1 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Transport with regard to the East-West MRT Line disruption in September 2024 (a) whether the faulty train causing damage to the rail tracks has been withdrawn in accordance with approved procedures; (b) what is the total number of commuters affected; (c) what is the estimated loss of fare revenue; and (d) what is the total expenditure on the bridging bus services.
2 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport what actions are being considered by LTA to prevent a recurrence of the East-West MRT Line service disruption on 25 September 2024.
3 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) in view of recent major MRT service disruptions, whether the Public Transport Council will consider reviewing the fare increase scheduled for 28 December 2024; (b) if not, why not; and (c) whether service reliability in the period leading up to the date of the proposed fare increase can be considered as a factor in the fare adjustment formula to spur improvements in the reliability of bus and train services.
4 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Transport with the recent spate of train service disruptions including those affecting the East-West MRT line (a) whether the Ministry will conduct an overall review of the MRT network to forestall and minimize service disruptions; (b) whether there is a redundancy plan for power supply to keep trains running; (c) whether penalties will be imposed on the train service providers; and (d) if so, how are such penalties determined.
5 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Transport (a) what root causes have been identified for the train disruption along the East-West MRT line on 25 September 2024; (b) what are the reasons why a faulty train's withdrawal led to damage of the MRT track, running rails and third rail; (c) what precautionary measures are taken when the faulty train is withdrawn; (d) how can these precautionary measures be improved; and (e) what has been done to support affected commuters including students.
6 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Transport whether the Government will consider issuing a work-from-home advisory during major train disruptions in the future to reduce pressure on the public transport system and, if not, why not.
7 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether commuters making connecting trips before and after travelling on closed MRT line segments will be charged twice if they exceed the 45-minute transfer time limit while using free bridging bus services; and (b) if so, how many commuters affected by the East-West MRT Line disruption on 25 September 2024 may have been charged twice.
8 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Transport whether he will convene a Committee of Inquiry to investigate the root causes of the East-West MRT Line disruption on 25 September 2024.
9 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the total cost of the repair works arising from the East-West MRT Line disruption on 25 September 2024; and (b) whether the cost will be borne by commuters.
10 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Transport (a) how often do MRT trains undergo maintenance checks; (b) what are the standard operating procedures for maintenance checks and maintenance works on MRT trains; and (c) how will the Ministry review the current maintenance procedures to ensure that MRT trains are operating at a high standard to prevent future incidents.
11 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry can provide details on the causes and findings for the recent train failure on the East-West MRT Line; (b) whether there will be a review and changes made to the train and rail maintenance regime; and (c) how can the overall experience for commuters during the prolonged train disruption be improved.
12 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the service standards for the free bus bridging services provided during train disruptions under the Bus Contracting Model; (b) whether the bus bridging services provided during the East-West MRT Line disruption on 25 September 2024 have met these standards; and (c) whether the disruption has resulted in a decline in service standards on regular bus services and, if so, what is the extent of the decline.
13 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Transport (a) what support has been provided to persons with disabilities and the elderly during the train disruptions on the East-West MRT Line from 25 to 30 September 2024; and (b) what measures will the Government take to ensure more effective dissemination of information both online and at MRT stations during train disruptions to minimise confusion among commuters.
14 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Transport (a) what caused the train axle box that caused damages and disruptions to the East-West MRT Line to be defective; (b) why was this not detected prior to the incident; and (c) whether LTA is considering a comprehensive review of predictive maintenance capabilities and real time condition-monitoring of rail systems and operating assets at SMRT to identify potential lapses and prevent future occurrences.
15 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport with regard to the faulty SMRT train which triggered the multi-day East-West MRT Line disruption from 25 September 2024 (a) when was the last time the carriages underwent axle box functionality tests and related inspection and checks; (b) whether any preventive and predictive maintenance was carried out on its axle box and related parts; (c) if so, when was the maintenance last carried out; (d) why was the maintenance inadequate; and (e) what went wrong in the maintenance and checking processes.
16 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport with regard to the faulty SMRT train which triggered the multi-day East-West MRT Line disruption from 25 September 2024 (a) what was the initial reported fault which caused the cancellation of the service; (b) what was the cause of the dislodgement of the axle box from the train; and (c) what was the time taken by the train's driver or any personnel in charge of the tow to stop the tow after the dislodgement of the axle box.
17 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport whether LTA will conduct a review of the existing requirements on the maintenance regime and practices of all MRT trains including but not limited to older trains such as the first-generation Kawasaki Heavy Industries trains.
18 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Transport in relation to the six-day shutdown of the East West MRT Line in September 2024 (a) what has been the total capacity of bridging bus services put into effect compared to the average ridership of the stations that are closed; and (b) whether there is a need to mandate better maintenance and servicing requirements for train operators.
19 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Transport with regard to the disruption of train services on the East-West MRT Line from 25 to 30 September 2024, whether the Ministry has considered requesting assistance and resources from the armed forces to ease human congestion and to ensure public safety.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I answer Question Nos 1 to 19 for oral answer and Question Nos 45 to 48 for written answer in my Ministerial Statement which I will deliver at tomorrow's Sitting?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, you may.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Thank you, Sir.
Mr Speaker: I ask Members to be patient and wait for tomorrow's answer.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Measures and Help Provided in Student Bullying Incidents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"20 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education (a) whether teachers are sufficiently equipped with the knowledge and skills to identify and manage bullying, especially in cases where victims do not report incidents; and (b) what measures are in place to ensure schools have adequate trained personnel, such as counsellors and disciplinary staff, to support teachers and students in handling bullying cases.
21 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Education how are schools helping students who are bullied to restore their confidence and rebuild their identity and self-worth.
22 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Education (a) what steps are taken by the Ministry and schools to prevent occurrences of bullying incidents in schools; (b) what is the level of collaboration between schools and the Singapore Police Force in cases where the bullying of students happen outside of the schools; and (c) whether there are adequate monitoring and surveillance to pick up early indications of bullying situations and what are the pre-emptive and preventive measures.
23 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Education (a) in each year of the past five years, how many reports has the Ministry received regarding incidents of bullying that occurred within or outside of school premises; and (b) in view of the recent bullying incidents at an Institute of Technical Education campus, a secondary school and a primary school, whether the Ministry currently has in place an anti-bullying policy at all schools.
24 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Education (a) what specific criteria are used to determine whether an incident is to be classified as bullying that warrants action to be taken by the educational institution; (b) whether the Ministry has conducted any recent surveys among students to assess the prevalence of bullying in schools; and (c) what are the interventions and support provided to teachers to help them deal with bullying cases in the course of their work.
25 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry tracks the number of reported bullying cases in schools; (b) if so, what is the number of bullying cases in each year of the last five years; (c) if not, why not; and (d) what resources and policies are being put in place in schools to enhance the detection, reporting and correction of bullying cases.
26 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has observed a rising trend in bullying cases involving school students; and (b) how can the Ministry better prevent bullying of school students and support victims of bullying.
27 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education (a) in the last five years, what are the observed trends relating to the number of bullying cases schools have received; (b) what is the breakdown between online and offline bullying incidents reported to schools; and (c) whether there are any special guidelines given or approaches taken for cases of bullying involving students with neurodiverse conditions or disabilities and, if so, what are they.
\tThe Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 20 to 28, please.
\tMr Speaker: Yes, you may.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, my response will address the questions raised by Members Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim, Dr Wan Rizal, Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Ms Hany Soh and Ms He Ting Ru on the bullying incidents in schools and Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), that recently caught public attention on the Internet.
My response will also cover related questions from Ms Hazel Poa, Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, which are scheduled for subsequent Sittings.
Mr Speaker: Alright. Minister, I think you mentioned Question No 28. But it stops at Question No 27.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Sir, my apologies, till Question No 27.
The Ministry of Education (MOE) takes a serious view of all forms of hurtful behaviour, from once-off insensitive remarks to more persistent, intentional acts of bullying and even physical violence. Schools and IHLs have rules and regulations which prohibit any form of bullying. Our schools and IHLs educate students against these negative behaviours and work with families, the community and partners to intervene promptly and address them.
Members Ms Hany Soh, Mr Gerald Giam, Mr Louis Chua asked about the trends in bullying incidents. In the last five years, the average number of bullying incidents has remained steady. For every 1,000 students, there were an average of two incidents in primary schools and six incidents in secondary schools annually for any form of bullying, both within and outside of school. Of these, incidents involving the use of technology averaged less than one incident per 1,000 secondary students and even fewer in primary schools each year.
Members Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim and Dr Wan Rizal asked about how MOE educates our students and equips them to deal with threats of bullying. From young, students learn pro-social behaviours through lessons and role-modelling. Through the Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) curriculum and a school environment that emphasises values and respect, students acquire skills to be kind to their classmates, resolve disagreements respectfully and stand up against bullying.
Students learn what to do when they encounter unsafe situations. Stay calm, do not retaliate, but move away and seek help from adults nearby, and alert their teachers and parents. These lessons extend to the cyberspace. Through cyber wellness lessons, students learn to be respectful and responsible users online. Whether online or offline, they should report any incident of bullying to their teachers or School Leaders.
As students sometimes prefer to turn to their friends for support, schools have established peer support networks and trained students to help and look out for one another, and in conflict management.
These educative efforts continue in our IHLs, which raise awareness about anti-bullying through modules teaching respect and appropriate behaviour, as well as peer support structures.
Members Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms Hazel Poa, Mr Christopher de Souza and others asked about the intervention and support for bullying victims and perpetrators, and how schools collaborate with families, community partners and Police to address them. Teachers are trained to create a positive classroom culture, recognise distressed students, and proactively address hurtful behaviours and bullying. All pre-service teachers receive this training, and new teachers are supported by experienced staff and school counsellors. In-service teachers also receive refresher training as part of their professional development.
When any incident of bullying within or outside schools is reported, schools and IHLs conduct thorough investigations before deciding on the appropriate course of action. We adopt a tiered approach based on the severity of incident. In cases arising from careless remarks and misunderstandings, teachers guide students to resolve their differences and reach a common understanding. For cases involving persistent, intentional acts of bullying, serious disciplinary actions are taken in addition to the restorative actions. For cyber bullying incidents, schools guide students to report these to the online service provider. When schools and IHLs come to know of any incident of severe bullying or fights, they work closely with parents and the authorities to ensure students' well-being and safety. They also mete out the necessary disciplinary consequences and guide students to change their thinking and behaviours so that they can learn to be responsible members of the community.
Similarly, our schools and IHLs consider the seriousness of the incident and take into consideration the profile and needs of the students involved, when taking disciplinary actions. Schools may put perpetrators on detention or even suspend them from attending lessons. Caning is used as a last resort for boys and carried out in an appropriate manner only by authorised adults. For severe bullying or fights, a Police report will be made and perpetrators will face legal consequences in accordance with the law.
Whenever a student is affected by bullying, whether as a victim or perpetrator, the teachers and school counsellors provide emotional support to help the student cope and mend relationships. Students who continue to be distressed will be referred to community resources such as the Response, Early Intervention and Assessment in Community mental Health (REACH) teams for more specialised support.
The objective of these educative and restorative efforts is to help students learn from their mistakes. These efforts are taken to turn the bully around, rather than just \"expelling\" or suspending them from school. When relationships are affected due to conflicts and misconduct, schools and institutions take steps to educate, discipline and restore relationships in the school community, and these efforts require parents' support and partnership.
Parental guidance and partnerships are vital in shaping children's character. Parents guide their children by role-modelling positive behaviour and interaction with others. When a child faces bullying, parents are encouraged to remain calm and provide emotional support, reinforcing pro-social values and coping skills. Similarly, when a child has bullied someone, parents can guide their child to learn from the mistake, apologise sincerely and make amends. As mending relationships and improving behaviour require time and practice, parents are encouraged to collaborate closely with schools to address the situation effectively.
When students witness bullying incidents, they are reminded not to record and share the incidents online to avoid further hurting the parties involved. Similarly, when videos become viral, everyone should exercise care in responding to them. Circulating such materials, trying to doxx the student perpetrators or calling for them to be ostracised, could isolate them even more, drive them to extremes and make it harder for them to mend their ways. The bullying perpetrators often also need help to turn over a new leaf. As a society, we must be careful not to normalise such behaviours unintentionally. Let us stand together to discourage copycats and attempts to out-viral the last bullying video.
MOE will continue to work with schools to share good practices and review the strategies to manage bullying. We will continue to update these education and intervention measures and partner parents to create caring and safe learning environments for our students.
I thank Members of Parliament and members of the public for showing their concern about this issue. With your help to monitor community and online spaces to keep our students safe and to stop bullying incidents among students when you witness them, we will be that village that raises our children well.
Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, bullying is a multi-faceted issue that defies one-size-fits-all solutions. It requires a nuanced approach that carefully considers the well-being and reform of both victims and perpetrators. We all hold the power and duty to support each other and to foster an environment where healing and change are possible. We want to steer clear of actions that might hinder or deny a perpetrator's chance for rehabilitation, such as counter-productive social media behaviours. True justice blends punishment with rehabilitation.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.
\tDr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister for sharing on the efforts in trying to tackle bullying in schools. While it is reassuring to hear the efforts that we have made to equip teachers in schools with the tools to manage bullying, the recent cases of both physical and psychological bullying highlight the need for us to have continuous evaluation. The long-lasting emotional impact on victims is vital to ensure schools have adequate resources to address these challenges effectively. Furthermore, the detection and reporting processes must remain robust to prevent unreported cases from escalating. Over the years, I have seen students who have been bullied, but they are afraid to come forward, simply because of the retaliation.
With that, I would like to ask the following supplementary questions. Firstly, could the Minister provide more details on how it evaluates the effectiveness of the teacher training in detecting unreported cases of bullying, especially psychological and online bullying? How does the Ministry ensure that schools maintain an adequate ratio of counsellors to support students, particularly those schools that may have a higher incidence of bullying? And finally, what are some considerations that the Ministry would take before anti-bullying policies are being reviewed to ensure continued relevance and effectiveness?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will make three short responses to the three supplementary questions. First, I do not think there is an easy or simple, and certainly, we do not want simplistic, way to measure the effectiveness of our measures. Ultimately, the test of the pudding is, do our students feel safe in school, do our students feel that they have a good school environment where they can interact with their peers with respect?
Second, on the ratio of counsellors, as I have mentioned in my speech and before, we allocate the number of counsellors based on the following considerations. One, while all schools have a baseline number of counsellors, they are reinforced according to the specific needs. There are some schools with higher needs and we will reinforce them with the necessary numbers.
Third, it does not mean that we depend only on counsellors. All teachers are trained to a certain extent and we work in partnership with the community and the teachers.
On the third supplementary question about when we will review the policies, we constantly review the policies and we apply the measures according to the needs of the respective schools as well.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Liang.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Thank you, Sir. I would like to follow up on my Parliamentary Question (PQ) on the schools' monitoring and surveillance of bullying cases, whether in school or outside and whether the schools collaborate closely with the Police.
I believe the monitoring and surveillance is important to pick out early indications, telltale signs that there are situations of bullying. And so, I would like to ask the Minister in terms of resourcing for the schools, whether the schools are equipped or resourced enough to be able to do that monitoring and surveillance.
Also, given that the cases now are increasingly more complex and with the workload of the teachers as well, one would really have to step up resources to be able to reduce the cases of bullying.
\t
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, on the first supplementary question, certainly, MOE and our schools collaborate with community partners and the Police, where relevant, to help monitor and also to counsel our students on such issues. We will continue to do that.
On the second point, Mr Liang Eng Hwa says that issues are becoming much more complex. Indeed, it is so. The environment has become more complex. Part of it is that, today, we live in a hyperconnected world. Students have access to many things on the Internet, relationships are becoming much more complex, not just between and amongst students, but relationships and expectations are also becoming much more complex with parents.
So, if I can point out something: when students have issues, we try to mend the relationships, guide the students on the positive trajectory. Very often, we will also need the partnership of the parents and, sometimes, in very unfortunate circumstances, the adults can also be a complicating factor when children quarrel.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, I thank the Minister for his replies. Will MOE consider implementing nationwide school programmes that encourage and guide students who witness bullying to not just be bystanders, but upstanders, where students learn ways to identify, intervene and support peers who are being bullied and report the bullying?
This could shift the peer culture by making it clear to the bullies that they do not have the approval of their peers and assuring the victims that they are not alone.
Secondly, does MOE have clear baseline anti-bullying policies across all schools and IHLs, and do these policies spell out actions that should be taken in response to reports of bullying and measures to protect both victims and upstanders from retaliation?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, on the first supplementary question, these programmes are already part of our CCE package and programme.
On the second supplementary question, there are, indeed, baseline policies, but when we say that we intervene, I would just like to reiterate what I have spelt out clearly in my response just now. Any intervention cannot be a one-size-fits-all. Any punishment or rehabilitation must take into account the circumstances and also the background of both the victim and perpetrator.
So, these are complex issues, as Mr Liang Eng Hwa says, and it is important for us not to oversimplify these issues. Very often, the rehabilitation for both the victim and perpetrators is not a short journey and we need to put in the necessary efforts with the parents and the community partners in order to do this well.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his reply. I have two supplementary questions. While the criteria for bullying classification seem clear, are there concerns about under-reporting of bullying cases? Secondly, will there be more channels for the reporting of bullying in schools for students, parents and teachers to report such cases?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, we are similarly concerned about the reporting, not just of under-reporting. There can also be over-reporting of a different kind. Because, as mentioned, this issue is a complex one. What people constitute as \"bullying\" also varies in interpretation across different people. So, we should be careful.
There will be instances whereby some people may have encountered some bullying or unfortunate instances and where they think that they are able to manage it and they did not escalate the issue to the adults or teachers. There will also be cases where people have experienced uncomfortable situations which may not exactly constitute \"bullying\", but they will also raise this to the adults or parents and we will take actions as necessary.
So, it is not just about having more channels. The channels are there for us to use. But regardless of the channels, we want to give people and students the confidence that if you are in doubt, where you feel troubled, you should be able to use the existing channels to report it to the adults and then have the adults work with the students to see how they can mend the relationships and move the relationships forward.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, just two quick supplementary questions for the Minister. Indeed, as many other Members have shared, I am concerned that the number of reported cases, though steady over the past few years, may not be indicative of the underlying concerns that many parents have.
So, two points, if the Minister can help us to understand. These are not just about having more channels. But how has MOE enhanced the detection and reporting of bullying cases over the years? Secondly, in terms of the policy and approach, how has the approach by teachers and schools in addressing bullying changed over the years?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have mentioned, the issues have become more complex over time for various reasons. One, students today are exposed to much more diverse influences beyond schools, beyond the community and even beyond the families, and largely through the Internet. So, the sources of information and the kind of exposures that they are being exposed to have become much more complex.
Second, on the positive side, we have also stepped up efforts to sensitise our students to what constitutes bullying and that can also help us to have better detection. And students today are much more confident, willing and able to come forward and tell us what they have experienced.
On the other hand, we also have students who are becoming much more sensitive, not just sensitised, to some of these issues and what they perceive as bullying may or may not correspond to what other people may perceive as bullying. But regardless of the complexities, we encourage all students to report instances when they feel they have not been treated with respect or they have felt unsafe, to let the school leaders know. We will work with the parents and the community to try and rehabilitate the perpetrators and also to take care of the physical and emotional needs of our children.
So, how has this changed over the years? Well, besides those points that I mentioned, today, when such instances happen in schools, very often we have to not just manage the issues between the students; sometimes, we also have to manage the issues amongst the parents and their great expectations on all parties of what the other side should do.
Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
\tMs He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, I refer to parts (b) and (c) of my original PQ. I do not think I heard the Minister answering them. The first being for a breakdown between the offline and online bullying incidents that are reported to schools. And part (c), relating to whether there are any special guidelines, given our approaches taken for cases of bullying involving students with neurodiverse conditions or disabilities, and if there are such guidelines, what are they?
And it is important, especially for this last point, because different measured strategies need to be behind how these students are handled, because they need to be sensitive or also effective, and not all teachers or counsellors might feel that they are able to handle some of the more complex issues.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, the numbers for the breakdown of the offline and online bullying incidents have been answered in my response. The number of reported online cases is generally much lower than the offline ones. But as Members have noted, this could also be because people are less sensitised to what constitutes online bullying. So, for example, if a child views that he or she has been excluded from a group repeatedly, persistently, does that constitute a form of psychological bullying? It has to be taken in context and then we have to look at the case carefully.
So, my own belief is that the online numbers will progressively rise because of the circumstances that our children are exposed to, but also because as people become more aware of what is happening, there will be more of such reported instances.
On the second point about neurodiversity, that is why we handle all cases sensitively. It is not a one-size-fits-all method to handle things. Some children with special needs may have, advertently or inadvertently, caused harm to others and they may not know and, when we counsel them, we have to handle them with care because of their different needs.
On the other hand, when students with special needs are bullied or made to feel uncomfortable, we will also have to make special efforts to counsel the perpetrators. The guidelines as to what constitutes bullying is the same. But the remediation measures will have to be taken in context, taking into account the conditions and circumstances of both the victims and the perpetrators.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
\tMs Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): The Minister mentioned just now that the trend of bullying in the past five years has remained steady. As trends for social behaviours may take some time, this five-year timeframe may not be sufficient. Does the Minister have figures over a longer timeframe like, for example, 20 years?
