud and funds misuse. Would the Minister consider legislating to enforce penalties on fraud and funds abuse? Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Ong Teng Koon.
Mr Ong Teng Koon: Mr Deputy Speaker, Singapore's growth into the regional financial hub it is today can be said to be the result of its responsiveness in creating a regulatory environment that both encourages innovation and mitigates risks to the stability of the financial system. In this regard, the Payment Services Bill is a significant step in the right direction.
Firstly, the Bill integrates payment activities that are currently regulated by different legislations under one Payment Services Act.
At present, MAS regulates different types of payment services under the PS(O)A (Cap 222A) and the MCRBA (Cap 187). These regulated services include operating payment systems, stored value facilities, remittance business and money-changing services. The Bill will reorganise these services as account issuance service, e-money issuance service, cross-border money transfer service, and money-changing service under a new activity-based licensing regime. Providers of the seven payment services prescribed in the Bill will be required to hold a licence based on the type of payment service that is provided.
The considerable changes to the payment services landscape have brought business models that blur the lines between regulated activities. By combining the PS(O)A and MCRBA, the Bill streamlines these payment services under a single legislative framework. This, in turn, ensures consistent application of laws to various payment activities, which is calibrated at an appropriate level according to the risks the activities pose. A consolidated approach also brings greater clarity to the regulatory regime.
Secondly, the Bill strengthens regulatory protection against risks and concerns that arise from previously unregulated payment activities.
The Bill comprises two parallel regulatory frameworks: (a) a designation regime that enables MAS to regulate systemically important payment systems for financial stability and efficiency reasons, and (b) a licensing regime that focuses on retail payment services facing consumers and merchants. The latter encompasses a wide range of new payment activities, which include domestic money transfers, merchant acquisition and the purchase and sale of digital payment tokens.
These activities ought to be regulated to ensure adequate controls against ML/TF; provide safeguards against insolvency risks resulting in loss of funds owed to consumers or merchants; reduce fragmentation and limitations to interoperability; and minimise technology and cyber risks.
There are specific reasons for this. The anonymous nature of digital payment token transactions makes them particularly vulnerable to ML/TF risks. Moneys received from customers by domestic money transfer and merchant acquisition service providers should be segregated and safeguarded from insolvency risks. Different merchant acquisition service providers with a large user base puts interoperability, common standards and accessibility at risk. New payment services that are made possible by technology are just as, if not more, vulnerable to cybersecurity risks.
In this respect, the Bill allows MAS to impose risk-mitigating measures and requirements on licensees who conduct the activity that poses the identified risks. Consequently, gaps in the regulatory regime brought by these new payment services can be filled. Consumer protection is reinforced, which further engenders public confidence to use the services and encourages development.
Thirdly, the Bill provides MAS with the necessary regulatory flexibility to respond to changes in the fast-moving payments space.
As a result of the activity-based licensing regime, regulations can be tailored to the risks that specific payment activities pose for different business models. In addition, MAS has general powers over all regulated entities, such as powers to conduct inspections and investigations, and emergency powers. Key risk mitigating provisions include interoperability powers which MAS may exercise where necessary to reduce fragmentation of widely-used payment solutions, and the power to impose risk-mitigating measures for ML/TF purposes under the MAS Act (Cap 186). In turn, MAS is able to take a more flexible strategy to target risks as they arise and avoid overregulation that may stifle innovation.
Notably, the Bill gives MAS certain powers to make regulations and supplementary provisions to fulfil the Act’s purposes and amend what would be regulated as a payment service under the Act. This accords MAS the flexibility to modify regulatory scope and come up with new laws for novel and more sophisticated product offerings that may emerge in the future. MAS will be able to respond accordingly, such as quickly incorporating new payment activities that ought to be regulated into the regulatory framework. This helps to create a conducive environment for innovation, growth and development, without sacrificing consumer protection and stability in the financial system. With that, Sir, I end my speech in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Ong Ye Kung.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank all the Members who have spoken on the Bill and their support of its introduction. On behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister-in-charge of MAS, let me now address their questions.
Let me start with customer protection. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about how customer monies are protected by payment service providers if they go insolvent and I have explained in my speech that major payment institutions are required under the Bill to protect customer monies under prescribed methods.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat was also concerned that services like limited purpose monetary value and loyalty programmes are excluded from the regulatory ambit of the Bill. The Bill governs the provision of payment services. So, the issuance of stored value cards like EZ-Link card or NETS cashcard that can be used to pay for various goods and services will be regulated as a type of payment service, and customer monies in those cards will be protected under the Bill.
However, limited purpose monetary value like supermarket shopping vouchers and loyalty programmes like airline frequent flyer miles, cannot ordinarily be used to pay for goods and services provided by unrelated third parties. Likewise, prepayments to bike sharing platforms for their services are also not payment services. So, all these activities are excluded from the ambit of the Bill. This is the approach taken by jurisdictions, such as Australia, Hong Kong and the UK, too.
On a technical point, Mr Mohamed Irshad asked for the location of e-money and virtual currency definitions in the Bill. These terms are defined in the interpretation clause of the Bill but we have changed the term \"virtual currency\" to \"digital payment token\" (DPT) instead, to accurately reflect the nature of these units as tokens and not currency.
Next, cryptocurrency. Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Louis Ng asked about customer protection in cryptocurrency services and for ICOs. Mr Leon Perera also asked about the approach and timeframe for regulating cryptocurrency services. I had explained in my speech that our intent currently is to regulate DPT services only for ML/TF risks. This is because the use of DPTs in Singapore is low compared to countries like the US, Japan and South Korea. So, at the moment, we do not intend to regulate DPT services for customer protection. We also need to be mindful of what Mr Saktiandi Supaat pointed out, which is, regulating DPT services for customer protection can have a legitimising effect, when digital tokens are still in a nascent stage of development. This may send the wrong signal that Singapore is promoting or welcoming such activities. Because we are regulating it, it actually gives people comfort that this is a legitimate activity and gives the public false comfort that their DPT investments are safe.
Similarly, running a registration system for ICOs, as Mr Louis Ng suggested, can also have a similar \"legitimising\" effect. MAS is monitoring this space and will continue to put out consumer advisories aimed at preventing investment losses upfront. MAS also continually updates its Investors Alert List to include entities that have been misperceived as being regulated by MAS.
In this regard, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman has also made it clear in Parliament earlier last year that DPTs, like bitcoins, are a very high-risk investment. Investors may lose their shirts. To adequately caution investors, MAS will require DPT service providers to disclose clearly to their customers that their investment is not subject to regulatory protection.
Mr Louis Ng asked if we would consider penalties for fraud and misuse of funds raised by ICO issuers. There are existing penalties for such illegal activities and they are administered by the Singapore Police Force.
Prof Lim Sun Sun, Mr Leon Perera and Mr Louis Ng pointed out that consumer protection should also extend to consumer education. Prof Lim Sun Sun proposed public education to communicate the advantages of using e-payments and good personal financial habits. Mr Saktiandi Supaat expressed that we should include senior citizens and the less tech-savvy among us in our e-payments journey.
I am happy to report that MAS and other agencies have been reaching out to the public on these fronts. Through MoneySENSE, the national financial education programme, MAS has been working to raise public awareness on using e-payments safely and responsibly and we will continue to do so. The public sector is also raising citizens' digital literacy and familiarity with new technologies, through initiatives, such as IMDA's digital inclusion programme, and the SkillsFuture for Digital Workplace programme.
On financial inclusion, Ms Anthea Ong highlighted the difficulties faced by migrant workers in accessing e-payment solutions and bank accounts. As she noted, payment firms are collaborating to bring new fintech products to the market. Indeed, fintech has enabled us to remit money overseas via e-wallets. They are easy to use, usually free, with no minimum balances required. As this Bill strengthens safeguards for these payment services, we should see greater adoption from consumers, including migrant workers.
At the same time, banks are working on enhancing financial inclusion for migrant workers. For example, POSB has partnered the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) to enable foreign domestic workers to open bank accounts seamlessly when they submit their online Work Permit applications. The initial deposit is waived for these POSB Payroll Accounts which also provide low-cost remittance services. MOM is currently consulting stakeholders on the option of mandating electronic salary payment for migrant workers. This is not just that this is a US$5.6 billion market, but this is the right thing to do.
Next, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira and Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about business competitiveness, and said that financial institutions should not be overly burdened by new rules. They asked how the Bill compares to those in other jurisdictions. The Bill contains similar aspects to regulatory frameworks in other financial centres, such as Australia, Hong Kong and the UK. What this Bill sets itself apart from other jurisdictions is that it comprehensively covers four risks identified in the payments landscape in a single legislation. In other jurisdictions, these risks are addressed by different authorities under different pieces of legislation.
As explained in my speech earlier, MAS has consciously balanced mitigating risk with promoting innovation. The best way to do this is to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach, and instead adopt a risk-based approach, such that the regulatory requirements are commensurate with the risks of the business activities, and that is why we have three licence classes in this Bill.
In the Second Reading speech, I explained how a major payment institution can provide services above specified thresholds. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked why the thresholds are not in the subsidiary legislation and in the main Bill. Indeed, specifying thresholds in the subsidiary legislation – it is actually easier for MAS – it gives us flexibility and more administrative ease but, to the market, it may mean less certainty. On balance, weighing this, and this being a new Bill, we err on the side of giving certainty to licence applicants and licensees, and set out the licence class determining thresholds in the Bill itself. MAS can still amend it, through this House, should we need to in future.
Regarding transitional arrangements and if 12 months was sufficient, in the public consultation, almost all entities who asked for a longer transition period requested a 12-month period, and so MAS agreed that this is a sensible timeline.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat correctly noted that Singapore has been fully supportive of the G20 and FATF. Taking our AML/CFT commitment seriously is something we must do, to maintain the integrity and reputation of our financial system. However, we will take care to calibrate our AML/CFT measures using a risk-based approach, too. We will consult the industry with the proposed measures to ensure that the measures are risk-appropriate and fit-for-purpose.
Mr Louis Ng asked if MAS has powers to obtain information of individual payment system users from private entities. As a regulatory and enforcement agency like all others, MAS has such powers. But like all the other enforcement and regulatory agencies, we will exercise them judiciously, for the purposes of this Bill. For example, MAS may require demographics of individual users to determine any gaps in access to payment services by any particular population segment, or we may request for such data for the purpose of investigation of a breach of law.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Leon Perera also asked about the rationale and considerations for arriving at the proposed stock and flow caps on personal e-money accounts, and if these limits could be prohibitive. I have explained the rationale for having the caps in my Second Reading speech, and that this is important to preserve stability of the financial system to prevent a significant outflow from the banking system.
As to why they are set at $5,000 and $30,000, these were calibrated after, in view of a few considerations. First, most e-money issuers have self-imposed stock caps of less than $1,000. Second, based on data from the last Household Expenditure Survey conducted and after adjusting for annual growth rates, the average monthly and annual household expenditure per household member in the 61st to 80th percentile group, is around $2,000 and $24,000 respectively. The proposed amounts, therefore, provide sufficient headroom for most individuals, even if they were to pay all their expenses of the month out of one e-money account.
Nonetheless, these are initial numbers, and we can review over time. And as suggested by Mr Leon Perera, MAS is also prepared to grant exemptions by way of regulations to facilitate specific customer needs. MAS will soon be consulting on the regulations and will consider any further industry feedback.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira also asked something about fit and proper checks. The tech industry can be assured that this is a nascent industry. We do understand, for fintech companies, the founders are often of technology background. But we also recognise that as they grow, as they serve bigger customers and become a bigger institution, they also start to recruit more diverse talents into their home, into their leadership team, including those with banking and financial service experience. So, it is an evolving criterion, and MAS will constantly review that to make sure they keep up with the times.
There are other measures that MAS will set out in subsidiary legislation that will be published for consultation. These include the annual fees that Mr Mohamed Irshad asked about. These also include the measures that Mr Leon Perera and Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about, such as the obligations for disclosures to end customers, and the steps that standard payment institutions must take when they exceed specific thresholds for their licence class, including suitable grace periods and the need in order to be upgraded to a higher licence. We will take all Members' comments into account regarding the specificity of the disclosure with customers.
Mr Louis Ng asked how MAS intends to enforce provisions against foreign established licensees and whether foreign regulated payment firms would be recognised in Singapore. Anyone carrying on a business providing payment services in Singapore needs to hold a licence under the Bill, unless it is exempted. The Bill requires all licensees, local and foreign – and foreign to have local presence, that is, to have a physical place of business or registered office in Singapore where customers can seek redress and where MAS can access the licensee's books. Further, licensees must have at least one executive director who is a Singapore Citizen, a Permanent Resident or a person in a prescribed class.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat has provided feedback that payment service providers, including DPT exchanges or service providers, have had their bank accounts closed. I should clarify that most payment service providers do not have problems opening and maintaining corporate accounts with banks. To help firms that have faced such difficulties, MAS has been facilitating discussions among banks, fintech firms and DPT service providers. While MAS does not intervene in the commercial decisions of financial institutions, such discussions should lead to positive and meaningful outcomes.
There are a number of questions on the limitations of activities of payment service providers. Mr Saktiandi Supaat pointed out that Hong Kong has a more liberal regime and is considering to allow payment services providers to offer banking services. What Hong Kong is doing is to issue digital banking licences, with regulatory requirements that are much higher than pure e-payment services firms. In Singapore, banks, too, can opt for a fully digital business model. Indeed, today, Singapore residents can already open a bank account with any of the local banks and operate it without having to visit a branch.
The real question is whether there are benefits for Singapore to increase the number of banks in Singapore by admitting primarily digital startup banks. This is a broader banking policy that has to be studied carefully, and quite distinct from the Bill. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, Mr Mohamed Irshad and Mr Leon Perera all asked about cash withdrawal and lending measures for licensees.
In the Second Reading speech, I explained why we are not prepared for licensees to offer such services. Essentially, these are core functions of banks which have a unique economic role. They are intermediaries for savings and investments. They take in deposits and then on-lend to the economy, as I have explained in my Second Reading speech. To allow e-payment service providers, which are subject to much lower thresholds and a much lower regulatory regime, to be able to provide lending activities, undermines the position and role of the banks; and, too, likewise, for the thresholds that they can hold in the stock and cap. If you set too high, it can potentially also lead to a significant outflow of deposit and cash liquidity out of the banking system.
So, because of all these prudential and stability considerations for our financial system, we prohibited such activities. We have not extended the same prohibition to cash withdrawal from non-resident e-wallets as Mr Leon Perera pointed out. This partly facilitates tourists' spending but, more importantly, the non-resident e-wallets draw on the bank deposits from other countries and do not affect our banking system. It is also not just a matter of FTA compliance, but also a broader consideration for our banking stability. We are still learning about this whole industry, how it is evolving. But banks are an important part of our economy. We are taking quite a cautious approach at this moment, and the situation will continue to evolve and we have to consider it as time evolves.
Mr Mohamed Irshad also asked about what plans the Government has to encourage innovation by financial institutions. To encourage innovation in financial services, we have the MAS regulatory sandbox. The sandbox is open to all firms that wish to experiment with a technologically innovative solution in financial services within MAS' regulatory ambit. And the sandbox options are being improved. MAS has proposed the creation of predefined sandboxes known as the Sandbox Express – easier and faster to get in and to get out.
Members also asked about Singapore's payment ecosystem and the competitive landscape of the industry. Mr Louis Ng asked if there should be a dedicated regulatory authority to oversee competition and innovation in the payment space. This is not necessary for us, because between MAS and CCS, we will cover the issues on competition in payment services. We have found this collaborative approach suitable to address any competition issues that may arise in Singapore.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira also asked how MAS will ensure a competitive market exist for safeguarding services of fintech firms. This is actually quite a competitive service for the banks. Major financial institutions are also familiar with the standard of behaviour in the Singapore market, and we will not hesitate to act on complaints regarding any anti-competitive behaviour. As for the thresholds to enforce against anti-competitive behaviour, this is actually quite an involved process. It depends on the service, the players in the service, the size of the companies, the industry structure and the value chain. Each case is different and regulators have to make a fairly laborious determination based on the facts and the alleged anti-competitive behaviour.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked when we can have a common e-payment platform and whether merchants affected by interoperability measures can expect assistance from MAS. As a small market, Singapore is especially susceptible to one provider dominating a market and abusing their position. We have, therefore, deliberately taken a different approach so as to allow more competition and innovation in the payments space. We then take steps to ensure open architecture and interoperability between different payment systems. With that, we enhance ease of use and convenience for consumers and merchants while allowing and promoting competition in the space. So, we very much share the wishes of Prof Lim Sun Sun, while being cognisant of the risks in a small market like ours.
As I have explained in my Second Reading speech, initiatives, such as FAST, PayNow, unified point-of-sale, SGQR, they serve to achieve interoperability, convenience and ease of use. With all these in place today, I hope all of us, as consumers, also can realise how e-payment is functioning today compared to, say, a few years ago. It is actually quite easy to use now. E-payments can be made through a simple tap-and-go of your credit or debit contactless card, or your smartphone on a Unified Point of Service (UPOS) terminal. Sending money to your friend can be done quite easily with a few taps on your smartphone. With time, I am confident that e-payments will be even simpler to use, and more consumers will grow to trust and accept e-payments.
Another thing that we are doing is to accept non-banks into the Fast And Secure Transfers (FAST) system and a workgroup is ongoing to discuss this. With that, let us say, a non-bank e-wallet joins FAST, what it means is that I can transfer my non-bank e-wallet money to my bank account and from my bank account, I can withdraw the money.
Mr Speaker, let me end by addressing Mr Mohamed Irshad's question about where Singapore stands in digital innovation and the need for us to have a culture of innovation.
Our standing is not too bad at all. We are a city-state, unlike the US, China or even Indonesia with a huge market. We are a well-regulated financial hub, and we ensure fintech companies can operate in an environment full of opportunities and with certainty. Our annual Fintech Festival is the largest in the world. We did not plan it to be the largest, but they turned out to be the largest because fintech firms want to come here so that they can network and promote their services to the financial industry. And for the fintech firms, it is especially in view that they could promote their services to the large financial institutions and global institutions which are here in Singapore.
So, supporting the growth of major financial institutions and fintech startups is, therefore, not a zero-sum game. They are all part of the financial ecosystem. Understanding that, and taking a risk-focused, modular approach to regulation, will contribute meaningfully to Singapore's innovation culture. I understand Mr Mohamed Irshad's broader points on culture and mindset. I do agree with many of the points he raised but those are beyond the ambit of this Bill. At some point, perhaps during an education debate, I will be more than happy to address some of the issues the Member raised. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Ong Ye Kung.] (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 4.50 pm. Order.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.33 pm until 4.50 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.50 pm
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]
[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Education (Mr Ong Ye Kung) (for the Prime Minister): Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister-in-charge of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Bill makes amendments to the Currency Act in two areas. First, the legal tender limits for coins. Second, the offence of mutilation of currency notes, to enable the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to license companies that sell Intelligent Banknote Neutralisation Systems (IBNS) or offer cash transportation services using IBNS.
First, the legal tender limits for coins. The Currency Act places legal tender limits on each coin denomination that are used for payment. The current limits today are: $2 for 5-cent, 10-cent and 20-cent coins; $10 for 50-cent coins, and no limit for $1 coins. This means that under the Act, a customer can use coins within these limits and legally the seller has to accept the payment.
Legal tender limits minimise inconvenience to vendors and their waiting customers. However, a couple of high-profile news stories surfaced in 2014 where large quantities of coins, including $1 coins, were used for payment. One case involved the payment of close to $20,000 in coins at a car dealer's showroom. Another involved over $1,000 worth of coins at a handphone shop at Sim Lim Square.
Thereafter, MAS received public feedback on the need to place a legal tender limit on $1 coins. MAS agreed that it is useful to do so.
We also took the opportunity to revise the basis for setting legal tender limits. The different value limits for different coins currently are confusing to many and not easy to remember. Further, instead of a value limit, we should limit the number of coins used, since the processing time and effort for coin payment depends more directly on the number of coins used, and less the total value of the coins. So, for example, it does not make sense to set a value limit of $2 for both 20-cent coins and 5-cent coins, which means that while a customer can use up to 40 5-cent coins, he can only use 10 20-cent coins, which also adds up to $2.
We conducted a public consultation exercise on the proposed revisions in 2017. There was broad support from respondents to introduce a limit for $1 coins and have a simple and uniform limit for all coin denominations that is easy to remember.
The Bill will, therefore, streamline the legal tender limits for coins to a uniform limit of 20 coins per denomination in a single payment. This means that a payer can use up to 20 pieces each of 5-cent, 10-cent, 20-cent, 50-cent and $1 coins per transaction. This is much simpler than the current legal tender limits.
Notwithstanding the legal tender limit, a customer and a vendor can mutually agree to transact using quantities of coins above the limit. But I am sure such instances will be infrequent, especially when more people switch to using electronic payment.
Deputy Speaker, I will now move to the second area of amendment to support MHA's plan to allow the use of IBNS.
IBNS is a security system installed in containers used in the transportation of currency notes. It will permanently damage or deface the currency notes housed within it when there is an attempted robbery. This deters robbery because the loot can be easily destroyed. IBNS is used in many countries in the European Union.
Some companies intend to introduce IBNS services in Singapore. MHA will facilitate this so that it is available to banks and other businesses. There are certain advantages, such as replacing armed Auxiliary Police Officers who are needed today to transport large amounts of cash and reducing the risk of violent crimes. This can free up scarce armed Auxiliary Police Officers for more critical operations.
MHA intends to license companies that sell IBNS or offer cash transportation services using IBNS as security service providers under the Private Security Industry Act (PSIA). It intends to obtain industry feedback to develop the licensing conditions. MHA and MAS will also conduct a joint education exercise to inform the public on the identification and handling of IBNS-damaged notes.
The Bill will amend section 23 of the Currency Act to make clear that an IBNS-damaged note is not legal tender. Under specific conditions, the Bill will exempt a holder or applicant of a security service provider licence from the offence of mutilation of currency notes.
Two related amendments will also be made to PSIA so as to give effect to the Currency Act amendments. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yee Chia Hsing.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): Deputy Speaker, Sir, one of the key provisions in this Bill is to streamline the existing legal tender limits for coins to a uniform limit of 20 coins per denomination in each payment. This will bring convenience to retailers and consumers as the uniform limit is easy to remember and easy to implement.
In particular, for 5-cent coins, the number is brought down from 40 coins to 20 coins. Sir, I would like to ask if MAS has considered removing the 5-cent coin altogether. Let us face it. Consumers do not like getting any change in 5-cent coins and because consumers do not like receiving any 5-cent coins as change, retailers are forced to deposit them into banks. But banks, too, impose a very high transaction cost for the deposit of coins.
A quick check on the Development Bank of Singapore (DBS) Bank’s website indicated that the coin deposit fee is 1.5 cents per coin, which is a whopping 30% of the face value of a 5-cent coin. This is very unfavourable to small business owners and is certainly not cost-effective. We stopped minting 1-cent coins more than 15 years ago because it is no longer actively used by the public.
I would like to ask what are the policy considerations for keeping the 5-cent coin and whether it would make sense to reconsider this policy, given inflation and also our push towards encouraging the use of cashless forms of payments.
I believe that businesses will face an increasingly high cost to handle cash and the removal of the 5-cent coin will benefit both consumers and retailers in the long run. The Government, too, would save money from minting the 5-cent coins, which are not widely used and universally disliked.
On a slightly separate note, I would also like to ask what the estimated cost of minting each 5-cent coin is and whether it would make sense for MAS to fund the coin deposit fee to encourage the recirculation of 5-cent coins so that MAS does not have to mint new 5-cent coins. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my suggestions today, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: I am not sure that the 5-cent coin is universally disliked. Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Deputy Speaker, Sir, there are two changes brought about by this Bill, first, relating to the legal tender of coins and, secondly, to prepare for the introduction of IBNS.
On the first change regarding the legal tender of coins, section 13 of the Currency Act is being amended to introduce a uniform limit on the use of every coin. Under the amendment, a person making payment can only insist on using a maximum of 20 coins of the same denomination. What is probably most significant about the change is that it introduces a limit on the use of one-dollar coins, which did not exist before. Under the Bill, the limit of 20 coins will also apply to $1 coins.
In the Explanatory Brief to this Bill, MAS has stated that the rationale is to have a standardised limit on all coin denominations to make it simple to remember and easier to implement. It was further stated that the Government wishes to encourage persons to use less cash for greater convenience of payments.
Sir, while I accept the rationale for the change, I would like to understand if, indeed, the introduction of the limit on $1 coins is really necessary. Is there a widespread situation of persons over-using such coins for payment? According to media reports last year, MAS decided to review the existing legal tender limits after two cases were reported in 2014, which the Minister also mentioned earlier. One case involved a mobile shop in Sim Lim Square trying to refund a customer about $1,000 entirely in coins, while the other case involved a man who left $19,000 in coins at a car dealer's showroom. While these cases may cross the line and be considered unreasonable conduct, are such cases very common?
I am also concerned as to whether certain groups of persons who tend to transact in coins will be adversely affected by the new limit. For instance, persons in certain occupations tend to earn their income from customers in coins, for example, hawkers of cooked food and buskers who sing for change. Once the Bill is passed, they can no longer insist on tendering $1 coins to pay for any item over $20. Would the change cause hardship to such persons? Some might say that these persons could always use the coin machines at banks to deposit their coins into their bank accounts and withdraw currency notes thereafter to use. However, there are Singaporeans today who do not have a bank account or are not approved by banks to have one. How will they be impacted?
The second change brought by this Bill is to prepare for IBNS. The Bill introduces provisions to legalise the use of IBNS as part of security systems to protect the movement of cash in transit (CIT). IBNS would operate to damage or deface currency notes when it is detected that a CIT robbery is imminent, thus rendering the notes indelibly marked or altered. The Bill contains provisions to state that such notes cannot be legally used. The Bill also carries amendments to the PSIA to require those who intend to sell IBNS to obtain a licence to do so.
IBNS is an application of primary crime prevention, by reducing the rewards of crime, or increasing the chances of detection. The theory is that an intended CIT robbery would lose its appeal if the perpetrator knew that the loot would be rendered worthless, or that their hands or bodies would be stained with a substance that could provide forensic evidence to link them to the crime scene. IBNS technology has been in use for more than three decades in Europe and found in automated teller machines, vending machines and also containers for CIT movements.
If IBNS is successful in deterring CIT robberies, there will be potential spillover cost-efficiencies. CIT, which is enhanced with IBNS, may no longer require armed guards and armoured vehicles. This may allow redeployment of such guards and vehicles to other areas, which will alleviate the current manpower shortages in the Auxiliary Police. There are also potential savings for organisations which need CIT security, such as Town Councils, since they can save on the service fees of armed Auxiliary Police, which are relatively high.
That said, IBNS is just one part of the security ecosystem for CIT. What is critical is that IBNS is accompanied by equally secure pre- and post-handling, so as not to create vulnerabilities before the cash enters an IBNS environment and after it leaves. Overall, Sir, I am in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chen Show Mao.
Mr Chen Show Mao (Aljunied): (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, the Currency Act currently provides for a limit of $2 for 5-,10- and 20-cent coins, $10 for 50-cent coins and no limit for $1 coins, for legal tender. Today, we are amending the Act to provide for a limit of 20 coins to apply across all denominations. Of course, a payor and a payee can mutually agree to transact in any quantities of coins above the limit if they wish.