Secondly, have there been studies into why children or young people engage in bullying behaviour, with a view to identifying whether there are any ways of pre-empting such behaviour?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have the last 20 years of data. I have already explained that in the last few years, the data has been relatively stable. The only thing that we have changed in the classification is that, previously, we did not account for instances that happened outside of school, but more recently, we have also put that into our data. That is about the only change that we have done recently.
On the second issue that Ms Hazel Poa mentioned, this is exactly the point, because it is not about focusing on just the bullying, but the potential causes of why people engage in such behaviours, whether is it children or adults or teenagers, and there are many reasons for this. I think the literature has various hypotheses on this. But for more recent events, one of the things that we watch closely is the impact of the COVID-19 safe distancing measures and the reduction in opportunities for our children to grow up interacting with people, as they would have done previously, and whether this would have an impact on the kind of social or anti-social behaviours that they have.
The second thing that we are watching very closely is what is happening on the Internet. Sometimes, even though the numbers are the same, the virality of some of these instances will then spawn copycats or attempts to \"out-viral\" the last known instance. That is why when we respond to such instances, we have to be very careful to not aggravate the situation.
Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
\tMr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, as mentioned by the Minister just now about the virality of such videos, we have seen in the recent bullying case, the videos have made their rounds and continue to be made available. These videos may cause further embarrassment to the victims of the bullying.
In fact, in the past one week, another video of students engaging in public displays of affection has come up. So, is there any possibility that the Ministry can work together with the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) to get social media platforms to remove such videos, so that we remove the embarrassment for these students?
\t
\t
\t
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, indeed, that is what we are discussing with MDDI and some of the platform companies. We are particularly concerned when videos of such instances go around because, as I have mentioned, they can have consequences. One, it can lead to more copycat attempts. Second, it can lead to people trying to \"out-viral\" the last known video. But third, we have to have a care when we viral such things. Because we need to give the perpetrators a chance to rehabilitate. I have received many letters, emails from concerned parents.
Sometimes, the things that they suggest we do, we need to have a care. For example, trying to doxx the perpetrators. It will leave a digital footprint for a very long time. And I am not sure it will help us in our rehabilitation efforts. Imagine a young child doing something wrong and it is on record forever. That child could be our child. This is not to make an excuse for the people who have done wrong, the perpetrators. For the people who have done wrong, we try to rehabilitate them, just as we punish them for doing wrong. That is why, in the last sentence in my reply, \"True justice must blend punishment with rehabilitation.\"
And the last thing I hope we do not get into is where adults jump in and complicate the situation. Sometimes, these are most unhelpful in helping us to manage the situation on hand when we rehabilitate the perpetrator and help the victim to heal. So, I would like to just make an appeal for all of us to be careful. Then there are also letters and suggestions that we throw the children out of school. Again, I am not very sure that helps the children in the long term.
I have also parents who have written to me to say, \"Can you please do not suspend my child from going to school because when they are not in school, they are in a much more difficult environment where they do not have anybody to guide them even\".
So, I think we need to help the victim to heal. We also need to rehabilitate the perpetrators to the extent that we can. But, of course, at the end of the day, nobody is above the law, and, in the extreme cases, the full force of the law will be applied to the perpetrators.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Sir, I wish to follow up on the position of MOE on parental involvement in mitigating bullying. To be clear, I understand that parents cannot be held completely liable for the actions of their children, which is a step that some jurisdictions like France or Germany actually have in place. That said, I am concerned when there is limited or no parental involvement at all. I have Sengkang parents who have explained that even after they have reached out to the school and to the discipline master, the actions have been somewhat inadequate in their view because of insufficient involvement on the family side of the perpetrator, to be clear.
I understand that in the UK, parents may face orders to attend counselling or even face fines. While MOE may not wish to go as far, I wonder if there are merits to having this sort of joint counselling sessions, keeping in mind as the Minister said, that we do want to be very sensitive to adult involvement, but here, I feel it is about building a relationship between the parent of the perpetrator and the child.
\t
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member Jamus Lim might have missed some parts of what I have mentioned. Indeed, we get the parents of the perpetrators involved because we believe that this is part of the rehabilitation process. The rehabilitation process cannot be done independent of the parents because the parents are part of the partnership for us to bring up the children.
We do not have a position, as the Member has mentioned, like in some other jurisdictions, where they take the parents to task through fines or other punitive measures. But we certainly involve the parents. And if you have cases where you think the parents of the perpetrator would like to get involved more, but is not adequately provided for, let us know and we will follow up on this. Most of the time, it is the other way around, where we would like to engage the perpetrators' parents to get their support and cooperation, but sometimes this may not be forthcoming.
On the other hand, the Member has touched on the other point about expectations. Sometimes, we have difficult cases when parents take things into their own hands and this is certainly most unhelpful because that will be a negative role modelling of what we want for our children.
\tMr Speaker: Last supplementary question. Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
\tMs Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, I have been told and shown by parents and students in my constituency's social media pages on popular platforms and closed group chats where students doxx younger students and sometimes even their parents from the same school. There appears to be a movement, as there are repeat instances of such pages. Usually, it is \"xxx\", the school name, confidential. What is MOE doing to equip schools on dealing with such pages and what measures can students and parents take with the school, MDDI and the Singapore Police Force to take down these chats and pages? Can the community work with MOE on rehabilitation, like what the Minister had spoken about?
\t
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully agree with the Member Ms Yeo Wan Ling's point about both the dangers and difficulties of doxxing others. It could be younger students; it could be older students. It does not matter; it is still doxxing. Because this will complicate the relationship. Doxxing, itself, in certain contexts, will constitute bullying as well. So, sometimes, when people exercise what I call \"social vigilantism\", it can backfire and complicate many of the efforts to help the victim and to rehabilitate the perpetrators.
We will continue to explore with the platform companies to see what can be done. I am not confident that this is top of mind for them, but we will certainly try to get their help, especially when the physical and psychological well-being of our children are at stake. And I hope the platform companies will work with us, MDDI and the Police to manage some of these issues.
I would like to thank all Members for your concern and I would like to reiterate that, in order for us to manage these issues, all of us have a part to play to guide our children, help the victim heal, but also to rehabilitate the perpetrators so that the actions are not repeated.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Median Hawker Stall Rentals in Last Two Years and Proposed Balloting Model Based on Cost Recovery for Such Stalls","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"28 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what is the median rent for hawker stalls tendered out in the last two years, excluding stalls that have had their rents adjusted after their three-year tenancy period; and (b) whether the National Environment Agency has any plans to review the duration of the initial tenancy period to discourage disproportionately high rental bids.
29 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) when did the National Environment Agency last review the way hawker stalls are tendered out; (b) whether a ballot model at a fixed rental rate targeted at cost-recovery have been considered; and (c) if so, what are the reasons for not moving to such a model.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I take Question Nos 28 and 29 together, please?
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Thank you, Sir. The National Environment Agency (NEA) lets out vacant hawker stalls through monthly tender exercises, which are transparent and fair. After the first tenancy term of three years, tendered stalls are adjusted towards an assessed market rent determined through independent professional valuation.
Since 2012, NEA has removed reserve rent and does not set a minimum bid price for hawker stall tenders. As such, tenderers can secure stalls at lower-than-market rent for the first tenancy term. This would not be attainable under a model where stalls are allocated at fixed rental rates.
About one in five cooked food stalls was awarded tender prices at or below $500 a month in 2023. The median successful tender price for cooked food stalls across hawker centres was about $2,000 in 2022 and $1,800 in 2023. While some stalls at popular locations have attracted higher bids, such tender prices are not the norm. NEA is reviewing relevant policies at hawker centres to ensure that the system remains effective while keeping hawker food prices affordable.
Hawkers face various cost pressures, such as raw material and manpower costs. To address manpower challenges, NEA has provided support through measures, such as the Productive Hawker Centres programme and the Hawkers' Productivity Grant to help stallholders improve productivity and reduce reliance on manpower.
We are also looking at other ways to further ease manpower challenges. Currently, only Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents can be stallholders or work as stall assistants in hawker centres managed by NEA and NEA-appointed operators. These measures help to safeguard and preserve the local identity of our hawker centres. NEA exercises some flexibility by allowing stallholders to appoint their spouses who are Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) or LTVP+ holders with a Letter of Consent (LOC) or Pre-approved LOC as their stall assistants, given their familial ties to the hawkers.
To provide additional support to stallholders at hawker centres managed by NEA or NEA-appointed operators, we will further relax our policy to allow hawkers to hire LTVP or LTVP+ holders with LOCs or Pre-approved LOCs to work as their stall assistants. This policy will be effective from 1 January 2025.
This suggestion was also previously raised by Mr Edward Chia in an earlier Parliamentary Question. I hope he will be happy that NEA is now making this move. We are also studying other support measures for hawkers and will share the details when ready.
Sir, with your permission, may I say a few words in Mandarin?
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Hawkers face various cost pressures such as raw material and manpower cost. Currently, only Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents can be stallholders or work as stall assistants in hawker centres managed by NEA and NEA-appointed operators. These measures help to safeguard and preserve the local identity of our hawker culture. NEA also allows stallholders to appoint their spouses who are LTVP or LTVP+ holders with a LOC or Pre-approved LOC as their stall assistants.
To provide additional support to stallholders at hawker centres to manage manpower challenges, we will further relax our policy to allow hawkers to hire LTVP or LTVP+ holders with LOCs or Pre-approved LOCs to work as their stall assistants. This policy will be effective from 1 January 2025.
We are also studying other support measures for hawkers and will share the details when ready.
Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply and I am glad for the new measures to better support our hawkers. I would like to focus my supplementary questions on the high rental bids.
Sir, I have spoken to veteran hawkers regarding this phenomenon of new entrants bidding high rental prices. They shared that it is common that these hawkers would, therefore, have to charge higher food prices to make up for the high costs. In some cases, other hawkers in the same hawker centre would then see this and take this as a signal that they can also increase their food prices, therefore, causing a price increase ripple within the same hawker centre.
My first question is: does the Ministry track if food prices have, indeed, increased in hawker centres where there had been an abnormally high rental bid?
My second question is: could the Ministry consider modelling its tender bid system after the Housing and Development Board's (HDB's) resale portal and alert prospective bidders if the rental bid that they have submitted exceeds the median rent in the same hawker centre, by say, about 10%? Doing so can possibly help prospective hawkers place more realistic bids, but more importantly, I hope that this can help moderate food price increases as a result of high rental bids.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his two supplementary questions. On his first question of whether NEA tracks hawker food prices in correlation to the rental they bid for, I do not have the data at hand. But I would say that in a price competitive market, in a hawker centre where there are multiple stalls offering food of different prices and different choices for consumers, it would be something that the market will have to take into account. In other words, a person who bid for a high rental price at the stall, will have to take into account what consumers can bear as well, so that he can keep his business viable.
I think we have to allow the market to weed out those who are not competitive and unable to offer food at affordable prices where consumers will see this as good value for money, and allow some churn in the market so that at some point, the best operator with the best offering, in terms of taste and quality of the food with the price that consumers can bear, will be the one that eventually can succeed.
Having said that, I must emphasise that high stall rental bids that the Member may be talking about are actually the outliers and not the norm. As in my reply earlier, the median cost of rental across our hawker centres has remained quite stable over the last few years.
What we can do, in response to his second suggestion of putting some form of alert to help bidders to be more considered in their prices when it comes to bidding for a rental stall, is to put out a bit more granular information on the NEA website, so that a potential bidder would be more cognisant of the kind of price points that he is competing against, fellow stall owners in the same hawker centre. And to ensure his longer-term viability, he would then have to be a bit more moderate about what kind of price he wants to bid for a stall. I think this is something that NEA would take back and see how much more granular information we can put out.
Like I said, these are very rare circumstances where a small number or percentage of stallholders put in that kind of bid prices. I would say most hawkers do try to make sure that they bid at a price that is sustainable for their own businesses. And I think this is something that we will see how to enhance further.
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Sir, while I agree with the Senior Minister of State that these very high rental bids are the exceptions, they do have the effect of creating some upside on the rentals – something that we should take note of. These disproportionally high rental rates do go against the intent of why we set up hawker centres, which is to provide hawker food at affordable prices.
So, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether NEA, besides looking at the rental bids, could also do some due diligence on the bidders on whether they have the ability and the financial capacity to sustain at this kind of high rentals for their business, and because to take up a stall when another stallholder might have been able to do it better — so, very much like how, in public tenders, we look at price and quality, whether these stallholders have the means and capability to be able to sustain at such a high rental rate.
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank the Member for his supplementary question and the concern he has. Indeed, I think it is always good to help the stall owners make a more considered bid when it comes to bidding for a stall. But I would be cautious about putting in requirements that would make it much more difficult for a potential tenderer to put in a bid.
When we say \"doing due diligence\", I think it could mean that we are going to impose a lot more onerous demands on the stall bidder to show a lot more information before we select the bid. And that itself could disadvantage hawkers who may not be able to put in, say, a certain proposal or show their financial standing.
We do have to let the market, in some ways, select out those who can survive in a competitive marketplace. Bear in mind that in a typical hawker centre, it is not everyone who will be in the outlier pricing, and as I have said, these are a small number of stalls in the grand scheme of things. So, by and large, the kind of hawker offerings in a particular hawker centre will help to moderate prices of other stalls who may find that it is difficult for them to survive if they were to actually price themselves out the market.
When we talk about \"due diligence\", I think it is putting out more information, so that they can also be clear about what they are bidding for. One thing which I said earlier is about putting more information on the NEA website, so that when the bidder comes in, he is aware of what his fellow stallholders are actually paying as market rent.
We will take some of these considerations that the Member has raised and see how best we can, maybe, make adjustments even to the bidding process, so that these excessive high bids will be something that is lesser than what it is today. But, in fact, this is a very small number of bids that go into this kind of stratospheric range.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
\tMr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, I have two questions for the Senior Minister of State. The first question is: when he said one in five hawker stalls have rental below $500, does that statistic include non-cooked food stalls?
Secondly, since the Government is liberalising the manpower policy with regards to the hawker stalls to include the LTVP holders, has the Government also considered liberalising it to allow Work Permit holders to work in hawker stalls? Because, currently, as far as we know, there is a scheme called the mini-restaurant licence scheme, whereby some hawkers at the coffee shops and food courts are allowed to employ Work Permit holders.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, to the Member's first question, the answer is that the rates we quoted apply only to cooked food stalls.
And for the second question on whether we were going to liberalise it to, in general, Work Permit holders, the answer is, not at this moment. Because we still want to preserve the hawker culture, which is largely run by local Singaporeans, of course, with a small supplement from some LTVP+ LOC holders. The numbers today are very small to begin with. And while we want to help solve their manpower challenges in the immediate term, the more sustainable way forward is to continue to help them to adopt more resilient and more productive methods, which is why we enhanced the Productive Hawker Centre Grant to do things at a centralised level, to make the hawker centre more productive through things like centralised dishwashing, for example.
We will also continue to enhance the Hawkers Productivity Grant, where the hawkers themselves can take on more productive methods of preparing their food. For example, with the grant, they can purchase food preparation processing equipment to do the meat mincing, vegetable chopping and also reduce their reliance on manpower to do these repetitive tasks.
So, I think with these kinds of measures, we want hawkers to adopt a more productive approach to their business to be more sustainable, while for those who may still need some manpower, this is where the LTVP+ LOC liberalisation will help them to access some of these LTVP+ holders who are already here in Singapore on a permanent basis as part of a family nexus in Singapore, to be able to contribute economically as well.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Response to Study on Long-term Economic and Social Costs of Adverse Childhood Experiences","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"30 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what is the Ministry's response to the findings of a recent study by the Institute of Mental Health and KK Women's and Children's Hospital on the long-term economic and social costs of adverse childhood experiences.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua) (for the Minister for\tSocial and Family Development): Mr Speaker, the Institute of Mental Health and KK Women's and Children's Hospital conducted a study to establish a baseline of the economic and social cost of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) in Singapore. The study found that the impact of such events on individuals with ACEs was higher health and productivity costs, compared to individuals with no ACE exposure.
The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) agrees that there is a cost to every ACE. Many ACEs and their detrimental effects, however, can be prevented or at least mitigated.
Families form the bedrock of our society and are the first line of support for many of us. This is why MSF has been strengthening our upstream interventions to foster strong and resilient family relationships and equip families to create a safe and nurturing environment for our children. A 2023 MSF survey on families found that 86% of Singaporeans reported that they have a close-knit family. The same survey found that 85.9% of families reported moderate to high family resilience scores, which means that these families would generally be able to recover from challenges together as a family unit.
For a small group of individuals who have been through more severe or multiple ACEs, the efforts of the family alone may not be enough. This is where the community and the Government would need to step in to support them. I note that the Member has also filed two other related questions, Question Nos 31 and 32 on today's Order Paper on the study, and the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education will be covering the interventions to support persons affected by ACE.
Ultimately, our efforts aim to promote strong and stable families so that as far as possible, we can prevent ACEs and to mitigate their effects when they occur.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.
\tAssoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary and the Ministry for its intervention in addressing ACEs. I would like to ask, based on the long-term economic impact of ACE, specifically on social services expenditure, how is the Ministry looking at this particular aspect to guide future policy intervention?
Additionally, how are social workers and families being informed and equipped to recognise and address ACE early and what efforts are being made to ensure they have access to necessary resources and support? For instance, would the Ministry consider developing public awareness campaigns and rolling out trauma-informed care across all social service agencies?
\tMr Eric Chua: Mr Speaker, I thank Assoc Prof Razwana for her supplementary questions. I think the principle is that practice must be informed by research.
And in the study, there were some 11 forms of ACEs that were identified. Let me highlight some archetypes for which MSF is working with ground organisations to address some of these concerns. For children who have experienced abuse or neglect, MSF works with community partners and agencies to provide evidence-based trauma interventions to address the trauma as well as other behavioural and emotional needs to help them develop healthy coping mechanisms. In terms of children who have lived with family members who are or were incarcerated, MSF works with the Singapore Prison Services on processes where social service touch points, for instance, the family service centres will be notified to provide support to family members of inmates or ex-offenders.
For children whose parents are separating or divorcing, MSF has also partnered social service agencies to support these children and their parents, and this include the mandatory co-parenting programme, which helps parents make informed decisions that prioritise their child's well-being as well as to practise cooperative parenting. There are also other programmes to help children cope with their parents' divorce, such as the Children of Divorce Intervention Programme and the Children-in-Between Programme.
So, these are the some of the archetypes that I have mentioned for which the Ministry is working closely with partners on the ground and as and when we can, we will have research inform some of the interventions that we are making and to assess the intervention's effectiveness on the ground as well.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures in Community Healthcare System to Help Identify and Support Children and Young Persons Affected by Adverse Childhood Experiences","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"31 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Health what programmes or resources are available within the Government and the community healthcare system to help identify and support children and young persons affected by adverse childhood experiences.
\tThe Minister of State for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Health): I thank Assoc Prof Razwana for raising three separate Parliamentary Questions to the Ministry of Health (MOH), Ministry of Education (MOE) and Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) in relation to adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). MOH will be addressing the question from the community health and healthcare angle.
As stated in the MSF reply, actually the ACEs effect can be mitigated or prevented. Nevertheless, several programmes are in place to identify and offer support to those who have been exposed to ACEs. The Institute of Mental Health's (IMH's) programme on Forensic Rehabilitation, Intervention, Evaluation and Network Development Services, or FRIENDS for short, provides integrated multidisciplinary assessment and intervention for youth victims of abuse. IMH also conducts a Resilience Programme which enhances the well-being and resilience of children whose parents have mental illnesses, through family-based psycho-education workshops.
Additionally, children with signs of exposure to ACEs may be identified when they present at the KK Women's and Children's Hospital (KKH). KKH has two programmes to support children with ACEs. Firstly, the Anchor Start programme provides timely and comprehensive screening for young children up to six years old with suspected abuse and neglect as well as counselling and psychoeducation for the affected children and their families.
\t Secondly, KKH's Project RESTORE – REach the unreached, STrengthen Our community to support and REspond to families – trains community partners to provide psychological support and therapy to traumatised children and their caregivers.
Community mental health services, such as Youth Community Outreach Teams or CREST-Youth, and Youth Integrated Teams or YITs, also provide mental health support to youths with mental health needs arising from stressors, such as ACEs.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.
\tAssoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): I thank the Minister of State Rahayu for her response in explaining the various interventions to support children with ACEs. I have one supplementary question. In terms of ensuring that healthcare professionals are adequately trained to recognise and address ACE; and in terms of partnership existing between schools and social services to provide comprehensive mental health support for the children, would the Ministry consider implementing screening for ACE in clinics to identify at-risk children early, prior to them coming into the programmes that are already available in the system?