I believe these amendments are reasonable and do not foresee any particular difficulties in their implementation. I would, however, like to emphasise the broader and related point that in our drive towards a \"cashless\" society, we should take care to leave room for the co-existence of alternative payment methods, including physical currency, such as coins and banknotes, so that members of the public may have a choice in the payment methods they prefer.
At a National Day Rally not long ago, the Prime Minister heralded the advent of a cashless society in Singapore, and local e-payment businesses are experiencing robust growth. A recent research report by UBS highlighted that many Asian countries are implementing measures to go cashless. For example, the Indian government has done away with the 500-Rupee and 1,000-Rupee banknotes and the Korean Central Bank plans to stop minting coins after next year.
Technology development has increased the scope for inclusive financial services, but it can also widen the gap between the disadvantaged and mainstream society. Disadvantaged groups often lack digital literacy and we need to pay attention to this \"digital divide\". For example, most of the elderly habitually use cash for transactions and are unfamiliar with the various e-payment technologies and devices available. To them, a cashless society often signifies greater difficulty rather than convenience. There is need to enhance education and training for the technologically disadvantaged, as the Minister mentioned, and the Government can provide more services that promote digital literacy.
According to a British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) report, Sweden is set to become the first cashless society in the world. However, in recent years, the Swedes are increasingly concerned that doing away with cash altogether may well lead to problems for the elderly and others. For example, most banks have stopped providing over-the-counter teller services, and shops no longer accept cash transactions.
In addition, with an open web environment and the deployment of distributed systems, the increasing prevalence of e-payment may well have other risks. User-profile, consumption behaviour and personal habits and preferences are increasingly collected and mined, making it harder to protect privacy. Furthermore, for the country, the society and the financial system as a whole, the concentration of payment and settlement data in the hands of a few private companies and Government agencies may well pose increased risks of disruption to the stability of the financial system or economic security.
Of course, there are obvious benefits to doing away with coins, banknotes and to go cashless in our payments and settlement, and we should continue to promote the idea of progress towards a cashless society. However, I hope that this cashless society will be an inclusive one, which provides our people with choices.
I believe that different payment methods and settlement systems should be allowed to co-exist in the foreseeable future. Even as we redouble efforts at public education to promote various non-cash payment methods, we should also permit people the choice of their preferred payment methods, including in physical currency, such as coins and banknotes.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Frequent technological advancements mean that it is important to review our policies to ensure that we are keeping up and making the most out of the available technologies.
With the growing importance of shoring up security and defences against terrorism, we are always in need of support from the Singapore Police Force for a variety of security operations. Therefore, the licensing of IBNS for CIT operations will help to free up Auxiliary Police Officers so that they can be deployed to do more important tasks. I support the prevalent use of such systems and hope to see it utilised all around Singapore. May I ask the Minister how many banks are on board, and how does the Ministry intend to reach out to those that have not expressed interest? Therefore, in terms of financial impact, how costly will the use of such systems be for the banks?
These amendments also call for the revision of the legal tender limits for coins to a uniform limit of 20 pieces across denominations, which makes it easier for all to remember and implement it. Hence, merchants and customers alike should not be made to accept large amounts of coins which they may not have an avenue to use, especially with more people using cashless payment methods. Additionally, it also discourages unnecessary delays for the rest of the customers in the queue, and abuse by way of mischief. One particular case that made media headlines was a shop in Sim Lim Square, which Ms Sylvia Lim mentioned earlier, that refunded its customer $1,010 in coins. There was also a customer who paid $19,000 worth of coins to a car dealer to make a point. These acts of mischief drew the attention of local media because of the huge amount of cash involved, but I believe it is not uncommon on a smaller scale.
Some customers may not bear malicious thoughts, but instead they simply want to reduce the number of coins they carry and think nothing of offloading them on to a merchant. To them, it is still money after all, and the merchant is more likely able to find a better use for the coins.
However, I understand that the limit of 20 coins applies to each denomination, across all denominations, in a single transaction. What this means is that the new legal tender limit for coins allows a payer to use up to 100 coins across the five denominations, or $37 in total value, in a single transaction. Hence, the change in legal tender limits is not likely to result in significant changes to the way coins are used in day-to-day transactions. I am pleased that this rule is maintained.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would also like to raise a question whether the service charge imposed by banks when accepting coins can be regulated. There are still many vendors, and even charity organisations that receive large amounts in coins. While I am not disputing that a service charge could be imposed, there should be a cap because, if a counting machine is used, it does not take that much time to count the coins. And, with increasing automation, I expect that the use of the coin deposit machines will become even more prevalent. Currently, it costs $0.015 to deposit one coin, and this can add up to a significant amount for large amounts of coins. It simply discourages people from using it. Moreover, usually the people with large amounts of coins also tend to be those who will consider the fees that they have to bear as a significant expense.
It is important to recognise that coins are still a big part of payments for small businesses, like the newspaper vendors, children’s playground operators, and provision shops. It is already a challenge for them to convert to cashless payments, and I am concerned that these policies will indirectly lead to an overall reduction in coin usage and availability, which would affect their sales. I wish to take this opportunity to emphasise the need to engage these small businesses and help them to stay relevant even as we are promoting the use of cashless methods. Therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Ong Ye Kung.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank all the Members who have spoken on the Bill and for their support. On behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister-in-charge of MAS, let me now address their questions.
First, on the legal tender limits for coins. Mr Saktiandi Supaat highlighted the need to educate the public on the new legal tender limit. Currently, information on the legal tender limits for coins is published on MAS’ website. MAS also explains these limits when it receives feedback from the public regarding their experience with coin payments. Now, with a formula that is a lot easier to remember, there is an opportunity for us to explore ways to further raise public awareness of the new legal tender limit.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms Sylvia Lim have highlighted the concern that people who get most of their income in coins may have no choice but to pay in coins and they may be affected by the new legal tender limits, especially if they use the $1 coins.
Ms Sylvia Lim went on to explain how the new limits will work in her speech. But let me elaborate further. I thank Mr Saktiandi Supaat for helping me answer part of this question. But let me just repeat some of the facts. The new uniform legal tender limit of 20 coins applies to each of the five coin denominations. Thus, it allows a payer to use up to 100 coins, or $37 in total value, in a single payment transaction.
Further, compared to today's legal tender limits, in terms of monetary value, there is actually no change for 50-cent coins and 10-cent coins and, in fact, an increase for 20-cent coins. There is a reduction in limit for 5-cent coins, from $2 to $1. But it is not likely to affect many existing transactions because it is very rare for customers to use so many 5-cent coins, which is a point that Mr Yee Chia Hsing raised.
The main reduction is really for $1 coins, as Ms Sylvia Lim had pointed out, from no limit to 20 coins, or $20. Ms Sylvia Lim asked if there is a widespread situation of persons over-using coins for payment and whether this change is really necessary. While we agree that cases of people paying with large quantities of coins are actually very few, MAS received quite a number of feedback from the public on the need to place a limit for $1 coins following the high-profile cases I mentioned earlier, and three of us mentioned it in our speeches. So, it looks like we are all aware of those cases. Because of that heightened awareness, a limit for $1 coins thus serves to protect more vulnerable consumers or salespersons against abuse.
I should say that it is actually very rare that people pay for goods and services with a large amount of coins. A great majority of lower-income Singaporeans are actually employees who do not receive their income in coins. For small vendors like hawkers who may receive a large amount of coins and small notes, they either deposit their cash or use them as change for their customers. And in the very rare incidences where someone without a bank account somehow collects income in coins and needs to purchase something with many coins for whatever valid reasons, the vendor can adopt a flexible approach and I would urge them to do so. Let me reiterate that the legal tender limit does not prevent a payee and payer from mutually agreeing to transact using quantities of coins above the limit.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat further expressed concern that the legal tender limits would affect the sales of small businesses, such as newspaper vendors and provision shops, where coins are still mainly used for payments. I think this is also unlikely. As I explained, the main change is really for the $1 coins, and instances of customers using more than 20 coins for any denomination are actually very few. Customers who are used to cash are also very likely to use notes. I have even come across a report that says small vendors that switched to e-payments actually saw an increase in their business.
This Bill proposes a practical move towards a much simpler set of limits, easier to remember, and makes it easier for merchants to operate. It will not disadvantage consumers except in some very extreme, even theoretical instances.
Second, on coin deposit fees. Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Yee Chia Hsing asked whether the service charge imposed by banks when accepting coins can be regulated and capped. Banks typically charge a deposit or administrative fee for coin deposits because they incur costs in handling coins. It is not just the counting machines but, beyond that, there is also authentication, sorting, packing, transport. The setting of fees and charges for banking services are commercial decisions made by banks, but MAS will keep a close watch on the fees. MAS also expects banks to disclose the fees and charges for their services upfront so that businesses and consumers can make informed decisions. At the same time, MAS has set out alternatives to the banks for depositing of coins so that the public can also deposit their coins at several designated locations managed by Certis Cisco, which has been appointed to manage MAS’ coin operations. Deposit fees at these centres are at a nominal rate of $3.50 per 1,000 pieces. There are no fees for depositing 1-cent and 5-cent coins at these centres.
Third, on the removal of 5-cent coins, raised by Mr Yee Chia Hsing, MAS will hesitate to remove 5-cent coins because they are still worth something. And if you take a look at products sold at supermarkets, convenience stores and fast-food outlets, you will see that many basic necessities like bread, eggs, beverages and so on have 5-cents in their pricing, such as $1.95 or $2.95. There is a chance that removal of 5-cent coins may lead to such items being rounded up to the nearest 10-cents! So, I think, better not.
Mr Chen Show Mao talked about e-payments and a cashless society and how it will inconvenience and even threaten consumers. Our approach and objective are never to be a cashless society. We think we should promote e-payment because it is convenient to use and is more efficient. The way to do this is not to compel but to make e-payment very convenient to use. Over the last couple of years, MAS has implemented many initiatives. I mentioned in the last Bill debate, from Fast and Secure Transfers (FAST), PayNow, Singapore Quick Response (SGQR) code, all these make e-payments a lot easier to use so that people are naturally attracted to use e-payment.
And while we do that, always ensure there is the option of still using cash because, as Mr Chen Show Mao pointed out, there will still be members of our society who are still very used to using cash. I should add that it is not just the seniors. In my interactions with seniors in the community – and many of them attended digital literacy courses – many of them are actually champions of e-payment and really embrace the use of e-services, such as booking their medical appointments, paying by e-payment, so on and so forth. So, I would also encourage not just the seniors but also the young to embrace e-payment and realise the convenience of using it.
Lastly, on IBNS, Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked how many banks support the use of IBNS and how MHA intends to reach out to those banks which have not expressed interest. He also asked about the cost impact on banks from the use of such IBNS.
MHA and MAS have been engaging the Association of Banks in Singapore on the use of IBNS for cash transport services. As pointed out by Ms Sylvia Lim, there are some advantages for doing so. Discussions are still ongoing. IBNS will not be made a compulsory requirement for cash transportation services, but an added option. While banks are generally open to new technologies, banks will also need to assess, together with their service provider, the combination of technology and manpower that best fits their needs. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Ong Ye Kung.] (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":"Merchant Shipping (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The main objectives of the Bill are to amend the Merchant Shipping Act and the Maritime Conventions Act to implement the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976, or the 1996 Protocol, and the International Convention on Salvage, 1989, or the Salvage Convention. Let me highlight the key provisions of the Bill.
First, clauses 5 to 7 and 16 implement the 1996 Protocol, which update the limits of liability of a shipowner for maritime claims covered under the 1976 International Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims. This ensures that Singapore's limitation regime reflects the current value of life and property and is aligned with that of other countries that have acceded to the 1996 Protocol. Clause 8 preserves and applies the existing liability limits for maritime incidents which occurred prior to the commencement of the Bill.
Second, clauses 9, 10, 12 and 17 implement the Salvage Convention which has the following key features: (a) the introduction of the criteria for fixing the amount of reward for salvors; (b) the introduction of a special compensation to salvors who prevented or minimised environmental damage, even if the salvage operations failed to save the ship or its cargo.
In addition, clauses 13 and 14 require the receiver of the wreck and High Court to apportion salvage payable to several claimants according to the Salvage Convention.
Besides implementing the 1996 Protocol and the Salvage Convention, we are making a few other amendments to improve the way the Singapore Registry of Ships is run. First, clause 3 of the Bill amends the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) Act to enable the Director of Marine or a recognised organisation to extend the validity of a Maritime Labour Certificate.
This will enable Singapore, as a contracting state to the Maritime Labour Convention, to comply with the amendment to this Convention to allow the extension of the validity of a Maritime Labour Certificate for a ship, in cases where its renewal inspection is completed but the new certificate cannot be immediately issued and made available on board.
In addition, clause 4 of the Bill enables the Minister for Transport to delegate the power to the reduced registration fee for ships under the Singapore Flag. This will simplify administrative procedures and enable the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore or any other person to reduce the fee.
The provisions in this Bill will help Singapore maintain our position as an international maritime arbitration and dispute resolution hub. They will also ensure that the Singapore Registry of Ships remains relevant and competitive. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a shipping lawyer in private practice.
Deputy Speaker, Sir, this amendment Bill is a significant Bill to the maritime community in Singapore. It involves three major International Maritime Organization (IMO) conventions and at least two major areas in maritime law, namely, the law on salvage and law on limitation of liability.
This amendment Bill proposes to bring into force some key maritime conventions of the world: the Salvage Convention of 1989 and the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on Limitation of Liability to the Maritime Claims (LLMC) of 1976. For the rest of my speech, I shall refer to the latter in short as \"the 1996 Protocol\".
Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have made progress. We have taken about 22 years to adopt the 1996 Protocol. We previously took approximately 29 years to adopt the Convention on Limitation of Liability to the Maritime Claims (LLMC) 1976, which I shall refer to this as \"the 1976 Convention\" for the rest of my speech. The 1976 Convention was adopted in 2005. Prior to that, for many years, Singapore has applied the 1957 Convention relating to the Limitation of Liability of Owners of Seagoing Ships, which I shall refer to as \"the 1957 Convention\".
I have always wondered why Singapore seems to take a relatively longer time to adopt a few of these IMO conventions. The 1976 Convention, the 1996 Protocol and the Salvage Convention are cases in point.
When we first adopted the 1976 Convention, I had one reservation and it had to do with the different tests for breaking limitation under the 1957 Convention and the 1976 Convention. For the 1957 Convention, the limitation limits are much lower than those of the 1976 Convention but it is relatively easier to break limitation. For the 1976 Convention, it was much, much harder for claimants to break limitation, the requirement for breaking limitation being that the loss must result from a shipowner's personal act or omission, committed with the intention to cause such loss, or recklessly and with knowledge that such loss would probably result. It has long been acknowledged in the industry that limitation under this requirement is virtually unbreakable. I was personally attracted to the argument that the 1957 Convention would encourage shipowners to strive for a higher standard in return for a lower payout by way of the limitation sum.
The differences between the 1976 Convention and the 1996 Protocol are, in my view, much less significant than the differences between the 1976 Convention and the 1957 Convention. The test or the requirement for breaking limitation for the 1976 Convention and 1996 Protocol is essentially the same, just that the limits for the 1996 Protocol are much higher. That being the case, it should also have been a matter of time before we move from the 1976 Convention to the 1996 Protocol which we are going to do so today.
In my view, at least two events could have persuaded us to accept the 1996 Protocol earlier.
Firstly, the 1996 Protocol came into force in the United Kingdom (UK) in 1998. Secondly, the 1996 Protocol came into force in Hong Kong on 3 May 2015. Even Malaysia adopted the 1996 Protocol before us, in 2014.
Traditionally, and for many years now, when it comes to limitation of liability cases, such as ship collision claims, shipping lawyers will consider the relative limitation limits as well as any risk or chance of breaking limitation before advising their clients to try and find jurisdiction in countries to set up a limitation fund which may be favourable for them as a matter of limitation limits. Of course, there may be other considerations going beyond the limitation limits, too.
The fight is for collision and limitation cases to be commenced in Singapore versus our traditional rival states like England and Hong Kong and, to a lesser extent, Malaysia. Commencing jurisdiction in the Admiralty Courts of Singapore also meant the prospects of more cases for our Admiralty Courts and possibly adding to our jurisprudence.
In my view, adopting the Protocol earlier may have provided jurisdictions like England and Hong Kong with one more advantage in a jurisdiction fight between Singapore and these jurisdictions, since the limitation limits under the 1996 Protocol are higher than the 1976 Convention limits as applied in Singapore while the ease of breaking limitation is the same.
And lest anyone thinks that we will catch up with everyone with today's amendment, surprise, surprise, we would not. There is more catching up to do. On 12 April 2012, the member states to the 1996 Protocol agreed to an increase of approximately 51% in tonnage limits in their jurisdictions with effect from 8 June 2015 to reflect the changes of monetary values over the period and to cope with inflation. So, for the rest of my speech, I shall refer to this in short as \"the 2012 amendment\".
The original 1996 Protocol limits were in force since May 2004 until 8 June 2015 when the new limits came into force under the tacit acceptance procedure set out in the Protocol. The 2012 amendment to the 1996 Protocol increased its limits further as a result of IMO member states' concern over the insufficient seat of the 1996 Protocol limits arising from cases like the \"Pacific Adventurer\" case in Queensland, Australia, in 2009.
Significantly, for Singapore, the 2012 amendment was brought into force in the UK in 2016 and in Hong Kong on 4 December 2017. So, in my view, this may still put us in some disadvantage relative to the UK and Hong Kong.
Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State: one, what were the reasons for deciding on the 1996 Protocol only now? And two, why are we not adopting the 2012 amendments instead?
Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Salvage Convention which we are adopting today dated back to 1989. It is a relatively dated Convention, well-known to at least two or more generations of maritime lawyers. I am glad we have decided to adopt the Salvage Convention, given that Singapore is one of the busiest ports, and the busy Strait of Singapore and Malacca Strait are in the immediate vicinity and also given that Singapore is a well-known support base for leading salvors in their operations in the Asia Pacific.
Deputy Speaker, Sir, I hope that moving forward, Singapore can be a little more robust when supporting IMO conventions. If we seriously consider ourselves as one of the leading maritime countries, as I think we are, unless we object to a particular IMO convention and have spoken up or expressed our apprehensions at IMO level, we should consider taking the lead in adopting new maritime conventions which we are willing to support. If we have reasons for taking time, we can always keep the industry posted of our reasons for such delay. And, of course, this is after consultation with the industry which can be done even while the Convention is being worked out at the IMO level.
Let me now move on to two aspects of the Salvage Convention.
Deputy Speaker, Sir, one of the most well-known modern salvage cases or, more specifically, one of the most well-known cases involving the Salvage Convention, is a very sad collision case involving the oil tanker, the \"Nagasaki Spirit\" which was operated from Singapore, with the container vessel \"Ocean Blessing\" in the Malacca Strait in 1992.
Pirates had attacked the \"Nagasaki Spirit\" and then abandoned her without any crew in the bridge of the vessel causing her to collide with the other ship. The \"Nagasaki Spirit\" was laden with 40,000 tons of crude oil, of which 12,000 tons escaped into the sea and caught fire, engulfing both vessels. The crew from both vessels perished except for two survivors from the \"Nagasaki Spirit\".
Professional salvors agreed to salve the \"Nagasaki Spirit\" under Lloyds Open Form of 1990, which incorporated Articles 13 and 14 of the Salvage Convention. The salvors managed to put out the fire, salved the remaining cargo, and redelivered the ship to the owners.
The salvage claim went all the way to the English House of Lords in 1996. The House of Lords in the \"Nagasaki Spirit\" identified problems with the wording of Article 14 of the Convention. Essentially, it was decided that the term \"fair rate\" in Article 14 for environmental salvage only cover expenditure but does not include an element of profit.
Unhappy with this decision and interpretation of Article 14, salvors and insurers worked together to develop the SCOPIC Codicil in 2000 to overcome the effect of the court ruling. The optional SCOPIC clauses provide special conditions for remuneration to a salvor for efforts to prevent or minimise environmental damage in relation to the salvage of a vessel.
Deputy Speaker, Sir, following the English House of Lords decision in the \"Nagasaki Spirit\", if the Salvage Convention is introduced in the present form as in this amendment Bill, it is likely, if not probable, that at some point, a Singapore Court will have to make a decision to decide whether to follow the decision of the House of Lords in the \"Nagasaki Spirit\" in deciding whether or not that the term \"fair rate\" in Article 14 for environmental salvage includes an element of profit.
I am saying this because English common law is traditionally of persuasive authority in our Singapore shipping law, particularly when Singapore law is silent on the interpretation of any specific issue. The English courts had to deal with this issue back in the late 1990s and, 20 years down the road, we are introducing this Convention in our law and we have this benefit of hindsight to have this addressed in our statutes. We can, for example, have a provision to say that, for environmental salvage, fair rate in Article 14 is deemed to include an element of profit.
There is at least one precedent for this. South Africa's Wreck and Salvage Act 1996 incorporated the Salvage Convention into their domestic law. But the Act differs from the Salvage Convention in two important respects, one of which is that in relation to Article 14 on special compensation, \"damage to the environment\" is extended to any place where the damage may occur and the \"fair rate\", as referred to in Article 14, is deemed to include an element of profit. Like South Africa, we can avoid wasting our Courts' time to decide on this point.
Let me move on to my final point. In practice, most high-value salvage services under the Salvage Convention, are performed on a Lloyds Open Form, or in short, LOF, as it is known in the industry, with an LOF contract with a written arbitration clause exclusively in favour of London arbitration. With Singapore adopting the Salvage Convention, I hope that our Singapore Chamber for Maritime Arbitration (SCMA), with the help of the Singapore Maritime Foundation and the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore, will be knocking on the right doors to change this unhealthy exclusivity of having the world's salvage cases being decided by arbitration in London and allow the option of Singapore as an alternative for arbitration and governing law on the LOF form.
And there is a good precedent for this, too. In 2012, SCMA managed to persuade the Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO), the world largest shipping association and also the world's leading generator of standard maritime contracts, to include Singapore and SCMA's arbitration clause as BIMCO's third standard dispute resolution clause, after London and New York, for world shipping contract form precedents. This is an amazing milestone, not just for SCMA, but also for Singapore law. Deputy Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the concerns I have raised, I support this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State for Transport.
Dr Lam Pin Min: Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Dennis Tan for his comments as well as the historical perspectives of the Limitation of Liability Convention as well as the \"Nagasaki Spirit\" and, most importantly, the support for the Bill. Let me address the points Mr Dennis Tan raised.
To address Mr Dennis Tan's query on the timing of accession to the 1996 Protocol, Singapore had not previously done so as the industry had some concerns with the increase in shipowners' liability limits. However, more recent industry consultations with members of the Singapore Shipping Association (SSA) indicated that shipowners are now supportive of the accession, as they are generally insured up to the levels of claims covered by the 1996 Protocol.
As the 1996 Protocol updates and increases the limits of liability of a shipowner for maritime claims, acceding to the 1996 Protocol ensures that Singapore's limitation regime truly reflects the current value of life and property. This also ensures that our limitation regime is aligned with that of other countries that have acceded to the 1996 Protocol. Claimants will not be disadvantaged should they decide to pursue their claims in Singapore, compared to other jurisdictions that already implemented the higher liability under the 1996 Protocol. Accession to the 1996 Protocol will also promote the selection of Singapore law as the governing law of commercial shipping contracts and attract more claimants to utilise our legal and arbitration dispute facilities and services, advancing our position as a leading maritime dispute resolution hub.
I am glad to inform Mr Dennis Tan that Singapore will adopt the existing liability limits which were, in 2012, increased by 50% over the original 1996 Protocol limits. This allows Singapore's regime to reflect the current value of property and life. And so, there is really no need to catch up, as suggested by Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan also asked if it would be possible to legislate an additional element of profit for environmental salvage under the Salvage Convention. The Salvage Convention represents a very carefully negotiated compromised on the apportion of viability between various stakeholders. These stakeholders include the ship and cargo interests, their hull and cargo insurers, and their Protection and Indemnity (P&I) liability insurers. Under the Convention, the Courts already have discretion to provide an additional payment of between 30% and 100% of the salvors' expenses.
What Mr Dennis Tan appears to be asking is for us to go beyond the Convention text to guarantee that fair rates will include profit. There is currently no international consensus on this and it would be premature for Singapore to move ahead without the support of all relevant stakeholders. Legislating an additional profit element could potentially upset the intricate compromises upon which the Salvage Convention was built.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the maritime sector is, and will continue to be, a key pillar of Singapore's economy. This Bill will enable Singapore to maintain our competitiveness as an international maritime centre. It will position Singapore well as an arbitration and dispute resolution hub for maritime cases.
I thank the House once again for the support of the Bill and, with that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Lam Pin Min.] (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":"Infectious Diseases (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Health, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Singapore has made significant progress in controlling infectious diseases since the early days of Independence. Improvements in public infrastructure, sanitation and hygiene have drastically reduced the rates of then common serious infectious diseases, such as cholera and typhoid.
Vaccination requirements, complemented by strong vaccination programmes, have resulted in high vaccination coverage against highly infectious diseases, such as measles and diphtheria.
Requirements for surveillance and reporting systems have also enabled the early detection of existing and new diseases, allowing for swift response to curtail disease spread.
However, we cannot let our guard down. Infectious pathogens and the environment in which we operate are continually changing, and we must regularly take stock of these changes and examine how we can better respond to them.
The Ministry of Health (MOH) recognises the following:
Firstly, Singapore is a densely-populated city-state, and a global travel and trade hub. We remain vulnerable to the importation of emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases. The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2003 is a stark reminder of how a new disease can wreak havoc on our healthcare system and socioeconomic fabric. We have also experienced the influenza H1N1 pandemic in 2009 and, most recently, Zika in 2016. Globally, ongoing outbreaks, which include Ebola in Africa and the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in the Middle East, remind us of the need to be vigilant and to be prepared for the emergence of new diseases.
Secondly, research and development (R&D), and technological advances have allowed us to rapidly increase our understanding of infectious diseases and develop better response measures. We cannot just rely on the old traditional methodologies and must make provisions to allow for more effective and efficient ways – through information technology (IT), R&D or the use of technology – to prevent and control infectious diseases.
Lastly, while the Government takes the lead in safeguarding public health, infectious diseases can happen and spread anywhere – in homes, schools, workplaces and from overseas destinations – and we will need the help of the community to safeguard Singapore against these threats.
The Infectious Diseases Act (IDA) was enacted in 1976 and was last amended in 2008. As part of our continual efforts to ensure that infectious disease prevention and control measures remain effective, this Infectious Diseases (Amendment) Bill seeks to amend the IDA in the three key areas of (a) enhancing infectious disease surveillance; (b) preventing the introduction of infectious diseases into Singapore; and lastly, (c) strengthening infectious disease control within Singapore.
Last year, my Ministry invited the public to provide their feedback on the proposed amendments over a six-week period. We received comments from members of the public, healthcare professionals, including infectious diseases specialists, academia and stakeholders from the telecommunications and transport sectors. Overall, respondents expressed support for the proposed amendments. There was also broad recognition that the amendments are intended to ensure that our legislative and regulatory measures to detect, prevent and control infectious diseases entering into and within Singapore, remain relevant and allow for the calibration of operations to manage the risk presented.
Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to highlight the major provisions in the Bill.
First, let me introduce the amendments to enhance infectious disease surveillance.
With better understanding of certain infectious diseases and advancements in IT, there could be new ways of monitoring the health status of persons who may have infectious diseases of concern, for example, through remote or indirect means. This reduces the burden and inconvenience to the person being monitored and allows for a more scalable surveillance system. Clause 2 of the Bill clarifies the definition of \"surveillance\" in the Act to indicate that it may be periodic or continuous and explicitly provides a definition for medical examinations, which among others, could be conducted remotely.
As it stands, both doctors and laboratories are required to notify my Ministry of the same set of infectious diseases when detected. With the understanding that some infectious diseases come with distinctive clinical signs and symptoms which can be identified by doctors, while others can only be confirmed through laboratory testing, clauses 4 and 27 of the Bill clarify section 6, to allow for doctors, laboratories and any other prescribed groups of persons to report different prescribed sets of diseases to the Ministry. This will allow us to streamline notification requirements and reduce duplication.
My Ministry undertakes public health surveillance where information and samples from healthcare facilities and laboratories are collected for testing and trend analysis. Strictly speaking, based on existing requirements, we must issue a new legal order each time we collect a sample, even though it may be an ongoing surveillance programme. Clause 5 of the Bill amends section 7 to allow my Ministry to state, through a one-time order, the frequency and time period for the submission of samples or information.
Next, allow me to introduce the amendments to prevent the introduction of infectious diseases into Singapore.
Under section 31, persons entering Singapore from specific areas must be required to be vaccinated against specified infectious diseases. To date, the only disease specified under this section, as guided by the International Health Regulations, is Yellow Fever, a serious viral infection. There is currently no cure for Yellow Fever, but it can be easily prevented through vaccination which protects the individual from acquiring the disease.
To prevent the import of the disease into Singapore, we currently require travellers coming into Singapore from Yellow Fever endemic areas to show that they have been vaccinated. The number of travellers without the required Yellow Fever vaccination has been small, at an average of 50 per year. For these people, the Infectious Diseases Act provides for my Ministry to implement isolation or surveillance measures, or require them to undergo vaccination, to mitigate the risk of importation and possible spread. Travellers who are non-citizens, may be refused entry into Singapore, if they do not comply with our measures.
While we can vaccinate and monitor small numbers of travellers, it would not be practicable to do so if the numbers increase to hundreds or even thousands, for example, if countries with high travel volume to Singapore are affected but fail to get their travellers vaccinated despite international advice. In such a circumstance, the entry of large numbers of unvaccinated travellers poses both a health and public security threat to our community. If necessary, we need to be able to protect ourselves against such threats. Clause 13 of the Bill, therefore, introduces additional flexibility to allow the refusal of entry of unvaccinated non-citizen travellers without needing to first provide vaccination, isolation or surveillance.
Vaccination verification is unique. Not all diseases are vaccine-preventable or serious enough for us to require all travellers from specific areas to show proof of vaccination. At a more general level, it is important to have measures for us to identify unwell travellers who may be potential carriers or cases of infectious diseases, to facilitate early public health measures, such as treatment or isolation. As an example, travellers arriving from countries with an ongoing risk of MERS currently undergo temperature screening on arrival.
In a similar vein, Singapore should likewise be able to take steps to prevent the export of infectious diseases through unwell travellers to other countries, should we experience a serious outbreak. This was the case during the SARS outbreak, where travellers leaving Singapore had to undergo temperature screening.
These infectious disease control measures at the borders are currently provided for under Regulation 3 of the Infectious Diseases (Measures to Prevent or Control the Spread of Infectious Diseases) Regulations 2004.
As we recognise that these are basic and important means of preventing and controlling infectious diseases, clause 15 of the Bill transfers this Regulation into the Act by inserting the new sections 45A and 45B, to allow the medical examination and surveillance of travellers entering or leaving Singapore. These help reduce the risk of the introduction and spread of infectious diseases into the community in Singapore and the international spread of diseases from Singapore.
Lastly, I will introduce the amendments to strengthen infectious disease control within Singapore.
Regulation 4 of the Infectious Diseases (Measures to Prevent or Control the Spread of Infectious Diseases) Regulations 2004 provides for MOH to require workplaces and dormitories to conduct contact tracing and surveillance for specific diseases. This is to facilitate the identification and management of infected persons or contacts, to prevent disease spread.
The threat of infectious diseases is, however, not restricted to workplaces or dormitories alone. During the SARS outbreak, MOH put in place temperature monitoring of staff and students in schools, as a form of surveillance to identify and treat any infected persons, and prevent disease spread. More recently, in 2016, the detection of a cluster of tuberculosis cases in a block of flats in Ang Mo Kio was followed by the setup of onsite screening and contact tracing services to identify any other undiagnosed cases for follow-up treatment and monitoring.
While MOH had worked collaboratively with the relevant Government agencies, such as the Ministry of Education and the Housing Development Board to institute the respective measures, the experiences surfaced the potential need for legislative levers to require persons in charge of different types of premises to put in place surveillance or contact tracing measures to mitigate the spread of infectious diseases.
Clause 7 of the Bill inserts a new section 19A to incorporate the current Regulation 4 of the Infectious Diseases (Measures to Prevent or Control the Spread of Infectious Diseases) Regulations 2004 into the Act and expands its scope to include premises beyond workplaces and dormitories.
Following the detection of infectious diseases, a person may be restricted from his occupation under section 21, if the conduct of his occupation poses a risk of spread to others. For example, food handlers tested positive for diseases that spread through food would be required to stop work. This stop-work requirement is a blanket one and does not facilitate allowing a worker to conduct other tasks, such as backend administration or cashiering that do not involve contact with food and, hence, would not spread the disease. Clause 8 of the Bill calibrates section 21 to allow persons of a lower risk of transmission to perform specific occupational activities assessed to be acceptable from the disease transmission perspective.
Likewise, clause 9 of the Bill amends section 21A to allow my Ministry to calibrate the restriction of movement placed on persons of lower risk of transmission, such as certain contacts of an infectious disease, to allow them some liberty to be at specified places, subject to conditions that would minimise the risk of disease exposure and transmission to others, instead of being disallowed in all public or common places outside of their homes. For example, a low-risk contact may be allowed to go to his or her workplace via a specified mode of transport, such as a private car, for a certain period of time.
I had spoken about the importance for my Ministry and other stakeholders to conduct surveillance and collect the necessary information to prevent disease spread. In the event of an outbreak or potential disease spread, it is also of utmost importance that we have the means to push out critical information to the public such that they may take the necessary steps to protect their health. Besides information shared through mass media, there may be instances where targeted sharing to generate awareness among specific population groups is necessary. For example, there would be value for persons travelling to or returning from a country affected by an outbreak to receive information concerning the disease and precautions to observe.
During the 2013 outbreak of H7N9 avian influenza in various parts of China, collaborative arrangements were made between my Ministry, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS), Immigration and Checkpoints Authority, Changi Airport Group and the relevant airlines, to distribute health advisory notices to travellers returning from affected areas.
Clause 10 of the Bill inserts a new section 21B, to provide the legal basis to tap on the capability, infrastructure and expertise of operators, to disseminate health advisories to persons specified in an order, such as persons travelling to or returning from overseas areas affected by an outbreak, or persons within or likely to enter any place within Singapore affected by or likely to be affected by an outbreak. This provision also provides the legal backing to operators required to disseminate information in different formats, including electronic ones. Examples of operators include mobile operators, land, air and sea transport operators providing local and cross-border services, port and transport facility operators, persons who control or manage premises and event organisers.
Section 21B also allows my Ministry to require operators to provide information of relevant persons to facilitate the dissemination of advisories. For example, if a case of measles or infectious tuberculosis is discovered on an airplane, we would need to obtain the airplane's passenger manifest, to provide passengers seated around the infectious person with information on the disease and mitigating actions to be taken.
When consulted, operators asked whether they would be in contravention of privacy laws, such as the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA). In this regard, clause 25 of the Bill inserts a new section 67A, which confers immunity against legal liability under other laws, to persons disclosing or providing any information required under the IDA, in good faith and with reasonable care in accordance with any requirement under the Act.
Even in our efforts to work with high-risk persons to prevent disease spread through necessary public health measures, a small minority may refuse to comply. For example, an infectious person served an isolation order may abscond, totally disregarding the risk to others. Section 56 currently allows such non-compliant persons to be arrested without warrant and to be punished, on conviction, with a penalty of a fine or jail term. However, an arrest does not directly mitigate the immediate public health risk of disease transmission to others.
Clause 20 of the Bill amends section 56 to allow health officers to take necessary measures, including the use of physical means, to enforce a legal order served under the Act, for example, by bringing an absconder back to the place of isolation, in lieu of arrest. It also makes explicit that persons under legal orders that restrict their movement in Singapore, would not be allowed to leave Singapore, unless otherwise permitted.
These provisions allow my Ministry to take steps to enforce the restrictions which are put in place on individuals. We are mindful that these powers should be exercised carefully and will put in place a framework for the assessment of cases, and safeguards, such as limiting the exercise of powers to specific situations, for example, where the immediate isolation of a highly infectious person is necessary.
Finally, in facilitating prevention measures and improving preparedness against infectious diseases, we will be strengthening provisions relating to the disclosure of information for the prevention of disease spread and outbreak, and national public health research.
First, the disclosure of information for prevention of disease outbreak or spread. To protect against the spread of infectious diseases, it is critical that entities responsible for carrying out disease prevention and control measures rapidly share information with one another. Currently, section 57A of the Act requires, in certain circumstances, the Minister of Health's approval for the disclosure of information on infectious disease cases, carriers or contacts, from my Ministry to third parties for the purpose of preventing disease spread. To facilitate expedient information sharing, clause 21 of the Bill amends section 57A to empower the Director of Medical Services to do so, without the Minister's approval.
To provide for the direct sharing of such information among healthcare providers, as authorised by the Director of Medical Services, clause 22 inserts a new section 57B. I give the example of infection by multi-drug resistant organisms, which can be transmitted through contact with a carrier. A carrier of such organisms may seek care from different hospitals in different regional clusters. In this case, the sharing of information among hospitals is important, so that the necessary isolation measures can be taken to prevent the transmission of the disease to other patients. Information shared may include the identifiers of the person and these should only be shared or used to the extent that allows the necessary measures to be taken to prevent disease spread.
We recognise that the use and disclosure of information should be conducted strictly on a need-to-know basis. The healthcare services to which this new provision relates, and the conditions to be adhered to by the disclosing and receiving parties, will be specified.
Second, national public health research. National public health research is an important tool to understand diseases and is necessary for the evaluation of current operations and identification of more efficient ways to manage or prevent outbreaks. Research outcomes include the development of preparedness plans and prevention and control policies, for the benefit of public health and to facilitate the optimal deployment of resources during an outbreak.
We should not be doing research only when we are close to an emergency or already in one. It is well-recognised that public health research needs to be conducted well in advance of any possible outbreak during peacetime, to ensure that Singapore's defences against any new or re-emerging infectious disease remain relevant and strong, so that we can effectively respond during an actual outbreak. Clause 23 of the Bill, therefore, clarifies that section 59A allows national public health research to be conducted even when there is no imminent risk or crisis.
Clause 23 also amends section 59A, to allow the use of information or samples obtained through other sections of the Act for research, for example, surveillance or disease notification data, as well as to facilitate the use by my Ministry and sharing of individually-identifiable information or samples with third party researchers, where research can only be carried out using identifiable information or samples, for example, in tracing the transmission pathways and patterns of spread of a rare or new disease.
We recognise the importance of protecting the confidentiality of persons and preventing potential misuse of data. I would like to assure the House that data protection remains paramount to us. In using identifiable data, we will assess that it will benefit the greater public health interests of Singapore and there are no other reasonable alternative means to conduct the research. Also, persons authorised to access identifiable data will be limited and must comply with conditions to ensure confidentiality.
There are also other amendments to the Act which facilitate its administration. These include alignment of nomenclature, firstly, for \"Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection\" and removal of \"Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS)\", a late stage subset of HIV; secondly, clarifying the responsibility of the Minister for Health and the Minister responsible for health and sanitary measures in relation to vessels, aircraft, vehicles and persons entering or leaving Singapore; thirdly, enabling the seizure of books, documents or records for investigation of offences, and the disposal of seized items; and lastly, the adoption of standard provisions on how liability for offences by corporations and other types of entities is to be determined.
As I come to the close of my speech, let me once again highlight my Ministry’s commitment to continue building on the good work which had been put into developing Singapore’s capabilities to prevent and control infectious diseases.
Last year, Singapore was evaluated by the World Health Organization (WHO) on our capabilities in health security as stipulated through WHO's International Health Regulations. I am happy to share that Singapore was assessed, and I quote, to \"[have] demonstrated strong leadership and a highly developed capacity to detect and respond to potential public health emergencies\".
My Ministry recognises that we must not and cannot afford to be complacent. The IDA is an important legal instrument that enables Singapore to prevent, protect against, control and respond to the spread of infectious diseases. This round of amendments to the Act was proposed following a detailed review of our existing levers and approaches.
The proposed amendments are intended to achieve two key objectives. First, to strengthen the Act based on the current infectious disease landscape and our operational experience. Second, to put in place risk-stratified approaches in managing outbreaks, and infected and at-risk persons, given our improved understanding of disease spread.
To sum up, the Infectious Diseases (Amendment) Bill is premised on the need to remain continually vigilant and maintain a high degree of preparedness against evolving infectious diseases. I ask for the support of all Members for this Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Chia Shi-Lu.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I was born in the 1970s, when advances in antimicrobial therapy and vaccination were so blindingly impressive that they led many experts to foretell the end of infectious diseases and epidemics as health threats. How wrong they were.
Although here in Singapore we remain rightly focused on the control of chronic diseases, such as diabetes, as they pose the greatest burden on our ageing population, we must never let our guard down on the threat that infectious diseases pose to a small, densely-populated country like ours. The spectre of SARS, barely 15 years ago, remains fresh in many of our minds, and since then, many serious epidemics have occurred in many parts of the world, often spreading with frightening speed, both within the affected country and beyond its borders.
WHO has published guidelines on how disease epidemics should be managed, but certainly, a key focus for any society would be, first, to prevent the spread of disease into the country, and, of course, later, following a disease outbreak, on how to contain its spread both within the country and beyond its borders. The amendments to this Bill are, therefore, timely as they seek to strengthen powers directed towards both epidemic prevention and containment.
As the Senior Minister of State has just pointed out, presently, non-citizen visitors to Singapore travelling from a location with active transmission of a serious communicable disease, such as Yellow Fever, and who are unvaccinated and thus potential carriers of the disease, cannot be refused entry without first offering them monitoring, disease prophylaxis or isolation. I agree with the Ministry that this can be impractical, particularly if the numbers of visitors arriving are large, and many countries already reserve the right to turn away unvaccinated travellers.
I would like to ask the Minister to clarify whether these new powers also apply to emerging infectious diseases of a serious nature, for which perhaps there may be no known preventive or therapeutic measure. If one recalls the Ebola outbreaks in the not too distant past, we debated the measures that were available to safeguard Singapore by controlling the entry of travellers from the affected countries. This had to be achieved via a rather circuitous route whereby travellers from countries with active and significant Ebola transmission had to obtain a temporary entry visa before travelling into Singapore. The new sections 45A and 45B refer to monitoring activities. But what if there is no accurate or practical means of screening travellers from hot zones?
Second, the amended section 21 now allows for risk stratification of disease cases and carriers, so that they may perform limited vocational duties, or make limited travel outside their homes. For cases and carriers, I would like to ask what is the mechanism by which they can appeal for or against that particular risk classification.
Finally, I also welcome the amendments which facilitate infectious disease, public health research even when there is no imminent danger of an infectious disease crisis. I would like to ask the Ministry to clarify what is the precise mechanism through which a decision is made to allow such public health research in normal times, whereby, for example, clinical samples may need to be sent to third party collaborators or laboratories, or when research on individually-identifiable specimens can be conducted. What is the process of review and who are the entities that conduct such a review? I look forward to the Minister's clarifications on these points and support the amendments to the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. Millions of tourists pass through our shores by air, land and sea. Hence, we need to take steps to closely monitor and implement measures on how infectious diseases can be controlled to protect the health of our local population.
I note that there are various requirements for doctors and those who run laboratories carrying out various medical tests to report to MOH when infectious diseases are detected. I think what we need to look into is how the frontline staff at the clinics and laboratory technicians are protected. What training is given to them to keep them abreast of preventive measures to be taken?
This is the group that is vulnerable and they can be a source for spread of infectious diseases if they are not properly trained and protected. Also, we have seen from the outbreak of SARS how the frontline medical staff at the Government hospitals fell victim.
While we know the Government healthcare institutions are very vigilant and they conduct regular disease outbreak exercises to prepare their staff for such eventualities, unfortunately, I am not sure whether the same is true for non-Government hospitals and medical centres. What is the MOH doing to ensure that their frontline staff also receive adequate protection? How stringent are checks at privately-run clinical laboratories to ensure that the technicians and all those working there observe the necessary safety rules? How often does MOH conduct audits of these laboratories where they handle blood, urine and other samples?
Secondly, I note that the Government healthcare institutions offer free vaccinations for their medical staff against infectious diseases, such as seasonal flu. Will the Government make this mandatory for all hospital staff so that they do not become carriers because of the nature of their work in the hospital setting? I believe, at present, it is not compulsory for all the staff, especially non-medical staff, like the receptionists, cleaners and so forth.
Next, I would like to ask the Minister what is the process in place if someone has visited a person or patient who is suffering from an infectious disease while overseas? Is this person required to declare upon embarking in Singapore? Is there not a risk that this person could become a carrier though he or she may not have symptoms until after the gestation period? Is there any public education that MOH will carry out to warn Singaporeans and others who travel abroad to visit a sick person?
I believe, in the setting of a public healthcare institution, staff are reminded if they return from, say, the Middle East, and have fever, they should report to the infectious disease control clinic for a check. But what about those in private healthcare? What about those who are not even in a healthcare setting? How do we help educate them about their social responsibility towards the community?
I am pleased to note that MOH, under a new section 21B, the Minister can seek the assistance of mobile operators as well as various transport operators to disseminate health advisories. I feel that MOH may also tap on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' (MFA's) website and app to disseminate such health measures to be taken for Singaporeans who register with MFA before they travel abroad, especially to high health-risk countries.
I note that section 31 allows the Port Health Officer to return a person, who is not a Singapore citizen, who arrives in Singapore without having undergone a vaccination or prophylaxis. May I also ask what is the process in place for an aircraft to be disinfected if a passenger travelling on board is found to suffer from a highly infectious disease? For that matter, on the ground, what about the taxi that transports the person to the hospital? I am also concerned about how taxi drivers are protected against infectious diseases, especially against the avian flu.
I would also like to raise this point about the plastic trays used at airport checkpoints around the globe and touched by millions of passengers as they drop shoes, laptops, luggage and other items to clear X-ray scanners. In September this year, there were reports pointing out that studies have found that these trays carry a variety of germs, including the ones responsible for the common cold, according to researchers in Europe.
Scientists from the University of Nottingham in England and the Finnish National Institute for Health and Welfare swabbed frequently touched surfaces at Helsinki Airport in Finland during and after peak hours in the winter of 2016 and picked up traces of rhinovirus, the source of the common cold, and of the influenza A virus, reported the New York Times article. Did MOH do any such audit of the trays at our airport and other checkpoints?
It is important for us to remember that the spread of infectious diseases is not to be taken lightly and there must not be any compromise in this regard. It is unfortunate that while modern medicine has eradicated many diseases, new ones are evolving and these are, at times, even more lethal. We need to reboot our vigilance and go back to basics and remind everyone, children to adults, such good habit as the importance of keeping our hands clean every time, all the time. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The spread of infectious diseases cannot be underestimated. Hence, I fully support this amendment. I have a few clarifications.
First, in public hospitals, measures to prevent infectious diseases are very stringent. I would like to know how MOH ensures that private hospitals and laboratories also comply with the same stringent steps.
Second, doctors and nurses can enjoy free vaccinations against common infectious diseases. Do other staff from the hospital, such as the canteen staff and cleaners, enjoy the same benefits as well?
Third, for infectious diseases from overseas, MOH will make use of mobile phones and transport operators’ network to inform our people. This is a good move. I hope that MOH can educate more Singaporeans.
Although it is good that patients with infectious diseases can be deported, the various places he has been in contact with, such as the aircraft cabin, the security screen trays and the taxis, should also be disinfected accordingly to prevent the spread of viruses. How shall we do it? Are our taxi drivers properly protected?
(In English): Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Irene Quay.
Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the amendment of the Infectious Diseases (Amendment) Bill.
First of all, I would like to declare my interest as the President of the Pharmaceutical Society of Singapore. I understand that the recently amended Bill has been focused on strengthening contact tracing, surveillance, communication and the disclosure of information for infectious diseases.
However, it is to my surprise that there is not much mention regarding the legalisation to curb the global and national issue of antibiotic resistance. To provide some background information, antibiotic or antimicrobial resistance occurs when microbials or micro-organisms, such as bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites, change in ways that render the medications used to cure the infections they cause ineffective. When the micro-organisms become resistant to most antimicrobials, they are often referred to as \"superbugs\".
This resistance occurs naturally but is facilitated by the inappropriate use of medicines, for example, using antibiotics for viral infections, such as cold or flu, sharing antibiotics or excessive inappropriate use of antibiotics in animals. I shall henceforth refer to antimicrobial resistance as AMR.
On 30 March 2017, a new Bill 1840 was brought before the United States (US) Congress to provide tax incentives to \"reinvigorate\" antibiotic research due to the grave nature of AMR. The growing resistance of human infections to antimicrobial agents has emerged as one of the most pressing health problems in Singapore and the world. I understand that the National Research Foundation (NRF) announced the launch of a new Antimicrobial Resistance Interdisciplinary Research Group in January 2018 in conjunction with the Singapore National Strategic Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance, hopefully, to better understand how microbial resistance happens and to develop new antibiotics to curb these \"superbugs\".
A study from the Singapore-Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Alliance for Research and Technology shows that AMR currently results in about 700,000 deaths per year worldwide, with recent studies predicting an increase to 10 million deaths per year by 2050, outpacing the mortality of cancer. The economic burden will follow a similar trend as a result. In the US alone, \"AMR bacteria infect two million people every year at a healthcare cost of S$27 billion. On a global scale, AMR is predicted to cost up to S$130 trillion by 2050.\" These statistics are very distressing and not at all encouraging.
According to a WHO report, only 11 antibiotics in clinical development could address pathogens considered critical threats, and three in four of the antibiotics under development belong to existing classes of antibiotics, against which microbials resistance has already been observed or could easily develop, due to the innovative nature of these \"superbugs\" in evading our current controls.
So, at this rate, the world, including Singapore, will run out of antibiotics before long, and we might possibly go back to the era where even simple skin infections or urinary tract infections could kill us. The severity of this threat should not be underestimated, and I urge that we deal with this issue critically and swiftly.
Tackling the AMR problem would require a multi-pronged and multifaceted approach. I acknowledge with relief that MOH has set up the National Strategic Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance, engaging various Ministries and agencies, such as the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA), National Environment Agency, Public Utilities Board and so on, to evaluate various core strategies from public and healthcare professional education, surveillance and risk assessment, research, prevention and control of infection to the optimisation of antimicrobial use, and I applaud MOH for their tremendous effort in tackling this pressing threat.
While a lot of surveillance and engagement work has been focused on hospitals since 2009, much more salient efforts have to be applied to get to the root of the problem. This includes how we can further enhance our AMR surveillance to grasp the utilisation rate of diagnostic toolkits which can be used to differentiate viral and bacterial infections, as well as where and how much antibiotics are being sold, prescribed and dispensed in each hospital, general practitioner clinic, retail pharmacy and for animal use. It is then necessary to extract such detailed information and apply data analysis or audits to identify specific abusive users and establish a feedback mechanism for better accountability.
As such, I would like to propose measures that are imperative in resolving and lessening the impact of AMR in Singapore. Currently, we have systems in public hospitals to curb the misuse and overuse of antibiotics, but we will require a similar framework in the community where 80% of the primary healthcare is provided by private practices.
I would, therefore, like to advocate an AMR taskforce to discuss and recommend strategies to ensure appropriate use of antibiotics in a community setting, such as the reviewing and streamlining of an antibiotics formulary available for perusal within the community and exploring prescribing-dispensing separations, where possible.
It is also essential to urgently come up with clinical practice guidelines on the use of antibiotics, the appropriate course duration of use, as well as the conducting of audits on the appropriateness of antibiotics utilisation, especially for broad spectrum antibiotics like quinolones, in the community setting.
Educational programmes for healthcare providers in the United Kingdom (UK) have shown considerable effectiveness in reducing the prescription of antibiotics in primary care, and maybe similar programmes should be enacted in Singapore.
Flu vaccinations are currently claimable by MediSave for specific population groups. This coverage should be extended nationwide and offered at a subsidised rate to our Pioneer Generation under the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS). Flu vaccinations should also be introduced into the national childhood immunisation programme to ensure that school children benefit from this and, at the same time, increasing the overall national take-up rate.
A 2017 systematic review published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health looked at studies that calculated the return on investment for public health interventions. The researchers identified 52 studies that looked at interventions at local and national levels. Health protection interventions, which would include vaccinations that match the actual influenza type, have saved $34 for every $1 spent on them, according to the review. Such a high return occurs because of all the disease and death prevented.
In light of this review, a national public awareness programme should be incepted to educate the general public on the potential side effects and infections from the uninformed use of antibiotics. Citizens should be warned to refrain from asking for antibiotic prescriptions from their doctors. I understand that the Health Promotion Board (HPB) is already working on this, but more aggressive and intense public education campaigns must be carried out to raise urgent attention.
Clostridium difficile, a bacterium which infects the bowels and causes diarrhoea, is one such example of an infection usually related to antibiotic use, particularly in hospitals. It has been responsible for an estimated 14,000 deaths annually in the US. Other potentially deadly side effects due to drug allergies include anaphylaxis, a life-threatening allergic reaction, or fatal skin reactions like the Stevens Johnson Syndrome (SJS) and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN), fungal infections which lead to severe itching from vaginal yeast infections or burning mouth sores from oral thrush, and antibiotics-associated diarrhoea.
There is a compelling need to empower patients to speak up and discuss risks versus benefits of imbibing antibiotics with their doctors to help them take ownership of their own health. Emphasis on the importance of hand hygiene and infection preventive measures in the community should not be understated. Similarly, the importance of flu vaccination and the fact that getting vaccinated protects loved ones around you, such as those more vulnerable to serious flu illnesses like babies and young children, as well as older people and people with certain chronic health conditions. This is possible through the vaccine herd effect or herd immunity, which makes a disease hard to spread because there are very few people who are susceptible.
To facilitate these actions, the use of rapid diagnostic health devices should be promoted and distributed widely at a highly subsidised rate. This will make it more cost-effective to use these devices compared to paying for a course of antibiotics.
AMR is a major worldwide complication that has persisted and will continue to persist. It is something that we simply cannot afford to disregard in the slightest if we are not to invite disastrous consequences.
It requires the synergistic coordination and collaboration of everyone in Singapore to combat and safeguard against. The cooperation of citizens, operators, healthcare professionals, diagnostic and pharmaceutical industries, educators, researchers, various Government Ministries and policymakers should be sought out in order to fend off this dire situation.