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: There is already training for our healthcare providers and clinicians to look out for signs and symptoms of ACEs. When the clinicians see these signs and symptoms, like distress and parental neglect, they can ask more questions and identify some of the issues and would already make the appropriate referrals. So, there is already that approach that we take to try and catch them early.
But this takes a whole-of-Government, whole-of-society effort – and that is also why you have asked questions of all the different Ministries. We, indeed, work together because you see children at different touch points and you want to make sure that everyone who interacts with them will be able to identify and help and catch them early. So, that is the direction we are going.
We try and go as upstream as possible with MSF and MOE taking care of building stronger families. We train the professionals to understand and identify this and we want to proliferate this to as many touch points as possible so that they can be caught early.
We do acknowledge that there is a need to go upstream and we do need to have a broad-based approach involving many different partners in this effort.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Programmes for Schools to Identify and Support Students with Adverse Childhood Experiences","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"32 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Education what programmes or resources are available within early childhood education and in schools to identify and support students affected by adverse childhood experiences.
\tThe Minister of State for Education (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Education): I thank Assoc Prof Razwana for raising the Parliamentary Questions on adverse childhood experiences. Building on the measures by the Ministry of Social and Family Development and Ministry of Health, I will highlight the Ministry of Education's (MOE's) support available to such students in preschools and MOE schools.
Across our preschools and schools, educators are trained to look out for signs of physical, behavioural or emotional changes in our students and recognise signs of child abuse. They work with parents and social service agencies to support those who have gone through adverse childhood experiences. Students in distress are referred to school counsellors and our student welfare officers. Such cases are also reported to the authorities, such as the Early Childhood Development Agency and the Child Protective Service for investigation and intervention.
Our schools also work closely with community partners, such as the REACH, or the Response, Early Intervention and Assessment in Community Mental Health, teams so that affected students receive the necessary specialised assistance. We will continue to help these students develop safe and positive relationships in our schools so that the impact of their adverse experiences is reduced.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of \"Public Servant\" Definition in Penal Code and Singapore's Anti-corruption Laws following Conviction of Former Minister","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"33 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is his assessment of the public impact of the case involving the former Minister-in-charge of Trade Relations on building public confidence in a culture of zero tolerance for corruption among Government officials; and (b) whether Singapore’s anti-corruption laws should be reviewed for greater efficacy.
34 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the definition of \"public servant\" under the Penal Code is fit for purpose for an offence under section 165 of the Penal Code.
\tThe Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Prime Minister. May I have your permission to take Question Nos 33 and 34 on today's Order Paper together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, you may.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: In view of former Minister S Iswaran's court conviction, various Members in this House, including Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim, have asked about the application of section 165 of the Penal Code and its impact on the wider Public Service.
My response today will also address the questions by Mr Yip Hon Weng1,2 and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim3, which are scheduled for subsequent Sittings. I invite Members to seek clarifications, if need be. If the questions have been answered satisfactorily, it may not be necessary for Members to proceed with their Parliamentary Questions for future Sittings.
Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first set the context. We expect individuals in the Public Service to uphold high standards of conduct and this expectation extends to individuals carrying out functions on behalf of the Government, even if not directly employed by the Government. This is important to preserve the integrity of our Public Service, so as to maintain public confidence and trust.
Section 165 of the Penal Code is one of the legislative levers that are part of the wider system of checks and balances to combat corruption in the public sector. For an offence to be made out under section 165 of the Penal Code, the following conditions need to be met.
First, section 165 applies only to public servants. This generally includes public officers under the employment of the Public Service and various individuals executing public duties on behalf of the Government. Second, the public servant must have accepted or obtained a valuable thing for free or for inadequate payment. Third, the valuable thing must be accepted or obtained from a person whom the public servant personally knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any business transaction connected to the public servant's official functions or where the business is transacted by the public servant in relation to his duties.
In this context, a business transaction would commonly take the form of legal contract that is being negotiated or actively performed, applications for permits, licences and exemptions and ongoing investigations or assessments by Government agencies.
With these as background, let me address some specific questions raised by Members of this House.
First, Ms Sylvia Lim asked if the definition of \"public servant\" under the Penal Code is fit for purpose for an offence under section 165 of the Penal Code. Public servants carry out a wide range of functions on behalf of the Government. The definition of \"public servant\" in the Penal Code is broad, so as to cover individuals who are entrusted with these public duties.
I should also point out to Members of this House that being deemed as \"public servants\" under the Penal Code also offers the individuals protection when they are carrying out their public duties because there are specific provisions under the Penal Code that make offences more serious when committed against a public servant. Section 332 of the Penal Code, voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from his duty, is one example. Under this provision, the offender will face a higher penalty than if he had committed the offence of voluntarily causing hurt against an ordinary member of the public, with all other things being equal.
We expect high standards of conduct from all public servants. Accepting or obtaining gifts from a person whom the public servant knows to be concerned in business transacted by that public servant or having a connection with that public servant's official functions is not acceptable in Singapore's context. Otherwise, public confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the Government would be undermined. This is also the ethos Singaporeans would expect of leaders in all organisations, whether private or public.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked about the review of Chapter 9 of the Penal Code. We review our laws regularly. The Ministry of Home Affairs is still reviewing whether and, if so, how, to port over certain provisions of Chapter 9 of the Penal Code to the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).
Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim have asked whether section 165 of the Penal Code may deter individuals and top talents from the private sector from joining or contributing to the Public Service. Individuals from the private sector who are serving as Chairpersons or Board Directors on our Statutory Boards play an important role in building resilient and effective public sector organisations. I do not think our rules would deter good people from joining our boards.
On the contrary, if we do not have an ethos or system that ensures clean, honest government, we would not be able to attract the right people from the private sector to join us. I would also like to assure our Chairpersons and Board Directors that if they act professionally and with integrity, they have nothing to fear.
Ms Sylvia Lim has asked about the impact of recent developments on public trust and whether our anti-corruption laws have to be reviewed. However stringently we act against corruption, from time to time, individuals might fall short. When this happens, we should not have a knee-jerk reaction and immediately tighten or add more rules. Instead, we ask ourselves whether it was an individual or systematic matter.
If the rules were clear, but were flouted or ignored, what we need to do is not to adjust the rules, but to take decisive action against the offender. If the rules were unclear, we should clarify or simplify the rules. If the rules were too lax or it was a new situation not envisaged or covered by the rules, we should update the rules.
As I explained to Members of this House in February 2024, maintaining the integrity of our system is a multi-pronged and continuous effort. At the individual level, we must have the right ethos and values, understand both the spirit and letter of the rules and uphold them. At the team or organisation-level, we must look out for one another to minimise the chances of us being compromised, subverted or succumbing to human frailties. At the system level, we must have regular internal audits, external audits and have institutions like the Auditor-General's Office and Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) to respond to issues not picked up by other layers of checks.
The recent developments show that we do not shy away from doing the right thing to uphold the trust that Singaporeans have in the Government and this is what we will continue to do.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
\tMs Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. On my Question No 33 on the case itself, I have three questions for the Minister.
Broadly, these questions surround my observation that the handling of this case has actually raised more questions than it has answered. And I would like to ask three specific questions to see if Minister will agree with me on this.
The first question is, we all remember the damaging headlines in the middle of last year and how the former Minister was subsequently barred from Government buildings and charged under the PCA. But on the first day of the trial in September, the charges were suddenly reduced to non-corruption cases. So, would the public be justified to conclude that the corruption case against the former Minister was weak, hence, resulting in the reduction of charges, away from PCA?
The second question is, because of the former Minister pleading guilty, there was no trial. So, the evidence was not tested as such in the Court, but there was a plea bargain behind closed doors. Does the Minister agree that such a way of handling the case under a plea bargain has now given rise to a lot of speculation in the public sphere as to what precisely happened on the facts and also between the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) and the Defence? I am just asking a factual question.
Third, at the sentencing stage of the case, the Judge decided to impose a sentence of imprisonment that was double what the Prosecution had asked for. He, in fact, noted that what the Prosecution asked for was manifestly inadequate. I have had residents come to me on this point to express their doubts as to whether the Public Prosecutor had defended the public interest adequately in this case.
So, these are my three questions. On Question No 33, part (b), on the PCA review, I do agree with the Minister that we should not have knee-jerk reactions. That I agree. In fact, I was prompted to ask this question because it was the AGC's response when asked by the media on why the charges were reduced against the Minister, where they mentioned that there were litigation risks involved in proceeding against PCA. To quote them, what they said was, both the giver and the receiver of the gratification have a common interest to deny the corrupt element and, hence, it was risky to proceed.
But does the Minister agree that actually this has not prevented prosecutions under the PCA in such scenarios, where both parties actually deny corruption? Prosecutions in other cases have proceeded. And based on what the AGC has indicated, is this a reason for the Government to look again into PCA?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will make two sets of responses in response to Ms Sylvia Lim's comments.
\t
Ms Lim, as a lawyer, would know very well that it is not uncommon for charges to be amended on their way to the Courts because of developments or representations by the Prosecution and the defendant. So, it is not odd because such things do happen regularly in the Courts.
The second part of the first comment is on sentencing. We need to make a distinction between what the Prosecutor asked for and the Judge's discretion to mete out the sentence. So, these two are quite separate and we should not conflate the two.
My second set of comments on the PCA review, I think Minister Shanmugam has also said this before as to whether and if there is a need for us to align the section 165 with the PCA in a different formulation, that we can consider. As of now, suffice to say that CPIB and our enforcement agencies find the current framing is able to allow us to do the job that we need to do. But going forward, if there are new developments that necessitate us to do a review of this, we are open to that.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his reply. I have two supplementary questions.
First, how does the Ministry ensure that the public perception of incidents like the recent case does not inadvertently narrow the range of candidates willing to serve, particularly those who may have offered different perspectives due to a private sector background?
My second supplementary question pertains to this. Given that many private sector professionals are accustomed a different business culture, how does the Ministry plan to ensure that the existing measures for navigating potential conflicts of interests are aligned with these cultural norms while at the same time maintaining public confidence?
\t
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will make two comments in response to the two supplementary questions.
First, I will be very careful to not overplay the difference in the business culture and the Public Service culture when it comes to corruption. We are all Singaporeans and the international community knows that, in Singapore, we have clear rules and I would not want to suggest that somehow the private sector has a different set of rules or culture that is so different from the public sector. So, that is my first point.
On the second point, does this affect the public perception on whether good people will want to join us? This is precisely the point that I mentioned in my reply. If our rules are not clear, if our execution of the rules are not clear and decisive, it will deter good people from wanting to join us. We can see this in the experiences of other countries. When rules are not clear or when rules are clear but enforcements are not done properly, it will actually deter good people from joining both the Public Service as employees and for serving the Public Service even if they are not employees, like, for example, being on our boards.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
\tMs Sylvia Lim: Speaker, two further supplementary questions for the Minister. As he speaks on behalf of the Prime Minister, so these questions are actually directed at certain things the Prime Minister has said about the case.
When the former Minister was charged in January this year, Prime Minister Wong said, and I quote, \"CPIB has done a thorough investigation. They have left no stone unturned. They have dug deep and wide and they have presented their full investigations to the AGC. The AGC has decided to press charges against Mr Iswaran.\" So, nine months on, with the subsequent developments, I would like to ask whether it is still the Prime Minister's position that the CPIB and AGC did a thorough job in this case.
The second question, again, after the sentencing of the former Minister, the Prime Minister was quoted as saying that we need to act against corruption. But noting that the former Minister was not actually convicted of corruption, is the Prime Minister actually saying that regardless of the charges that were preferred and, finally, the former Minister was convicted on, he thinks that the former Minister acted corruptly?
\t
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will make two comments in response.
First, on the second point, section 165 is a corruption charge. [Interruption.]
[(proc text) An hon Member: It is not a corruption charge. (proc text)]
Mr Chan Chun Sing: It applies to the public officers, but it is a corruption charge.
Second comment, do we have reasons to believe that CPIB and AGC did their job? Yes, we have reasons to believe that they have done their job properly. But as I have mentioned and explained, along the way, it is not uncommon for the Prosecution and the Defence to see how the situation develops and, sometimes, charges may be amended in this situation or in any other cases.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Lim.
\tMs Sylvia Lim: Yes, Speaker. On the point of section 165, I believe it is the law that no corrupt element needs to be proved. That is why it is easier to get a conviction on section 165. Minister may want to clarify that.
\t
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me clarify that. The difference between the PCA and section 165 is as follows: in section 165, you do not need to prove a quid pro quo on both sides. You just need to prove that the person has taken. It does not mean that it is not a corruption charge.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether there are measures taken to address concerns that Chapter 9 of the Penal Code may deter private sector professionals from accepting public service roles; (b) how will such professionals who serve on statutory boards navigate situations where they may receive gifts or benefits from private interactions unrelated to their public duties; and (c) whether there are guidelines beyond conflict of interest disclosures and recusal to ensure they are not penalised for legitimate business relationships while serving the public.","2 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the outcome of the recent case involving the former Minister-in-charge of Trade Relations may impact (i) individuals and top talents considering joining the public service particularly those with experience in the private sector and (ii) the diversity of talents in the public sector in view of concerns that individuals may avoid public service roles.","3 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the current review to site the provisions of Chapter 9 of the Penal Code in the Prevent of Corruption Act will include a review of section 21 of the Penal Code; and (b) what measures will the Ministry take to prevent a broad definition of a “public servant”, which currently includes private sector representatives serving on statutory boards, from discouraging more individuals from volunteering with public sector agencies, thereby impacting Singapore’s public-private partnerships."],"footNoteQuestions":["33","34"],"questionNo":"33-34"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":" Equipping Building Industry Firms to Use Drone Technology for Efficient Inspection, Repairs and Maintenance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"35 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for National Development whether BCA is actively encouraging construction and infrastructure companies to use drones for inspections of projects, especially for the facades of high-rise buildings.
36 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry is educating and equipping construction and infrastructure companies to utilise drone technology to increase efficiency and safety in the workplace.
37 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for National Development (a) how has the use of drones by the building industry helped to improve productivity and effectiveness in building inspections, repairs and maintenance; and (b) whether the process of seeking approvals for the use of drones can be streamlined and the turnaround time for granting approvals improved.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for National Development): Sir, the Government has been exploring the use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) to perform facade inspections and maintenance for high-rise buildings.
\tMr Speaker: Senior Minister of State, if I could just interrupt, are you answering for the three questions?
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Yes, Sir, if I could take Question Nos 35 to 37 together?
\tMr Speaker: Okay. Please proceed.
\tMr Tan Kiat How: The use of UAS in periodic facade inspections allows inspections to be conducted more quickly while reducing costs incurred by building owners. It also improves workplace safety for facade inspectors as they can now inspect building façades from ground level without the need to work at height.
To better equip the industry, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) published two Technical References in 2020 that provide specifications for the industry in using UAS for building facade inspections. In addition, BCA and Enterprise Singapore jointly launched the UAS Accreditation Programme in 2023, which aims to standardise the competencies of service providers and ensure that inspections are carried out by competent drone service providers (DSPs). The Government has also been investing in research and development to advance facade inspection technologies.
Beyond facade inspections, the Government is currently exploring how UAS can be used in building maintenance. For example, agencies, such as Defence Science and Technology Agency (DSTA), Housing and Development Board (HDB) and JTC are exploring the potential of using UAS, in tandem with robotics, to undertake the cleaning of building facades. As the use of UAS in building maintenance and repairs is nascent and has not been widely adopted in the industry, BCA will continue to partner the industry and research institutes to explore new use cases for UAS in the sector.
On the approvals required to use drones, BCA's approval is required for facade inspections where Competent Persons (CPs) intend to use technology, including the use of UAS. Typically, BCA's approval will be issued within three working days.
DSPs will also need to obtain the necessary permits from the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) prior to using UAS to carry out the inspections. CAAS will assess the safety of the UAS operations and coordinate the airspace for UAS activities.
In 2022, CAAS and the relevant Government agencies established a \"green lane\" approval process for locations with lower risk, where the UAS activity permits are processed within three working days. CAAS also leverages on information technology systems to better track and enhance the efficiency of processing approvals.
To keep pace with the application of UAS across more use cases, CAAS will continue to review its regulations and processes with Government agencies to streamline the approval process for UAS activities without compromising aviation and public safety, as well as security.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Sir, indeed, like what the Senior Minister of State says, in the HDB towns, we are seeing more of these building contractors and repair contractors using drones to inspect HDB flats for any defects or seepages and so on.
The Senior Minister of State mentioned that under the \"green lane\", it will take three days to get the approval to use a drone. From my experiences with the contractors, some told me it took as long as two weeks to get approvals to be able to fly the drone. So, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether in cases like for very localised use for HDB heartlands just to inspect the HDB blocks, can a kind of blanket approval be given for the whole works, for example, repair and redecoration (R&R) work? Can approval be just given for the whole stretch rather than you need to go for a case-by-case approval in the use of the drones?
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
\t
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, the majority of submissions are approved by BCA within three working days from when BCA receives a submission from the CP. For CPs who engage DSPs that BCA has not previously engaged, BCA may require these DSPs to present their track records and technical capabilities, and that may take more than three days.
So, it really depends on the DSPs that the CP assigns the work to. For HDB Town Councils, actually, the instruction for facade inspection is issued to the Town Council and the Town Council could then decide which CP and DSP to appoint. So far, we have not come across significant issues around permit approvals for most of the cases that we have seen.
In Mr Liang's case, if there are specific issues that he or his Town Council has encountered, we will be happy to take it up and look at it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cost and Provision of Subsidy for CCTV Installation in Preschools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"38 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry has conducted studies to determine the cost of CCTV installations in preschools; and (b) whether the Ministry can consider subsidy support to assist preschools in the mandatory installation of CCTVs.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Mr Speaker, based on a survey conducted by the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) in 2022, more than 60% of preschools had already installed closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras in their premises. These centres had done so voluntarily before ECDA announced last year in 2023 that CCTV would be mandatory by 1 July 2024. In other words, the majority of preschools had already factored in CCTV installation as part of their business cost.
For the remaining preschools that have yet to install CCTVs, operators should similarly build in this requirement into their business cost.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
\tMs Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Some childcare operators have given feedback that while there was, indeed, a lead time on the implementation of their CCTV systems, this continues to be an unplanned expenditure outside of their usual budgets. The implementation can be costly for some operators in the tens of thousands of dollars for a single centre. This budget would have been used for other expenses, such as bonuses, training or facility upgrading. As such, smaller operators, in particular, seek for assistance and support, given this unplanned expenditure, even though they have already complied with the requirements.
I would also like to ask the Ministry, while schools are allowed to have their own standard operating procedures for access to the CCTV for investigation, if guidelines and best practices have been communicated across to all preschools, are these guidelines adopted across the board for the protection of students, educators and the school and are parents also brought on as informed stakeholders accordingly?
Mr Eric Chua: Sir, ECDA, as noted by Ms Yeo, has informed all preschools of the mandate in a Town Hall in February last year. ECDA then issued a circular with details of the implementation in August last year, stating that all preschools must implement CCTVs from 1 July this year. This includes details of CCTV camera requirements, locations of where CCTV cameras must be installed, recording and storage of CCTV camera footage as well as usage and access of CCTV footage by parents and authorities. ECDA has provided lead time of over a year before the start of the mandate on 1 July this year.
Additionally, I would like to inform the House that ECDA will also adopt an advisory approach for the first six months of implementation from 1 July this year to 31 December this year and enforcement will take place from 1 January 2025 onwards. This advisory approach was communicated to preschools in August last year.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Ministerial Statement. Minister Edwin Tong.
[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.]
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Pre-conditional Voluntary General Offer by Allianz for Income Insurance","subTitle":"Statement by Minister for Culture, Community and Youth","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Deputy Speaker, on 17 July 2024, Allianz Europe BV, or Allianz, announced its Pre-Conditional Voluntary General Offer (VGO) to acquire the shares of Income Insurance Limited (Income). I will refer to this as the proposed transaction.
As part of the proposed transaction, NTUC Enterprise, or NE, had given a legal commitment to sell a proportion of its shares in Income to enable Allianz to acquire a majority stake in Income. The Government has assessed the proposed transaction and has decided that it would not be in the public interest for the transaction, in its current form, to proceed.
I am therefore making a Ministerial Statement today to explain the Government's position and to set out the steps which it proposes to take. I will start by setting out the circumstances in which Income, a former co-operative society or co-op, was corporatised in 2022, as that background has relevance to the proposed transaction. I will also explain the exemption from section 88 of the Co-operative Societies Act or CSA which Income had obtained in the course of its corporatisation. I will then set out our views on the proposed transaction and the next steps.
Sir, let me start with some background on Income. Income has a unique history and has played a special role in serving Singaporeans.
The concept of Labour Movement co-ops, also known as social enterprises, was first conceived at NTUC's Modernisation Seminar in 1969, where Mr Devan Nair articulated the need for the Labour Movement to turn into a social institution to serve Singaporean workers in various ways. Then, Dr Goh Keng Swee urged NTUC to set up social enterprises in areas such as life insurance and essential consumer goods to meet the needs of the working population.
Income was subsequently established in 1970 under the name NTUC Income Insurance Co-operative Limited. It was Singapore's first co-op under the aegis of the Labour Movement. Over the years, Income played an important role in providing affordable insurance for workers and Singaporeans at large.
NE was set up in 2012 as a holding entity for the various social enterprises under the Labour Movement. NE is also a co-op and currently holds about 72% of the shares in Income. Since 2012, NE has strongly supported the growth of Income, progressively contributing to the share capital of Income. NE injected a total of $630 million into Income between 2015 and 2020. This included $100 million of capital during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, which was critical for the continued viability of Income.
With NE's support, Income has grown through the years to serve Singaporeans' needs. As of 31 December 2023, Income Insurance covered close to 1.7 million customers, with an ambition to serve one in two Singaporeans by 2025.
Income has also made progress in its social mission to provide accessible and inclusive insurance. For instance, it launched the Complete Cancer Care to offer Singaporeans comprehensive support from cancer diagnosis to recovery. It has also launched a suite of products over the years to cater to the financial needs of specific underserved segments. These include SpecialCare Autism and Down syndrome, Care4MigrantWorkers, and products that provide coverage for mental health conditions.
In 2022, Income embarked on a corporatisation exercise. It wanted to change its legal form from a co-op to a company and to replicate the existing co-op shareholding profile in the shareholding profile of the new corporate entity to be set up.
Its reasons were as follows. Income needed to evolve to meet tightening regulations for financial institutions. This required a strong capital base. However, the co-op structure has limitations and is not conducive to stronger capital access and good value strategic partnerships. In the face of increasing global competition, Income wanted a corporate structure which would put it on par with its competitors. Income therefore proposed to convert itself into a corporate entity, with the members of the co-op receiving pari passu distribution in specie of shares in the new entity.
Income also sought an exemption from section 88 of the CSA – which applies when a Co-op is put in liquidation – because Income was not, in substance, being liquidated. It was only changing its legal form and would continue to be engaged in the same business. The exemption was therefore needed to facilitate the corporatisation exercise, so that Income's accumulated surplus, beyond par value, could be carried over to the new corporate entity to allow it to continue the business. I will come back to this point later in my speech.
At that time, Income explained to its members, the public and to the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) that corporatisation would also empower Income to drive greater social and economic value in a sustainable manner. MCCY wanted to understand Income's position in greater detail and met with Income on several occasions to discuss the matter.
In the course of our meetings, Income emphasised a few salient points to MCCY. First, the insurance landscape had fundamentally changed since 1970 and corporatisation was critical to allow Income to effectively compete with other insurers. Income pointed out that the local insurance market had matured by 2022, unlike in earlier years, when a significant working class segment was still underserved. At the same time, Income was facing increasing competition from large insurance players as well as new technology players in the market. Its existing structure as a co-op lacked the flexibility of a corporate structure and did not give it access to distribution channels or the ability to scale, either locally or globally.
Second, there was growing pressure to inject capital into Income to build up its financial strength, in response to regulatory requirements and market competition. Income explained that corporatisation was critical for it to achieve operational flexibility. It also wanted to have better access to capital to pursue strategic growth options, compete effectively in the market and do well in its business in the long run.
The third key point made by Income was that its social mission focus would not change. Income made clear to its members and to MCCY that the corporatisation exercise would only change its legal form from a co-op to a non-listed corporate entity. The new corporate entity would remain an NTUC social enterprise.
In our discussions, Income assured MCCY, and I quote, that \"post-corporatisation, Income will be able to grow more significantly in scale and deliver its social mandate as a significant player in the insurance industry\".
Income wanted more flexibility to establish partnerships that could build up its capital base so that it could sustain its social mission. In its letter to MCCY dated 27 June 2022, Income stated, and I quote: \"We believe that, pursuant to the corporatisation, Co-Op\", which is Income, in this case, \"will be regarded to offer a more attractive proposition to investors and strategic partners. This would, in turn, allow Co-Op to raise capital more easily and thereby grow and unlock value for existing and new shareholders and policy-holders, and further its social mission through a sustainability agenda\", unquote.
The Registry for Co-operative Societies told Income that it had to address the public perception that NTUC social enterprises would be seen as moving away from co-op values. In response, the CEO of Income confirmed that even after corporatisation, Income would not change its purpose and values. Income repeated this point publicly. At its extraordinary general meeting (EGM) in 2022, Income reiterated that the new company would continue operating as a social enterprise of NE and sustain its social mission.
The Government accepted Income's rationale for corporatisation. We agree that social enterprises need to do well in order to do good. This includes having good financial and market discipline, in order for Income to be able to pursue its social mission more effectively. At the EGM on 18 February 2022, Income's members voted overwhelmingly in support of corporatisation.
I said earlier that as part of the corporatisation exercise, Income had applied for a Ministerial exemption from section 88 of the CSA. Let me now elaborate on this.
Co-ops are regulated under the CSA. Under section 88 of the CSA, when a co-op decides to cease being a co-op and is wound up, its members can only be paid their original share capital plus any unpaid dividends up to a cap, after settling the costs of liquidation and the co-op's liabilities. Any surplus in the co-op beyond that will be transferred to the Co-operative Societies Liquidation Account, or the CSLA, to be applied for the benefit of the co-op sector generally. This is the framework under the CSA, when a co-op is wound up.
Technically, Income would be required to comply with section 88, as Income, the co-op, would be wound up after corporatisation. However, as I explained, Income was not in fact ceasing its business. It was proposing to convert from a co-op into a corporate entity for the reasons outlined above. The corporatisation was to strengthen Income's capital base and financial adequacy in order for it to carry out its business better.
For these reasons, carrying over Income's surplus to the new corporate entity to support the business would be an integral part of the exercise. Income thus sought an exemption from section 88 of the CSA as part of the corporatisation, which I granted. Following this exemption, Income carried over approximately S$2 billion in surplus to the new corporate entity. The corporatisation exercise was completed on 6 April 2023.
Sir, let me now come to the proposed Income-Allianz transaction, which was announced on 17 July 2024. In announcing the proposed transaction, NE and Income had said that it was needed to strengthen Income so that it could continue with its social mission. They explained that insurance is a long-tail business. Income's capital buffers have repeatedly come under pressure over the years. NE has supported Income with capital injections but cannot continue to do so on its own.
That is why Income has proposed this transaction with Allianz, to find a strong partner that can complement NE in strengthening Income, so that it can sustain its social mission. Income, with Allianz and NE, had also committed to continue pursuing Income's social mission even after the transaction. For example, Income will maintain two low-cost insurance schemes as well as contribute $100 million over 10 years from 2021 for social and environmental causes.
In its announcement, Allianz had also said that it intended for Income to continue participating in national insurance programmes. It assured the public of a seamless transition for policy-holders and said that it would continue to honour the contractual terms and conditions of the existing polices underwritten by Income.
MCCY had no prior knowledge of the proposed transaction prior to the public announcements. When we first saw the announcements, we accepted the intent of the transaction, which is to strengthen Income. We saw that Income would be engaged in a strategic partnership with a major reputable player in the industry. This would strengthen Income's capital base and allow it to have more access to capital. This is consistent with the representations that Income had made to MCCY at the point of corporatisation.
As we have said before, for Income to do good, it must first do well. In a Facebook post on 4 August, I pointed out that co-ops, as social enterprises, must be financially sustainable in order to better serve their members in a fast-changing economic environment.
My colleague, Minister of State Alvin Tan, also spoke in Parliament in the August session. He explained that MCCY appreciated the competitive landscape that Income was operating in and understood how the transaction with Allianz would help Income achieve longer term financial sustainability.
Subsequent to the August session of Parliament, MCCY continued to do due diligence and enquire further into the proposed transaction, including on the various public queries which had been raised. In the course of this review, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) provided MCCY with further details on the proposed transaction. This included information which Allianz, Income and NE had submitted to MAS in respect of initiatives to optimise the capital of Income post-transaction. MCCY had not seen this information earlier. From our review of this additional information, we gathered the following.
The parties intended to implement a number of initiatives to optimise Income's insurance business after completion of the acquisition. The plan was for Income to run its insurance business more efficiently, without the need to hold as much capital as it presently does. As such, post-transaction, Allianz contemplates that Income could reduce its existing share capital and return this capital to shareholders. Allianz projects that Income would return some S$1.85 billion in cash to its shareholders, within the first three years after completion of the transaction.
NE and Income focused on bringing in a strong shareholder and believed that, even with these initiatives, the proposed transaction with Allianz would allow it to continue with its social mission for years to come.
These projections were submitted to MAS at around the time that the proposed transaction was announced, in mid-July 2024. At that time, MAS had reviewed the information based on prudential grounds, focusing on whether Allianz was a fit and proper institution, and Allianz's financial strength and track record, so that the interests of Income's policy-holders would be safeguarded with a strong substantial shareholder.
MAS considered the planned capital optimisation from a prudential point of view, in accordance with its regulatory mandate. Based on the plans submitted, MAS did not have reason for concern as Income was projected to continue to meet regulatory capital requirements with a healthy margin even with the capital reduction. However, after the 6 August Parliamentary Sitting, MAS saw that Income's planned capital optimisation could be relevant to MCCY's views on the proposed transaction. MAS then shared the information with MCCY, including the terms of the proposed transaction.
It was at this point, after MCCY reviewed the information on the proposed transaction, that we became concerned. We decided that there was sufficient basis for the Government to intervene in the proposed transaction to protect the public interest, notwithstanding that the financial prudential requirements had been satisfied.
Let me explain this. We accept that from a narrow commercial or even prudential perspective, capital optimisation measures that free up capital to be returned to shareholders, are not uncommon practices. However, MCCY is not confident that the proposed transaction would not affect the ability of the co-op movement as a whole, or of Income itself, to carry out its social mission. First, we find it difficult to reconcile the proposed substantial capital reduction, soon after the transaction is completed, with Income's representations to MCCY during the corporatisation exercise that it was aiming to build up capital resources and enhance its financial strength. As I had explained, as part of that exercise, Income had sought and obtained an exemption to allow it to carry over a surplus of S$2 billion to the new corporate entity. The proposed capital reduction runs counter to the premise on which the exemption was given. If not for the Ministerial exemption in 2023, Income co-op's accumulated surplus of some S$2 billion would have gone to the CSLA after being wound up, to benefit the co-op movement in Singapore as a whole.
MCCY has not seen any arrangement within the present transaction to account for the estimated S$2 billion surplus that was carried over to the new corporate entity, due to the exemption. There is no clarity on how this sum will be directed towards advancing Income's social mission.
Second, MCCY is not satisfied that Income will be able to continue fulfilling its social mission after the proposed transaction. There are no clear binding provisions or structural protections in the deal to ensure that Income's social mission will be discharged. It is also not clear what Income might do after the capital extraction, for example, to adjust or trim its insurance portfolio, and what impact this could have on policy-holders. NE has stated that it intends to maintain Income's social mission. MCCY accepts that NE is making this commitment in good faith. But MCCY is not confident that NE's intentions, or the assurances Income gave earlier to MCCY, can be upheld.
We had known earlier that the proposed transaction would leave NE as the minority shareholder in the new entity, with a minority of board positions and no ability to nominate the Chairman of the new Income entity. On their own, these factors would not have caused MCCY to object to the transaction. However, taken together with the proposed capital extraction and the lack of structural protections in the deal to ensure the continuation of Income's social mission, cumulatively, they pose a risk that MCCY judges not to be acceptable.
As such, it is the Government's view that it is not in the public interest for the transaction, in its current form, to proceed. I should, however, make clear that the Government understands and accepts the strategic purpose behind Income's corporatisation exercise and its subsequent decision to form a partnership with Allianz. It was to strengthen Income and make it more financially sustainable in the longer term. The Government also does not have concerns over Allianz's standing or suitability to acquire a majority stake in Income. As I noted earlier, MCCY supports Income's efforts to find a strong partner so as to strengthen its capital base and market position.
Allianz is a major global insurance company and asset manager that can bring financial strength and expertise to Income.
Our concern is only over the terms and structure of this specific transaction, particularly in the context of the preceding corporatisation exercise. Income was a co-op, and subject to the objectives and obligations of being a co-op. Therefore, we also have to take into account the circumstances in which Income was corporatised and obtained an exemption from section 88 of the CSA. Hence, our assessment of the viability of this transaction must go beyond prudential considerations alone.
Whilst we will not allow the proposed transaction to proceed, we are nonetheless open to any new arrangement which Income may wish to pursue, whether with Allianz or any other partners, so long as the concerns highlighted are fully addressed.
Sir, let me now set out the steps which the Government will take.
As Income is now a corporate entity, it is no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Co-ops. The approval or otherwise of the proposed transaction now rests with MAS under the Insurance Act. Sections 26 and 27 of the Insurance Act require a person to seek the prior written approval of MAS to obtain effective control or become a substantial shareholder of a licensed insurer incorporated in Singapore. The proposed transaction therefore requires MAS' approval to proceed.
When MAS assesses an application under these sections, it considers a range of criteria on prudential grounds such as the financial strength and track record of the applicant, and whether it is fit and proper. There is currently no provision in the Insurance Act for MAS to consider the views of MCCY, in the case of an application relating to an insurer that is either a co-op or linked to a co-op. We therefore intend to amend the Insurance Act to provide a clear statutory basis for MCCY's views to be considered in any approval involving such applications.
The amendments will be scoped specifically to only apply to a licensed insurer that is the subject of an application under sections 26 and 27 of the Insurance Act and, where the licensed insurer is a co-operative, has acquired the business of a co-operative, or has a substantial shareholder or effective controller which is a co-operative. This is based on the Government's recognition that insurance co-ops are a special category of insurers with a social mission for which the views of the Minister overseeing co-ops need to be considered.
The Bill will therefore provide for the Minister-in-charge of MAS to consider the views of the Minister responsible for the administration of the CSA. And for the Minister-in-charge of MAS to withhold approval to such applications if he considers that it is in the public interest to do so. Following this Ministerial Statement, Minister Chee Hong Tat will table the First Reading of an amendment Bill to the Insurance Act on an urgent basis. Given the time sensitivity of this matter, the Second and Third Readings are proposed to be taken on Wednesday, 16 October 2024.
I should add that MCCY may also consider future amendments to the CSA to give the Government stronger levers over co-ops that may wish to be corporatised.
Sir, before I conclude, I would also like to address an outstanding issue raised by the Leader of the Opposition at the 6 August Parliament Sitting. At that time, I had replied that we were still looking into the issue. Mr Singh had asked whether NE had given its undertaking to hold on to its shares in Income, and I quote, \"for an indefinite period\", unquote, referring to views that Mr Tan Suee Chieh, a former CEO of Income and Group CEO of NE, had published.
Our fact finding shows that Mr Tan did indeed state, when he was Group CEO of NE, at a meeting of the Income Board on 21 November 2014, that he, referring to Mr Tan, was, I quote, \"confident that the NE Board would agree to a request to extend this undertaking not to redeem to an indefinite period, as NE was prepared to convert its shares to the new class of irredeemable shares once the legislation was passed\", unquote.
However, the letter that was eventually sent by NE to Income on 11 February 2015 stated, and I quote, \"Our shareholding in NTUC Income is thus committed over the long term, and there is no intention of withdrawing the share capital to be subscribed\". In short, the answer is, there was no specific commitment that the shares would not be redeemed indefinitely; neither was there a commitment that the shares would not be transferred to someone else.
More importantly, Sir, the commitment given by NE to Income in 2015 is no longer relevant in today's context. Back in 2015, Income was a co-op whose members had the right to withdraw their share capital at any time. This was a problem because Income needed a stable capital base to support its insurance business, but its members' share capital, being redeemable at any time, could not be counted towards MAS' capital adequacy requirements for insurers. NE's commitment not to redeem its shares was meant to assure Income of the stability of its capital base, pending legislative amendments to provide for a more permanent class of share capital for co-ops.
The CSA was subsequently amended in 2018 to allow institutional members of co-ops, like NE, to hold permanent shares so that the capital could not be withdrawn. NE then converted all its shares in Income to permanent shares, which could count towards MAS' capital adequacy requirements. This rendered NE's 2015 undertaking no longer relevant, because NE's shares were now legally locked in and Income's capital base had stabilised.
When Income subsequently corporatised, NE's shares in Income, the co-op, were converted into shares in the new company, which are also not withdrawable. Therefore, there is no longer a need for any undertaking by NE not to redeem its shares because all the shares are now permanent.
I hope this makes the position clear.
Mr Deputy Speaker, co-ops remain an important pillar of our society. Co-ops have been helping the community, providing affordable services, especially to the underserved for close to a century. They reinforce our nation's social fabric, complementing the efforts of the public and private sectors, helping to create a caring and cohesive community in Singapore. We appreciate that co-ops have to balance the constant tension between doing good and doing well. On its part, the Government agrees that co-ops must do well before they can do good.
MCCY has been and will continue supporting the co-op movement through various capability building efforts and enhancements to legislation. At the same time, MCCY is responsible to ensure that the co-ops continue to uphold their social missions to benefit Singaporeans and our wider society, as they seek to do well. This is why we have seen it fit to intervene, in the proposed transaction.
Sir, I would be happy to address Members' clarifications on the Ministerial Statement today. As I said, the amendment Bill to the Insurance Act will be tabled after this. Members can take time to study the Bill and take part in the debate on 16 October and raise clarifications on the Bill and related matters during that debate.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Clarifications may be asked arising from the Ministerial Statement.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Deputy Speaker, Sir. I thank you the Minister for the clarification.
Some of our Choa Chu Kang residents are Income policy-holders and they have expressed concern, and are grateful to the Government that they have looked into this and deemed that the transaction in its current form is not in the public interest. I have two questions.
The Minister mentioned just now that the Government intervened in this transaction but has not closed the doors to any potential other restructuring of the particular deal. So, my question is whether or not Income can find new partners or is it open to Allianz to restructure it and come back with future proposals? The concern is because Allianz is a foreign company and it is not the basis that just because it is an offer from a foreign company that we are intervening.
My second question is on the Government's commitment to support co-operatives as social enterprises. I cannot agree more that they need to do well in order to do good. Quite apart from Income, are there any other co-ops in Singapore and how are their objectives supported?
And the Minister mentioned the Co-operative Societies Liquidation Account, the CSLA. May I know what that account is for?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I thank Mr Zhulkanain for the two clarifications that he seeks. The first is on Allianz and whether or not we have foreclosed the possibility of a future transaction, whether with Allianz or any other partner. As I have said in my speech, the answer is no.
By all accounts, Allianz has put forward a credible, sound proposal and from a financial perspective it makes sense for Income to look at an entity that has global presence, strong networks and it is able to enter into it with a view towards a long-term strategic partnership.
On financial and prudential reasons alone, let me make clear, there is no reason not to accept this arrangement. The grounds that I have set up relate to the representations that were made at the corporatisation exercise, the exemption that was granted and the circumstances in which now it is proposed for capital to be extracted. Those were the reasons.
So, do not read into this as suggesting that we are not open to a foreign entity partnering with Income or indeed, whether it is Allianz or indeed, any other entity. So, I hope that answers the first of the Member's questions.
In relation to co-ops, they come under my Ministry. There are a variety of different co-ops and there are NTUC co-ops which helps look after the underserved workers. There are also campus co-ops where, Members might remember, the National University of Singapore, Nanyang Technological University and Ngee Ann, they all run co-ops for the benefit of students. There are also co-ops which help the sectors of society which need special attention. For example, Running Hour is a co-op that helps inclusivity in sports. There is also a co-op that looks after the employment of persons with disabilities. So, these are the different types of co-ops that come under the framework.
We support the co-ops in a number of ways, through enhancing the work that they do, supporting them through changes in the CSA that helps them in their business, that allows them to evolve and keep up with the times, and also has a fund that I mentioned, the CSLA, which MCCY and the Registrar manages and administers.
This fund, from time to time, helps co-ops with training of personnel and showing that they are the best people running each of the co-ops, and on occasion also sets up a fund like we have done recently, just earlier this year, on the Empowering Communities Fund, which helps to look after a specific segment of society, that is funded from the CSLA. So, this is one reason we maintain the CSLA, to look at how we can benefit co-ops as a whole in Singapore.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): My clarifications are for MAS. MAS knew about the capital extraction plan by around mid-July. I would like to seek a few clarifications with MAS. First, what was MAS' assessment of this plan? Second, was MCCY aware? Third, why did MAS not share more information about the capital extraction with MCCY earlier?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Chee Hong Tat, do you want to respond?
The Second Minister for Finance (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because Ms Pereira posed the question to MAS, so on behalf of MAS, I would like to respond to her – with your permission, Sir.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please proceed.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Thank you. Mr Deputy Speaker, Allianz submitted the capital reduction plan to MAS in mid-July this year. At that time, MAS had reviewed the high-level submitted information based on prudential grounds, focusing on whether Allianz was fit and proper, looking at its financial strength and track record, and looking at the interests of Income's policy-holders and ensuring that this will be safeguarded with a new, strong, substantial shareholder. So, those were the elements of what MAS was looking at when they received this plan and they received the proposal from Allianz.