Globally, many countries struggle with this deplorable predicament. I firmly believe that Singapore, being a country of first-world infrastructure and data management, armed with capabilities of a Smart nation, can and should employ data analytics and her pool of highly educated citizens to weather this storm. I am certain that we can proclaim to the world that it is, indeed, possible to come out on top and rein in AMR. Notwithstanding my proposal and concerns above, I stand to support the amendment Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Prof Fatimah Lateef.
Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Sir, let me, first, declare my interest as a frontline medical specialist who is involved in decision-making and also management of patients with infectious diseases.
The Infectious Diseases Bill was first enacted in 1977 and last amended in 2008. Thus, indeed, it is timely to have it updated and reviewed, looking also at the current state of affairs of the world with the spectrum of new, emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases. In doing this, Singapore must continue to stand guided by global bodies, such as WHO and the Communicable Diseases Centre (CDC). I have a few clarifications for the Minister.
One, in light of an infectious disease outbreak or suspected outbreak in Singapore, what is the chain of command that we practise? At the institution level, all our restructured hospitals have got an action plan and also a response plan. Do we also wait for MOH, WHO and CDC advisories? What is the coordination like on a bigger scale at the global or even regional levels? Is there a direct chain of communications and correspondence for Singapore that has been established?
Second, in the event of cross-border outbreak or spread, how and what will be our model of working and communications with our closest neighbours, for example, Malaysia? Do the environmental and health organisations of both countries have a modus operandi in place?
Third, temperature scanners these days are not commonly seen at our borders as compared to the period during the SARS outbreak. Does this mean that we rely entirely on people and travellers declaring that they are ill at our points of entry? Can the Minister please just comment on this as well?
Fourth, in dealing with infectious diseases and notification, there is a need to report particulars and details. Thus, disclosures and consent become compulsory and are given significant weightage. In this day and age of the PDPA and handling information and particulars with utmost confidentiality, we will definitely have to strike a balance between this and upholding public health policies and principles. Therefore, would MOH be embarking on more public awareness and education programmes to help the frontline medical personnel when we are having issues with outbreaks and handling infectious diseases, including antibiotic resistance as well? I notice that HPB has already started an educational campaign on that matter.
Fifth, what about persons on flights enroute to Singapore who are suspected or are diagnosed with certain infectious diseases? What is our framework with CAAS and also other airlines? How fast can contact tracing and ringfencing be done? And this is critical because our borders are really very open these days. With these clarifications, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. As mentioned by the hon Members of Parliament who spoke before me, in particular, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Singapore is an international travel hub. About 7,200 flights land or depart from Changi Airport each week. As at November last year, approximately 60 million passengers passed through Changi Airport in 2018. These travellers come from all over the world.
Greater travel connectivity and movement of people come with the attendant risk of the spread of diseases, something that the hon Senior Minister of State Dr Lam Pin Min highlighted. These proposed amendments to the IDA allow the Government to enhance infectious disease surveillance and equip us to better prevent the spread of infectious diseases both within Singapore and from outside Singapore into Singapore.
I would like to commend the Ministry for its efforts to consult stakeholders over a six-week period before finalising the Bill which is before Parliament today. I seek two clarifications on two areas.
Section 21 of the Act is proposed to be amended to allow the Government to take a more calibrated approach to address the risk of the spread of infectious diseases by persons who are carrying infectious diseases.
Instead of a blanket ban against carrying on any occupation, trade or business, which is presently the case, the amendments allow the authorities to make an assessment of the extent of risk in the circumstances, and make appropriate orders as necessary to prevent the transmission of infectious diseases, which may not need to be a complete cessation of trade or business. And the learned Senior Minister of State mentioned food handlers as an example. This calibrated approach will be less disruptive to businesses and traders. I welcome it.
The amendments, however, do not provide direct assistance to a person who has been ordered by the Director to cease business to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. To illustrate, if a person is a carrier of an infectious disease, such as dengue or measles, is afflicted and he is asked to be quarantined, for certain occupations, such as self-employed persons like taxi drivers, they may still have to honour their contractual arrangements with their counterparties, for example, the taxi companies, for the period they should be quarantined, so that they will not infect their passengers. It is commonly provided in agreements between taxi companies and their drivers that they have to pay rent for the hire of the taxi if they have a medical certificate (MC) for longer than a defined period, for example, seven days. This creates a potential conundrum for the self-employed person who may be caught between a rock and a hard place. If they abide by the Director's orders, they may be exposed to liability vis-a-vis the counterparties.
This is not a theoretical musing. I met a gentleman at a funeral wake of his relative. He related to me that he was given 14 days' MC for his infectious disease. However, he was required to pay rent after an initial seven-day period. He was unable to secure cover because of the suddenness of the situation. He had no choice but to pay rent even though he was quarantined at home on his doctor's orders.
In contrast, section 20 of the UK Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, provides for local authorities to, by notice in writing, request any person to discontinue work. And, in such instances, the local authorities may have to compensate the person if he has suffered any loss in complying with such a request. Section 20 of the UK Act has since been repealed and replaced with regulation 8 of the UK Health Protection (Local Authority Powers) Regulations 2010 which continues to enable the local authorities to offer compensation.
Apart from a written request in writing to stop work, section 45H of the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act also allows for local authorities to apply to a Justice of the Peace for an order to impose restrictions or requirements to protect human health. The order made may order the payment of compensation or expenses in connection with the taking of measures pursuant to the order.
The point is that the UK provisions contemplate the authorities giving compensation where a worker's work or trade has been affected by a measure taken in protection of public health, such a stop-work order.
In Singapore, we do not have that, which means that the risks may lie entirely with the trader or worker concerned. Even if we do not go so far as to compensate people in respect of stop-work directions given, perhaps we can at least consider having a statutory basis for people to be relieved or held harmless from liability for their contractual business or trade obligations for the period that they are directed by the Director to do an act which renders them unable to perform their work obligations.
Next, section 6 of the Act is proposed to be amended to require certain persons who are aware or suspects that another person is suffering from, or is a carrier of, a prescribed infectious disease, to notify the Director of Medical Services of those facts. The section previously made reference to \"infectious disease\", which is specified in the First Schedule of the Act, instead of \"prescribed infectious disease\". The amendments also provide that what amounts to \"prescribed infectious disease\" will be set out in Regulations.
Given that the Act already spells out what amounts to infectious disease in the First Schedule, and also separately spells out what is dangerous infectious disease in the Second Schedule, may I please ask what will be covered under the new defined term of \"prescribed infectious disease\"?
How will the list of prescribed infectious disease be drawn up? Will there be any interplay between the infectious diseases set out in the First Schedule and the list of prescribed infectious diseases? Or is it contemplated that the application of the prescribed infectious diseases list is only in respect of section 6 of the Act, since no other sections of the Act refers to prescribed infectious diseases?
Sir, before I sit down, I would like to make reference to a point made by the learned Senior Minister of State. He mentioned that MOH received plaudits from WHO for its ability to successfully detect and prevent the spread of infectious diseases. This is a hard-earned reputation and, frankly, whatever we pass today in the House, it is the capability of MOH and its professionals that would make a decisive difference in the fight against the spread of infectious diseases. And in that regard, we should never forget the heroes, such as Nurse Hamidah Ismail and Dr Alex Chao, who lost their lives in helping Singaporeans during the SARS incident, and they always would deserve our eternal debt of gratitude. Thank you.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of this Bill that will increase our responsiveness to infectious diseases. The most effective responses to infectious diseases are steps that are taken pre-emptively to curb the risk of any emerging threats.
The Bill provides the stakeholders with the necessary powers to respond ahead of time of any outbreaks, and quickly, should an outbreak actually occur. However, I also believe that all powers should be accompanied by checks and balances and I would like to seek some clarifications on the broad powers the Bill provides.
Under section 21(1), the Director may give directions to any individual to cease or to change how they carry out any occupation, trade or business. I note that section 21(2)(a) states that the Director will specify the \"period of time\" that the individual will have to cease their occupation, trade or business. Can the Minister confirm that the Director will not have the blanket power to order a person to cease their occupation, trade or business for an indefinite period? Will the decision be made by just one person or a committee?
Will it be subject to time limits? For instance, section 17A, which allows the Minister to declare a public health emergency and designate restricted zones, is subject to a 14-day time limit. There is no similar time limit for the Director’s powers under section 21(1). Can the Minister confirm whether any time period specified will at least be limited by the requirement of reasonableness? Can the Minister also provide the assurance that reasonable periods, subject to regular reviews, will be preferred over long bans?
Next, under section 57B(1), a healthcare provider may disclose information identifying a person as an individual affected or suspected to be affected by an infectious disease. The healthcare provider must be authorised by the Director to do so. Can the Minister clarify whether the affected person will be notified of the disclosure? Under section 57B(3) the specified recipient of information may further disclose that information to another person providing a prescribed healthcare service. The disclosure is only to the extent necessary to prevent the spread or outbreak of the infectious disease.
Can the Minister elaborate on whether the extent necessary is at the sole judgement of the specified recipient, and whether the Director's authorisation or affected person’s consent would be required?
Section 57B(6) defines \"healthcare provider\" and \"specified recipient\" as any person that provides a prescribed healthcare service which will be prescribed in subsequent regulations. Can the Minister share in advance the scope of healthcare services that may be prescribed and whether a \"healthcare provider\" would be limited to medical practitioners registered under the Medical Registration Act?
In addition to section 57B, section 59A(5A) also allows individually-identifiable information to be disclosed for the purpose of national public health research. There are no express provisions for both section 57B and section 59A on safeguards that may be imposed on the recipient of such information. Rather, section 57B(2) and section 59A(5)(c) allow the Director to impose conditions. I assume that these conditions will require the recipient of the information to take steps to prevent further disclosure. Will the subsidiary legislation or guidelines further elaborate on the safeguards that recipients must put in place?
Lastly, I would like to commend MOH on the six-week public consultation that was conducted in mid-2018 on the proposed amendments to the IDA. However, unlike the draft Healthcare Services Bill, there was no direct response from the Ministry to the public consultation feedback. Can the Minister share the key feedback that was received on the proposed amendments, and whether any of the responses were accepted by the Ministry in drafting this final Bill? Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":"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.\" – [Mr Chan Chun Sing.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Infectious Diseases (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I fully support the proposed amendments to improve on how we deal with infectious diseases, including better surveillance and control of such diseases, and measures to prevent their introduction into our island.
One of the proposals is the discretion to turn back unvaccinated travellers. Currently, we would have to, first, offer this group vaccination, surveillance or isolation before turning them away if they refuse. In the event of a sudden influx of visitors from places with ongoing outbreaks, the new legislative framework would help to reduce the risk of exposure to our people and avert the problem of capacity. Hence, I fully agree with the Ministry’s recommendation.
I would like to seek clarifications regarding proof of vaccination from such visitors. Are the vaccination certificates presented when they arrive in Singapore or at the point of embarkation? I think it is a safer arrangement for us to have pre-emptive arrangements with foreign ports to require travellers present proof before they depart for Singapore. This would enable us to screen out potential disease carriers and prevent their contact with other travellers coming here and our immigration staff. This is much better than allowing them to make the journey here and, subsequently, turning them away.
My second question is that if the vaccination certificates were presented before they board the transport vehicles, do our officers check and verify these documents again when they arrive in Singapore?
Travel, particularly air travel, continues to grow rapidly around the world. This means that a potentially dangerous pathogen could spread globally within days. Singapore is a busy aviation hub. Changi Airport has about 60 million passengers passing through it each year. It is of paramount importance that we manage our exposure risks with best practices and technologies available.
Yet, the precautionary screening measures we have at our airports, ferry terminals and other checkpoints seem minimal and easy to get around. For example, medication can lower body temperatures and thus render infrared cameras less effective. Another major challenge is that carriers may not be aware of their illnesses nor have symptoms.
I would like to ask if the Minister could elaborate on the measures to boost the detection of infectious diseases at our entry points. For example, will we be tapping on new devices and technologies, such as big data and artificial intelligence? I understand that there is a German research project, HyFly, underway to prevent airports from being gateways for infection. One of the tools being developed will detect respiratory diseases using ion mobility spectrometry. Do we have any such local research initiatives?
Another key amendment is the legislative requirement for mobile and transport operators and persons in charge of premises to disseminate health advisories as part of prevention of disease transmission. May I ask if the Ministry will have the discretion to direct the mode and format of communication? How much control will the Ministry have over the channels and platforms used, such as the printed materials, television, radio, the Internet and social media? There should be some form of monitoring to ensure the integrity and quality of the health advisory delivery. The information should be provided in our four official languages and even some foreign languages, wherever possible. Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Another important amendment is to empower our health officials to use other means, in addition to arrest, to restrict the movement of high-risk persons. Some of them may have already been infected. Others may have been exposed to infected persons. For some non-compliant individuals and their families, such restraints on their movements, especially when they have not shown syndromes, can be very frustrating, even unpleasant, and emotions can run high.
To pre-empt and counter such reactions, I would like to suggest that we include such scenarios as part of our emergency preparedness and public education. Regular public advisories to inform and educate all residents of the necessary measures for such crises will help prepare them mentally. People need time to adjust and accept difficult measures psychologically.
(In English): Another important amendment is to empower our health officers to use other means, in addition to arrest, to restrict the movement of high-risk persons. Some of these may have come down with the infections, others may have been exposed to infected persons. For some non-compliant individuals and their families, such restraints on their movements, especially when they have not shown symptoms, can be very frustrating. The entire experience is expectedly inconvenient, even unpleasant, and emotions can run high.
To pre-empt and counter such reactions, I would like to suggest that we include such scenarios as part of our emergency preparedness and public education. Regular public advisories to inform and educate all residents of the necessary measures for such crises will help prepare them mentally. People need time to adjust and accept difficult measures psychologically.
All these preparedness measures will better equip Singapore for health crises and keep us safe.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. Singapore is an open and connected country, and we receive well over 17 million visitors a year. While our openness has benefited the economy, a tradeoff that we accept is that it puts us at an increased risk of suffering from infectious diseases that may be carried over from other countries. Many Members of this House and, indeed. many Singaporeans, would remember the SARS outbreak in 2003, and how we narrowly escaped MERS in 2012. The review of the IDA is thus timely, but I have some clarifications on the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill provides the Director of Medical Services broad and sweeping powers to require persons, whether entering, staying within, or leaving Singapore, to undergo a medical examination. The Bill also allows for a person to be subjected to medical examinations over a period of time and be placed under medical surveillance. While I fully agree that this is necessary and critical in the event of an infectious disease outbreak, there needs to be a safeguard in place to ensure that this power does not go unchecked. Could the Minister clarify if there are, or would be, any safeguards in place, or if there is a maximum number of consecutive days that a person can be subjected to medical surveillance?
The Director of Medical Services is also allowed to direct persons involved in professions that are deemed to likely cause the spread of any infectious diseases to stop carrying on with their occupation, trade or business. This is similarly a directive that would affect business continuity as well as workers’ livelihood. Could the Ministry consider specifying a maximum period of days for such a stop-work order, so that businesses can take this into account as part of their emergency preparedness plans? Such orders can be reviewed and a new order could be reissued if the situation still warrants it.
With freelancers and workers in the gig economy not covered by hospitalisation leave offered by employers, there is a large possibility of a loss of income following such directives. Can the Ministry consider setting up a fund that would help mitigate such an impact for this group of workers?
Mr Deputy Speaker, when an infectious disease pandemic is in full swing, many of our available resources will be stretched to the utmost limits. We experienced this during the SARS outbreak. To better aid the appointed health officers, some of whom would have to perform contact tracing, I would like to suggest establishing a pool of volunteer Health Officers. Let me elaborate.
Organisations can be large and have multiple worksites. It can, therefore, be challenging and time consuming for a Health Officer to perform contact tracing without some forthcoming help. Also, the number of Health Officers that we have is limited. I would, therefore, like the Ministry to consider establishing a volunteer Health Officer scheme. The desired outcome is for every large organisation to have an appointed volunteer Health Officer, who can aid a Health Officer in contact tracing as well as help to disseminate health advisories in the event of a crisis. This pool of volunteer Health Officers should be provided with adequate training to ensure they have the required skills to perform proper contact tracing and assist our Health Officers.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the amendments proposed to section 59A allows for the use of individually-identifiable information or human samples for the purposes of national public health research. It is important that we put in place rigorous safeguards for the use and disclosure of such data to protect the privacy and confidentiality of individuals. What safeguards will the Ministry put in place, and how will the Ministry ensure that third-party researchers adhere to these rules?
I will conclude by saying that, due to the nature of our economy, Singapore will always be at risk of infectious diseases carried from other countries. The amendments proposed are useful and timely in helping to enhance surveillance and prevent the introduction and spread of infectious diseases within our shores. However, we need to ensure that while we fight against the spread of infectious diseases, we do not inevitably cause irreversible disruptions to everyday life. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Lam Pin Min.
Dr Lam Pin Min: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. Infectious pathogens and the environment in which we operate can and will change. We must not be complacent. The proposed amendments to the IDA are to ensure that our legislative tools remain relevant and allow Singapore to adequately respond to both current and future infectious diseases threats.
I would like to emphasise that the intent of the Bill and its amendments are for public health protection. My Ministry has put in place safeguards to ensure that use of the powers under the Act is commensurate with the public health concerns to be addressed.
Members have sought clarifications on the proposed amendments and some of our operational measures. I will take the House through accordingly.
I thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for her comments on the need to educate the community on infectious disease threats to generate awareness and a greater sense of social responsibility. Everyone has a part to play in preventing and controlling infectious diseases, and it is important to provide people with information to allow them to do so.
My Ministry has initiatives to reach out to both the general population and specific groups. For example, the HPB's \"FIGHT the Spread of Infectious Diseases\" campaign encourages the public to practise good hygiene measures, such as frequent hand washing and keeping up to date with immunisations. For childcare centres, we have developed the Infection Control Guidelines for Schools and Child Care Centres on recommended practices to reduce disease spread among staff and students.
Sometimes, during an outbreak, there is a need to inform specific groups of persons about how to protect themselves, the symptoms to look out for and when to seek medical help, in an effective and targeted manner. For example, during the 2013 Avian influenza outbreak in parts of China, my Ministry worked with the Changi Airport Group and airlines with flights arriving from affected areas, to disseminate health advisory notices to their passengers. I thank the airlines for their cooperation.
As Ms Joan Pereira indicated, beyond cooperative arrangements, situations may arise where we would need to rapidly engage operators to effectively reach out to target populations. Clause 10, in inserting section 21B, enables my Ministry to do so. For example, an airline is in a good position to distribute information, in the appropriate languages, to its passengers travelling to, or returning from, an outbreak area. Likewise, a mobile phone service operator may be able to quickly send information to its subscribers travelling in an affected country.
I thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for her suggestion to tap on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' (MFA's) platform to communicate information to travellers to high-risk destinations. We will study it, together with MFA.
However, we need to push out information to persons in a convenient way, for example, without requiring them to take special actions, such as opting into a service or downloading an app. My Ministry will formulate the content and messaging and coordinate with operators on the most appropriate form of dissemination.
Prof Fatimah Lateef, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Ms Joan Pereira commented on measures at the borders to prevent the introduction of infectious diseases. I will first address the comments on declaration of one's health status and travel history after visiting a high-risk area.
While my Ministry has taken measures to raise awareness and seek cooperation, we also recognise that awareness levels may differ and not everyone may exercise personal responsibility in measures, such as self-declaration. We must have the powers and capabilities to detect infectious diseases at our borders when needed. Clause 15, in transferring the subsidiary regulation that allows for the medical examination of persons entering Singapore to section 45A of the Act, strengthens the ability of my Ministry to prevent the import of infectious diseases.
However, it is not practical nor feasible to screen everyone for all diseases. Infectious diseases vary in severity and how easily they spread. To efficiently allocate resources and avoid unnecessary burden to travellers, my Ministry conducts risk assessments, taking into account infectious disease developments around the world and international practices, prior to adopting technology and implementing surveillance measures. For example, temperature screening at the airport is currently limited to flights from countries in the Middle East at risk of MERS transmission. Screening is done at the aerobridge to target at-risks persons and minimise inconvenience to others.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked whether section 31 of the Bill applies to emerging infectious diseases with no preventive or therapeutic measures. I wish to clarify that section 31 only applies to diseases that have vaccination or prophylaxis, such as Yellow Fever. It allows my Ministry to mitigate the risks presented by persons who arrive in Singapore without having undergone such vaccinations or prophylaxis. Refusing entry to all travellers from a country with an outbreak of a specific disease will need to be in line with our laws and international obligations.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu also said that there may not be established surveillance measures for certain diseases. I agree. Border surveillance does not pick up persons with infectious diseases during the incubation period. That is why we advise persons who have travelled to high-risk areas to seek medical attention should they develop symptoms. Our healthcare professionals in primary care clinics and emergency departments are very much on the frontline and need to be vigilant in picking up imported cases.
Prof Fatimah Lateef sought clarification on our coordination structures during outbreaks, both domestically and internationally. Infectious diseases do not respect borders. My Ministry taps on the International Health Regulations' National Focal Point network to communicate with WHO and other countries. All countries are required to have a National Focal Point accessible at all times to share information. My Ministry has also established links with WHO, our counterpart agencies and international experts, to obtain and share information early.
While we take reference from the recommendations of international bodies and respected public health authorities, we must also have our own framework to monitor and identify risks to Singapore and calibrate our responses. My Ministry performs horizon scanning of disease situations around the world, and assesses the risk to Singapore, based on public health principles. This is especially important in time-sensitive situations where we need to act while pending, for example, WHO's advice.
Locally, my Ministry maintains a close working relationship with other Ministries, Government agencies and stakeholders. The Homefront Crisis Management System allows us to harness the expertise across agencies and coordinate preparedness and responses to crises, including infectious disease threats. To ensure that preparedness plans are continually strengthened, regular joint exercises and reviews are conducted.
Let me address Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Prof Fatimah Lateef's questions on the management of infectious persons on board flights, and disinfection.
My Ministry has channels of communication with our land, air and sea checkpoints through the Immigration and Checkpoints, Civil Aviation and Maritime and Port authorities. In the event of a severely ill passenger suspected of having an infectious disease, there are arrangements in place between these authorities and my Ministry that cover the medical assessment, conveyance and management of the ill passenger, as well as the handling of other passengers and the vessel itself.
Airlines are guided by international standards provided by the International Civil Aviation Organization, the International Air Transport Association and WHO on routine cleaning and standard disinfection procedures for aircrafts. These procedures apply while investigations are underway for a suspected case. Upon confirmation of a serious disease which may require additional disinfection procedures, the IDA provides the powers for my Ministry and the National Environment Agency to require them to be carried out. Likewise, these powers are applicable to other types of vehicles.
I thank Ms Joan Pereira for her suggestion to verify Yellow Fever vaccination at the point of embarkation. My Ministry is working with CAAS and the airline association to examine how we can better educate travellers from affected countries on the need for Yellow Fever vaccination. Airlines have the burden of bringing travellers who are denied entry back to the country of embarkation, so they have a strong incentive to remind and verify that travellers have been vaccinated.
I thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for recognising the importance of mitigating the risk of infection for our hardworking healthcare staff. On this note, I want to echo what Mr Murali Pillai has said in recognising all the hard work provided by our healthcare professionals, especially during times of crisis.
My Ministry takes the protection of our healthcare staff very seriously. We have operational requirements and guidelines to prevent and control disease spread in the healthcare setting. My Ministry provides advice and guidelines to hospitals, clinics, nursing homes and registered healthcare professionals, such as recommendations on vaccinations, information on specific diseases, such as MERS, workflows on assessing a patient's travel history, and clinical management.
I thank Ms Irene Quay for highlighting the importance of tackling AMR. As Ms Irene Quay had mentioned, the interaction of the human, environment and animal sectors, and AMR is very complex.
Singapore's National Strategic Action Plan on AMR sets the framework for the national response among key Government agencies. To further build our capability to tackle AMR, my Ministry had set up the AMR Coordinating Office last year within the National Centre for Infectious Diseases (NCID). This office, together with our other capabilities, including the National Public Health Laboratory, and infectious disease research, plays a key role in coordinating with stakeholders and shaping initiatives in surveillance, prudent antimicrobial use, education and infection control.
I thank Prof Fatimah Lateef and Mr Louis Ng for their comments on the importance of safeguarding the confidentiality of information while upholding public health principles.
In preventing and controlling outbreaks, there is often a need to use the information of cases and contacts of infectious diseases for interventions, such as contact tracing, surveillance or response by healthcare institutions. My Ministry has in place operational processes to ensure the lawful use or disclosure of personal information for the purposes of the Act. As an added safeguard, the healthcare provider disclosing the information and the specified person receiving the information under the new section 57B must comply with conditions imposed by the Director of Medical Services in authorising such disclosure. Any person who fails to comply with such conditions is guilty of an offence.
I refer to Dr Chia Shi-Lu, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Louis Ng's comments on public health research and the use and disclosure of individually-identifiable information. There are criteria under section 59A that the Director of Medical Services considers before conducting public health research, including whether the research can acquire new knowledge and benefit public health. My Ministry may not have the resources to perform complex research and may appoint institutions to conduct them and share the outcomes with us. Individually-identifiable information or samples will be used only if the Director of Medical Services is satisfied that the research can only be carried out with such identifiable information or samples. My Ministry will ensure that there are proper safeguards to protect such information or samples.
Mr Murali Pillai asked about how the list of prescribed infectious disease under section 6 will be drawn up. Allow me to clarify.
The amendments to section 6, read together with the new provision in section 73(4)(a), allow my Ministry to distinguish between the infectious diseases that medical practitioners, laboratories or a specific class of persons, are required to notify, by prescribing the infectious diseases applicable to each group. Let me elaborate. For example, some diseases can only be confirmed by a laboratory test. Take the case of Salmonella food-borne infection causing diarrhoea, fever and vomiting. These symptoms are similar to other forms of food-borne infections or gastroenteritis. In this case, the Act allows the Ministry to prescribe Salmonella as an infectious disease to be notified by laboratories but not the medical practitioners. That is to say, the prescribed infectious diseases are subsets of the infectious diseases listed in the First Schedule.
I thank Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Murali Pillai for their comments on providing support to mitigate loss of income arising from measures that restrict occupation. Support for persons whose livelihood is seriously affected by public health measures is important. During the SARS outbreak in 2003, the Government provided ex-gratia payments to eligible persons on home quarantine orders and employees of small businesses which were ordered to be shut. Additional help was also provided through the Community Development Council. These are some examples of viable sources of assistance, and my Ministry will work with the relevant agencies to ensure that adequate support is provided where necessary.
To Mr Murali Pillai and Dr Chia Shi-Lu's comment on whether there are appeal mechanisms for persons placed on stop-work orders or movement restrictions, I wish to clarify that placing persons on such orders is meant to prevent disease spread. As necessary, my Ministry will review requests for such persons to conduct specific activities, so long as public health and safety are not compromised.
I thank Mr Melvin Yong for his suggestion on setting up a volunteer Health Officer scheme to aid in contact tracing. It is, indeed, important for my Ministry to be able to activate the community quickly in times of crisis. We have a reserve pool of trained contact tracing officers from within the public healthcare family. Clause 7, in inserting section 19A, allows my Ministry to enlist the assistance of managers of premises to conduct contact tracing and surveillance. This will further augment our ability to quickly ramp up our public health responses.