The information received by MAS to perform its regulatory functions is generally not shared with other Government agencies and at that time, MAS was not aware of MCCY's considerations when MCCY issued the section 88 exemption and hence, it did not link the proposal from Allianz with the exemption that MCCY had provided earlier.
As the MAS team were still doing their technical assessments at that time, they did not surface the details, including the capital reduction plan, to the MAS Board before the 6 August Parliament Sitting. It was only after the 6 August Parliament Sitting that the MAS team that was assessing this matter saw that this plan to optimise the capital could be relevant to MCCY's views on the proposed transaction. That is when MAS then decided that there were grounds to share the information with MCCY and that it was appropriate for MAS to do so – and that was what happened. So, I hope that clarifies the questions that Ms Pereira asked.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Edwin Tong, would you like to add to that? No? Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Sir, in a way I am glad that the Government has done its due diligence to pick up these very serious implications of the deal, which is the S$1.85 billion capital extraction. My question to the MCCY Minister is, Income is now no longer a co-op, it is a corporate now. Hence, my query is how would MCCY still be able to exercise its oversight, whether it is for these transactions on the grounds of public interest or to hold Income to fulfilling its social mission that it has committed to, going forward?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I thank Mr Liang for the question. Income today is no longer a co-op and I have explained in my speech why it had taken steps to become a corporate entity. And because it is now a corporate entity, we must allow Income to operate like a company with autonomy in how it pursues business decisions, how it makes its plans and its financial arrangements and so on, as a corporate vehicle.
But a corporate vehicle can also be a social enterprise within this framework. For example, if you ask how this could be done, for example, ring-fencing some of the products which I mentioned earlier, which serves a segment of society, ring-fencing this to ensure that whatever business you conduct, you will always be in a particular segment of looking after this underserved segment of society at a lower cost.
For instance, Mr Liang would recall that I spent some time explaining the background to the corporatisation and the exemption. So, going back to this specific case, when the exemption was granted, the surplus funds of about S$2 billion, instead of going to the CSLA which would have applied for the benefit of all co-ops in Singapore, was transferred into Income, the entity.
If this arrangement was not being proposed, Income was free to use this surplus as it has been doing, to carry out the social mission, it would embark on business obviously and it must meet the usual capital adequacy requirements and so on, but it would be able to exercise some discretion over this surplus. That is how we saw it and that is why the exemption was given.
But in the context of those representations – building up its surplus, share capital base and so on – to come forward now and to ask for it to be extracted so soon and at this amount, after the exercise was completed, in our view, runs counter to the premises on which the exemption was granted. That is why in this case we have stepped in.
But moving forward, which I think is the thrust of your broad point, there are a number of ways in which a corporate can still remain a social enterprise in the way in which it conducts its business.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just one clarification for the Minister. Was the Government and MCCY already aware in July that despite assurances given by NTUC and Allianz that there are no existing safeguards which precluded Allianz from optimising the capital base of NTUC Income, which, as I understand correctly from Minister's Statement just now, is one of the key reasons that it now steps in.
From what I can see from the announcements back in July, a key rationale that Allianz put forth was that it will undertake a strategic and operational review of the company to operate it in a more capital efficient manner, considering possible business model transformation opportunities and also to target a double digit return from investment.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I had explained earlier that MCCY was not aware of the terms of the transaction or indeed of the planned cash remittance which includes the capital extraction until after the 6 August Parliamentary Sitting. It was at that juncture, and I think Minister Chee shared the circumstances in which MAS shared the information with MCCY, which I also covered in my Statement, and thereafter we decided to intervene, based on what we found out from the terms of the transaction as disclosed at the point in time.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Derrick Goh.
Mr Derrick Goh (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome Minister's Statement on blocking the proposed deal and the Government's emphasis that at the heart of this decision is about NTUC Income being able to serve its social mission.
As such, can I ask Minister to clarify upon reflection if NTUC Income should have been allowed to be a corporate and be given an exemption from compliance with section 88 of the Co-operative Societies Act? And if so, will MCCY consider further mechanisms to be built in since subsequent corporate exercises could alter or weaken this social objective?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sir, I have explained in some detail the background to the corporatisation exercise as well as the exemption that was granted in 2022 and 2023. Let me just reiterate that we felt that it was suitable at that point in time, because Income is involved in the insurance business. It essentially is competing with large players around the world and in Singapore and it also has to maintain a substantial capital base. That is the requirement under the Insurance Act and by MAS.
And the current co-operative, or at that time, current co-operative structure, was not conducive to it. For example, it made investments or strategic partnerships with a co-op less attractive. There were some restrictions on how much dividend could be declared, out of which year's profits and there was also a limit to it and so on. These limitations do not apply to a corporate entity.
And so, these amongst others, were the reasons why we supported Income when they approached us and discussed their plans with us.
In terms of the exemption, as I had explained, if Income was going to be wound up and no longer continuing with its business, obviously, section 88 would apply. It applies in all other cases – the fund with the surplus after you pay off liabilities would be put into the CSLA. But as I had explained, this was not a scenario where Income was going to be liquidated, wound up and cease its business. In fact, it was carrying on the same business, with the assurance that it would see to its social mission, in a sense, in a new skin, in a corporate vehicle set-up, but continuing with the same business, fundamentally.
And so, in that respect, taken as a whole, the exemptions were considered to be suitable and granted, so that Income can carry on and will be able to take advantage of the capital surpluses in its new vehicle.
In terms of future steps that Mr Goh mentioned, I mentioned in my Statement that we would look at the possibility of amendments to the CSA to look at such scenarios where a co-operative converts into a corporate vehicle and what are some of the measures that can be taken. We will explore all of this when we look at the CSA in detail.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Given that the need for more capital was the basis to justify the corporatisation of Income and then again, subsequently, to justify the sale of Income to Allianz which is in direct contradiction with the plan to reduce capital, will any action be taken against those responsible for misleading the public and the Government?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I am not sure Ms Poa heard my Statement or understood it. Let me explain the key points.
There is no question of misleading. The deal, on its own, was priced appropriately; the terms were put up. And as I had mentioned, even after the capital extraction, the financial viability, the capital adequacy requirements and ratios will be satisfied. That was the framework in which this was proceeded with. And NE and Income, as I also explained, believed in good faith that this strategic partnership would strengthen Income as an entity to allow it to compete in the insurance business with the benefit of a partner like Allianz. We have a different view of that for reasons which are not associated with the financial viability or sustainability of the proposal.
So, there is no misleading as far as this is concerned. But we believe that if you were to look at the representations that were given in the context of the corporatisation and the exemption exercise, we think that this goes counter to that arrangement and we have a different opinion from NE and Income as to its ability to still continue to carry out its social mission.
And as I said, cumulatively with other factors which we have also seen, such as the lack of structures in the agreement to protect the social mission or to advance it, and also coupled with the fact that it would no longer have majority control at the shareholding and also at the board level. So, it is taken in the round.
But there is no question that there has been any misleading. All of these facts were as disclosed. We have just taken a view of them differently from NE and Income as to its ability to carry out its social mission thereafter.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): This is a question for Minister Chee Hong Tat. The strategic intent for this deal is to help policy-makers in the longer run. So, in MAS' review of this deal and that now that this deal will be halted, what does it mean for policy-holders in the short to the long run? Will the terms of their policy to their board be safeguarded and should policy-holders be concerned?
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to respond to Mr Choo by saying that the existing policy-holders of Income need not be concerned as MAS will continue to regulate Income as a licensee.
Income has sufficient resources to meet the necessary capital adequacy ratio, which means it has enough capital to meet its liabilities and also to pay out to policy-holders. I also want to add, Mr Deputy Speaker, that MAS has not yet approved this proposal.
I mentioned this in the August Sitting in response to Ms He Ting Ru that the deal is still subject to MAS regulatory approval. So, this is not something that MAS has approved. We are still going through the details. Minister Edwin Tong has explained why the Government has decided to make amendments to the Insurance Act to give the Minister-in-charge of MAS the powers to consider the views and concerns of the Minister for MCCY on public interest grounds.
The best way to protect policy-holders in addition to ensuring that the licensees have sufficient capital to meet the necessary capital adequacy ratios is also to ensure that we have a competitive insurance industry. Because then, that will give choice and options to policy-holders to be able to choose what is the best product, the most competitive product, that can meet their needs.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Sir, I appreciate Minister Chee's answer about how MAS has not given its approval at the time of the announcement. But nevertheless, as a globally oriented player, Allianz would presumably have done some of its regulatory risk assessment and homework prior to the actual announcement on 17 June. And based on Minister Tong's statement, it seems that it was MCCY that was ultimately caught unaware.
And I understand that the proposed urgent Bill scheduled for Wednesday is meant to, in part, remediate this lapse in intra-government communication.
Nevertheless, I wonder what this means for the reputation of MAS as a reliable channel for Government sentiment for potential future deals that would require regulatory approval. What of other deals where different agencies or Ministries other than MCCY may have relevant input?
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Deputy Speaker, MAS takes its international reputation very seriously and this is the reason why we want to handle this matter in an open and transparent manner, coming to Parliament to pass the amendments to the Insurance Act and to do so with urgency because the deal is under consideration by shareholders, as explained by Minister Tong earlier.
The current provisions in the Insurance Act do not provide explicitly a provision for the Minister-in-charge of MAS, or for MAS to assess an application like this, based on non-prudential related considerations. So, this is why we need to make this amendment through the proposed Bill to give the Minister-in-charge of MAS these powers, to be able to factor in non-prudential related considerations. In this case, relating to co-ops and with views from the Minister for MCCY.
I appreciate why Assoc Prof Lim asked this question because it is also something that is important to us. We want to make sure that when we regulate, we do so in an even-handed manner, in an open manner. And as Minister Tong mentioned earlier, and I would like to reiterate that, the reason why we have concerns about this particular deal is not because there is a foreign entity, Allianz in this case, and it is also not because we have concerns about Allianz being fit and proper and being a suitable partner for Income. I hope that clarifies.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Deputy Speaker Sir. First of all, I really, from my heart, welcome the Government's decision to block this transaction, which I have questioned very much at the 6 August Sitting, with the help of information from many well-informed Singaporeans, like Mr Tan Suee Chieh. It is a big relief to NTUC policy-holders, of which I am one.
The Minister today, in announcing the turnaround of the Government's position, because what we heard on 6 August is actually very different. However, from what the Minister has said, it seems that all the processes are proper.
So, it begs the question, my first question is, who in the Government, in such big financial transaction, will be the final goalkeeper? Who is the one who will finally look at the outcome of the deal or any policy decisions, and not just the processes?
It seems that NE has gone through the right process, MAS has also done the first round of assessment and the case was presented to Parliament on 6 August. We were debating, we were asking questions in a different direction. We are trying to say at that Sitting that this transaction needs to be reconsidered. But of course, the Minister and the Minister of State at that time had given us very different impressions.
So, my first question is, in the future, when we have big financial transactions like this, can we get the assurance from the Government that there will be someone – in this case, we are happy that MCCY acted as a goalkeeper to look at the outcome of this transaction. So, in the future, can I get assurance who is going to do this goalkeeper role?
The second question I have is, what Minister Chee had mentioned just now, is that part of MAS' responsibility is to assess the deal in the interest of policy-holders. If the deal involves the acquirer extracting capital from the entity, can this fit into the criterion that it will be in the interest of the policy-holders? If it does not, then, is it that MAS had not done its job? I would like to have an answer to that.
Mr Deputy Speaker: So, I think there are two questions. If I am not mistaken, one is directed at Minister Tong and the other directed at Minister Chee. Who would like to go first? Minister Chee.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Deputy Speaker, I think the way Mr Leong has described what MAS colleagues have done is not accurate and I think it is not fair. I have explained earlier in my reply to Ms Pereira that MAS will look at the proposal from a prudential point of view. That is MAS' role as the prudential regulator for the insurance industry.
So, when the MAS team looks at that, they at that point in time, were not privy to the details of the exemption, of MCCY's exemption from section 88. I had explained that earlier in my reply to Ms Pereira.
So, from the MAS team's point of view, this is a proposal, they were assessing it from a prudential point of view and they looked at after the proposed capital reduction, would Income still be able to meet its necessary capital adequacy ratio? And if so, then from a prudential point of view, there is no reason for the regulator to object.
And this goes back to the point that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim raised earlier. If we want to be a regulator of good standing internationally, we have got to operate in a rules-based system, looking at what our requirements are as regulator and apply them consistently and in an even-handed manner. So, regardless of who the entity is, we would have to apply those rules based on our considerations as a prudential regulator. So, this is what happened.
I also explained earlier in my response to Ms Pereira that after the 6 August Parliament Sitting, the team from MAS that was looking at this proposal then recognised that there is a larger consideration beyond just prudential considerations alone. They then passed this information to MCCY, the information about the proposed capital reduction. MAS was the one who provided this information to MCCY and said, \"I think this is something you need to take a look at and whether this will fit with the terms of the earlier exemption that MCCY provided\". And then, by working together, MAS, MCCY, in a whole-of-Government manner, and this is how we will work as a Government, we will work across different Ministries, across different departments for the benefit of Singapore and Singaporeans.
Yes, initially, there was an information gap, as I explained. But once we shared the information, we work closely together, we work in a coordinated manner, and this is why we are bringing this Bill to Parliament for consideration.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Leong made a reference to the Sitting in August and also some public views on the transaction. I was not here in August, but I have since read the transcripts and understand what the Member had said. There were a number of views that were put out like, this transaction should not go on because the shares were supposed to be not redeemable or that it cannot be sold. None of these apply in this case. And I think the Member heard me explain earlier the background to why and how I answered the Leader of Opposition's query.
And the point really is that it is in the interest of Income in 2022 to have corporatised, I explained that, and for it to use this corporate vehicle to look at possibilities for partnerships, which it has now done and they found Allianz in this case. As I said, the objection is not to Allianz as an entity or to the financial suitability of its plans per se, but rather the questions that we have decided which followed after we reviewed the information, as the Member heard Minister Chee say earlier.
So, I would add to that by saying that is exactly how, when the Member mentioned the goalkeeper, this works. MAS would not share all and sundry information. The Member cannot expect that every time information about a potential application, an acquisition or a deal is proposed, is made, and information given to MAS that it is shared with all and sundry. That is not how MAS works. But, in this case, after they realised that there are various issues which MCCY might be concerned about, they then shared the relevant information with us. Collectively, we looked at it and came to a view, as a Government, on what would serve the public interest. And, in this case, we decided that it would not serve the public interest to allow this to proceed. That is how we would work, to answer your point about having a goalkeeper.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, I am very surprised to hear this announcement by the Government today when it had defended the sale of Income Insurance to Allianz so strongly during the 6 August Sitting of Parliament.
I think I heard Minister Tong say earlier that MCCY was concerned that there were no structural protections in the deal to ensure that Income could continue its social mission. But the fact that Allianz would have a majority stake in Income Insurance under the proposed deal was known at least since 17 July 2024, when Income first made its public announcement. Was this not a concern to MCCY in August?
Be that as it may, what structural protections does MCCY expect to be put in place in order for any sale of a co-op or social enterprise to proceed? For example, will it be the case that co-ops or social enterprises will not be allowed to sell a majority stake in their shares to an entity that does not have an explicit social mission?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sir, I spent quite a bit of my Statement explaining the sequence of events and explaining what we knew as of 6 August and what we knew after 6 August. I hope the Member has taken that into consideration and into account. And what we knew after 6 August allowed us to look at it cumulatively. On its own, as I mentioned my speech, losing board majority, losing shareholder majority were not itself factors which allowed us to reach a view that it was not in the public's interest.
And the Member would appreciate that it is a balancing consideration. On the one hand, there is a strategic interest in wanting the partnership to strengthen Income, to ensure that it will remain competitive. Yes, you lose board majority and you lose shareholding majority, but you take that in the round and on balance.
But what we discovered after 6 August, with a substantial capital extraction, shortly after the exemption was granted in 2023, of such a substantial amount, were factors which then tipped the balance. And then we said, as I mentioned in my speech, cumulatively, these factors caused us to have pause and we decided to review it in greater detail, and we realised that this was not something that we should see through as a matter of public interest.
So, I hope that explains the sequence of events and that Mr Giam does not see the shadows which do not exist in this case. It is about what we knew on 6 August and what we said, and even if the Member looked at the Hansard transcripts, what we said on 6 August was in relation to overarching purpose as strategic intent of Income looking for a partner, not so much that we knew the terms of this and we were talking about the terms of this on 6 August. I hope that makes that clear for Mr Giam.
As to what would work, I had ventured that in my answer to Mr Liang earlier. For example, you might ringfence products using proceeds or surplus from the co-operative, as one example. Or you might have terms contractually even without majority shareholding, which oblige the parties to operate in a particular way to fulfil social missions. So, these are some examples of what they might be.
But as to what exactly such a deal should look like, I think that would be speculative and I would not go into that. If the parties decide, at some juncture, that they want to reconsider this proposal and resubmit a proposal, we will consider it afresh at that point in time.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Okay, I see the last three hands. That is Mr Leong, Ms He and Mr Liang Eng Hwa. Are there any more hands besides these Members? No? Okay, then Ms He Ting Ru, then Mr Leong and then Mr Liang.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister, as part of its discussions with NE, did MCCY ask NE why they agreed to the deal knowing that there will be a capital extraction post-acquisition? I believe some of the concerns raised in Parliament in August were about financial sustainability and capital structure of the business going forward. So, I struggle to understand how withdrawing capital in the future can strengthen any entity's capital structure.
Given that there is public interest and social mission involved here, I think it is important that these reasons are articulated properly to help the public understand why there was this structure put in place, and I think it is also relevant because NE is still after all going to be a shareholder, albeit a minority one going forward, under the original proposed structure.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I thank Ms He for the question. The short point is this: that a withdrawal must be seen in the context of several other factors and there was a plan. And the plan is to optimise capital and not so much just to withdraw per se. So, when you optimise capital, you can do it in a number of ways. In the context of an insurance company, maybe redeploy reinsurance, for example, to remove some of the risks and therefore you need to maintain less capital to deal with buffers. These are some examples. I am not saying that this is what happened in this case, but these are some reasons why you might have a capital optimisation which provides for withdrawal but still not compromise the longer-term financial sustainability of the entity.
And I think the Member heard me mention earlier that on MAS' assessment, even after the withdrawal, over a three-year period, the capital adequacy requirements of the \tnew entity will still have to pass muster. So, these are factors that they take into account in looking at this. I take the point that these are discussions that obviously ought to be had with NE, moving forward, as to which types of proposals that maintain and allow us to fulfil the social mission can be countenanced. These are discussions for the future.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Chee Hong Tat, would you like to add to the response?
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just wanted to add to what Minister Tong has said in response to Ms He Ting Ru that MAS has not approved the proposed capital reduction plan. That was what they put forth to MAS since the middle of July, but MAS has not approved the proposed capital reduction plan.
In fact, Ms He may recall, when I responded to her on 6 August during the Sitting, I used the Chinese phrase to describe the situation that the deal still required MAS' regulatory approval. I said, \"八字都还没一撇\". So, this deal is not approved yet and it is something that is still subject to MAS' regulatory approval, including the capital reduction plan.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Deputy Speaker, I have two questions, maybe for Minister Chee Hong Tat. One is, can the Minister confirm that in assessing the prudential requirements of the deal, MAS had taken into consideration the capital extraction, although the Minister said just now that MAS had not approved the capacity extraction? Have they considered, even with the capital extraction, the prudential requirements are still satisfied?
The second question is maybe both Ministers can decide who to answer this question. This is about information given to Singaporeans. For the last few months, we are of the impression that the information given is all that we have. So, now we know about capital extraction. This is a very important condition of any financial deal. I am surprised, I am shocked and I am very unhappy today that this important condition is not being disclosed to the Singaporeans, when we were all discussing about this deal. So, whose responsibility is it for not disclosing this information? Can the Government give a commitment that it will pursue responsibility with regard to this? Maybe the company and all that, because this is a very important condition for the financial deal.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, I had actually addressed the first question that Mr Leong raised, in my response to various Members. But in case Mr Leong may have missed it earlier, let me say that again. So, first, I think we have to understand that the proposed capital reduction is a proposal from Allianz. It is not something that MAS has approved because, as I mentioned repeatedly, the deal is still subject to MAS' regulatory approval. So, would MAS consider this proposed capital reduction in its overall assessment? The answer must be yes, because this is part of the proposal.
Mr Leong always remind us that he has more than 30 years of experience in the financial sector. So, I am sure Mr Leong would agree with me that as a regulator, it is only right that we assess the full proposal, including this element within the proposal. Whether we agree with it or not, we have not yet come to a decision because this deal is still not yet approved by MAS.
Earlier, when we were discussing this matter of capital adequacy ratio, I think Minister Tong and I were explaining that because of the way the capital was being optimised in the proposal, the capital adequacy ratios, even after the extraction, could still be met. But that is what the proposal put forth. MAS will of course have to assess this independently as regulator to see if we agree with that view. I hope that clarifies the first question that Mr Leong raised.
The second question – and I think my colleague Minister Tong may add on later – let me just say in response to Mr Leong that that is why we are coming to Parliament. In Minister Tong's speech, he has explained clearly and in an open manner our key considerations, what are our concerns, including the proposal to reduce the capital in Income and why that is a concern to MCCY, bearing in mind the section 88 exemption that was earlier given and the undertaking and commitments that were given to MCCY.
So, I hope Mr Leong understands that this is not about withholding information. This is about coming to Parliament after we have put together the full picture, working across the whole-of-Government, between MAS, MCCY and also other agencies, to see what is the overall assessment of how we want to move forward on this important issue and then coming back to Parliament to present the information in an open manner and to propose that we amend the Insurance Act to give the Minister-in-charge of MAS the powers to consider the concerns and the views of the Minister for MCCY on public interest grounds.
It is important for us to recognise that this deal is not yet approved and this deal is something that is ongoing, under consideration by shareholders, and that is why we have some urgency. That is why we are coming to Parliament to seek approval urgently.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Edwin Tong, would you like to add to that?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sir, Mr Leong should not mischaracterise what happened. I explained it in some detail in my speech and I hope that the Member will not mischaracterise it by suggesting that information has been withheld. On 6 August, we were here. We explained why we believed that it is important for Income to have the ability to find and make arrangements for a partnership.
But as the Member knows, the transaction had not been approved. It is being considered.
We then got information from MAS, we shared the information and, as you heard me say earlier, this is how the Government works. We studied the information carefully, went through, understood the transaction and its impact, understood it from a financial perspective, understood it from a social mission perspective. Then, after coming to a view that it would not be in the public interest for this to proceed, we had to decide what is the best way to deal with this, to handle this, having regard to the fact that the Insurance Act gives MAS the ability to look at transactions from a financial or prudential perspective, but not from this angle, which is the views of the MCCY Minister overseeing co-operatives.
So, we had to reach a view as to not just that it is not in the public interest to proceed, but what we would do about it, which I am sure Mr Leong appreciates, is equally important. This is, after all, a live transaction, it is going on and there is market-sensitive information as well.
So, the first available opportunity, we have come to Parliament, explained it in a Ministerial Statement, the background as well as the steps moving forward and then tabling a Bill, which we will put in in a few moments, for a debate on Wednesday, as much time as possible in the context given to Members, given that this is a live transaction and we cannot leave this state of uncertainty pending.
So, I hope Mr Leong appreciates that that is the scenario that we are in and that there is no question of any information being withheld, either from Parliament or from Singaporeans.
Mr Deputy Speaker: I will allow one last clarification from Mr Leong. Please make it short. You will have the opportunity to debate the merit and principles of the Bill at the Second Reading and Third Reading on Wednesday. So, could you make it a short clarification, please?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, Sir. I would just like to say that I appreciate all the clarifications that both Ministers have done today. Thank you very much. When I talk about responsibility, I am actually talking more about when Income made the announcement, were they withholding information? Because we Singaporeans are all debating this deal. If this capital extraction is included right from the beginning in the deal, this information should have been made available to all Singaporeans.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Do either of the Ministers want to respond or we can leave it for the debate? Minister Chee Hong Tat.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We will have a further discussion on Wednesday when we do the Second Reading and the Third Reading.
The considerations for why the Government has concerns for this deal, Minister Tong has already explained. I just wanted to reiterate one point, an important point, that Minister Tong said earlier, which is that from NE and NTUC's point of view, their objective, their intent of entering into this deal with Allianz is to strengthen Income, so that Income is in a better position to do well and to be able to meet its social obligations. So, that was the intent.
The Government has a different view because of the concerns that we had, as Minister Tong explained, and that is why we are coming to Parliament. But I want to say this – because I think it is important that we do not leave with the wrong impression – that for NTUC and NE, their objective of wanting to go into this deal was, indeed, to do what is right; and it is, indeed, to allow Income to be strong and to be able to do well so that it can continue to do good.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Edwin Tong, would you like to add to that?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, Sir. I would just like to say that Mr Leong has been working for longer than I have been, in the financial sector. You know that this is an arrangement, this is a deal, and the parties submit proposals or plans to MAS, socialise them with MAS. The Member cannot expect this to be then made public to everyone. Income has obligations to its shareholders as well, and this is a step that happens after the transaction is completed. They have not even applied to approve the transaction.
So, Mr Leong, be circumspect about making allegations that parties, whether the Government or Income, could be more open or are withholding information, because there is a due process as to how this is done. You do not go out there and produce information about a proposal when the transaction has not even been approved. So, I hope Mr Leong sees it in that perspective.
Mr Deputy Speaker: There being no other final clarifications, Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa: Mr Deputy Speaker, my question relates to the Second Reading of the Bill on Wednesday. While I can understand the urgency of the intervention by the Government, can I ask is there not any provision within our existing legislation that allows the Minister-in-charge to reject corporate transactions on grounds of public interest, rather than to amend the Insurance Act on the basis of a Certificate of Urgency?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Chee Hong Tat.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand where Mr Liang is coming from. I have explained earlier why there is urgency in tabling this Bill – because the deal is under consideration by the shareholders. Currently, there is no explicit provision in the Insurance Act for MAS to consider non-prudential-related factors in assessing such applications. This is why we need to come to Parliament with the proposed Bill to give the Minister-in-charge of MAS the powers to be able to consider the views and the concerns of the Minister for MCCY on public interest grounds.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. End of Ministerial Statement. Introduction of Government Bills. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry, for the Insurance (Amendment) Bill.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Insurance (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) First Reading. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Finance (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a Certificate of Urgency signed by the President in respect of the Insurance (Amendment) Bill, to be laid upon the Table.
[(proc text) Certificate of Urgency signed by the President in respect of the Bill, laid upon the Table by the Minister. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: The Certificate is in order. Minister, please proceed.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled \"An Act to amend the Insurance Act 1966\".
[(proc text) Bill read the First time. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Deputy Speaker, copies of the Bill have been provided to the Clerk. With your permission, may the Bill be distributed to Members now.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, I give my permission. Please proceed. [Copies of handout distributed to hon Members.]
Minister, Second Reading what day?
Mr Chee Hong Tat: At the next available Sitting on Wednesday, 16 October 2024, Sir.
Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.
[(proc text) \"to amend the MediShield Life Scheme Act 2015\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) on behalf of the Minister for Health; 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":"Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Energy Conservation Act 2012\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Mr Baey Yam Keng) on behalf of the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment; 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":"Sewerage and Drainage (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Sewerage and Drainage Act 1999 and to make consequential and related amendments to the Public Utilities Act 2001 and the State Lands Protection Act 2022\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) on behalf of the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment; 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":"Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Amendment) and Other Matters Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Extradition Act 1968, the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2000 and the Trustees Act 1967 to give effect to certain recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force and to enhance the legal framework for international assistance in criminal matters and extradition, and to make consequential amendments to certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Law (Mr Murali Pillai) 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":"Singapore International Commercial Court (International Committee) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to establish the International Committee of the Singapore International Commercial Court and to make related amendments to the Legal Profession Act 1966\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Law (Mr Murali Pillai) 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":"Administration of Justice (Protection) (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 to provide for certain circumstances that amount to contempt of court\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Law (Mr Murali Pillai) 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":"Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Manpower, I beg to move, that the Bill be now read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill 2024 is linked to the Platform Workers Bill 2024 which was passed in Parliament last month. To recap, Parliament passed the Platform Workers Bill to strengthen protections for platform workers providing platform services, such as ride hail and delivery services, in the areas of housing and retirement adequacy, financial protection in the case of work injury and representation.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
For representation, there will be a legal framework setting out the rights and obligations of both platform work associations and platform operators in dealing with each other. As the framework for employers and employees has worked well in preserving industrial harmony, it was a reference for the framework for platform operators and platform workers. Hence, platform work associations will be analogous to trade unions.
Today, a member of any trade union or of any body or association affiliated to a trade union cannot be a member of the Public Service Commission, Public Service personnel boards, Judicial Service Commission and Legal Service Commission. This is to preserve impartiality and high standards in the Civil Service, the Judicial Service and the Legal Service. As platform work associations function like trade unions, the same consideration should apply, for parity.
Therefore, we are proposing consequential amendments to the Constitution, through the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill, to prohibit members of any platform work association or of any body or association affiliated to platform work associations from being a member of the Public Service Commission, Public Service personnel boards, Judicial Service Commission and Legal Service Commission. Sir, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: The question is, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\" Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a vote is taken to ascertain that the Second Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, which is 60 Members. Clerk, ring the division bells.
[(proc text) After two minutes – (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Serjeant‐at‐Arms, lock the doors.
Before I proceed to start the electronic voting, may I remind Members that they are to be seated at their designated seats and should only start to vote when the voting buttons on their arm rest start to blink.
[(proc text) Question put, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Take a vote. You may now begin to vote. May I remind Members to depress their vote buttons firmly in order to register your votes in the system.
Members are advised to check that their names are registered according to their vote indication when the voting results are shown on the display screens.
Before I proceed to declare the results of the vote, are there any Members who wish to claim that his or her vote has not been displayed or has been displayed incorrectly on the screens? I do not see any.
Mr Speaker: I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are 82 \"Ayes\"; no \"Noes\"; no \"Abstentions\". The Second Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament.
[(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 Koh Poh Koon]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Third Reading
Mr Speaker: Third Reading, what day?
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Now, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Third time.\"
Mr Speaker: The Question is, \"That the Bill be now read a Third time.\"
Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a vote is taken to ascertain that the Third Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, which is 60 Members. Clerk, ring the division bells.
[(proc text) After one minute – (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.
[(proc text) Question put, \"That the Bill be now read a Third Time.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: You may now begin to vote. May I remind Members to depress their vote button firmly in order to register their vote in the system.
Members are advised to check that their names are registered according to their vote indication when the voting results are shown on the display screens.
Before I proceed to declare the results of the vote, are there any Members who wish to claim that his or her vote has not been displayed or displayed incorrectly on the screens?
Mr Speaker: I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are 82 \"Ayes\"; no \"Noes\"; no \"Abstentions\". The Third Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament.
[(proc text) Bill accordingly 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":"Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No 2) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Law (Mr Murali Pillai) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
Sir, this Bill makes miscellaneous amendments across 12 Acts. These amendments broadly fall within the following three buckets. First, making legislative provisions clearer; second, updating legislative provisions in light of revised terminology and definitions; and third, streamlining and improving operational effectiveness and delivery of our policies.
Let me now take hon Members through the amendments in this Bill.
First, clause 2 of the Bill amends section 92(4)(b) of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2024 to update the term \"interrogatories\" to \"discovery of facts\". The amendment updates the terminology, in line with the Rules of Court 2021. It does not change the underlying substance of the provision.
Next, clause 3 makes minor and technical amendments to the Copyright Act 2021, or CA.
First, it makes typographical corrections to sections 61(1)(c) and 313 of the CA. Second, it splits the offence on causing protected performances to be seen or heard in public, under the current section 450(2) of the CA, into two separate offences: one, in relation to live performances and another in relation to recordings of performances. The split is necessary to restore the original intention with respect to the offence relating to recordings, which carries a different condition from the offence relating to live performances. These offences were inadvertently conflated when the CA was revised in 2021 in plain English.
I now come to the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, or CPC, under clause 4 of the Bill.
First, clause 4(a) and (b) update the definition of a \"juvenile\" in section 2(1) of the CPC to refer to a person who is 10 years of age or older, but below 18 years of age. This is to align with other related legislation, namely: section 25 of the Criminal Law Reform Act 2019, which raised the minimum age of criminal responsibility in the Penal Code 1871 from seven years of age, to 10 years of age; and section 2 of the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Act 2019, which increased the maximum age of a \"juvenile\" under the Children and Young Persons Act 1993 from 16 years of age, to below 18 years of age.
Second, there are clarificatory and technical amendments to sections 319 and 360 of the CPC, which relate to fines and compensation. These amendments provide that a person, who is serving imprisonment imposed in default of payment of a fine or compensation sum, must be released \"as soon as reasonably practicable\" after the unpaid fine or compensation sum is paid. This is already the practice today and the proposed amendments make this clear in statute.
In addition, the proposed amendments make clear that fines must be paid using a designated mode of payment and within the time designated in a payment advice issued by the court to the offender, in line with existing practice.
Next, clause 5 of the Bill makes technical amendments to the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, or IRDA.
First, it amends the definition of a \"relevant company\" in section 250(7) of the IRDA to delete a reference to a Registered Fund Management Company. This follows MAS' recent repeal of the regulatory regime for these companies on 1 August 2024.
The second amendment is to section 327(4)(a) of the IRDA, to extend the period within which a secured creditor has to notify the Official Assignee of the secured creditor's intention to claim interest on the secured debt, from 30 days after a bankruptcy order is made against the debtor to 60 days. This would give secured creditors more time to consider whether to and make a claim.
Finally, the proposed amendment to section 368(4) of the IRDA will make clear that the 14-day time limit mentioned in section 368(3) only applies to serving the Sheriff with notice of a bankruptcy application made against or by the debtor and not to the making of a bankruptcy order.
Turning to the next amendment, clause 6 of the Bill amends section 2(1) of the Interpretation Act 1965: to insert a definition for \"His Majesty\", \"Her Majesty\", \"King\", \"Queen\", \"Sovereign\", \"His Britannic Majesty\" and \"Her Britannic Majesty\", in relation to the United Kingdom, so that they can refer to the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, regardless of whether that Sovereign is a King or a Queen.
Next, I will address the various amendments to the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1995, or LAAA.
First, clause 7(b) introduces a new section 4A to provide protection from personal liability to individuals carrying out certain functions and duties under the LAAA. This is similar to the position in section 7 of the Public Defenders Act 2022.
Second, a new section 6A ensures that when a volunteer steps forward to help a mentally incapacitated person who qualifies for legal aid and does not have suitable family members to be appointed as that person's deputy, the volunteer will not be means-tested. The volunteer would not be paid for his work as a deputy for the mentally incapacitated person.
The volunteer here refers to a person who is registered as a professional deputy under the Mental Capacity Act 2008 or a person who meets certain criteria to be prescribed in the subsidiary legislation. These criteria would be similar to those required for registration as a professional deputy under the Mental Capacity Act 2008. For example, the volunteer must be a citizen or permanent resident of Singapore, must not be a bankrupt and must be 21 years of age or older.
This section applies when a volunteer applies for legal aid for a proceeding to be appointed as deputy in relation to a person who lacks capacity, or to vary an order made in relation to such a person under the Mental Capacity Act 2008.
In such a situation, the means test would be applied on the person who lacks mental capacity, rather than the volunteer who is the applicant. With this amendment, the volunteer, who is stepping forward to help a mentally incapacitated person, would not need to incur costs to hire a private lawyer, if the mentally incapacitated person meets the means test criteria.
Third, the proposed amendment to section 16 of the LAAA will provide that costs owed by an aided person to the Director of Legal Aid, in connection with that aided person's application for legal aid, may be waived either partially or completely. This aims to provide a more equitable outcome for aided persons, in cases where the costs owed by them are equal to or greater than the settlement or judgment sums they may receive at the completion of their legally aided matters.
Finally, clause 8 effects an administrative move for the Legal Aid Bureau's financial requirements to be met directly through MinLaw's regular budget provision going forward. Hence, the clause provides for the transition from the current Legal Aid Fund, which will no longer be needed. The Government's commitment to the provision of civil legal aid through the Legal Aid Bureau remains unchanged.
Next, I will move on to clause 9, which amends the Moneylenders Act 2008, or MLA.
First, it clarifies that all pawnbrokers regulated under the Pawnbrokers Act 2015, or PBA, are \"excluded moneylenders\" for the purposes of the MLA. As such pawnbrokers are already regulated under the PBA, this will ensure that these pawnbrokers are subject to only one regulatory framework.
In addition, it amends section 66(1) of the MLA such that a licensed moneylender must obtain from a body corporate loan applicant the same information as other loan applicants that are business entities. This will ensure consistency in the information collected by licensed moneylenders from all non-personal loan applicants.
Finally, proposed amendments to section 66A(2)(a) will require a licensed moneylender to inform each surety of the loan applicant in writing, when the surety's information is submitted to a designated credit bureau for the purpose of producing a credit report in relation to the surety. This amendment achieves parity in treatment between loan applicants and sureties, by notifying them when their information is submitted to a designated credit bureau.
I now come to clause 10, which makes technical amendments to the PBA.
First, it deals with whether fees are refundable. It introduces a new section 9A that deals specifically with fees for the grant or renewal of a pawnbroking licence. This provision prescribes when such fees are not refundable, as well as the Registrar of Pawnbrokers' discretion to deviate from this position. Clause 10 also clarifies that other types of fees for making various applications are not refundable. These amendments align the positions under the PBA with those under the MLA.
The second amendment is to section 2(1) of the PBA, to allow the use of an individual's foreign identification number, or \"FIN\", as an alternative to their foreign passport number, for identification purposes. As the FIN does not change over time, permitting pawnbrokers to collect the FIN as an alternative identification information will better meet their operational needs.
Third, proposed amendments to sections 10 and 13 of PBA will provide that the Registrar of Pawnbrokers may refuse to grant or renew a licence, or approve substantial shareholding, on the ground that a substantial shareholder of the applicant or licensee is not of good character or is not a fit and proper person. This is in line with our intent to prevent individuals with a wider range of criminal antecedents from being involved in the business of pawnbroking.
Fourth, proposed amendments to sections 38 and 39 of PBA will streamline the process for licensees to make representations and appeals, before the Registrar of Pawnbrokers takes action to vary their licence conditions, suspend or revoke their licence or impose a financial penalty. These amendments will provide clarity to pawnbrokers who wish to make representations or appeals before the above administrative sanctions are imposed.
Finally, there are proposed amendments to paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule to clarify that pawnbrokers may charge fees lower than $2 for the issuance of a pawn ticket. It also clarifies that pawnbrokers may charge the fee only if they offer any mode of payment as specified. These amendments make clear that pawnbrokers have the discretion to offer customers more competitive fees for the issuance of pawn tickets.
Next, I come to amendments to the Public Defenders Act 2022. Clause 11 makes clarificatory amendments to the Public Defenders Act 2022, or PDA.
Currently, section 12 of PDA requires the merits of applications involving offences that carry a maximum prescribed sentence of more than seven years' imprisonment to be assessed by a board. This board consists of the Chief Public Defender and at least two solicitors appointed to the Public Defender's Office's panel of solicitors established under section 4 of PDA.
The proposed amendment to section 12(1) will clarify that such applications are determined by a majority of the board's members and this is consistent with our policy intent. Second, the Schedule under PBA on excluded offences and excluded classes of offences is reformatted for clarity and to improve readability. Clause 11 and clause 14 of this Bill contain proposed updates to include Regulatory offences under the Pawnbrokers Act 2015, the Bankruptcy Act (Chapter 20, 2009 Revised Edition) before its repeal, the Sale of Drugs Act 1914 as in force before its repeal, the Town Councils Act 1988; and to retain the existing reference to regulatory offences under the Medicines (Advertisement and Sale) Act 1955. This is consistent with the policy intent to exclude regulatory offences from criminal defence aid coverage.
I now turn to clause 12, which amends the Revised Edition of the Laws Act 1983, or RELA.
The last universal revision of Acts under RELA was completed on 31 December 2021 when the 2020 Revised Edition of Acts came into force. The Law Revision Commissioners (LRCs) will be revising subsidiary legislation to ensure coherence and consistency between subsidiary legislation and the revised Acts. For instance, when revising the Acts, certain provisions were renumbered and the language was modernised.
As at 26 June 2024, there are about 4,900 pieces of subsidiary legislation under around 349 Acts to be revised. This comes to almost 50,000 pages of subsidiary legislation. Given the sheer volume, the amendment in clause 12(e) is needed to allow subsidiary legislation to be revised in batches, rather than on a single date. This will allow batches of updated subsidiary legislation that are ready to be published earlier, compared to holding back until all the subsidiary legislation is ready at a later date.
The amendments by clauses 12(e) and 12(i) also give the LRCs discretion not to revise certain types of subsidiary legislation, for instance, subsidiary legislation that applies to certain time periods. Clause 12(l) also allows subsidiary legislation to be revised on an ad hoc basis, not necessarily every year.
Clause 12(h) allows a consolidated subsidiary legislation to be amended. Sometimes, when revising subsidiary legislation, the LRCs consolidate two or more pieces of subsidiary legislation. An example is the Infrastructure Protection (Protected Areas) Orders. When combined, a single subsidiary legislation will list the protected areas that were previously in separate subsidiary legislation. The amendment by clause 12(h) allows this consolidated subsidiary legislation to be amended to accommodate changes to the contents of the subsidiary legislation in the future. As a whole, the amendments in clause 12 help the LRCs' work in keeping our Statute Book coherent and comprehensible, furthering the rule of law.
Finally, Sir, I come to the amendment relating to the Women's Charter 1961.