I agree with Mr Louis Ng and Mr Melvin Yong that the powers conferred to my Ministry and its officers should be accompanied by checks and balances. In implementing public health measures, there is sometimes tension between individual liberties and the common good. I would like to assure Members that my Ministry will only impose measures under the Act for public health purposes. In deciding the extent and duration of public health measures, we take into account relevant considerations, including disease characteristics, expert advice and recommended practices, and conduct thorough risk assessments. For example, the number of days a person is subjected to surveillance or quarantine is dependent on the disease’s incubation period. Likewise, the duration a person is restricted from certain types of occupation is related to the risk of disease transmission. The approval of the Director of Medical Services, guided by professional ethics and advised by risk assessments, would be sought for such decisions.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that the proposed amendments are meant to enhance the ability to detect infectious diseases threats, prevent their entry into Singapore, respond to outbreaks and arrest further spread. There are legislative and operational safeguards to ensure that the powers under the Act are used appropriately and judiciously. For measures that are farther-reaching or more restrictive, my Ministry has ensured that a stronger governing authority is present. For example, the Director of Medical Services, the chief medical officer and lead of the medical profession, provides oversight for many of the measures under the Act.
I am confident that the revised Act will help us to further build our capabilities towards the prevention and control of infectious diseases. Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the House once again for their support of the Bill.
[(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. – [Dr Lam Pin Min.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to 12.00 pm tomorrow.\" – [Mr Chan Chun Sing.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"The Arts as an Integral Part of Our People and a Strategic National Resource ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Government Whip (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Terence Ho Wee San (Nominated Member): Deputy Speaker, I would like to declare my interest as the Executive Director of the Singapore Chinese Orchestra. As an active sportsman, I strongly believe in the importance of a healthy and happy lifestyle. However, I believe that this is not just about the body, but also the heart and soul. That is why the arts are so important, especially the traditional arts, which connect us to who we are today.
More can be done to make the traditional arts an integral part of our society, bringing together people of different races, religions, and backgrounds, and creating a shared understanding across our various communities.
We need to develop policies to strengthen the arts ecosystem so that it will be more vibrant and sustainable. To deepen understanding and appreciation of the traditional arts, we need to take these art forms seriously. We could, for example, have think-tanks to engage in research that will provide strong and sound evidence for the importance of the traditional arts.
In addition to traditional arts, the arts-for-all can play in serving underserved and disadvantaged communities, and how more can be done to help the next generation of Singaporeans to love arts and fulfilled lives. I hope that the Ministry will consider issuing a \"Culture Pass\" via a mobile application which offers a credit similar to ActiveSG for students and senior citizens to spend on cultural events and encourage cultural discovery.
Looking to the future, we really hope to see the arts become a part of everyone’s everyday life, actively transforming the well-being of individuals, but also bringing people together as a nation and uplifting our spirits. For this to happen, we need alignment of all Government Ministries in supporting the arts in their policies. The arts and culture should become a strategic tool for Government agencies, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) to the Ministry of Education (MOE). We also need to have more physical infrastructure for arts and culture. The “hardware” is important if we are to grow our \"heartware\". People need spaces to meet, exchange ideas, build a sense of community and home. These spaces are also where artists and the general public can interact with one another more freely. In Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Deputy Speaker, for the past many years, we have been continuously strengthening and promoting arts and culture. This is reflected in our policies. However, in order to create more exciting, colourful and diversified art platforms, more efforts are needed in the area of traditional arts. More can be done to make the traditional arts an integral part of our society, bringing together people of different races, religions and backgrounds, and creating a shared understanding across our various communities. Traditional arts can best embody our roots and beliefs.
In this regard, I have three visions and two wishes.
The first vision is to make Singapore into a modern metropolis with unique and diversified cultural scenes, nourishing and inspiring its citizens with arts; the second vision is to make arts into a bonding agent between different communities; the third vision is for Singapore's soft power to wield international influence.
Two wishes. My first wish is to recognise our veteran artists and cultivate mentors and role models to guide younger artists. My second wish is to develop policies to strengthen the arts ecosystem so that it will be more vibrant and sustainable.
The number of our local performing arts groups is increasing each year, from 2,689 in 2013 to 3,162 in 2016. However, the audience who are willing to buy tickets to watch a show have been dwindling for the past five years as tickets sold in 2016 was 1.81 million, compared to 2.06 million in 2012. This is a worrying trend faced by the artists, the National Arts Council (NAC) and the Government.
In terms of the Government, various Government Ministries should reach consensus and introduce policies to support the arts. The arts and culture should become a strategic tool for Government agencies, from MFA to MOE. We also need to have more physical infrastructure for arts and culture. The “hardware” is important if we are to grow our \"heartware\". People need spaces to meet, exchange ideas, build a sense of community and home. These spaces are also where artists and the general public can interact with one another more freely.
Our biggest challenge is how to change people’s pragmatic mindset and increase their interest in arts and culture, making it an integral part of their life. We need more examples of deeper, interesting and inspiring stories to increase the influence of arts and culture. We need to constantly strengthen and broaden the ecosystem for the arts and culture, so that more Singaporeans can participate in arts and cultural activities, as audience, a learner or a volunteer.
NAC has recently announced the five-year \"Our SG Arts Plan\", in which many practical suggestions were raised. One of them is to increase the support for freelance arts professionals. This year, NAC set up a Resource Centre for the freelance arts professionals, providing services, such as legal support, financial planning and contract samples. It also provides learning and career development opportunities. This is a very targeted assistance which I fully support. As our new arts roadmap goes into the next five years, I hope the Government, businesses and the people sector can strengthen their collaboration, in order to connect and absorb our diversified cultures, create a more open and richer cultural environment, and make more funds and resources available for artists.
Meanwhile, I would like to suggest that a think-tank be set up to engage in research in traditional arts and help improve our understanding and appreciation of traditional arts. When encouraging people to participate in traditional arts, we should also include the vulnerable groups. In the sports field, we have already recognised the disabled talents and given them opportunities to use their potentials. In the field of arts and culture, we can create more platforms for the vulnerable groups to participate and learn. Arts must go into the masses in order to sustain vitality.
Here I have two suggestions to make.
First, we can introduce a Culture Pass app, similar to the ActiveSG app. The Government can support by giving perks or subsidies, to students especially, so as to encourage Singaporeans to use the subsidies to get tickets to art performances.
Second, make attending arts performances as part of civic education for Primary 3 or Primary 4 students. Every primary student should have at least one chance to watch a concert, dance or theatre performance. This will generate interest and instil in their heart a passion for arts and music. I hope that MOE can consider making good use of the time released from doing away with examinations and shake up our arts education. Arts education should be incorporated into our civic education. I hope arts and culture can be used as a vehicle to inspire creativity and innovation among our young and to reflect our national spirit.
Cultural diversity is our unique character and can resonate with Singaporeans. Arts play an active role in deepening the national identity, trust among people and mutual respect among communities.
When creating an image of a cultural metropolis, we can learn from other major cities by managing our culture and arts causes with the spirit of professionalism, through forming alliances and cultivating brand names. This is the way how arts develop. To promote arts, works of art must combine ideological elements, artistic qualities and watchability together.
To become a cultural capital, Singapore can adopt a strategy by incorporating arts education into its school curriculum and creating a strong arts and cultural atmosphere in the society. I am confident that if we can incorporate our diversified culture and arts into daily lives, Singapore will become a more vibrant, attractive and cohesive place! It will be a home with tenderness, warmth and elegance!
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Baey Yam Keng): Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate Mr Terence Ho on his maiden speech and thank him for his long-standing contributions and ardent support for the arts and culture in Singapore.
The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) agrees that a vibrant and sustainable arts and culture scene brings diverse communities together, adds to our overall well-being, and roots us as a people and a nation. Our cultural offerings can also inspire us and show the world who we are and what we stand for and deepen our sense of national identity. Our arts and culture play a critical role in MCCY's efforts to foster a more caring, cohesive and confident Singapore and Singaporeans.
MCCY, NAC and the National Heritage Board (NHB) partner the public, private and people sectors to make arts and culture an integral part of the lives of all Singaporeans. We support and facilitate our arts community's instrumental role in developing a flourishing arts ecosystem. More people now enjoy, appreciate and benefit from varied and diverse arts and culture programmes since we expanded access and grew these offerings. The 2017 Population Survey on the Arts indicated that attendance is on an upward trend, with 54% of Singaporeans attending arts events. This is the highest on record since 2005, not including the peak in 2015 when there was a surge in events to celebrate SG50. Moreover, three in four respondents said that the arts and culture improved the quality of life for everyone and agreed that our arts and culture are something that Singaporeans can be proud of.
Mr Terence Ho noted that ticketed attendances had fallen from 2012 to 2016. According to the Singapore Cultural Statistics, there were 1.8 million ticketed attendances in 2016. However, that year, there were more non-ticketed performing arts activities than ever before, with attendances also the highest on record since 2012. MCCY and NAC are working on increasing both ticketed and non-ticketed attendance, as both types of events contribute to the vibrancy and sustainability of our arts and culture landscape. We hope that non-ticketed arts activities will create accessible entry points to the arts, while artists and arts groups will build on the increased awareness, and create works that could interest and attract more people to become paying audience.
I agree with Mr Terence Ho that recognition of our arts practitioners helps develop role models. Singapore has been privileged to have outstanding artists, able to capture and transmit the essence of what it means to be Singaporean through their work. This is why since 1979, 125 have been awarded with the Cultural Medallion, which is Singapore’s highest artistic accolade. Notable artistic achievement and significant contributions to the community are also recognised through National Day Awards. MCCY and NAC hope that award recipients will continue to give back to the community through education and mentorship, create works that resonate with both local and international audiences and inspire us through the pursuit of excellence.
NAC launched Our SG Arts Plan in October 2018 to build on these existing efforts and chart strategies and policies over the next five years. The Plan was developed in close consultation with the arts community and seeks to make Singapore \"home to diverse and distinctive arts that inspire our people, connect our communities and position Singapore globally\". NAC has identified eight priorities where it will work with our arts practitioners to achieve our shared objectives. I will elaborate more on the areas of growing audiences, building capabilities, strengthening research, and taking our arts beyond our shores, which are relevant to the points that Mr Terence Ho has raised.
Strategies for sustained audience development must cater to different groups of Singaporeans. I, therefore, agree with Mr Terence Ho on the importance of providing Singaporeans of all ages and backgrounds with greater access to our arts and culture.
Singaporeans already enjoy a year-round calendar of diverse cultural offerings, including exhibitions, performances and activities, as well as free access to our national museums and heritage institutions. These include popular events like our annual Singapore Art Week, Singapore Heritage Festival, PAssionArts Festival, and Singapore Night Festival. MCCY and NAC also partner organisations, such as the National Library Board and People's Association, to bring quality programmes directly to neighbourhood libraries, community clubs and other community spaces.
In addition, NAC brings together thought leaders, stakeholders and practitioners at platforms, such as the Arts in Eldercare Seminar and Arts and Disability Forum, to discuss how different communities can be better engaged through the arts and culture. NAC will continue to strengthen partnerships with the social service and healthcare sectors to implement innovative programmes that can best benefit under-reached communities.
Beyond programmes, the Government has invested significantly in new cultural infrastructure. The year 2015 alone saw the opening of the National Gallery Singapore and the Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre. We are currently revamping the Singapore Art Museum and developing a new waterfront theatre at the Esplanade. Our aspiration is for these spaces to foster audience growth, provide opportunities for interaction and inspire our people through the presentation of homegrown, Southeast Asian and international works. As we continue our investment into infrastructural developments and platforms to showcase artistic works, we look to the arts community to create quality content which can engage new and existing audiences.
In this context, I thank Mr Terence Ho for his suggestion of a \"Culture Pass” mobile application. MCCY and NAC will consider this as part of ongoing efforts to grow audiences and enhance the accessibility of our arts and culture, by leveraging technology.
Mr Terence Ho rightly highlighted the importance of arts education. Under Our SG Arts Plan, we continue to prioritise arts education efforts to nurture audiences of the future. Early exposure to the arts fosters creative thinking and imagination, helps our children develop empathy and confidence, and makes art appreciation and participation a way of life. Arts education also helps our youths better appreciate Singapore’s cultural heritage and develop a stronger sense of national identity.
MCCY and NAC work closely with partners like MOE and the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) for our youths to engage more with the arts. These include the Artist-in-School Scheme, Arts Education Programme, museum-based and performing arts-based learning experiences, the School of the Arts (SOTA) as well as undergraduate and postgraduate courses in the arts and culture. MCCY and NAC will continue to work with MOE to incorporate the arts into other learning areas, and with the arts community to create content that will inspire and develop our young minds. Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Terence Ho highlighted the importance of deepening understanding, appreciation and promotion of the traditional arts. I agree that the traditional arts help tell our Singapore story, bring people from different backgrounds together, and enhance mutual understanding among different communities.
NAC will build capabilities and enhance research on the traditional arts under Our SG Arts Plan. For example, the newly revamped Stamford Arts Centre (SAC) will house a mix of traditional arts groups from our multi-ethnic communities who can bring our rich cultural traditions closer to the community. SAC complements NAC’s existing work with traditional arts groups to add to the vibrancy of districts, such as our historic Kampong Glam, and introduce more audiences to the traditional arts. With such support, we hope that traditional arts groups will develop the skills and capabilities to present even more engaging offerings for all audiences.
In addition, NAC will partner institutions, such as the Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre, to research the development of traditional practices and forms in Singapore. This will help spur innovation and creativity and encourage greater appreciation and critical discourse. NAC will work with NHB to explore other areas of research in the traditional arts. In addition, NAC will engage MOE and ECDA to develop interest in the traditional arts from a young age.
(In English): Mr Terence Ho noted that our arts and culture is one way we can showcase Singapore internationally. Under Our SG Arts Plan, NAC will continue to work with MFA to (a) establish Singapore as a valuable collaborative partner for arts and culture in the region; (b) develop international residencies and capability building programmes; and (c) extend an effective Singapore presence overseas. We will support our artists to grow and scale new heights and help profile Singapore overseas.
In conclusion, I would like to thank Mr Ho for his views and suggestions. The Government will do our best and find new and better ways to provide resources, infrastructure and platforms. I look forward to our arts community doing its part to develop diverse, rich and engaging works that can connect with and inspire audience groups across different backgrounds, including the under-served, whether arts enthusiasts or novices, at home or abroad. Let us work together to achieve our shared vision for the arts and culture in Singapore.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.42 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":"Sports and Arts Programmes to Replace Weighted Examinations for P1 and P2 Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Terence Ho Wee San asked the Minister for Education (a) in view of the removal of all weighted assessments and examinations for Primary 1 and 2 students in 2019, what is the Ministry's plan for the students; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider implementing compulsory CCA and interest-based programmes for Primary 1 and 2 students, especially in the areas of sports and performing arts.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Since 2011, newly admitted primary school students take their first examination at the end of Primary 2 (P2). Preschool to primary school is a significant transition, and a substantial period free of examinations will help students to adapt and adjust to a new learning environment. This arrangement has worked well for students. From 2019, the Ministry of Education will further remove all weighted assessments for P1 and P2, including P2 year-end examination.
Sports and arts education are core components in our national curriculum. In total, about one-quarter of the curriculum time at the lower primary level is devoted to arts and sports education. Within this allocated time, in addition to art, music and physical education lessons, P1 and P2 students also go through the Programme for Active Learning, which provides students with broad exposure to Sports and Games, Performing and Visual Arts, and Outdoor Education. The programme has been designed to develop socio-emotional competencies in the students, help them discover their strengths and interests, and prepare them to choose a co-curricular activity when they progress to higher primary levels.
We want our students to be curious and confident in learning, as opposed to being driven by examinations and grades from a young age. As such, schools will use the curriculum time freed up from examinations and weighted assessments to pace out teaching and learning and adopt a wider repertoire of teaching strategies that provide students with rich and meaningful learning experiences. Such engagement in learning will prepare them better for lifelong learning.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Singapore Youth Festival Arts Presentation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Mr Terence Ho Wee San asked the Minister for Education whether there will be a review of the Singapore Youth Festival Arts Presentation and what is the participation rate and performing standards of past Festivals.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Since its inception in 1966, the Singapore Youth Festival (SYF) has played a crucial role in promoting the arts in our schools. The Ministry of Education regularly reviews the SYF, and over the years, the format of the festival has been refined to meet changing needs.
The current SYF Arts Presentation introduced in 2012, is designed to improve our students' appreciation of the performing arts and foster their joy of learning in and through the arts. Almost all our schools register consistent participation in the SYF Arts Presentation across the different artforms. Participation rate has remained steady over the last six years at 5% to 6% on years for primary and junior college/centralised institute level (Drama category) participation, and 7% to 8% for secondary and junior college/centralised institute level participation.
Feedback from our judges indicate that performance standards across various artforms have remained consistently positive. Since the introduction of the current format, results show that performing standards on the whole have been stable.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Considerations for Award of Contract to School Bus Operators and Proposal for Fee Guideline","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Education (a) how do schools decide on the engagement of school bus operators; (b) what are the main considerations for awarding a contract to school bus operators; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider issuing a fee guideline for school bus operators.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Schools select school bus operators through a competitive bidding process and award contracts to the operators that best meet their needs. The competitiveness of bus fares proposed is one of the key evaluation factors considered by schools. Other factors include good track records and the ability of bus operators to meet the needs of individual schools, such as number and capacity of buses and route coverage. Fares will vary among schools and students depending on routes and distances travelled, and the number of students on a particular route.
In January 2015, the Ministry of Education (MOE) enhanced the bidding process for school bus services so that schools can reach out to more bus operators to obtain more competitive offers. Schools publish the contracted bus fares of the successful school bus operators on the Information Notice Board for School Bus Services which is available on MOE's website. This serves as a reference and guide for schools in selecting the most suitable school bus operator which offers the best value for money.
As school bus services are customised to meet the needs of individual schools and parents, a specific fee guideline may not help schools in their selection of school bus operators. Moreover, it may discourage bus operators from coming forward to bid for the services if there are many restrictions and conditions imposed on them. Therefore, it would be better to let school bus fares be determined by the market. The Government, on its part, has put in place measures to help school bus operators keep their operating costs low so that they can offer more competitive fares.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Subsidy Level for Patients with Private Insurance Coverage for Hospitalisation but Not Outpatient Treatment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Health (a) in each of the last five years, how many appeals have been received from patients asking for subsidised outpatient medical assistance at polyclinics and restructured hospitals though they have private insurance which covers only hospitalisation and not outpatient treatment; and (b) whether patients with private insurance coverage for hospitalisation but not outpatient treatment can still be allowed to receive subsidised medical treatment at both polyclinics and restructured hospitals.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Singaporeans can benefit from subsidised outpatient treatments at all our polyclinics and hospitals, regardless of their insurance coverage. All Singaporeans receive subsidised treatments at our polyclinics. As for our public hospitals' Specialist Outpatient Clinics (SOC), patients with valid polyclinic referrals and Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) cardholders with valid CHAS clinic referrals, as well as patients discharged from B2 or C Class hospital wards, are eligible for subsidised medical treatments.
Patients may opt for private SOC services or A or B1 Class wards for various reasons, including choosing specific doctor or taking advantage of private insurance coverage. Some of these patients may later request to switch to subsidised care due to financial concerns. Our public healthcare providers assess such requests on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration factors, including the patient's financial circumstances. In the past five years, on average, we have received about 4,000 requests a year to switch from private to subsidised SOC care.
Patients who are facing financial difficulties can approach the medical social workers to discuss available options.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulation of Chiropractic Industry","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health (a) what regulatory guidelines or standards are applicable to the chiropractic industry; (b) whether customers of the industry will be able to find recourse from the Ministry when there are disputes; and (c) whether there is any ongoing process to bring the industry under further regulation, such as to consider it as part of the Allied Health Professionals under the First Schedule of the Allied Health Professions Act.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: MOH takes a risk-based regulatory approach. Chiropractic services are a form of complementary and alternative treatment and are currently not licensed under the Private Hospital and Medical Clinic Act. There is also no statutory legislation to regulate practitioners of complementary and alternative medicine practitioners, including chiropractors.
Chiropractors are encouraged to practise self-regulation, register with their professional association, that is, The Chiropractic Association (TCA) (Singapore) and adhere to industry standards set by the association. TCA (Singapore) has developed a code of ethics, scope of practice and advertising guidelines for their profession.
While there are no regulations involving chiropractors and their services, they are subjected to provisions under the Medicines (Sales and Advertisements) Act. For example, their publicity is not permitted to contain any diagnostic or treatment claims for any diseases and medical conditions. Doing so might contravene the Act and result in penalties. Complaints in this area can be sent to the Ministry of Health. For other disputes, customers can find recourse through the Consumers Association of Singapore.
The Ministry will continuously monitor the risk to patient safety and periodically review the need to license chiropractic professionals and their services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applications Received by Community Disputes Resolutions Tribunals and Rate of Resolution","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Law since February 2017 (a) how many applications have been received by the Community Disputes Resolutions Tribunals; (b) how many cases have been resolved successfully; and (c) whether any of the parties have failed to observe the resolution granted by the tribunal resulting in the tribunal bringing the party concerned to task.
Mr K Shanmugam: Between 1 February 2017 and 31 December 2018, the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) received 163 applications. Out of these, 133 claims have been disposed of, while 30 claims are still pending as of 31 December 2018. Out of the 133 claims which were disposed of, 97 claims were resolved amicably. Consent Orders were granted in 33 claims while the other 64 claims were either withdrawn or discontinued. As for the remaining 36 claims, the CDRT granted orders by default or after trial, or dismissed or struck out the applications.
There have been a few instances where a respondent had failed to comply with the terms of an Order of the Tribunal. In these circumstances, and upon the application of the plaintiff, Special Directions have been issued against the respondents. A Special Direction is a direction by the Tribunal to the respondent to comply with the order that has been made against him within a specified time. Ten Special Directions were issued by CDRT in the period between 1 February 2017 and 31 December 2018. A respondent who fails to comply with a Special Direction without reasonable excuse, commits an offence. He is liable on conviction to be fined up to $5,000 or imprisoned up to three months or to both.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Dispute between Singaporean Workers and Employers when Adopting Flexi-wage System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in the past five years, how many cases of dispute have arisen between Singaporean workers and their employers when adopting the flexi-wage system; (b) what have been the reasons for the disputes; and (c) how does the Ministry ensure fair employment and remuneration practices by the employers in the implementation of the flexi-wage system.
Mrs Josephine Teo: In the past five years, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) handled four trade disputes relating to flexible wage implementation.
These disputes, which were all collective in nature, were due to disagreements over how variable bonuses were determined. Through MOM's conciliation efforts, these cases were eventually resolved, with employers and unions mutually agreeing on the bonuses to be paid.
MOM will continue to work with the tripartite partners to share best practices and industry norms so that flexible wages are implemented fairly and progressively.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Incidents of Fires in HDB Flats in Last Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many incidents of fires in HDB flats have there been in each of the last three years; and (b) what are the main causes of these fires.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Over the last three years, there has been an average of about 650 fire incidents reported per year in Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats. Fires in HDB flats are mainly due to unattended cooking, of electrical origin, or involve naked flames, such as candles.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Waiving Resale Levy for Households Affected by SERS when They Buy Replacement Flat","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for National Development given that the Selective En-Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) is an involuntary scheme, whether the Minister will consider waiving the resale levy for households affected by SERS when they select a replacement flat.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Under the Selective En-Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS), households whose existing flat is a subsidised flat do not need to pay a resale levy when they buy a new replacement flat from the Housing and Development Board (HDB). This waiver of resale levy is a concession under SERS.
The resale levy is payable only for SERS households who had previously sold a subsidised flat elsewhere and are liable to pay a resale levy should they buy another subsidised flat from HDB. The resale levy is capped at $30,000, as a concession under SERS. SERS households need not take up the replacement flat from HDB. They can instead opt for an ex-gratia payment and buy a resale flat on the open market, without the need to pay any resale levy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extent of Homelessness Problem in Last Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what has been the extent of the problem of homelessness in Singapore in the last three years; (b) whether there has been an in-depth study or research done to look into this complex phenomenon; and (c) what are the short-term and long-term plans to minimise the problem of homelessness.
Mr Desmond Lee: Low-income persons who have no family support and cannot afford to purchase a flat, may apply for the Housing and Development Board's (HDB's) public rental housing or may be assisted with Interim Rental Housing. Those who have exhausted all housing options and require social work intervention to address their underlying issues can be admitted to the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF)-funded transitional shelters. Individuals who are destitute, with no family support and no means of supporting themselves, may be admitted to welfare homes. Between 2015 and 2017, MSF assisted an average of 385 such cases each year. These include referrals by MSF patrol teams, Police Officers, or social and healthcare agencies.
Besides temporary accommodation, social workers at transitional shelters work with shelter residents to address their underlying issues, such as employment, financial and family issues, and to secure long-term housing arrangements. The welfare homes provide care and rehabilitation programmes for destitute persons to improve their physical and emotional well-being and, where possible, re-integrate them into the community again.
There are also individuals who have homes but sleep in public for various reasons. For instance, they may have disputes with family members or co-tenants or wish to be closer to their workplaces due to lack of transport options from home. Most of the persons sleeping in public whom MSF's patrol teams come across fall into these categories.
We have found that families in transitional housing often experienced divorce and financial difficulties. Many had sold their flats and spent their monies to clear debts or for other purposes before becoming homeless. It is thus important to provide holistic support and intervention across relevant agencies to address the families’ issues.
MSF works closely with Government agencies and community partners to address homelessness. A key thrust is upstream support to enable individuals to access and remain in HDB housing. We are strengthening interagency coordination with HDB, social service agencies and community groups to do this. As family conflict and stresses are often linked to homelessness, social workers play an important role in addressing the root causes.
MSF will also continue to review and enhance the effectiveness of the shelter models to help homeless families and individuals regain stability and access stable housing. Members of the public can play a part by offering help to homeless individuals they encounter. They can call the ComCare hotline at 1800 222 0000 or approach the nearest Social Service Office or Family Service Centre for assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monitoring Air Quality in Households Affected by Prolonged Second-hand Smoke","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether the Ministry will consider conducting a pilot study using Sidepak and/or Dylo monitors and passive nicotine dosimeters to monitor the air quality in homes affected by prolonged second-hand smoke from their neighbours and where mediation between both parties has not been successful.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: SidePak and Dylos monitors are used to measure ambient Particulate Matter 2.5 (PM2.5) levels. However, monitoring ambient PM2.5 levels indoors does not specifically identify smoking activity, as sources of PM2.5 can be attributed to other activities at home, such as cooking and the burning of incense. Passive nicotine dosimeters measure airborne nicotine, a specific indicator of second-hand tobacco smoke, but are unable to provide real-time results. Hence, while such measuring devices are promising, they require further development before they can be used as good indicators of exposure to second-hand smoke. There are currently no plans for a study using such devices. We will continue to review the use of relevant technology for air quality monitoring.
The law does not prohibit smoking in residential homes as these are private spaces. Nonetheless, we recognise that second-hand smoke from residential premises can waft into neighbours’ homes. We encourage smokers to be socially responsible and considerate when smoking so as not to affect their neighbours.