Clause 13 amends the Women's Charter to make a minor drafting adjustment to the new section 126B, which was inserted by section 35 of the Women's Charter (Amendment) Act 2022 and is yet to be commenced. The amendment clarifies that the new measures to enhance the enforcement of child access orders apply to all access orders made under section 126 of the Women's Charter.
In conclusion, Sir, this Bill makes miscellaneous and minor amendments in the manner that I have just described. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I have no objections to the Bill and wish to speak briefly on the issue of young offenders who are the subject of the amendment under clause 4 of the Bill. Clause 4 will amend the CPC concerning the age of criminal responsibility of young offenders. The definition of \"juvenile\" has been amended from referring to someone between the ages of seven and 16 to refer to a person who is between the ages of 10 and 18. This change is in line with the amendments that this House made five years ago to the Penal Code and the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA), which had hitherto defined \"child\" to be someone under 16 years old. This amendment to the CPC, when effective, will mean that youths between 16 and 17 will now be included in some of the CPC provisions meant to protect juveniles.
Some examples include the power of a sentencing judge not to impose the usual punishment for an offence but to make orders to rehabilitate and reintegrate the young offender under CYPA. Another example would be the opportunity for the young offender to be released on bail, even if charged with an offence attracting the death penalty or life imprisonment.
Sir, the general policy of recognising childhood as lasting till 18 years of age is well accepted internationally and, in Singapore, it has been a long time coming. Nearly 30 years ago in 1995, Singapore ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which defines \"childhood\" as that period of life of up to 18 years. The Convention recognises that a person's life till 18 years is: \"a special protected time in which children must be allowed to grow, learn, play, develop and flourish with dignity\". Children under 18 have yet to be fully developed and, when they do wrong, they should be guided rather than shamed and punished.
While the changes in the definitions regarding age are necessary, they will only be meaningful if the entire ecosystem of criminal justice adopts the same approach. To this end, there are significant measures already in place, such as prohibiting publishing the identifying particulars of crime victims or suspects under 18 years old.
Another area where progress has been made over the years is in the Appropriate Adult Scheme (AAS) where an appropriate adult accompanies a young offender during law enforcement investigations. Three years ago, during Parliamentary Questions, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) affirmed that the cut-off age for suspects under the AAS remained at 16 years. When I enquired then about whether the scheme would be extended to suspects below 18, MHA pointed to a manpower challenge. It was pointed out that the AAS relied on volunteers and if the scheme were to be expanded to youths above 16 but below 18, it was necessary to double the number of volunteers.
I am happy to note that the Ministry has since confirmed that the AAS would, indeed, be expanded to include 16- and 17-year-olds. It was announced that this would be done in phases from 1 April last year with the target completion date of October last year. It is commendable that the manpower challenge has been overcome.
Another important area is the Youth Courts, which are an integral part of the ecosystem for the support of our children. Compared to conventional Courts, the Youth Courts adopt more therapeutic practices, such as having closed-door hearings and a range of Court orders for the reintegration of young offenders. In 2019, Parliament passed amendments to the CYPA to raise the jurisdiction of the Youth Courts to hear cases involving youth offenders to include those aged 16 and 17.
However, it appears that five years on, the Youth Courts are still hearing cases involving youths aged up to 16 only. Could the Ministry of Law confirm when the Youth Courts will start hearing cases involving youth offenders between 16 and 18 years old?
Sir, over the years, I have witnessed young residents getting into trouble with the law. Some simply fell into bad company and succumbed to peer pressure, while others lacked proper adult guidance. After their first brush with the law, some are saved while others sink deeper into more offending, snuffing out the great potential their lives had. Not everyone has parents to advocate for them. It is thus vital that the agencies and the criminal justice system and we, in Parliament, do what we can to give these young citizens a leg up.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Murali.
Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim for her support of the Bill as well as her comments. On the specific question that she raised in relation to the CYPA of 2019, she asked whether the amendments to cater for the increase in the jurisdiction of the Youth Courts to hear cases involving youth offenders between 16 and below 18 will take effect.
The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) has been working on this with the relevant agencies and will announce the operationalisation date of the relevant amendments from the CYPA of 2019 later this year. MSF needed time to build up its capacity and capabilities to manage not only a higher number of youth offenders, but also a new profile of older youths with differing needs and risks. MSF is committed to ensuring older youth offenders receive an age-appropriate rehabilitation catered to their risks and needs.
Sir, I would like to conclude by thanking Ms Lim once again for her support of the Bill, which will make the legislative provisions clearer, update legislative provisions in light of the revised terminology and definitions and, finally, streamline and improve operational effectiveness and delivery of our policies. Sir, with that, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Clarification time. Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Speaker, just a clarification on what the Minister of State just said. He mentioned that MSF would announce later this year when the provisions will be effective, and not that the provisions will be effective by this year, right? I mean, that is what I heard him to have said.
Mr Murali Pillai: Sir, I confirm that the hon Member's understanding is correct.
Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications? I do not see any.
[(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 Murali Pillai]. (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":"Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"Mr Speaker: Minister for Manpower.
The Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Central Provident Fund (CPF) system is a key pillar of Singapore's social security system which helps CPF members set aside savings for their retirement, housing and healthcare needs.
We regularly review and update the CPF system. The Bill effects the following changes: first, the CPF Special Account (SA) will be closed for those aged 55 and above from early 2025 onwards; second, the Bill expands the Home Protection Scheme (HPS) to offer cover to CPF members with certain pre-existing conditions that are not so severe; and lastly, the Bill introduces amendments to clarify processes and streamline the administration of the CPF Board and CPF schemes.
The first two sets of amendments in the Bill, which effect the closure of the SA for members aged 55 and above and the expansion of the HPS, are part of the evolution of the CPF system to continue serving the needs of Singaporeans.
The closure of the SA has been discussed at length in this House since it was announced at Budget this year. As I had earlier explained during the 2024 Committee of Supply debate for the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), the principle behind closing the SA for members aged 55 and above is to right-site CPF monies. Only CPF savings committed towards long-term retirement needs should earn the higher long-term interest rate.
Today, members aged 55 and above have four CPF accounts: one, the Ordinary Account (OA); two, the MediSave Account (MA); three, the SA; as well as four, the Retirement Account (RA). From the second half of January 2025 onwards, the SA of members aged 55 and above will be closed and they will have just three CPF accounts. CPF members will be notified when their SA is closed, through a hard copy notification, as well as an email or SMS where applicable.
As per the current practice for members turning 55 today, members' SA savings will be transferred to the RA, up to the Full Retirement Sum (FRS) applicable to their cohort. The savings in the RA will continue to earn the higher long-term interest rate, which is currently at 4.14%. With the closure of the SA, any remaining SA savings will be transferred to the OA and can be withdrawn.
Members who wish to commit their withdrawable savings to their long-term retirement needs can opt to transfer their OA savings to their RA up to the Enhanced Retirement Sum (ERS). With the ERS raised to four times the Basic Retirement Sum (BRS) from 1 January 2025, more than 99% of CPF members aged 55 and above today would be able to transfer all their SA savings to their RA, if they wish to do so. As Members of the House would know, CPF members can then choose to start receiving their RA savings as monthly retirement payouts anytime from the age of 65 to 70.
In gist, the SA closure will not prevent members from earning the higher long-term interest rate. They can do so by voluntarily transferring their savings to the RA, up to the prevailing ERS. But if members want to retain the flexibility to withdraw these savings at any time, then the savings can remain in the OA and earn the OA interest rate.
The Bill will permit the Board to implement the SA closure and the necessary related actions, such as transferring members' SA savings into their RA and OA.
Next, I will speak about the expansion of the HPS. The HPS is an insurance scheme that protects CPF members and their loved ones from losing their Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats in the event of the member's death, terminal illness or total permanent disability. Today, members are covered at a standard premium rate if they are assessed to be generally in good health, even if they have pre-existing health conditions. The vast majority of applications are approved. However, around 1.3%, or about 1,400 HPS applicants, are rejected annually due to pre-existing health conditions based on factors, such as overall severity, prognosis, control of the health condition and the member's health risk profile.
While we cannot cover all pre-existing health conditions, we will expand HPS from mid-2025 to cover those with certain pre-existing conditions that are not so severe, such as certain types of strokes and heart disorders. In line with industry practices, these members will pay higher premiums that are commensurate with the higher likelihood of claims. Even with this premium loading for such members, the HPS would provide coverage at one of the lowest premiums that such members would pay in the current market.
For members who are eligible for coverage today, there will be no premium loading and no change to the standard premium rate.
To ensure that the HPS remains sustainable and affordable for the majority of members, the small minority of members with more severe health conditions, such as those currently receiving treatment for cancer, would not be able to participate in HPS. This is also in line with industry practice.
Nevertheless, CPF members who face financial difficulties in repaying their mortgage loans can approach HDB for further assistance.
The expansion of HPS will be implemented from mid-2025. For those offered coverage with premium loading, participation will be on an opt-in basis. We will assess any future developments to industry practice in our regular review of the CPF system. Taken together, the closure of the SA and the expansion of the HPS coverage to more members with pre-existing health conditions will evolve our CPF system to better serve the needs of Singaporeans over the course of their lives.
The remaining four amendments are to streamline the administration of the CPF Board and CPF schemes.
Firstly, we will amend the CPF Act to simplify the CPF Board structure. The amendments give the Minister the discretion to appoint a Deputy Chairperson from amongst the Board members. This is in line with common practices across other Statutory Boards. There will be no change to the maximum number of 15 Board members. The Board currently comprises a Chairperson, a Deputy Chairperson, six tripartite representatives and seven other persons. After the amendments, the Board will comprise a Chairperson, six tripartite representatives and eight other persons. Excluding the Chairperson and the CEO of CPF Board, the Minister may now appoint a Deputy Chairperson from any of the remaining Board members with the President’s concurrence. CPF Board will continue to operate efficiently with this change.
I will now move on to the next amendment. Currently, when members sell their property, their sales proceeds are distributed in a specific order. For example, a member with an HDB loan would have to repay any outstanding property tax, outstanding HDB loan and resale levies, before refunding the amount of CPF savings used in the purchase of the property including accrued interest.
As implemented by the Ministry of National Development and HDB starting from the October 2024 Build-To-Order (BTO) exercise, there is a New Flat Classification Framework which will classify new flats as Standard, Plus and Prime based on locational attributes. This new framework will help to achieve three important objectives: one, it keeps home ownership affordable; two, it maintains a good social mix; and three, it keeps the system of public housing subsidies fair for everyone.
To ensure affordability, Plus and Prime flats come with additional subsidies to enable a wider range of Singaporeans to purchase them. This is on top of significant market discounts that are applied to all BTO flats today.
And to ensure fairness for everyone, these additional subsidies will be recovered upon the sale of the flats. Plus and Prime flats will also come with additional restrictions, such as the 10-year minimum occupancy period (MOP), to discourage quick flipping and support genuine home buyers.
This set of amendments will allow HDB to recover a percentage of the resale price or market valuation of the flat, whichever is higher, that is commensurate with the extent of additional subsidies provided. The recovery of additional subsidies will be done before the required CPF housing refund is made to the member's CPF account. This maintains parity with other flat buyers who did not receive these additional subsidies and is important to preserve the fairness of our public housing subsidies.
We will also amend the Act to clarify that the CPF Board requires CPF refunds only upon property disposal and not at the point of transactions, which involve the issuance of a new lease or title without any changes to the ownership of the property. Such transactions include the purchase of recess areas outside of one's HDB flat and lease extensions.
Some members today also provide undertakings to pledge their property to CPF Board, to access more funds in their RA for immediate use. In some cases, new co-owners could be added after the existing owner had pledged the property. The amendments clarify that CPF Board also requires new co-owners to refund the pledged monies to the existing owner's CPF accounts, upon disposal of the property.
Lastly, we will remove provisions that were previously included to support the CPF Job Record Scheme and which are no longer relevant today. In the past, employers could request for CPF Board to share prospective employees’ employment history under the CPF Job Record Scheme. This scheme was terminated in 1983 and CPF Board has not shared any prospective employees' employment history with employers since then. As such, we will amend the CPF Act to remove this provision.
Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to say a few words in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Government regularly reviews and updates the CPF system to ensure it continues to meet the needs of Singaporeans at different stages of life.
Previously, we announced the closure of the SA for CPF members aged 55 and above. This is to ensure that only long-term CPF savings can enjoy a higher long-term interest rate. This will take effect from the second half of January 2025. We will notify affected members by letter, as well as an email or SMS.
The affected members need not worry. After the SA has been closed, the savings in it will be transferred to the RA up to the FRS. These savings will continue to earn higher long-term interest rates. If a member's RA has already reached the FRS, the remaining savings in the SA will be transferred to their OA and can be withdrawn at any time.
Members can also choose to transfer the savings from their OA to the RA up to the ERS. This way, members can earn a higher interest rate and receive higher retirement income. From 2025 onwards, the ERS will also be increased to four times of the BRS. This means that currently, over 99% of the affected members will be able to transfer all their SA savings to the RA.
The Government will also expand the coverage of the HPS from mid-2025. Members with certain pre-existing conditions that are not so severe, such as certain types of stroke and heart disorder, will be able to get coverage. Even if they are required to pay a higher premium, the premium will still be amongst the lowest in the current market. We will assess any future developments to industry practice in our regular reviews of the CPF system.
We will also streamline the administration of the CPF Board and the CPF schemes. The overall revisions will ensure that the CPF system, as an important pillar of our country's social security system, can continue to meet the needs of Singaporeans.
(In English): Sir, let me conclude. The CPF (Amendment) Bill will give effect to the closure of the SA for members aged 55 and above from the second half of January 2025 onwards, as well as the expansion of the HPS to cover more CPF members with pre-existing health conditions from mid-2025 onwards. It will also clarify processes and streamlines the administration of CPF Board and CPF schemes.
All in all, this ensures that the CPF system continues to serve the needs of Singaporeans over the course of their lives and to continue to remain effective as a key pillar of Singapore's social security system. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill will refine the CPF scheme and I stand in support of it. I have three points of clarification to raise.
My first point is on the closure of the SA for members 55 years old and above. The new section 13AA(1) provides for an exception where the SA of a member who has attained 55 years of age may not be closed if any prescribed circumstances apply. Can the Minister explain what it intends these circumstances to be?
The closure of the SA was the subject of extensive discussion during the Committee of Supply debates earlier this year. It has also been the subject of much discussion by the general public. The policy is understandably of significant concern for some Singaporeans who have to reconsider their retirement nest eggs.
CPF members may top up or transfer savings from their OA to SA to enjoy higher interest rates while building a retirement sum enough to enjoy the highest possible monthly payouts in retirement. This results in a higher-yielding SA that can be withdrawn on demand after they turn 55. I am heartened to see that there have been numerous explainers by both the CPF Board and the Government to clarify the rationale for the changes. But the reality remains that some CPF members will need to re-evaluate their retirement strategies.
Can the CPF Board and the Government share what steps and resources will be extended to members to help them navigate the impact of this new policy on their personal retirement plans? Can the Government also share how many members are expected to be able to reach the FRS following the top-up from the SA? This milestone is significant to members because after it is reached, the balance in the SA will go to the OA.
In 2022, the CPF Board shared that they expect about eight in 10 active CPF members turning 55 in 2027 to be able to set aside at least the BRS. Moving forward, will the Government regularly share the number of members expected to reach the BRS, FRS and the ERS?
My second point is on how the changes to the HPS will impact current members with pre-existing conditions. Currently, the CPF Board already has the power under section 31(2) of the CPF Act to allow a person who is not in good health to join the HPS. Such a person must apply to the CPF Board to join the HPS. The CPF Board may impose conditions, such as requiring medical examinations and disclosure of health information. The amendments will allow the CPF Board to impose additional terms, such as the exclusion of pre-existing health conditions and impose premium loading. Can the Minister share if there are members who are not in good health but are already covered under the HPS under the section 31(2) exception? For these members, will the amendments affect the terms and conditions to which they are currently subject to?
My third and final point is on the members with pre-existing conditions who are not currently under the HPS. The explanatory statement states that the amendments are intended to permit persons with \"certain serious health conditions\" to join the HPS, subject to premium loading. The Minister previously shared that about 1.2% to 1.8% of HPS applications were not approved due to serious pre-existing medical conditions.
Will there be an exhaustive list of these \"certain serious health conditions\" that the Ministry will use to include or exclude individuals from the HPS going forward? What proportion of the previously rejected 1.2% to 1.8% of HPS applications are expected to benefit from these amendments?
Given that the basis for their rejection may now be re-evaluated, will such applicants be notified that they can submit a new application to be considered again? It would be a shame if the expansion of the HPS fails to benefit seriously ill segments of the population purely because they were unaware that their rejection could be reconsidered. Notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.25 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.08 pm until 4.25 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.25 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, the amendments proposed to the CPF Act have several objectives, which the Minister has already explained. I will focus my comments on the clauses relating to prioritising the recovery of subsidies following the sale of flats and those pertaining to the closure of the SAs. While I support the Bill, I have concerns over these two aspects.
Clauses 28 and 29, taken together, require that owners of HDB flats that have enjoyed additional subsidies to prioritise the repayment of said subsidies from proceeds, following the sale of the flat. I believe this is to accommodate the larger subsidies that are likely to be extended for Plus and Prime flats.
The notion of repaying what one owes is, on its face, unobjectionable. That said, I believe many of us in this House have had residents appeal for consideration of higher mortgage loans because they cannot afford the cash outlay.
This could lead to a disconnect: those selling a flat would now be required to fork out a cash amount, so as to pay off the subsidies but, in doing so, they exhaust much of any cash gains that were made from the sale of the flat. Yet, they could still well face a gap between the market price of their next resale flat versus its official valuation, which would have to be made up with cash on hand. I have had residents in Sengkang face such a dilemma when they seek not even to upgrade, but to downgrade, and I am certain that they are not alone.
More generally, this is one of the unintended consequences of the current HDB pricing model, where a higher sticker price is de-emphasised simply because subsidies mean that the de facto price faced by buyers would be lower. But if valuations and, perhaps more importantly, mortgage loans are still based on the nominal price, and we insist on subsidies being fully repaid in cash, then we inadvertently impose a liquidity crunch on those who wish to sell, since we strip these sellers of a significant part of the cash amounts that they would otherwise need as downpayments on their next flat.
At present, HDB appears to be dealing with this issue on a case-by-case basis, accepting appeals that occasionally enfold additional amounts into the HDB Flat Eligibility (HFE) mortgage loan. But the bases for HDB decisions are opaque and, more importantly, I believe I have raised what amounts to a systemic issue that should merit more careful study by HDB.
Another key thrust of this Bill addressed by clauses 2 through 16 is to impose institutional reforms that would put an end to CPF “shielding\". This practice, which allows the hiving off of SA funds from being transferred into the RA, thereby accruing higher returns while also enjoying higher liquidity, had become so widespread that websites and financial institutions were openly advising on how to pursue the practice. It got to a stage where one could legitimately wonder if the Government was at least tacitly endorsing this CPF hack.
Perhaps more troubling, it appeared to have been a loophole exploited by those who were somewhat better-off and financially more sophisticated. After all, ensuring that there would be sufficient excess funds in the OA to make up for any BRS shortfall during the transfer window would only be possible if one had larger CPF balances to begin with. This strategy would also typically be known to those who ran in more financially-informed circles or, at least, had access to a savvy financial advisor.
For these reasons, the Workers' Party (WP) is not opposed, in principle, to the closure of this loophole, given how it tended to benefit this relatively select group. However, I believe it is worthwhile making a few additional points.
First, we should understand why, beyond the notion of fairness mentioned earlier, this loophole was ultimately unsustainable from a purely financial perspective. Sustaining an interest-bearing SA after the age of 55 would have meant savings that combined both higher interest rates relative to the OA, with comparable liquidity. Yet there is almost always an inherent tradeoff between higher returns and these returns being locked into an investment for a longer duration. This is fairly standard stuff in financial economics.
Pension managers, such as CPF, would not have been exempt from this tradeoff and their allocations to more illiquid investments is what, in part, would have allowed them to harness the higher returns necessary to meet SA obligations. But when we promise higher returns but still allow account holders to withdraw their funds at will, we short-circuit this process, which threatens to unravel the otherwise sound long-term investments that CPF will have taken exposure in. Hence, given its inherent unsustainability, this loophole had to be closed.
That said, there is at least some degree to which we need to acknowledge that closing the loophole amounts to an upending of both account holders' expectations, as well as the legacy rights of those who invested in the SA prior to this Bill. This is, of course, yet another reprise of the theme of retrospective lawmaking, which is something that both my hon friend Louis Chua, as well as I, have raised in this House on prior occasions.
In this instance, it is the notion that those who will now experience disruptions to their retirement planning, since they had originally planned on having SA income as part of their retirement portfolio, need not be compensated. But as mentioned earlier, there was little indication that what they were doing was either inappropriate or illegal.
To be clear, those who invested in the SA have, undeniably, enjoyed the higher rates associated with locking their balances in that account in the meantime. In fairness, it was always known that there would be a transfer of SA funds into the RA at the age of 55. Still, there are at least some who would have been hurt by this change in policy. Hence, while calling for outright compensation for this group may be a step too far, it seems at least fair to acknowledge that some have been, at the very least, inadvertent victims in the Government's policy shift and to ask how they may be able to receive guidance on how to go forward.