Residents who are affected by second-hand smoke from their neighbours’ residences are encouraged to discuss and resolve the issue amicably or seek assistance from the Community Mediation Centre (CMC). As a last resort, aggrieved parties can file a case with the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT). CDRT has the power to order parties to attend compulsory mediation in the Courts or at the CMC, to attend counselling or to fix the case for hearing by the Courts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tighter Enforcement for \"Reserved Seats\" on MRT Trains","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Mr Yee Chia Hsing asked the Minister for Transport whether \"reserved seats\" on MRT trains can be better regulated and enforced as many able-bodied passengers who take up the seats are not giving up the seats to others who need the seats more.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Since 2009, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has been organising annual Graciousness Campaigns to inculcate a gracious commuting culture. This includes encouraging public transport commuters to give up their seats to those who need them more, such as the elderly and pregnant women. These campaigns have yielded results. Around 70% of commuters now notice that more seats are being given up, compared to 42% in 2012, based on LTA’s perceptions survey.
Promoting a gracious culture is a shared responsibility and requires commuters to play their part, too. As commuters, we need to look beyond our own needs and help fellow commuters in need. Commuters who need assistance should also feel free to seek help from those around them. As part of the recent Land Transport Master Plan 2040 public engagement efforts, we found that most Singaporeans agreed that individual commuters needed to take the initiative to be more gracious. This is the gracious commuting culture which we aspire to foster, that goes beyond relying solely on punitive measures.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Factors that Caused Recent Increase in Price of Eggs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what has caused the increase in the price of eggs in the past six months and whether profiteering has been a factor.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The price of eggs and, for that matter, any particular food item, is determined by a combination of factors, including import prices, exchange rates, logistics costs and profit margins which suppliers can command.
To safeguard consumers' interest against sharp and erratic price changes, we must adopt a multi-prong strategy.
First, we must continually and consciously diversify our supply sources and supply chains to avoid being held ransom by the discontinuity in any particular supply source or disruption to any supply chain. This includes sourcing from different countries and building up a certain amount of local capacities where we can and when it makes economic sense.
Second, we maintain a stable and strong Singapore dollar for the benefit of our consumers and to preserve Singapore’s purchasing power.
Third, we maintain an open competitive market structure to prevent any unethical profiteering.
In the specific instance of eggs, the import prices of eggs from some of our import sources have, indeed, gone up significantly between June and November 2018, by up to 50%. However, we also have other import sources where the import prices have either remained stable or shown slight declines of up to 7%. As such, the local retail price of eggs has increased around 4% over the same period.
To the Member's specific question, there is no substantive information at this moment for us to conclude that the recent rise in egg prices is caused by anti-competitive practices. We will continue to monitor closely. If the Member has any evidence, he can share it with the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore to investigate the matter.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for Polyclinics Charging Private Rates for Follow-up Treatment for Referrals Made by GPs on CHAS","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the rationale of polyclinics charging Singaporeans at private rates for follow-up outpatient treatment or investigations when the referrals are made by general practitioners (GPs) whom they have seen for consultations under the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS); and (b) whether this policy can be reviewed to allow Singaporeans tapping on CHAS to get subsidised rates for such referrals from GPs participating in CHAS.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Polyclinics provide subsidised care for the management of acute and chronic conditions. Subsidies are available for doctor consultations, as well as drugs, tests and other services assessed by the polyclinic doctor to be clinically appropriate for the patient.
Some private general practitioners (GPs) today refer their patients to polyclinics for specific services, such as X-rays or tests. As these patients are not assessed by polyclinic doctors, our doctors are unable to determine whether the ordered tests or investigations are appropriate. Therefore, they are considered private healthcare services for which polyclinic subsidies do not apply.
Nevertheless, the Ministry will review how we can better support Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) patients whose care is managed by CHAS GPs, including ways to improve access to clinically appropriate subsidised tests and investigations. We thank the Member for his feedback.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Work of Agency for Care Effectiveness","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Health (a) whether he can provide an update on the work of the Agency for Care Effectiveness (ACE), in particular, how the appropriate care bundles and drug guidance have been implemented; and (b) how many issues have the agency reviewed since 2015.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Agency for Care Effectiveness (ACE) was established in 2015 as our national health technology assessment agency to facilitate the adoption of clinically effective and cost-effective care. ACE's evaluations are published as Drug or Medical Technology Guidances, as well as Appropriate Care Guides for doctors and patients. Its evaluations are also taken into account in the Ministry of Health's (MOH’s) decision on the extension of public healthcare subsidies. Drugs and medical technologies evaluated to be both clinically effective and cost-effective are subsidised.
Over the last three years, ACE has completed 62 technical evaluations of health technologies. ACE also published 28 Drug Guidances, and two Medical Technology Guidances. In addition, ACE produced nine Appropriate Care Guides focused on effective primary care for chronic diseases, such as diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. ACE has prioritised health technologies and medical conditions which are of high impact to patients and our healthcare system.
MOH tracks the uptake of health technologies that have been evaluated to be clinically effective and cost-effective, and it has been on an uptrend versus alternatives that are less effective. For example, dapagliflozin was evaluated by ACE and subsequently included as a subsidised drug for Type 2 diabetes in early 2017. The usage share of dapagliflozin relative to alternatives increased from 40% in 2016, to 65% in 2017.
In addition to their work in health technology assessment, ACE also negotiates with manufacturers for fair prices for selected health technologies. ACE’s work in this area has helped to improve access and affordability of healthcare services.
ACE will continue to work on increasing the impact of its work so as to enable Singaporeans to have access to clinically effective and cost-effective health technologies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Supporting Psychosocial Needs of Migrant and Domestic Workers in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what steps are being taken to address and support the psychosocial needs of migrant and domestic workers in Singapore; (b) what are the main drivers of their psychological distress and mental illness; (c) which subgroups, in terms of nationality and sector, are at higher risk of mental illness; and (d) whether the current insurance schemes cover them in the event of a mental health condition.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Migrant workers may experience stress arising from being away from their families and having to adjust to a new culture and work environment. In addition, they may have left their home countries for the first time.
In Singapore, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has put in place support measures to help foreign workers adjust to working in Singapore. These include educating them via the Settling-In Programme on matters, such as Singapore's social norms, their employment rights, and stress management. In addition, MOM works with stakeholders, including non-government organisations, to provide recreational facilities and stress management courses. The Migrant Workers' Centre and the Centre for Domestic Employees also partner mental health advocacy organisations, such as Silver Ribbon, to provide counselling services for foreign workers who need help.
The Institute of Mental Health sees a small number of foreign workers annually, and the trend has been stable over the past three years. Existing data does not indicate that foreign workers of a particular nationality or working in a particular industry have a higher risk of suffering mental illness.
Employers are responsible for the cost of medical treatment of their foreign workers, including expenses for mental health and mental illnesses. Medical insurance plans typically do not cover treatment for mental illness although some insurers allow employers to purchase an additional rider.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mandating Inspection of Windows in HDB Flats More Than 30 Years Old","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider (i) mandating inspections of windows in all HDB flats above 30 years of age, by BCA-certified staff and (ii) empowering BCA-registered contractors to install and replace windows in units of non-compliant HDB flat owners, to prevent and reduce incidents of falling windows.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Ministry of National Development (MND) will continue to study ways to ensure the safe installation and maintenance of windows in our residential blocks. Presently, all windows have to be designed and installed according to specified standards and meet performance requirements under the Building Control Regulations. Window installations have to be carried out by an Approved Window Contractor (AWC) registered with the Building and Construction Authority (BCA). If there are flats found with non-compliant windows, such as being fitted with aluminum instead of stainless steel rivets, BCA will direct the owners to engage an AWC to carry out the necessary rectifications.
BCA also works with Town Councils, grassroots organisations and other partners to raise awareness about window safety, as flat owners are responsible for maintaining their windows. Owners can carry out three simple steps. First, check that the window fasteners, safety stoppers and angle strips are properly in place. Second, clean the joints and other moving parts. And third, engage an AWC to change any rivets from aluminum to stainless steel as well as replace any worn-out parts. BCA reminds the public of these steps with illustrations through half-yearly Window Safety Day outreach campaigns on 6/6 and 12/12 each year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"LUP, HIP and EASE Programmes for HDB Rental Blocks in Boon Lay","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB can implement the Lift Upgrading Programme, Home Improvement Programme and Enhancement for Active Seniors Programme for all HDB rental blocks in Boon Lay, including those designated as Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) units.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Similar to home ownership flats, rental blocks are considered for the Home Improvement Programme (HIP) and Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP). There are also upgrading programmes specific to rental flats, such as the Ad-Hoc Upgrading Programme. Rental tenants benefit from all upgrading programmes free of charge.
There are five rental blocks in Boon Lay. Three of them are let under the Public Rental Scheme, and underwent improvement works in 2010, ahead of HIP for their neighbours in home ownership flats. The scope of works was as almost identical to HIP. The lifts in these three blocks have been upgraded such that at least one lift in each block serves every floor.
The other two rental blocks in Boon Lay have been let under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) since 2013. They underwent improvement works in 2013, also with a scope of works similar to HIP. The lifts there have not undergone LUP, as the blocks are designated for interim use, and PPHS tenants generally stay there for a relatively short time. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) informs prospective PPHS tenants upfront that the lifts there only stop at certain floors. HDB will study the option of upgrading the lifts in these blocks, taking into account the longer-term plans for their usage.
The Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) programme enhances the safety and comfort of seniors living in HDB flats. Seniors under the Public Rental Scheme can benefit from EASE free of charge.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safeguarding Welfare of Detained Youths in Places of Detention and Juvenile Rehabilitation Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development regarding youths residing in places of detention and juvenile rehabilitation centres established under the Children and Young Persons Act (a) how does the Government ensure that the conditions of detention or residence promote rehabilitation; (b) what oversight mechanism and grievance procedure exist to safeguard the welfare of the detained youths; and (c) whether past reviews of violent incidents in the Singapore Boys Home have identified any contributory factors for the occurrences.
Mr Desmond Lee: The youth justice system in Singapore is broadly premised on a gradation of interventions. As far as possible, youth offenders are diverted away from the youth justice system altogether through diversionary programmes, such as the Enhanced Streetwise Programme, for youths who play a minor role in gang-related offences. Where they are brought before the Youth Courts, they are first considered for probation and rehabilitation outside of residential facilities. This is to prevent their development from being unduly disrupted. This means that the youths who are required to reside in places of detention and juvenile rehabilitation centres generally have higher-risk behaviours, complex needs or a weak family environment that does not support rehabilitation.
At the Government-managed Singapore Boys' Home, our youth workers support youth offenders to strengthen their socio-emotional development and relationship with their family, develop their resilience, and improve their education and employment outlook. The daily regimes and programmes build character and lifeskills in the youths. Formal education is also a key component of the Home's programme.
To provide a conducive rehabilitative regime, it is important to have good governance to ensure the well-being of the residents. There are stipulated standards of care, and a Review Board comprising professional volunteers appointed by the Minister reviews the living conditions in the Home. Residents may raise concerns directly to members of the Review Board during their visits, or to the management of the Home. They may also deposit a letter into a secure letterbox that is accessed only by selected personnel.
At the same time, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) takes the safety of residents and our staff seriously. Bearing in mind the risk profile of the youths, some friction among fellow residents in a communal setting is not unexpected. MSF works closely with the Home Team departments to learn from past incidents in order to strengthen our policies and processes. For example, MSF and the Police have strengthened activation protocols to ensure swift intervention when needed. We have also made infrastructural enhancements, such as by installing duress alarms. This partnership is key to ensuring safety and security in the Home.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Initiatives with Companies such as Facebook for \"Suicide Watch\" Intervention Programmes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how can the Ministry work with social media companies to help residents who are in distress or have suicidal tendencies; and (b) whether there are plans to develop initiatives with companies, such as Facebook, on \"suicide watch\" type of intervention programmes.
Mr Desmond Lee: Singapore adopts a whole-of-society, multi-pronged approach to address the complex nature of suicide. The Government and community partners work together to promote upstream prevention, encourage individuals to seek help, provide support to at-risk groups, and offer crisis support.
Many of these efforts need to take place in person to be effective, while some are complemented by online efforts. For example, the Institute of Mental Health's Community Health Assessment Team has a drop-in centre at *SCAPE Youth Park and an online WebCHAT service for young persons in need of mental health support. The National Council of Social Service is running a multi-year public education campaign on mental health issues, called \"Beyond the Label\". Apart from making available information on where to seek help, a Facebook community page has also been set up as a safe space for the online community to share experiences and provide support to those in recovery. A key community partner is the Samaritans of Singapore, which provides programmes to train professionals and the public on how to identify suicide warning signs, which may be observed on social media, and on how to support the individual.
The evidence for \"suicide watch\" interventions, which depend on the robustness of the computer algorithms, is currently unclear. There may also be concerns about data privacy and civil liberties, as automated actions may kick in once warning signs are picked up, regardless of whether the distress is real or inaccurately diagnosed. We will continue to review how we enhance our suicide prevention efforts in both physical and online spaces.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Smoking Ban in Orchard Road on Shopping Experience There","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources since the implementation of the smoking ban in the Orchard Road area (a) how many smokers have been warned; (b) what has been the response of foreign visitors; and (c) what has been the impact on shopping experience in the Orchard Road area.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Orchard Road No-Smoking Zone (NSZ) came into force on 1 January 2019, as part of the Government’s long-term goal of achieving a smoke-free Singapore.
To date, about 2,200 verbal advisories have been issued daily by the National Environment Agency (NEA) to smokers for lighting up in the newly-prohibited areas. Smokers, including foreign visitors, have been generally receptive when advised by NEA officers about the new law. Most comply by smoking at one of the more than 40 Designated Smoking Areas located within the NSZ.
NEA will maintain this advisory approach during the first three months of the prohibition and will closely monitor the situation on the ground to ensure the NSZ is implemented smoothly. With the shopping belt and its main thoroughfare now smoke-free, we expect the overall shopping experience in Orchard Road to improve, as pedestrians can enjoy cleaner air and a healthier environment there.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Gardasil Vaccine Not Replaced with Gardasil-9 Vaccine in MediSave Claimable List","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"72 Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching asked the Minister for Health why the Gardasil vaccine is not replaced with the Gardasil-9 vaccine under the MediSave claimable list as the latter drug (launched since 2017) covers more strains of the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) and increases overall cervical cancer prevention from 70% to up to 90%.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: There are currently three human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines available in Singapore – Cervarix, Gardasil and Gardasil 9.
In Singapore, HPV vaccination is recommended for females aged nine to 26, and MediSave use is extended for vaccinations using Cervarix or Gardasil. These two vaccines protect against HPV infection from two of the most common types (16 and 18), which account for 70% of cervical cancer cases, and have been shown to be both clinically- and cost-effective in the local setting.
Gardasil 9 is a relatively new vaccine which potentially extends protection against additional cancer-causing HPV types. The Ministry of Health is currently in the process of evaluating its cost-effectiveness, compared to the other HPV vaccines.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Blood Donation Rates Compared to Other Countries and Contingency Measures for Blood Shortages","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for Health (a) how does our resident population blood donor rate compare with other developed countries, such as South Korea, Germany and the US; (b) what contingency measures are in place for blood shortages; and (c) how will the Ministry ensure that blood donations keep up with increasing blood usage due to our ageing population.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) is responsible for providing a safe and adequate blood supply for our patients. It works closely with the Singapore Red Cross (SRC) to recruit voluntary blood donors under the National Blood Programme. SRC leverages its networks with companies, communities, hospitals, religious groups, schools and the uniformed groups to recruit blood donors.
About 73,000 blood donors contributed to the blood programme in 2017, giving a donor participation rate of 1.8%. This is comparable to countries and cities in the Asia Pacific region, such as Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong, where donor participation rates range between 1.9% and 2.2%.
Overall, our donor pool has been adequate to meet blood demand. Nevertheless, occasional blood shortages may arise, especially during festive seasons or school holidays, when many blood donors travel overseas. In such a situation, the SRC will ramp up recall efforts through social media, text messages and direct donor calls. More mobile blood drives may also be set up across the island. During rare instances when blood stocks fall below a critical level, HSA may work with hospitals to postpone some non-urgent surgeries until the blood stocks improve. HSA and SRC may also launch an appeal for blood donations through the mass media.
We have embarked on efforts to improve our outreach. For example, HSA has built satellite blood banks closer to where donors live, work or study. HSA and SRC have also focused on getting more young people to become regular blood donors. Frequent mobile drives are also set up at schools, polytechnics and universities. We encourage the community to volunteer to become regular blood donors, particularly as demand will increase over time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Higher Workplace Fatalities in Construction Industry in 2018","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"74 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what are the reasons for the higher workplace fatalities in the construction industry in 2018 as compared to 2017; (b) what is the profile of the fatalities; and (c) what more can be done to reduce workplace fatalities in the construction industry.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Construction workplace fatalities have been on the decline, from an average of 29 between 2009 and 2013 to an average of 21 between 2014 and 2018. It increased marginally from 12 in 2017 to 14 in 2018, reflecting the challenge of sustaining the improvements over the last decade.
Falls from height remain the main contributor in recent years. The accidents were caused by either the lack of barricades over open sides, or by not using properly attached safety lines. There was a higher proportion of foreign workers with less than two years' experience in Singapore among the fatalities.
Our existing approach to raise awareness on safety lapses while carrying out targeted enforcement has helped to reduce construction fatalities. We will continue to work with the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Council to raise safety and health awareness through campaigns, roadshows and events at dormitories. In 2018, we have reached out to around 50,000 construction workers to educate them on safety risks, especially from falls. We also share the learning points from recent accidents with the construction industry, including partners like the Singapore Contractors Association Limited.
Safety training, especially for less experienced foreign workers, is crucial. This is why we have mandatory safety orientation training for new workers, conducted in eight languages. Refresher courses are also required every two years, with frequency reduced after six years of experience.
In addition, the Ministry of Manpower will sustain regular inspections. We conducted about 3,000 construction inspections last year, covering close to 70% of active construction sites. They resulted in 55 Stop-Work Orders and 1,100 composition fines.
Formed in February 2018, the WSH2028 Tripartite Strategies Committee has been discussing how we can improve our WSH outcomes. It is expected to release its recommendations in February 2019.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Timeline for Resolving Noise Disturbance Problem Caused by Birds in Potong Pasir","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"77 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for National Development whether AVA can provide a timeline for resolving the noise disturbance problem caused by birds in Potong Pasir since the matter was raised two years ago.
Mr Lawrence Wong: A sustainable myna management strategy requires a holistic suite of measures, such as the removal of food sources made available by humans, habitat modification, and population control strategies. To this end, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) and National Parks Board (NParks) have been working with the Jalan Besar Town Council to address the noise disturbance issue at Potong Pasir caused by Javan Mynas.
NParks has regularly pruned trees in Potong Pasir to discourage the mynas from roosting in the affected areas. AVA has also worked with the Town Council to ensure proper food waste management, as the presence of improperly disposed food waste exacerbates the situation.
AVA has also tried to move the birds away from trees near residential areas. For instance, in September 2017, AVA trialled the use of lasers to disperse the birds at Potong Pasir, but assessed that this is not a sustainable solution as the birds returned once the lasers were switched off. AVA has also conducted trials in other parts of Singapore, such as using natural bird repellent and passing low electrical currents through roost trees. However, these trials had limited long-term effects. AVA will continue to refine and assess other possible methods.
The Javan Myna is not native to Singapore. It is an invasive bird species. If the mynas continue to roost in large numbers, they will pose a threat to native bird species as they compete for nesting and food resources, as well as cause hygiene and noise issues. Thus, there is a need to remove some birds in order for longer-term management measures to be effective.
In this regard, AVA conducted a trial in Potong Pasir in December 2018 using roost nets to trap the mynas. This was adapted from a system developed by the Australian National University, where the roosting mynas are trapped while in the trees, and then euthanised in a controlled and humane manner. AVA is finetuning the method before considering wider deployment.
In tandem, NParks is working with the Jalan Besar Town Council to undertake habitat modification measures to reduce the number of mynas roosting in the estate. First, trees in the estate will be pruned to make them less attractive as roost sites. This will be completed in January 2019. We expect the mynas to disperse to non-residential areas once the tree crowns are pruned. Second, to sustain this effect over the long-term, the current roost trees will be replaced with tree types that are less preferred by the mynas. These are trees with crowns that are less dense but will still provide greenery and shade.
Agencies will continue to work closely with the Jalan Besar Town Council to manage the myna situation at Potong Pasir. The public must also play its part by maintaining the overall cleanliness of the environment and not feeding wild birds.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plan to Address Psychosocial and Mental Health Needs of Caregivers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"78 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there is an impending national caregiving plan to address the complex challenges in this area; (b) whether the Action Plan for Successful Ageing, Enabling Masterplan and Community Mental Health Masterplan address the psychosocial and mental health needs of caregivers and, if so, how; and (c) what is the current percentage of healthcare spending on caregiving.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Caregiving needs will grow as our population ages, with one in four Singaporeans aged 65 and above by 2030. Guided by the Action Plan for Successful Ageing, the Ministry of Health's (MOH's) approach towards supporting caregivers, includes expanding and deepening the range of care options available for their loved ones, so that caregivers can have peace of mind.
To this end, we have added 2,600 day places and 2,300 home care places since 2015. We have also made respite care at nursing homes and eldercare centres more accessible so that caregivers can have a reprieve in caregiving. Overall, around $800 million was spent in 2016 on the long-term care sector, which could help to meet these caregiving needs and to ensure that quality care is affordable and accessible.
Besides these efforts, other programmes are in place to support the psychosocial and mental health needs of caregivers. For example, community outreach and community intervention teams are available to provide caregivers with emotional support, psychosocial education and counselling, equipping them with more insights about their loved one's conditions and how they can be better supported. Caregiver support networks are also a valuable source of peer support and mutual help.
In addition, support for caregivers of persons with disabilities has also been enhanced under the Third Enabling Masterplan. For example, SG Enable recently set up a \"Caregiver Pod\" at the Enabling Village to facilitate peer support group activities and training, and to make it convenient for caregivers to access information, referrals to disability services and support.
We have also seen ground-up initiatives, such as the Caregiving@Southwest programme recently launched by the Southwest Community Development Council in December 2018. The effort seeks to build community-wide awareness and recognition of caregivers and their caregiving needs and brings together community partners to show collective support for caregivers. We want to encourage more of such ground-up local efforts, as part of a whole-of-society effort to support our caregivers.
However, we recognise that more can be done. A review is presently being undertaken to look into strengthening support for senior caregiving. As part of the review, MOH has been engaging caregivers and other stakeholders to gather feedback and discuss ideas since September last year. Areas under review include improving care navigation in the community, enhancing caregiver support in areas, such as respite services, and working with community partners to offer more socio-emotional support to caregivers. MOH and partner agencies are developing specific recommendations in these areas, and more details will be provided in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Calculation of CPF Ordinary Account Interest Rate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"79 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether computation of the CPF Ordinary Account (OA) interest rate, based on indicative Singapore bank fixed deposit and savings rates, reflects the actual market interest rate for deposit accounts, given banks' widespread use of bonus interest rates linked to salary credits, and so on; and (b) whether the Ministry will study alternative methods of CPF OA interest rate computation to reflect the actual average weighted interest rates earned on deposit accounts with Singapore banks and the implications thereof for retirement adequacy.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Central Provident Fund (CPF) interest rates are pegged to returns on investments of comparable risk and duration in the market.
The Ordinary Account (OA) is a liquid account as the savings can be withdrawn at any time for home purchases. This is why the OA interest rate is pegged to the higher of (a) the three-month average of major local banks' interest rates or (b) the legislated minimum interest of 2.5% per annum.
As the computed rate based on the three-month average of major local banks' interest rates is 0.4% per annum, the current OA interest rate is 2.5% per annum for the first quarter of 2019.
Bonus rates given by banks are not comparable with CPF interest rates. The bonus rates are typically contingent on customers fulfilling other criteria, such as minimum spending on credit cards, crediting of salary, or making bill payments through an account. The effective interest rate may be much lower because the bonus rates are usually capped to a certain amount. In other words, they are not uniformly applicable to all balances of all depositors.
Members may consider transferring their OA savings to the Special Account (SA) to earn a higher interest rate. Balances in the SA currently earn 4% to 6% per annum. In 2017, over 20,000 members transferred nearly $470 million into their SA.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inspection Frequency for Mature Trees in Parks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"82 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the inspection frequency for mature trees located in our parks; and (b) whether there is a need for a review of the tree inspection regime in light of changing climatic conditions and recent incidents of tree failures causing injuries.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Trees in parks are inspected every 12 to 24 months, depending on their proximity to event spaces and car parks. Since 2016, the National Parks Board (NParks) also does an additional, more in-depth annual inspection for trees of more than four metres in girth, to check for internal decay or cavities in these trees.
NParks has also implemented other measures in light of changing climatic conditions. First, NParks replaces storm-vulnerable species with hardier trees. Second, NParks regularly prunes its trees to improve their structure and balance. In particular, since 2016, NParks has been conducting crown reduction and pruning prior to periods of more severe weather conditions. Third, NParks uses technology to analyse risks and improve inspection processes. For instance, NParks recently developed a Tree Structural Model to understand the impact of strong winds on the stability of trees. The data helps NParks determine the pruning required to improve tree stability.
With this adaptive tree management programme in place, the annual number of tree failure incidents has fallen by about 85% from 3,000 in 2001 to about 400 in 2018, despite more severe weather. NParks will continue to review its tree management programme to ensure that it remains robust and comprehensive.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Efforts and Proposed Measures to Reduce Sugar Intake Amongst Singaporeans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"83 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Health (a) whether he can provide an update on Health Promotion Board's efforts to reduce the sugar intake of our population; (b) whether there are studies on the feasibility and effectiveness of a sugar tax based on the implementation in other countries; (c) what are the efforts to educate food and beverage establishments on appropriate sugar content in products and the effects of sugar on health; and (d) whether there are plans to incentivise food and beverage establishments to create products with less sugar and make such products affordable for the general population.
84 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Health (a) whether studies have been conducted on the relative efficacy and impact of the four proposals to ban high-sugar drinks, tax the drinks, require labelling, and ban advertisement for the drinks; and (b) what weight will public views carry in the current solicitation of feedback.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Health Promotion Board (HPB) adopts a multi-pronged strategy to encourage Singaporeans to eat healthily and reduce their sugar intake from food and drinks.
First, we highlight to Singaporeans the importance of reducing sugar intake and encourage them to choose lower-sugar alternatives. To do this, we introduced the Healthier Choice Symbol (HCS) in 2001 to help consumers identify healthier, lower-sugar food and drinks while grocery shopping. We also couple this with consumer promotions, such as the nationwide Eat Drink Shop Healthy (EDSH) Campaign to encourage healthier choices.
Second, we make more healthier alternatives available when Singaporeans eat out. To do this, we partner the food and beverage (F&B) industry through the Healthier Dining Programme (HDP) to encourage them to offer healthier options, including lower-sugar drinks, as part of their permanent core menu offerings. Currently, there are more than 1,200 F&B operators, hawker centres and coffee shops onboard the programme. We have also worked with the Ministry of Education (MOE) and other Government agencies to ensure that all packaged drinks sold at MOE schools and Government premises are lower in sugar. In addition, freshly prepared hot drinks at Government premises are served without sugar by default.
Third, we encourage the industry to lower the sugar content of their products. To do this, HPB extended the Healthier Ingredient Development Scheme (HIDS) in April 2018 to include sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), desserts and sauces. This provides grants for the development and marketing of healthier food ingredients. Since then, six companies have tapped on the HIDS grant to develop 39 lower-sugar products, such as lower-sugar Asian drink mixes for coffee shops and F&B outlets.
These efforts show encouraging signs of progress. The average sugar level of pre-packaged SSBs have declined from five to three teaspoons per 250-millilitre serving between 2007 and 2017. The proportion of pre-packaged SSBs purchased that carry the HCS label has also increased from 30% in 2012 to 44% in 2018.
Nevertheless, we can do more. Singaporeans continue to consume 12 teaspoons of sugar daily, of which more than a third still comes from pre-packaged SSBs.
To further reduce Singaporeans' sugar intake, our Ministry has, therefore, initiated a public consultation on four possible measures on pre-packaged SSBs: mandatory front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition labels, advertising regulations, a ban on sale of higher-sugar SSBs, and a sugar tax or, more accurately, an excise duty imposed on manufacturers and importers of pre-packaged SSBs.
As far as we are aware, there are no studies that directly compare the relative efficacy and impact of the four proposals. In fact, the proposals are not mutually exclusive and they often work together and reinforce one another in promoting healthier and less sugar choices.
Nevertheless, for the individual measures, there is clear evidence to suggest that they would each help to contribute to reducing Singaporeans' sugar intake.
For example, evidence shows that mandatory FOP nutrition labels are effective in helping consumers make healthier choices. Among the different types of FOP labels, studies conducted globally and locally found that nutrient-summary labels are more effective than nutrient-specific and warning labels in helping consumers make healthier choices.
Studies have also shown that restricting advertisements can reduce consumption of the product. A global study across 80 countries found a significant decline in sales of less healthy food products in countries where laws restrict their advertisements.
Excise duties have been adopted in about 45 jurisdictions globally, and overseas evidence show that the duties can encourage the industry to reformulate and reduce sugar content in their drinks. In the United Kingdom, for example, over half of the manufacturers took steps to lower or remove the sugar content in their drinks before the duty came into effect, so as to avoid paying the duty. More details are available in the Government's public consultation paper.
The Ministry is reaching out to a wide range of public stakeholders as well as the industry in our public consultation. We welcome views on measures to reduce sugar intake from pre-packaged SSBs and will carefully consider all feedback received from the public and industry, as well as evaluate the local and overseas evidence thoroughly, before making a decision.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Singapore's Food Security for Key Agricultural Products","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"85 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for National Development (a) how has the Ministry sought to ensure Singapore's food security for key agricultural products over the last decade; and (b) how does it ensure that prices remain affordable without compromising on our food security.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Government adopts a multi-pronged approach to safeguard Singapore’s food security. First, diversification of our food import sources mitigates the impact of supply disruption from any one source. As part of our diversification efforts, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) regularly organises and facilitates food sourcing activities, to help our industry players find alternative import sources. We bring in food from around 180 countries, and we are continuing to strengthen our diversification efforts. For instance, we accredited some farms in Thailand to supply hen shell eggs in 2017 and we are in the process of accrediting more this year.
Second, we are transforming our agriculture sector to raise local production. In 2017, we launched the Farm Transformation Map to guide the long-term development of the sector. Since then, we have tendered out new agriculture land plots, mostly at fixed land prices, to enable tenderers to compete on productivity. We have already seen new innovative technologies and processes proposed by winning tenderers. We also enhanced the Agriculture Productivity Fund last year such that our farmers can get more funding support to purchase advanced technology and systems to optimise their production.
Third, we are encouraging our local farms to internationalise and set up overseas presence. Apollo Aquaculture is an example of a local food fish farm that has expanded its operations to Brunei. Such farms can export their produce back to Singapore to enhance our food security.
Finally, Government agencies are being reorganised to enable greater focus on food safety and security. We recently announced the setting up of a new Statutory Board called the Singapore Food Agency which will take over the food-related work currently being done by AVA, the National Environment Agency and the Health Sciences Authority. Tomorrow, we will be tabling the Singapore Food Agency Bill and the NParks (Amendment) Bill in Parliament to effect this organisational restructuring. As part of the legislative changes, we will also introduce requirements for importers of key food items to adopt plans, including preventive strategies, to mitigate the impact of food supply disruptions.
If and when there are external disruptions in supply, there will be some fluctuations in food prices and we have to be prepared for this. But on the whole, our strategies have strengthened food security and ensured that Singaporeans have access to affordable and safe food options. This is why the Economist Intelligence Unit has ranked Singapore as the most food secure country in the world.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Armed Services' Response to Intrusion into Singapore's Sea and Air Space","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"87 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Defence on the issue of Singapore's defence (a) how does our armed services react to any violation of Singapore's sovereignty; and (b) at what juncture will our services challenge any intruding ship or aircraft and be prepared for all consequences.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: The Member’s question will be addressed in our reply to a similar oral question in the next Parliament Sitting on 15 January 2019. [Please refer to \"Measure to Prevent Malaysian Vessels from Entering Singapore Waters\", Official Report, 15 January 2019, Vol 94, Issue 88, 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":"Investigation into Singaporeans Involved in Keppel Offshore and Marine Corruption Case and Actions Taken","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Prime Minister whether he can provide an update on the status of the investigation by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) in respect of the Singaporeans involved in the Keppel Offshore & Marine (KOM) corruption case and the actions which have been taken against responsible individuals thus far.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister): Investigations into the individuals concerned are ongoing. A request for Mutual Legal Assistance has been sent out to the foreign authorities to formally seek assistance to secure or obtain further evidence for use in the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) investigations. We are awaiting reply on our request. How quickly and to what extent our request will be processed is a matter for the jurisdiction to which the request is made.
We wish to assure the Member that the CPIB will investigate the case thoroughly when all evidence and information have been secured. Only after the investigations are completed, can the Attorney-General's Chambers then properly assess the case and decide on the appropriate response.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Offence under Active Mobility Act for Users of Personal Mobility Device or Power-assisted Bicycle","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry plans to make it an offence under the Active Mobility Act for a user of a personal mobility device (PMD) or power-assisted bicycle (PAB) to use a mobile telecommunication device or while he is intoxicated when riding the PMD or PAB on public footpaths or roads.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Active Mobility Act regulates the use of personal mobility devices (PMDs) and power-assisted bicycles (PABs) on public paths, while the Road Traffic Act regulates the use of PABs on roads. PMDs are not allowed to be used on roads. Under both Acts, it is an offence to ride such devices recklessly or dangerously, whether while using a mobile telecommunication device, under intoxication or under other circumstances.
As reckless riding on public paths is already an offence, there are no plans to introduce new offences specifically to cover the riding of a PMD or PAB on public paths while intoxicated or while using a mobile telecommunication device. The Land Transport Authority will continue to step up efforts to further improve awareness of the legislation, rules and code of conduct governing active mobility usage.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Malaysia’s Intention to Build Third Road Link to Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether Singapore has been informed of Malaysia's intention to build a third road link to Singapore; and (b) whether Singapore needs a third road link and, if so, what are the possible locations.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Singapore has not received any official proposal or communications from Malaysia related to the construction of any new road link between Singapore and Malaysia.
Singapore's priority is to focus on existing bilateral projects with Malaysia as well as easing congestion at our land checkpoints.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress of Rapid Transit System Project Linking Johor Bahru to Woodlands","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the progress of the Rapid Transit System (RTS) project linking Johor Bahru to Woodlands; and (b) what is the estimated project timeline of the RTS should both Governments proceed with the RTS.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System Link (RTS Link) Project is behind schedule and not progressing well. The RTS Link Bilateral Agreement (BA), signed by Singapore and Malaysia in January 2018, sets out certain milestones to track the progress of the Project. Based on the BA, the Joint Venture Company (JVC) comprising Singapore's Singapore Mass Rapid Transit and Malaysia's Prasarana Malaysia Berhad should have been constituted by 30 June 2018, and the JVC should have been appointed as the RTS Link operator (OpCo) through a Concession Agreement (CA) with our Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the Government of Malaysia by 30 September 2018.
However, these milestones have been missed. Over the past few months, Malaysia has indicated that they are considering replacing their JV partner, but has delayed confirming their JV partner, first until September 2018, then until December 2018 and, most recently, on 28 December 2018, Malaysia requested to be given until 28 February 2019 to confirm their JV partner. As a result of these delays, the JVC has not even been incorporated to date, let alone signed the CA. Meanwhile, Malaysia has also unilaterally suspended bilateral discussions to appoint the OpCo since August 2018, pending its confirmation of the Malaysian JV partner.
Under the BA, if by the original deadlines the JVC has either not been incorporated or not been appointed as the OpCo, then both countries are obliged to jointly call a fair, international and transparent open tender to appoint the OpCo, unless both Governments mutually agree to postpone these deadlines. In line with the intent of the BA, Singapore prepared and sent draft tender documents to Malaysia in November 2018 for their comments. There is urgency to this as, based on Singapore's calculations, the open tender needs to be called by 31 March 2019 so that, as agreed under the BA, the appointed OpCo can procure the Thomson-East Coast Line (TEL) core systems for the RTS Link before these procurement options expire. However, to date, we have not received Malaysia’s response to the draft tender documents. There is, therefore, a real risk that Singapore and Malaysia will not be ready to call a joint open tender by 31 March 2019, which may, in turn, result in the appointed OpCo not being able to procure the TEL core systems before the TEL procurement options expire.
Singapore has been diligent in implementing the BA. LTA has assembled close to 70 staff, including civil and systems engineers, to implement the RTS Link. We have called civil tenders to construct the RTS Link infrastructure, including Singapore’s RTS Link Woodlands North station, and our portion of the RTS Link crossing bridge.
Singapore remains fully committed to implementing the RTS Link Project and fulfilling our obligations under the RTS Link BA. We have also been reasonable and flexible, because we understand Malaysia's circumstances following the May 2018 Malaysian General Elections. However, missing the agreed deadlines in the BA to appoint the OpCo and thereafter failing to engage with Singapore to take steps to jointly call an open tender to appoint the OpCo has serious implications. The BA is an international treaty that is binding on the countries that signed it, regardless of any changes in the Government. The BA makes clear each country’s responsibility towards the Project, and the consequences of not meeting these responsibilities.
We will continue to take a constructive approach to move the project forward. As Malaysia knows, the RTS Link was envisioned to be a joint effort to ease congestion at our land checkpoints and boost transport collaboration. Unfortunately, as a result of these delays, the commencement date of RTS Link services will likely be delayed beyond the original target of 31 December 2024.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Ensure Flights are not Endangered by Drones","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Transport (a) how has the Ministry ensured that flights are not endangered by drones; and (b) whether there have been drone intrusion cases at our airports over the last three years.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The reply has been addressed at the 14 January 2019 Parliament Sitting. [Please refer to \"Preventing Disruptions at Changi Airport Caused by Drones\", Official Report, 14 January 2019, Vol 94, Issue 87, 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":"Proportion of SAF Officers Offered Re-employment at Retirement Age","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Defence (a) what is the current proportion of SAF officers who are offered re-employment at retirement age; and (b) what are the measures to retrain and redeploy older SAF officers.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: As a military with physical demands required to fulfil its mission, officers and other ranks of personnel within the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) do not adhere to the retirement age of commercial companies and civilian organisations. Most officers and warrant officers retire around 50 years old as there are only limited vocations for re-employment across SAF. Military experts can work till 60 years of age. However, the shorter career span within SAF is made up for by higher remuneration packages as compared to equivalent civilian jobs.
In addition, SAF has specific programmes to prepare personnel for their second careers. Eighty percent secure jobs within six months of retiring from SAF. These programmes include structured training to prepare them for leadership and management roles and other valuable competencies in areas, such as human resource, finance, operations research and training pedagogy. Our training programmes are accredited by external agencies and, in some cases, developed jointly with local educational institutions. Employer surveys show that the skills and certifications obtained by SAF personnel during their careers are well-recognised by private and public sector employers.
The Ministry of Defence established the Career Transition Resource Centre (CTRC) in 2009 to further support our retiring personnel, by equipping them with the skills to enhance their employability. Under the Lifelong Employability and Advancement Programme, retiring personnel are provided funds and time off to attend courses and seminars, go for job interviews, and embark on internships that can serve as a springboard into their sector of interest. They can also avail themselves of personalised one-on-one career coaching and job referral services through CTRC's certified career advisors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Role of Overseas Missions Towards Singaporeans in Distress in Foreign Countries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) what is the role of our Overseas Missions towards Singaporeans and their family members who face unfortunate and sudden circumstances, such as a serious illness, accident or death in a foreign country; and (b) in such circumstances, to what extent will our Overseas Missions assist Singaporeans with logistical arrangements to receive medical care and/or repatriation to Singapore, if necessary.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Our Overseas Missions provide timely consular assistance, support and advice to Singaporeans in distress overseas. For major incidents, such as serious illness, injury or death, we will contact the local authorities to ensure that appropriate medical care is provided and help the family with the administrative processes to bring the affected Singaporean home.
For example, following a bus accident in Makkah last year, our Consulate-General in Jeddah visited several hospitals, worked with the local authorities to locate all affected Singaporean pilgrims, and ensured that those injured received due medical care. Unfortunately, one Singaporean passed on. Our officers rendered consular assistance to his family who arrived from Singapore, and facilitated the burial in Makkah. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) also worked closely with the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore and the travel insurance company to facilitate the medical repatriation of another Singaporean, as well as the safe return of the remaining pilgrims.
We will continue to do our best to provide prompt and effective consular service to Singaporeans. While MFA cannot bear the expenses incurred for medical care and repatriation, we will liaise with the family and work with relevant Singapore agencies, such as the Ministry of Health, the Central Provident Fund Board and the Ministry of Social and Family Development, to explore if overseas medical expenses and associated costs can be covered under MediSave or other forms of assistance. In order to have adequate financial protection against unexpected emergencies, Singaporeans should always purchase travel and medical insurance when travelling overseas.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assistance for Singaporeans with No Access to or Unable to Make Online Applications for NRICs or Passports","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the measures that will be put in place to assist Singaporeans with no access to or who are unable to make online applications for NRICs or passports; and (b) whether some of these measures will be retained beyond 2020 when ICA seeks to have all such applications to be made online.
Mr K Shanmugam: For those with no access to the Internet or who are unable to make online applications for National Registration Identity Cards (NRICs) or passports:
(a) family members and friends can apply online on their behalf.
(b) self-service kiosks are also available at the eLobby of the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) Building, with ICA Service Ambassadors on hand to assist and guide applicants through the application process.
(c) ICA can make special arrangements to assist those who are unable to make a trip to ICA due to medical reasons. For example, those who are bedridden and are required to re-register for their NRIC can request ICA to conduct the re-registration at their residence.
All these measures will be available even beyond 2020.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Number of Applications for NRIC and Passport in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the annual number of applications for NRIC and passport respectively in the past five years; (b) how many of these applications are online applications; and (c) what are the age profiles of those who have submitted non-online applications.
Mr K Shanmugam: The annual number of passport applications, the proportion of online applications, and the age profiles of those who submitted non-online applications can be found in Tables 1A and 1B below.
National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) applications are received mainly through the mandatory NRIC registration and re-registration exercises at age 15, 30 and 55, as well as the optional NRIC re-registration exercise for those born before 1 January 1962, that is, those above age 55 as at 1 January 2017. In addition, NRIC applications are also submitted by those who wish to change their NRIC particulars, or to replace their lost or damaged NRICs.
For each of the above groups, the annual number of applications, and the proportion of online applications can be found in Table 2 below.
10 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Health (a) whether someone who offers a cigarette to a person below the age of 21 is committing an offence; (b) whether the receiver of the cigarette is also an offender; (c) how many of such offenders have been booked in the past three years; and (d) what has been the fine imposed on these offenders.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The current minimum legal age (MLA) for the purchase, use, possession, sale and supply of tobacco products is 19 years. This was raised from 18 years on 1 January 2019 and will be raised progressively to 21 years by 1 January 2021. Offering a cigarette to a person below the MLA is an offence under section 10 of the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act (TCASA). Receiving a cigarette is also an offence if they are under the MLA under section 11 of TCASA.
The main focus of Health Sciences Authority's enforcement efforts is on curbing the sale of tobacco to underage persons. Errant retailers are liable to a maximum fine of $5,000 for the first offence and $10,000 for subsequent offences. In addition, the tobacco retail licence will be suspended for the first offence and revoked for subsequent offences. Between January 2015 and October 2018, 90 retailers have been caught for selling tobacco to underage persons.
In addition, anyone caught buying or acquiring any tobacco product for a person below the MLA, is liable on conviction in Court, to a maximum fine of $2,500 for the first offence and $5,000 for subsequent offences. Similarly, anyone caught giving or furnishing tobacco product to a person below the MLA, is liable on conviction in Court, to a maximum fine of $500 for the first offence and $1,000 for subsequent offences. Between January 2015 and October 2018, 18 people had been caught for such offences.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Published Fee Benchmarks for Surgical Procedures at Private Hospitals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Health how does the Ministry intend to monitor the acceptance and compliance of the recently published fee benchmarks for surgical procedures at private hospitals.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The objective of publishing fee benchmarks is to provide all stakeholders a reference on the reasonable ranges of professional fees for common surgical procedures in the private sector. The benchmarks will guide private sector healthcare providers in charging appropriately. They will also enable patients and payers to make more informed decisions.
Doctors should take reference from the benchmarks in setting their fees and advising their patients. They should also be prepared to explain to patients where their charges exceed the range, such as when addressing a highly complex case or in exceptional circumstances.
Today, the Ministry of Health (MOH) already monitors overall hospital bill sizes and doctors' charges. Where we observe charging patterns that could be of concern, we will query the healthcare providers, investigate and take follow-up actions if necessary.
MOH welcomes feedback on the fee benchmarks. These would help to guide future review and refinement of the benchmarks.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Illegal Access to Health Promotion Board's HealthHub Accounts in September and October 2018","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health (a) whether he can provide an update on the attempts to illegally access Health Promotion Board's (HPB) HealthHub accounts in September and October 2018; (b) why are the hackers still able to attack the accounts despite remedial steps taken; and (c) how can users of the apps developed by HPB be assured that their identities are being kept safe.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Health Promotion Board (HPB) and Integrated Health Information Systems (IHiS) investigated a case of unusually high number of attempts to log into HealthHub on four days within a short period, that is, 28 September 2018, 3 October 2018, 8 October 2018 and 9 October 2018. The investigation revealed that attempts were made with more than 27,000 email addresses. Ninety-eight percent of the email addresses used were not related to HealthHub account identifiers (IDs), and these attempts were unsuccessful. Nevertheless, 72 accounts were successfully accessed during the four days.
The high volume of email addresses not related to HealthHub account IDs and the repeated attempts suggest that the email addresses used were likely to have been obtained from other compromised sources. No evidence of a breach in the HealthHub system has been found.
The unusual log-in attempts and access were limited to the basic tier of HealthHub, which contained the user's self-populated profile and any Healthpoints accumulated through participation in HPB programmes. Access to other e-services requires SingPass and two-factor authentication and were not affected.
As a precaution, access to all HealthHub mobile application and HealthHub website e-services were suspended from 9 to 14 October 2018. The 72 HealthHub accounts of concern were locked, and HPB contacted each of the account holders to ascertain if the log-ins were legitimate and to alert them of the access to their accounts. The investigation found that none of the accounts were adversely affected. Fifteen users had legitimately logged into their accounts, while two users suspected that their accounts were accessed without authorisation. It was inconclusive as to whether the remaining 55 accounts were accessed without authorisation. HPB provided all the 72 account holders with advice on how they could unlock their accounts and reset the passwords.
HPB has included a security advisory in HealthHub to remind users on the need to use strong passwords for their online accounts and to refrain from using the same password for different websites and applications. In December 2018, further precautionary measures were also implemented, including (a) introducing an authentication at the point of login that protects against automated attacks by malicious bots; and (b) introducing a One Time Password (OTP) for the redemption of Healthpoints.
IHiS and HPB have not detected further incidents of unusual log-ins since. They will continue to strengthen their systems for better protection, monitoring and response to cyber threats.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress of Pilot Pre-Implantation Genetic Screening Programme at National University Hospital","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the progress of the pilot Pre-Implantation Genetic Screening programme at the National University Hospital; (b) whether it is on track for completion in 2020; (c) what are the eligibility criteria for joining the programme; (d) whether private patients will be able to join the programme; and (e) what is the number of participants in the programme thus far.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Ministry of Health (MOH) started a three-year pilot on Pre-Implantation Genetic Screening (PGS)1 in 2017. Under the pilot programme, patients who fulfil at least one of the following clinical criteria will be eligible:
(a) age 35 years old and above, regardless of prognosis;
(b) two or more recurrent implantation failures, regardless of age; and
(c) two or more recurrent pregnancy losses, regardless of age.
Eligible patients from the three public Assisted Reproduction (AR) centres, namely, National University Hospital (NUH), KK Women's and Children's Hospital (KKWCH) and Singapore General Hospital (SGH)) can be referred to the NUH lab to undergo PGS. Patients from the private hospitals can also be referred to the three public AR centres for assessment.
As of December 2018, 221 patients were recruited under the PGS programme and MOH will review the pilot programme after completion.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : PGS is a test for chromosomal abnormalities in embryos created through in vitro fertilisation (IVF), before the embryos are implanted into the uterus. The gender of the embryo is not made known to any person who may have an influence in the selection of the embryos for implantation."],"footNoteQuestions":["13"],"questionNo":"13"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tuberculosis Cases among Foreign Domestic Workers in Singapore in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Yee Chia Hsing asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the number of tuberculosis (TB) cases discovered among foreign domestic workers (FDWs) in Singapore over the last five years; and (b) whether additional measures can be taken to prevent the spread of TB among FDWs and from FDWs to their employers.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Foreign domestic workers (FDWs) applying to work in Singapore are required to be screened for active tuberculosis (TB), including having a chest x-ray, within two weeks of their arrival in Singapore, before they are issued with Work Permits. FDWs are also required to undergo screening for active TB upon two years of stay in Singapore.
From 2013 to 2017, an average of 146 new FDW applicants a year were diagnosed with active TB when they applied for Work Permits. FDW applicants found to have active TB will not be issued Work Permits and have to return to their home countries, unless otherwise supported by their prospective employers. In the same period, about 200 FDW Work Permit holders were diagnosed with active TB per year, out of an FDW population of between 214,500 and 246,800.
As active TB can still develop later after screening is negative, it is imperative that persons who display symptoms of active TB, such as unexplained prolonged cough of three weeks or more, seek early medical attention, so that active TB can be detected and treated early. With treatment, persons with active TB rapidly become non-infectious and would no longer transmit the disease. Strict adherence to TB treatment will help ensure cure and minimise the risk of relapse of the disease.
Therefore, to reduce the risk of TB transmission, we seek the support of employers with FDWs displaying TB symptoms to seek medical attention for their FDWs early. Employers should also support and ensure that their FDWs receive TB treatment via Directly Observed Treatment (DOT) and comply with medical appointments.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Current Number of Informal and Professional Caregivers in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the current number of informal and professional caregivers in Singapore; (b) what is the total value of the informal versus the professional caregiving sector; and (c) how many salaried working persons left employment to be primary caregivers in the last three years and what is the demographic profile of these persons.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Caregiving needs will grow as our population ages, and the Government is expanding home and community care services to support families and provide caregivers with peace of mind. As of 2017, we have about 8,300 staff providing direct care1 to seniors in the long-term care sector2. However, families and friends are also an important source of care and support for our seniors. Based on the National Health Surveillance Survey conducted in 2010 and 2013, around 6% to 8% of Singapore residents aged 18 to 69 provide regular informal care or assistance to family and friends with health issues, long-term illnesses or disability. As informal caregiving arrangements vary, we do not have available estimates of the total value of informal caregiving to make a direct comparison with formal caregiving.
Some working persons may leave the workforce to focus on family responsibilities. Based on the Ministry of Manpower's 2017 Comprehensive Labour Force Survey, 202,000 residents left their jobs within the last three years and were not looking for a job. Of this number, about 12,500 residents cited family caregiving to families or relatives as the main reason, and the majority of these residents were females, married and aged 40 and over.
We also recognise the important roles that family caregivers play, and the need to take a whole-of-community approach to support them. The Government will continue to review how we can further encourage ageing in place and provide more direct and holistic support for caregivers of seniors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Direct care staff refer to doctors, dentists, registered nurses, enrolled nurses, nursing support staff, Allied Health Professionals (AHPs) and AHP support staff. Admin and ancillary staff are excluded in this definition.","2 : The long-term care sector comprises community care settings, such as the nursing homes, hospices and home and centre-based care services. Community hospitals are not included."],"footNoteQuestions":["15"],"questionNo":"15"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Median, Average and Range of Balances in CPF Members' MediSave Accounts in Last Five Years on Their Demise","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Health in the last five years, what have been the median, average and range of balances left in CPF members' MediSave accounts when they passed on.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: MediSave helps Singaporeans set aside part of their income over their working years to save up for healthcare expenses in old age when their healthcare needs are typically higher. Between 2013 and 2017, about half of Singaporeans aged 65 and above who passed away had about $5,500 or less in their MediSave. For those who pass away at an older age of 85 and older, half had $4,000 or less left in their MediSave Account.
The data are summarised in Table 1 below.
Some of them have also benefited from the Pioneer Generation Package, which includes annual MediSave top-ups of up to $800 and additional MediShield Life premium subsidies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Usage of MediSave to Pay for Parents’ Healthcare Costs in Past Five Years and Median Withdrawal Value","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Health in each of the past five years (a) what is the number of people using their MediSave to pay for their parents' healthcare cost; and (b) what is the median withdrawal value.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Between 2014 and 2017, about 6% of all MediSave withdrawals were for MediSave account holders' parents' healthcare expenses, which includes inpatient, day surgery and outpatient expenses. The details are as shown in Table 1 below.
18 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) currently, what is the average lifespan of volunteers who were actively involved in charity work when they were alive; and (b) whether there is a co-relation between a person's lifespan and the age he starts volunteering or the years of volunteer service performed.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: We do not track the statistic that Mr Gan Thiam Poh has asked for.
A study by the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre (NVPC) in 2013 found that a person's perception of well-being is positively correlated with giving, which includes volunteering or donating. Specifically, 66% of givers, as compared to 45% of non-givers, were more likely to report they experience high levels of well-being1. Giving may increase well-being as volunteers derive deep meaning from helping others, are more grateful for their own life situation, and grow a bigger network of positive social relationships, along with a stronger sense of community.
A research study in Scotland2 in 2018 found that volunteering benefited the mental and physical well-being of volunteers, with benefits found to be more significant for older volunteers 60 years and above who are more subject to loneliness, role-identity loss, such as loss of employment or loss of partner/departure of children, and ill-health.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Well-being in the study refers to the extent to which individuals report to be satisfied and happy with their lives. ","2 : Linning, M & Jackson, G (2018, December). “Volunteering, health and wellbeing.” What does the evidence tell us? Volunteer Scotland."],"footNoteQuestions":["18"],"questionNo":"18"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Communique Issued at G20 Summit in Buenos Aires on 1 December 2018","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Trade and Industry to what extent the Government agrees with the communique issued at the G20 Summit in Buenos Aires on 1 December 2018, in particular, that the multilateral trading system is currently falling short of its objectives and that there is a need for reforms at the World Trade Organisation to improve its functioning.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Singapore welcomes the Group of 20 (G20) Leaders' Declaration in advancing the Argentinean Presidency's theme of \"Building Consensus for Fair and Sustainable Development\", which affirms the G20's commitment to pursuing strong, sustainable, balanced and inclusive growth. We also welcome the G20's pledge to work together to improve a rules-based international order that is capable of effectively responding to a rapidly changing world.
The rules-based multilateral trading system has provided predictability and stability in the conduct of international trade, facilitated trade and investment liberalisation, fostered cooperation and interdependence among economies, and underpinned global economic growth for decades.
The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has made efforts, since its establishment in 1995, to ensure that its rules and core functions remain relevant for business and governments in the face of rapidly evolving trade realities. With more than 160 WTO Members, obtaining consensus can be challenging. Some notable successes include the conclusion of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement in 2013 and the expansion of the Information Technology Agreement (ITA2) in 2015, which expedite the flow of goods across borders and further liberalise trade in information and communication technology products respectively. However, the pace of reforms needs to be accelerated.
This includes updating WTO rules to support and facilitate the growth of the digital economy. Singapore, together with Australia and Japan, drives the WTO Joint Statement Initiative on E-Commerce, a widely supported endeavour to develop multilateral trade rules on e-commerce which 72 WTO members accounting for 77% of global trade have signed up to thus far.
The WTO's effective functioning is crucial for Singapore, as a small and open economy heavily dependent on trade. WTO reform discussions are taking place in Geneva, and plurilaterally amongst concerned members. Singapore is supportive of all efforts to build up and strengthen the WTO and will continue to contribute to discussions at the WTO and other fora.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Latest Figure for Average Household Expenditure on Basic Needs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what is the latest figure for the Average Household Expenditure on Basic Needs (AHEBN) for all available household sizes by number of persons.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Average Household Expenditure on Basic Needs (AHEBN) is an estimate of the average monthly expenditure that households spend on essential needs, such as food, clothing and shelter.
The AHEBN for a four-person household is estimated to be about $1,300 in 2017. The amount would be correspondingly lower for households with fewer members.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Offer of Lift Upgrading Programme for Third Time to Blocks Unsuccessful at Polls Twice","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB will consider offering the Lift Upgrading Programme for the third time to those blocks that have been unsuccessful at the polls twice, given that new residents may have moved into the blocks.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) is offered to Housing and Development Board (HDB) blocks without direct lift access and where the cost cap per benefiting unit can be met.
For blocks that have failed the polling once previously, HDB will evaluate appeals for a second poll, provided that Advisers can demonstrate that circumstances have changed since the earlier failed poll. This can be through an informal survey and Advisers should receive at least 75% support from residents before appealing for LUP to be re-offered.
To ensure that LUP polls are taken seriously, blocks that are offered LUP a second time will be informed that it will be the final round of LUP polling. We should respect the residents' final decision. Reopening the polls for the third time is likely to lead to negative feedback from residents who had earlier objected to LUP. Nonetheless, we are open to considering requests for a third poll on a case-by-case basis, if there are good reasons. This includes strong resident support of at least 75%.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"BCA Design and Installation Requirements for Manhole Covers of Utility Services in New HDB Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the BCA design and installation requirements for manhole covers of utility services in new HDB estates; and (b) whether noise reduction has been factored in for the design and installation of such covers on vehicular driveways with interlocking pavers.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Manhole covers within Housing and Development Board (HDB) precincts are generally for water, sewerage and telecommunications purposes, and are, hence, built in accordance with guidelines by the Public Utilities Board and the Infocomm Media Development Authority. As for manhole covers on public roads, these are built by the Utility Providers in accordance with guidelines by the Land Transport Authority.
The various guidelines ensure that manhole covers are structurally sound and fit for purpose. Covers are intended to fit properly with the manhole and should emit minimal noise as a result.
HDB receives minimal feedback related to noise from manhole covers on vehicular driveways with interlocking pavers. In the few instances where there have been noise complaints, they were generally due to poor fit of the cover with the manhole. This can usually be addressed by clearing the manhole of debris, replacing covers which have become warped due to long-term exposure to the elements, or grinding the cover to achieve a better fit with the manhole. Where such situations arise in HDB precincts, HDB will work with the Town Councils to rectify them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"HDB Lessees Currently Servicing HDB Loans, Fixed-rate Bank Loans and Floating Rate Bank Loans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for National Development (a) by size of HDB flat, how many HDB lessees are currently servicing (i) HDB loans, (ii) fixed-rate bank loans and (iii) floating-rate bank loans; (b) what are the average monthly instalments payable, by size of HDB flat and type of loan, in CPF and cash respectively; and (c) whether the Ministry has studied how sensitive monthly instalments are to the present sustained rise in market interest rates and the results of such studies.
Mr Lawrence Wong: As at 31 December 2018, 490,440 Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat owners were servicing mortgages, of which 320,526 (65%) took their loan from HDB. Of these households, 68,715 (~22% of 320,526) owned a 3-room or smaller flat, 147,310 (46%) owned a 4-room flat, 84,281 (26%) owned a 5-room flat and the remaining 20,220 (6%) owned an Executive or bigger flat.
The average monthly instalment for flat owners of 3-room and smaller, 4-room, 5-room and Executive/bigger flats servicing HDB loans was $567, $853, $1,058 and $1,253 respectively. Amongst these flat owners, 224,836 (70% of 320,526) households paid their monthly instalment fully using Central Provident Fund (CPF) monies, 44,693 (14%) households paid fully in cash, and 50,997 (16%) households used a combination of cash and CPF monies.
Of the flat owners who took a loan from HDB, the large majority (292,664 or 91%) took a concessionary loan. The interest rate of concessionary HDB loans is pegged at 0.1% above the CPF Ordinary Account interest rate, which is currently at 2.5% and does not change frequently. This has helped to provide certainty to HDB borrowers on their monthly mortgage repayments.
At the same time, there were about 169,914 (35% of 490,440) households servicing loans from financial institutions (FIs) for their HDB flats. Of these households, 36,875 (22% of 169,914) owned a 3-room or smaller flat, 73,397 (43%) owned a 4-room flat, 45,381 (27%) owned a 5-room flat, and the remaining 14,261 (8%) owned an Executive or bigger flat.
However, as of September 2018, less than one-third of all outstanding housing loans extended by FIs were pegged to floating market interest rates, down from about 60% in 2016. Many FI borrowers have switched to fixed-rate loan packages, which has reduced their vulnerability to market interest rate increases.
The Government has also put in place measures to encourage financial prudence among borrowers that could help to mitigate the impact of rising market interest rates. For instance, loans for the purchase of HDB flats granted by FIs are subject to a maximum loan amount based on the flat's value and a Mortgage Servicing Ratio (MSR) of 30%, with the latter computed using a medium-term interest rate (currently 3.5%). FIs are also required to provide a Residential Property Loan Fact Sheet when marketing property loans, to help borrowers understand how they will be impacted by higher interest rates.
In addition, the Monetary Authority of Singapore regularly conducts stress tests on households' mortgage exposures. Most HDB owners' mortgage payments to FIs are expected to remain manageable under a \"severe stress\" scenario of both higher interest rates and lower household incomes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Disposal of Private Property within Six Months of Effective Date of Purchase of Non-subsidised or Resale Flat","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for National Development with regard to the requirement to dispose of private property within six months of the effective date of purchasing a non-subsidised or resale flat (a) how many cases of private residential property in Singapore and overseas have been so disposed of since the inception of this policy; (b) how many appeals asking for retention of such property have the Ministry received; and (c) how many of such appeals are approved and what is the basis for the approval.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats are meant for owner-occupation. To reinforce this principle, buyers of HDB resale flats are not allowed to retain ownership of local or overseas private properties.
Since the policy was introduced in August 2010, slightly over 5,000 households have disposed of their private properties when they purchased flats from the resale market. In the last three years, about 1,200 households appealed to retain their private property. Of these, HDB acceded to about 300 appeals after considering the specific facts of each case, taking into account factors, such as the owner's share in the private property and the reasons why the private property cannot be recovered for his or her own use.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on NEA’s Implementation of Smoke-free Zone in Orchard Road Area","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether he can update the House on NEA's implementation of a smoke-free zone in the Orchard Road area; and (b) what are the challenges faced in designating smoking areas in this part of the city with high human traffic.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Orchard Road No-Smoking Zone (NSZ) was brought into force on 1 January 2019, as part of the Government's long-term goal of achieving a smoke-free Singapore.
Over the past few months, the National Environment Agency (NEA) has been actively publicising the NSZ through various platforms. Signs demarcating the boundary of the NSZ have been erected at lamp posts and dustbins, while advertisements have been put up at Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations and selected bus stops and on buses plying Orchard Road. Community Volunteers have been engaging the public in the NSZ to raise awareness, while publicity materials are being displayed at our points of entry and on the Singapore Tourism Board's Visit Singapore webpage to alert foreign visitors to the prohibition. Travel agents, tour guides and hotels have also been informed about the NSZ so that they can advise tourists accordingly.
Prior to implementing the NSZ, NEA had worked closely with the Orchard Road Business Association (ORBA) and building owners and managers to ensure sufficient provision of designated smoking areas (DSAs). There are now more than 40 DSAs within the NSZ, spaced about 100 to 200 metres apart. As footfall along the shopping belt is particularly heavy, efforts have been made to ensure that the DSAs are located away from the pedestrian thoroughfare. Smokers can find the location of these DSAs on OneMap and NEA's website, the myENV mobile application, and through publicity brochures disseminated at shopping malls and tobacco retailers within NSZ.
We are monitoring the use of the DSAs and will assess the effectiveness of the NSZ in reducing the public's exposure to second-hand smoke.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Number of Foreign-registered Motor Vehicles Driven in Singapore on a Given Day by Vehicle Type","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) in the past 12 months, what is the average number of foreign-registered motor vehicles being driven in Singapore on a given day, broken down by vehicle type; and (b) whether further measures will be taken by LTA to ensure that these motor vehicles comply with Singapore's regulations on the control of exhaust and noise emissions.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: In the last 12 months, between November 2017 and October 2018, foreign registered vehicles made about 24 million trips into Singapore through land checkpoints, or about two million trips per month. About 78% are made by motorcycles, 15% by cars and the remainder by goods vehicles, buses and taxis.
To ensure compliance with the Environmental Protection and Management (Vehicular Emissions) Regulations, the National Environment Agency (NEA) enforces against smoky foreign vehicles at the Tuas and Woodlands entry checkpoints. Notices of composition are issued on the spot if foreign vehicles fail the smoke emissions test. Foreign commercial vehicles emitting excessive smoke will also be turned back immediately. In addition, NEA works with the Land Transport Authority and the Traffic Police to enforce against noisy foreign vehicles during joint blitzes. We will continue to look at measures to reduce emissions from foreign vehicles.
Members of the public who spot smoky or noisy vehicles on the road are encouraged to report them to NEA via the online feedback form at: www.nea.gov.sg, myENV application or the NEA hotline.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Subsidised and Non-subsidised F&B Stalls in Hawker Centres and Average Rent Paid in Past 12 Months","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what is the current number of subsidised and non-subsidised food and beverage stalls in hawker centres; and (b) what is the average rent paid by these subsidised and non-subsidised food and beverage stalls in the past 12 months.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: There are over 6,000 cooked food stalls in the 114 hawker centres owned by the Government. Of these, about 40%, or 2,294, of stallholders pay subsidised rent.
The rent for subsidised cooked food stalls is either $192 or $320 per month, depending on the scope of upgrading works carried out during the Hawker Centres Upgrading Programme. Rents for non-subsidised cooked food stalls are on average about $1,300 per month as of November 2018.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Causes of Mass Food Poisonings in October, November and December 2018","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what are the causes of the mass food poisonings in October, November and December 2018 from food prepared at five different places; and (b) whether rules can be implemented requiring eateries or caterers to notify the public or potential customers as to the reasons for a suspension of their licence.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: In October, November and December 2018, there were five reported food poisoning incidents involving Team Catering Pte Ltd, Tung Lok Catering, FoodTalks Caterer and Manufacturer, Spize Restaurant @ River Valley and Mandarin Orchard Hotel.
The joint investigations by the Ministry of Health (MOH), Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) and National Environment Agency (NEA) confirmed that there were no links among the incidents. In the case of Spize Restaurant, it was a Salmonellosis outbreak of unusual severity which suggests that the food was heavily contaminated. There was strong evidence of poor personal hygiene and food handling practices by food handlers leading to contamination of ready-to-eat food and the environment. The operator was also found to have seven unregistered food handlers and preparing food outside of the licensed premises. In the case of Team Catering Pte Ltd, a number of possible commonly-found pathogens were identified from the human stool samples, including Clostridium Perfringens and enteropathogenic Escherichia coli and several hygiene lapses and poor kitchen habits were identified, including improper storage of knives and poor housekeeping.
In the case of FoodTalks Caterer and Manufacturer and Tung Lok Millennium Pte Ltd, while the causative pathogen could not be identified for both outbreaks, several food hygiene lapses were found at their premises, for example, no proper segregation between raw and ready-to-eat food in the same chiller compartment, no provision of handwashing facilities, and cockroach infestation.
For the case at Mandarin Orchard Hotel, the outbreak was caused by environmental contamination of the Grand Ballroom with norovirus, a common virus that causes gastroenteritis, which was propagated by poor environmental and personal hygiene practices, such as improper cleaning of vomitus and banquet servers continuing to work while ill.
NEA has taken tough actions against the food operators who have violated the law. The operating licence of Spize Restaurant at River Valley Road was terminated and NEA will also press charges against the operator in Court. The operating licences of Tung Lok, as well as the ballroom and affected kitchen in Mandarin Hotel, will remain suspended until the operators have complied with the requirements imposed by NEA, which includes sanitising the affected areas, reviewing the processes and rectifying the lapses.
For the lapses found at FoodTalks, NEA will be issuing a summons to the operator. For selling food that is found unfit for human consumption, operators may face a penalty of up to $10,000 for the first offence and, in the case of repeat offenders, a fine of $20,000 or imprisonment of three months or both.
In addition to strengthening the overall regulatory framework for food operators, NEA will enhance NEA's website and the myENV app to make it easier for consumers to check the food hygiene records of the operators. We are also looking into measures to better notify the public about a food operator's licence suspension. Consumers are urged to engage only licensed caterers, and consume catered food within the stipulated \"consume by\" time period. Consumers who come across poor hygiene practices in food establishments should provide feedback to the authorities for further investigation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monitoring of Ambient Air Quality of Civil and Military Airports and Their Vicinity","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether the Government monitors the ambient air quality of all civil and military airports and their vicinity and keeps track of the pollution index for pollutants like nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxides, sulphur oxides, particulate matter and volatile organic compounds; (b) if it does not keep track of any of such pollutants, whether it will consider doing so; and (c) whether such data can be made available to the public.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The National Environment Agency (NEA) monitors and reports the air quality in Singapore through a network of five national air quality monitoring stations across the island. These stations are representative of the ambient air quality of the five regions, within which the civil and military airports are located. Criteria pollutants, namely, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), are continuously monitored and reported on an hourly basis as the Pollutants Standard Index (PSI). In 2018, the air quality in Singapore remained in the \"Good\" and \"Moderate\" range for 100% of the days, based on Singapore's PSI readings. The PSI reading is made available every hour on the NEA and haze websites, as well as on myENV app.
Additionally, NEA continuously monitors the ambient concentration of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), which are typically emitted by the industries. The VOC levels monitored in Singapore are comparable with the major European Union, Japan and United States cities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tamil as Third Language, in Addition to Malay and Chinese","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider offering Tamil as a third language to students who have the ability and aptitude to learn a third language, in addition to Malay and Chinese that have already been offered to such students.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Education (MOE) is committed to promoting the learning of our Mother Tongue Languages, including Tamil, and we continually look for ways to enhance it.
MOE is open to offering Tamil as a third language if there is sufficient demand for it. However, current demand for it among non-Tamil students is low. We will review the matter if the situation changes.
In the meantime, we will continue to support our students learning the language as their Mother Tongue in schools, with well-qualified Tamil language teachers and quality teaching resources.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentages of Students on Financial Assistance Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education for each year in the past five years, what are the percentages of students who receive assistance from the Ministry's Financial Assistance Scheme who are from the (i) Normal (Technical), (ii) Normal (Academic) and (iii) Express streams respectively.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: From 2014 to 2018, 28% of secondary school students who received assistance from the Ministry of Education (MOE) Financial Assistance Scheme were from the Normal (Technical) stream, 41% were from the Normal (Academic) stream, and 31% were from the Express stream. The percentages for each of the five years were similar.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentages of Students Living in HDB Flats under Public Rental Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education for each year in the past five years, what are the percentages of students who live in HDB flats under the Public Rental Scheme who enter the (i) Normal (Technical), (ii) Normal (Academic) and (iii) Express streams respectively.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Socio-economic status has become significantly correlated with the Primary School Leaving Examination results. This is inevitable as lives improved and lower-income families make progress over the years, with children doing better than their parents. So, the percentage of students in Normal streams living in public rental Housing and Development Board flats are higher than that in Express stream.
This is why the Ministry of Education is undertaking various measures, including the Uplifting Pupils in Life and Inspiring Families Taskforce (UPLIFT), to help lift the performance of students at the bottom.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Students Taking Third Language Course in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Education in the past five years (a) what is the total number of students taking a third language course and the breakdown for each year; (b) what is the percentage of students completing the third language courses and taking them in the GCE \"O\" level examination; and (c) what is the number of passes for these examinations.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: In the past five years, the total number of students studying a third language has remained stable at approximately 6,000.
Each year, about 30% of Third Language students would complete the course and sit for the GCE \"O\" level examinations. The average pass rate is 96%. The reason given by students for dropping third languages is typically the difficulty of coping with this additional subject when their academic and Co-Curricular Activities commitments grow as they progress further in their secondary schools.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans for More Education and Career Guidance Counsellors in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Education (a) whether there are plans to bring more Education and Career Guidance (ECG) counsellors specialised in different fields to each school; and (b) how are schools involving parents in the ECG curriculum.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As at end 2018, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has deployed 97 Education and Career Guidance (ECG) Counsellors to MOE secondary and pre-university schools, Institute of Technical Education colleges and polytechnics.
ECG Counsellors complement and support the teachers, academic staff and mentors who provide frontline ECG support to students. We are currently focused on improving the curriculum and methods of ECG, and there is currently no plan to further expand the pool of ECG Counsellors.
Parents are our key partners in helping students to discover their strengths, aptitude and interests and make informed educational and career decisions. Schools engage parents regularly to raise awareness of educational and career pathways and on ways of engaging their children to discuss their career options and choices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Last Full-time or Part-time Job Held by Persons Who Have Passed on by Age Group","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Manpower currently, what is the last full-time or part-time job held by persons who have passed on, broken down by age groups of (i) 85 to 90 years, (ii) 80 to 84 years, (iii) 75 to 79 years, (iv) 70 to 74 years, (v) 65 to 69 years, (vi) 60 to 64 years, (vii) 55 to 59 years and (viii) 50 to 54 years.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Ministry of Manpower does not track the last held jobs of persons who have passed on.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singaporeans Who Have not Done Their CPF Nominations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Manpower to date, how many Singaporeans have not done their CPF nominations and how can this gap be closed.
Mrs Josephine Teo: As of December 2018, about 58% of Central Provident Fund (CPF) members aged 16 and above do not have a valid nomination. Among older members aged 55 and above, 30% do not have a valid nomination. These include members who have never made a nomination, as well as members who made a nomination that was revoked by marriage and did not make a subsequent nomination.
CPF Board will continue to work with its industry and community partners to encourage members to make a nomination through various touchpoints. For example, CPF Board provides information on CPF nomination to industry bodies, such as the Law Society and Life Insurance Association, so that their members, that is, lawyers and insurance agents, can educate their respective clients on the distribution of CPF savings upon death. The Board also encourages members to make a nomination through members' Yearly Statement of Accounts and when they attend the CPF Retirement Planning Service at age 54. These targeted measures are complemented by public education efforts through CPF Board's social media channels, talks, roadshows and website.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Progressive Wage Model on Number of Persons Employed in Cleaning, Security and Landscape Sectors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Manpower whether there are reviews or studies available to evaluate the impact of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) on the number of persons employed in the cleaning, security and landscape sectors and, if so, what do the studies suggest has been the impact on employment numbers of the PWM thus far.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Progressive Wage Model (PWM) was implemented in the Cleaning, Security and Landscape sectors as a targeted intervention to address low and stagnant wages caused by market failure of cheap sourcing. It aims to raise the salaries of local workers in these sectors by providing a clear progression ladder for workers to earn higher and sustainable wages as they become more skilled, more productive and take on higher job responsibilities.
The number of local workers employed in these three sectors depends on many factors beyond PWM itself, such as the state of the economy, adoption of labour saving technologies, improvements to company's business processes, and changes in foreign worker policies. It is difficult to attribute changes to local employment numbers to the PWM alone.
What is clear, however, is that since PWM was implemented, workers in these three sectors have seen positive real wage growth. Between 2011 and 2016, the real median gross wages of full-time resident cleaners, security guards and landscape maintenance employees increased by 32%, 36% and 16% respectively. This was achieved while keeping local unemployment rate low at around 3% and maintaining employment rate1 at a healthy level of around 80%.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Data pertains to locals aged 25 to 64."],"footNoteQuestions":["37"],"questionNo":"37"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures Taken to Strengthen Institution of Marriage among Young Couples","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Mr Mohamed Irshad asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what are the measures taken by the Ministry to strengthen the institution of marriage among young couples and to encourage them to get married.
Mr Desmond Lee: Based on the 2016 Marriage and Parenthood Survey, 83% of Singaporeans aged 21 to 35 who are single aspire to get married. The Government will continue to support their marriage aspirations.
Most singles prefer meeting potential partners in natural settings, such as at recreational or social activities, or through introductions by friends and colleagues. We have, therefore, been working with partner agencies to identify natural settings for singles to meet, grow their social networks and form meaningful relationships. These include events, such as Sports Hub's \"Community Play Day\" and the Urban Redevelopment Authority’s \"Countdown@Civic District\". The Social Development Network (SDN) funds initiatives by community partners and organisations to bring singles together. SDN also helps dating agencies improve their services through accreditation and funding. To provide more interaction opportunities through interest- and activity-based initiatives, SDN organises the Spark Connections campaign twice a year, where accredited agencies offer a wide array of events and programmes at subsidised prices, ranging from trendy, lifestyle-based events to self-development workshops.
We also recognise that many couples aspire to have a home of their own when they get married. We have stepped up our efforts to make it faster and easier for young couples who have decided to settle down to apply for a flat. Since 2015, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has launched more than 50,000 new Build-To-Order (BTO) flats, with at least 70% to 85% of these set aside for first-timer families. First-timer families applying for a BTO flat in non-mature estates will be able to select a flat within two to three tries. HDB also launched the first batch of 1,100 BTO flats with shorter waiting times of about two to three years in 2018, with another 2,000 such flats scheduled for launch in 2019. We have also enhanced housing grants for resale flats, to better support couples who choose to buy resale flats. HDB has also introduced flexibility in 2018 to allow young couples who are studying or serving National Service to defer their income assessment for housing loans and grants till before keys collection, instead of at the point of flat application, when they may not have met the minimum period of employment to qualify for housing grants.
Besides helping singles find suitable partners, we must also continue to strengthen and support marriages. The Ministry of Social and Family Development works closely with our partners to offer marriage preparation programmes to couples of all ages. These programmes help couples better understand their roles and manage their expectations of married life. The programmes also equip them with useful communication and conflict resolution skills. Tailored programmes are also available for couples with specific needs, such as cross-cultural and remarrying couples.
Couples who marry at a very young age may need more support to prepare for marriage. They may also face additional stress if they become parents shortly after marriage, increasing the risk of marital conflict. Hence, we have recently made it mandatory for couples where either party is a minor, that is, below 21 years old, to undergo marriage preparation programmes before they can apply for marriage. This applies to both civil and Muslim marriages. These programmes include group marriage education workshops that equip couples with skills and knowledge on topics, such as communication, conflict resolution and management of household finances, and one-to-one consultation sessions to help couples make informed decisions about marriage. There are also optional post-marriage programmes to provide continued support for couples in areas, such as marriage enrichment and parenting.
Marriage is hard work and the relationship needs to be constantly nurtured. We work with partners, such as the Families for Life Council and family life and marriage educators, to provide a suite of marriage enrichment programmes at workplaces and in the community, to equip couples with insights and tips to strengthen their marriages. The Families for Life Council also organises an annual \"I Still Do\" initiative, where there are marriage talks, bonding activities and online content to engage couples in conversations on marriage and encourage couples to continue to date and reaffirm their commitment to each other.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Teach Students to Spot Signs and Symptoms of Depression and Seek Help","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"39 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Social and Family Development how can the Ministry work more closely with the Ministry of Education to teach students to spot signs and symptoms of depression and seek help for themselves or their family and friends.
Mr Desmond Lee: It is important to strengthen our children's social and emotional resilience so that they can manage stress well and cope with future challenges. The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) works closely with the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health and other agencies to support our children and youths in their mental well-being. For instance, MSF was part of the NurtureSG Taskforce that made recommendations to improve the health outcomes of our children and youths, including their mental well-being.
In schools, the Character and Citizenship Education curriculum aims to raise awareness of mental health, reduce stigmatisation associated with mental health issues, help both staff and students to recognise signs of distress, for example, unexplained injuries, sending or posting moody messages online, and encourage them to seek help for themselves and others around them. Students are also taught to look out for and support one another, and to alert their teachers, school counsellors or parents if their friends are affected by difficulties. School counsellors may refer children with psycho-social issues to mental health professionals.
Family members and members of the community can also play a role to spot students with depression symptoms. For example, members of the community may encourage individuals or families in need to approach a Family Service Centre (FSC) for assistance. The social workers at the FSCs will work with the school and other specialists in the community to provide holistic interventions to the student and his/her family to overcome their issues and support them towards long-term stability.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":2601,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Prof Lim Sun Sun","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190114/vernacular-Lim Sun Sun Payment Services 14 Jan 2019-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Lim Sun Sun Payment Services 14 Jan 2019-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":2602,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Chen Show Mao","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190114/vernacular-Chen Show Mao Currency 14Jan2019 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Chen Show Mao Currency 14Jan2019 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":2603,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Saktiandi Supaat","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190114/vernacular-14 Jan 2019 - Mr Saktiandi Supaat - Currency Bill.pdf","fileName":"14 Jan 2019 - Mr Saktiandi Supaat - Currency Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":2604,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190114/vernacular-Lee Bee Wah Infectious Diseases 14Jan2019-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Lee Bee Wah Infectious Diseases 14Jan2019-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":2605,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Joan Pereira","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190114/vernacular-Joan Pereira Infectious Diseases 14Jan2019-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Joan Pereira Infectious Diseases 14Jan2019-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":2606,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Terence Ho Wee San","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190114/vernacular-Terence Ho Adj Motion 14Jan2019 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Terence Ho Adj Motion 14Jan2019 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":2607,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Baey Yam Keng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190114/vernacular-Baey Yam Keng Adj Motion 14Jan2019-Chinese_edits.pdf","fileName":"Baey Yam Keng Adj Motion 14Jan2019-Chinese_edits.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}