Perhaps, more fundamentally, we should also ask the question of what drove so many to seek to squeeze higher returns in the first place. Part of this, surely, is that, despite assurances by the Government that the CPF rate is adequate for retirement, those that were taking advantage of this SA loophole clearly thought otherwise.
That is why the WP had, in this House, previously suggested that CPF rates be raised to reflect high inflation, that it be computed with daily or monthly rates to better harvest returns or that it also considers one-off adjustments to the OA rate, not just to deposit but also lending rates, which tend to better reflect the global cost of capital, among others.
I am hopeful that CPF Board will continue to extend options for our account holders to build up sufficient savings for retirement. One useful reform, which admittedly goes beyond the pure scope of the Bill but is consistent with its spirit, is to offer more options for higher returns.
This goes beyond re-examining how we calculate the OA interest rate, as important as that may be. We should also look to expanding the universe of CPF-approved investments. At the moment, there remains a dearth of low-cost index fund options, for a portfolio of either domestic or internationally-diversified companies. Decades of research has shown that these are among the most appealing ways to build retirement wealth. Rather than continue to indirectly encourage the overweighting of real estate in our retirement portfolios, we should ensure that equities which tend to offer even higher returns, on average, over the long run, feature prominently for future generations' CPF savings. This could even have a secondary spillover effect, bolstering our moribund stock exchange.
Sir, the purpose of this speech is of course, not to offer this House investment advice. Rather, I hope to highlight how many Singaporeans feel that their rate of accumulation of CPF savings is less and less able to keep up with their retirement needs.
Some of this has led to pathologies, such as a stretch for yield in exploiting the SA loophole. Others have tried to parlay the HDB housing ladder, but this effort runs up against the goal of keeping public housing more affordable. This is further exacerbated by how extracting cash from a housing investment may be more challenging than sometimes believed, as I explained earlier on in my speech. Further bolstering the returns available from CPF savings, through ways I have described, will strike at the heart of the problem that has led many to hunt for returns via either shielding or housing.
Mr Speaker: Ms Jean See.
Ms See Jinli Jean (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, my speech will focus on Part 2 of the Bill on the amendments relating to HPS. HPS is a mortgage-reducing insurance that protects CPF members from losing their HDB flat in the event of death, terminal illness or total permanent disability. Except for HDB owners with serious pre-existing illnesses, HPS insures CPF members until the age of 65 or until the housing loans are paid up.
The Bill’s proposed amendments are much welcomed. Nonetheless, I would like to seek clarification on three areas.
First, I appreciate the intention to expand the HPS to admit more CPF members. I note that in the Minister's written answer in August 2024 to Member Ms Yeo Wan Ling's Parliamentary Question on coverage for the HPS, the Minister had replied that, \"In the last three years, about 1.3% of HPS applications were rejected due to serious pre-existing medical conditions. The top reasons for such rejection is due to the applicant having multiple pre-existing medical conditions or cancer.\" I also note from the Minister's speech earlier that the expanded HPS would cover those with less severe pre-existing conditions.
Therefore, similar with Member Louis Ng's point, to what extent would the expanded HPS cover this cumulative 1.3% of HPS applications that were rejected in the past three years due to serious pre-existing medical conditions? What about those who were previously rejected by HPS and are now under private mortgage insurance?
Second, in the same Parliamentary Question response, the Minister had cited the affordability of premiums across all HPS policyholders and the financial viability of the scheme as considerations when reviewing the coverage of HPS. In this regard, how does the expansion of the insured base impact the premium for members in the medium term?
Third, I note that section 32A provides for the Board to impose premium loading on a CPF member whose assessed health risk exceeds the threshold determined by the Board, so long as the Board is satisfied that the member meets all other health-related criteria determined by the Board. Could the Minister explain the process by which the Board determines the health risk threshold and the frequency by which this threshold would be reviewed?
For members who must bear premium loading, what is the process and frequency for the Board to review these members' assessed risk and their premium loading payable? How does the Board determine the premium loading amount and would the amount vary from individual-to-individual and from year-to-year? If so, what is the expected variance?
Notwithstanding these clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, the CPF (Amendment) Bill we are debating today is about securing the future of our residents. Imagine a family's breadwinner is suddenly struck by illness or disability. Overnight, their world is turned upside down. The breadwinner can no longer provide, medical bills start piling up and anxiety sets in. In these difficult times, the last thing anyone should fear is losing their home. Yet, for many families, this fear becomes a reality when health crises strike unexpectedly.
The proposed expansion of HPS is a significant step toward addressing this concern. It offers a critical safety net for residents, helping them to manage the financial responsibilities of home ownership, especially in light of rising costs and uncertain circumstances. While I support this initiative, I seek clarity on several aspects to ensure these provisions truly protect the financial well-being of our residents, without creating unintended burdens.
First, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am concerned about the introduction of premium loading for residents with higher health risks under the HPS insurance scheme. While I understand the need for financial viability, this amendment risks increasing costs for those least able to bear them. Premium loading based solely on health risks could be seen as penalising residents for becoming ill. Is that truly fair? Section 32A of the Bill allows CPF Board to impose additional premiums. I urge the Minister to explain the rationale behind this measure and, more importantly, how will it impact low-income and elderly residents who are already grappling with healthcare expenses?
Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, I worry that this policy may disproportionately affect individuals with pre-existing conditions and those from lower-income groups. What safeguards are in place to prevent this? How will the Ministry ensure a balance between the scheme's financial sustainability and maintaining affordability and accessibility for all, regardless of health status?
I also urge the Government to consider the broader implications. Will premium loading inadvertently leave those who need protection the most without adequate coverage? We must not allow a policy designed to provide security to end up creating new challenges. By the time HPS is needed, how many members will have had to dip into their CPF to pay off their loans?
Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, I call on the Minister to ensure transparency in how premiums are adjusted, as stated in section 32A(3). This is critical to avoid arbitrary decisions, especially when it comes to reducing premiums for residents whose health improves. A clear and understandable framework will foster trust and fairness. How frequently will CPF Board review these premiums and how will such reviews be communicated to members?
Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek clarity on the types of conditions that will be covered under the expanded scheme. The inclusion of individuals with serious pre-existing conditions is commendable. However, I ask for more clarity on the conditions that will be covered and how these assessments will be made.
I understand that eligibility is not based on a predefined list of conditions. Instead, it depends on the severity, prognosis and control of the condition, alongside the individual's overall health profile. However, many HPS applications in recent years have been rejected due to common pre-existing conditions like cancer, stroke or kidney failure. These are not rare conditions. They are the unfortunate realities faced by many of our residents. Some cancers detected and treated early pose a low risk of recurrence. Similarly, stroke patients who have been treated and have recovered well are less likely to experience another stroke. Should not these patients, who are now relatively healthy, be reconsidered for inclusion?
What avenues for recourse or appeal will CPF members have if their conditions improve but they are still rejected from extended HPS coverage or face higher premiums? Who will be on the medical review board making these decisions?
Can individuals undergoing treatment for common age related conditions, or those at risk of developing them, expect to be covered under the expanded HPS? Just as important, how will we communicate the eligibility criteria to the public in a transparent and easily understood way? Clarity is essential to avoid disappointment and to ensure residents can rely on the protection that HPS promises.
In closing, Mr Speaker, Sir, while the intent behind these policy changes is commendable, we must commit to transparency and clear communication. When premiums increase, we must be prepared to explain why and show how these changes will bring tangible benefits. We must also outline the support available for those who struggle with higher premiums, such as subsidies, payment plans, or alternative solutions. Most importantly, we need to ensure that safeguards are in place to prevent undue burdens and provide fair access for all Singaporeans, regardless of their financial situation.
With these commitments, I believe this Bill can enhance the well-being of all Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Neil Parekh.
Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join this debate on the important amendments to the CPF Act. Sir, the CPF (Amendment) Bill presents significant updates to the CPF Act of 1953, aimed at enhancing retirement adequacy and simplifying the management of CPF accounts. For Singaporeans, particularly those entering their silver years, this Bill represents a boost to financial security.
The automatic closure of CPF SAs at age 55 and the transfer of funds to the OA or RA, are a significant step towards streamlining CPF management. It ensures that retirees can efficiently access their savings when they need them the most.
This Bill also ensures that the provisions around clearer interest calculations and fund management foster greater trust in the CPF system, an essential element in preserving confidence in our social security infrastructure. These amendments can foster a more equitable labour market where workers have access to adequate retirement savings. This could enhance employee satisfaction and retention in the long run, benefiting businesses through reduced turnover and improved morale.
This Bill is also a win for businesses. The clarified guidelines for managing CPF-related insurance schemes, including the HPS insurance scheme, offer greater transparency and simplicity for employers managing insurance on behalf of their employees. The streamlining of CPF account administration also makes it easier for employers to manage contributions and compliance. These, in turn, will reduce administrative burdens, allowing businesses to focus on their core operations. However, besides providing some benefits to our citizens and businesses, this Bill may lead to certain challenges. Sir, I would like to seek some clarifications from the Minister.
One, could the Minister clarify when exactly the automatic closure of CPF SAs will take effect after a member turns 55? Will the members be notified beforehand and will they have options to manage their accounts before closure?
Two, how will the closure of SAs affect ongoing payments or contributions linked to these accounts?
Three, could the Minister provide more details on the formula for calculating interest on funds transferred from closed SAs?
Four, the Bill introduces expanded eligibility for the HPS, allowing coverage for individuals with serious conditions, subject to premium adjustments. How extensive will this coverage be for those with pre-existing conditions? How will premium adjustments for members with pre-existing conditions be handled, and will there be an appeals process if members disagree with the risk assessments?
Five, what support will be provided to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to manage change of internal systems to handle the new CPF procedures that may increase compliance burdens for businesses, especially those with limited administrative resources? Six, could the Minister elaborate on the specifics of the governance changes that simplify the constitution of the CPF Board and what is the potential impact of this change? What changes have been made on the criteria for appointing the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the CPF Board and how these appointments will ensure the CPF Board operates efficiently?
Sir, in conclusion, in my view, this Bill fosters better financial planning, greater transparency and confidence in our social security system. Together, these challenges will enhance both individual retirement readiness and the overall stability of Singapore’s workforce. Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, this Bill has my full support.
Mr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise today to express my support for the CPF (Amendment) Bill 2024, particularly the expansion of the HPS. This amendment marks a significant step towards ensuring greater financial security for Singaporeans, especially those with serious pre-existing health conditions.
Currently, the HPS covers individuals in good health or with mild pre-existing conditions. Yet around 1.3% of applications are rejected annually due to more severe health issues. With this amendment, we will extend coverage to those previously excluded, specifically individuals with serious but well-managed health conditions. This is a commendable and forward-thinking initiative. However, as we continue to be more inclusive, it is crucial to explore how advances in medical technology can further enhance the scheme's scope. This brings me to my first point of incorporating medical advancements into HPS premiums.
We can look to countries like Germany and Canada for reference, where insurers frequently revise premiums for chronic illnesses, such as cancer, factoring in breakthroughs like immunotherapy and targeted treatments. This ensures that premiums reflect the progress of medical treatments. Singapore could benefit from such a similar approach of adopting a more dynamic review process. By integrating the latest medical advancements, we ensure that individuals receiving such treatments pay HPS premiums that are reflective of their improved health outlook.
May I ask the Minister what mechanisms does the Ministry have in place to regularly review HPS? Are there plans to incorporate advancements in medical treatments when revising premiums in such reviews?
My third point is about premium adjustments for patients in remission. In countries, such as Australia and the United Kingdom (UK), patients in remission often see a reduction in their premiums after a period without recurrence, two years in Australia and three years in the UK. With this in mind, I would like to ask the Minister what is the current review period and if the Ministry is considering shortening the review period for HPS premium adjustments for members in remission. Offering such relief would acknowledge the efforts of those who have overcome serious health conditions and now maintain stable health.
My fourth point is about broader risk pooling in national schemes. Countries like Sweden and Norway adopt an inclusive approach to risk pooling, spreading risks across the entire population. This significantly reduces the financial burden on high-risk individuals, making coverage more affordable for all. In Norway, for instance, the National Insurance Scheme provides automatic health coverage to all residents, including those with pre-existing conditions.
There is precedence in Singapore. MediShield Life provides an excellent example of how risk pooling can work effectively within a national scheme. It does so by spreading risks across a large pool, ensuring inclusivity for those with pre-existing conditions.
While MediShield Life already covers individuals with pre-existing conditions, HPS has historically excluded those with more serious conditions. Can we adopt a similar model for HPS, broadening the risk pool to alleviate the premium burden on high-risk individuals? Doing so, we protect the potentially more vulnerable members of our society.
My fifth point is about tiered coverage options for greater flexibility. In other countries, such as the United States and New Zealand, tiered insurance options allow individuals to choose lower coverage levels at reduced premiums. This flexibility is especially beneficial for high-risk individuals who may struggle to afford full coverage. I would like to ask the Minister if the Ministry would introduce tiered coverage options within HPS. This will provide individuals with serious pre-existing conditions the opportunity to opt for a lower coverage level at a more manageable premium, thus ensuring they are still protected within their financial means.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I would also like to raise clarifications on other aspects of this Bill. This is with regard to Prime and Plus flat owners who purchase their flats from HDB. Under the sale of these flats, owners must return to HDB a percentage of the resale price or the flat’s valuation, whichever is higher. This subsidy recovery is proportionate to the extent of additional subsidies initially provided. The repayment will take priority after any outstanding property tax and before HDB or bank loans, resale levies and CPF housing refunds.
However, clarification is necessary on two fronts.
One, the recovery of subsidies is premised on the flat being sold at a higher price than its purchase price. We should clarify the formulation of this refund in relation to the valuation at the time of sale, accounting for factors, such as lease depreciation, inflation and current market conditions.
Two, in the event of a property market downturn, how will the recoverable subsidies be calculated? The real-term valuation which takes into account inflation at the point of sale may be lower than the original purchase price or the grant’s initial value. This could lead to complications in determining the appropriate amount of subsidy to recover.
Hence, I seek the Minister to provide clarifications on the calculations concerning these two points. A transparent and fair approach to subsidy recovery, especially in fluctuating markets, will benefit both flat owners and the Government in maintaining clarity and fairness in the system.
Mr Speaker Sir, in conclusion, the CPF scheme has always served the interest of Singaporeans to meet their needs, and this move to amend our CPF scheme is a timely response to evolving times. This is especially true in areas, such as the expansion of HPS. This is also an opportunity to make the scheme even more dynamic, inclusive and equitable, especially for those with pre-existing health conditions. I urge the Minister to consider the suggestions. Notwithstanding this, I reiterate my support for this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister for Manpower, Dr Tan.
Dr Tan See Leng: Mr Speaker, let me begin by, first, thanking Members for the support of the CPF (Amendment) Bill. I will first address questions related to the amendments to effect the closure of the SA for members aged 55 and above, followed by the expansion of HPS. As I have shared earlier on, these amendments are part of the evolution of the CPF system to continue serving the needs of Singaporeans over the course of their lives.
With regard to the SA closure, Mr Neil Parekh asked about how affected CPF members will be notified of the SA closure and Mr Louis Ng also asked about the resources extended to CPF members. All affected CPF members will be notified via hard copy letters and email or SMS, where applicable, informing them of the amounts that have been transferred into their RA and OA after their SA has been closed. To help Members plan ahead, CPF Board has enhanced the Retirement Dashboard on their website.
The dashboard allows members to view the estimated amounts that will be transferred from their SA to their RA and OA. Information is also available on the CPF website and across CPF Board's communication channels. Members who need further assistance can contact CPF Board directly.
Mr Louis Ng asked about the circumstances under which a member's SA will not be closed upon reaching age 55. These circumstances relate mainly to CPF members who pass away shortly before turning 55. We will not close their SA to streamline the administrative process for transferring these monies out of the CPF, for example, as payments to the members' nominees. Mr Parekh also asked about how the SA closure affects the computation of interest as well as ongoing payments and contributions. These are questions which CPF members are also likely to have. There are frequently asked questions today on CPF Board's website on these topics to help members.
But let me summarise the key points. As CPF interest is computed monthly, the SA savings that are transferred to the RA up to the FRS will earn the RA interest for that month. The remaining SA savings which are withdrawable will be transferred to the OA to earn OA interest for that month. Members who wish to earn the RA interest and commit their savings for higher retirement payouts can opt to transfer their OA savings to their RA up to the ERS within the same month.
If there are incoming CPF contributions to the SA, these will be allocated to the RA up to the FRS, either in cash or with a mixture of cash and property, and any remaining contributions in excess of FRS will be allocated to the OA and can be withdrawn.
For ongoing payments, transition measures will be put in place after the SA has been closed to ensure that members aged 55 and above have sufficient time to make the necessary arrangements. Participating members will be notified by the CPF Board of the relevant changes to the schemes and their options moving forward.
Mr Louis Ng also asked about how many members are expected to reach the FRS, following the transfer from the SA and if the Government will regularly share the number of members expected to reach the Basic, Full and Enhanced Retirement Sums.
As the transferred SA balances are not high, this is not expected to change FRS attainment by much. The BRS and FRS attainment rates are published on the website of the CPF Board annually. We have also been sharing the retirement sum attainment rates with the House through the recent Committee of Supply debates.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked about what happens to members' SA investments after the SA closure, because he has alluded to the fact that it runs contrary to having some form of commitment that our members have been enjoying. After the SA has been closed, members can continue to hold their existing CPF Investment Scheme (CPFIS)-SA investments, until they decide to sell them or until they mature. Upon sale or maturity, the proceeds from the member's CPFIS-SA will be paid to their RA up to the FRS, with any remaining balance paid to their OA.
Members may also continue to use their OA monies to invest under the CPFIS-OA and this is consistent with the approach for CPFIS today. Members need to have set aside their FRS after turning 55 before they can invest under CPFIS. We will notify members in advance so that they are aware of the available options. Not providing any special treatment for CPFIS is also consistent with how we are not grandfathering older cohorts for SA closure.
To Assoc Prof Lim's point about retirement planning and how the cost of inflation has affected members and, thus, in a way, nudging them to consider stretching the CPF monies in terms of getting extra interest, I want to highlight that over the last five years, the Government has rolled out significant numbers of packages to support many of our residents in terms of addressing some of the cost of living issues. So, I will not touch on that further.
I want to highlight a point that today, there are about 8,400 members who are relatively high-income earners, representing less than 1% of all members aged 55 and above, who will not be able to — So, it is just this 8,400 members, about less than 1% of all members aged 55 and above, who will not be able to fully transfer their SA savings to their RA, even as we raised the ERS. By the way, we have raised the ERS to four times up from the current three times of BRS. So, we have raised it to four times the BRS.
Our members have the flexibility to either retain these savings in the OA for liquidity or invest in safe instruments, such as Singapore Government Securities through the CPFIS. Financially savvy members may also grow their savings outside the CPF system. In fact, those who are investment savvy may prefer to consider relevant commercial investment products or otherwise they can leave their monies in their RA to continue earning the higher long-term interest rate and receive higher retirement payouts.
I find, in terms of the statistics, looking at the numbers, I do not think that this move was motivated because of this SA shielding, because only a minority of members and that statistics is also available, about 2% in 2021 could have chosen to do so. So, we have extensively discussed this on several occasions in this House. As such, I seek Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and also Members' understanding that I will not repeat the points that have been raised and addressed before.
I am also very heartened, Mr Speaker, Sir, and Members of the House, that with the expansion of the HPS, this has been positively received. There were clarifications on the coverage, the extent of the coverage of the HPS, the necessity and impact of premium loading and the process for HPS premium reviews. I will address these in turn.
Mr Louis Ng and Ms Jean See asked if HPS already covers members with pre-existing medical conditions and how they will be affected. Mr Ng, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Neil Parekh and Ms See also asked for clarity on the types of conditions covered under the expanded HPS and how many additional members would benefit.
The vast majority of HPS applications are approved, including for members with pre-existing health conditions, if they have been assessed to be generally in good health. This includes individuals who have fully recovered from a stroke for some time. It also covers those with early-stage cancer and have remained in remission for a period of time.
Members who are already eligible today would pay the same standard premiums. So, let me reiterate that. Members who are already eligible today would pay the same standard premiums. They will not be affected by the expansion of the HPS and the premium loading.
With the proposed expansion, more members with pre-existing health conditions may be considered for coverage with premium loading. Examples would include certain types of strokes and heart disorders. We estimate that this expansion will offer HPS coverage to approximately 100 more members each year. However, some applicants will remain ineligible for HPS because their conditions are just too severe to be insurable.
Overextending HPS coverage for members with significantly higher claim risks could negatively affect the sustainability of the HPS. This is also in line with industry best practices and ensures the sustainability of HPS for the general population.
Mr Neil Parekh and Ms Jean See asked how premium loading for members with pre-existing conditions would be handled. As with industry practice, each application is assessed individually. This means that eligibility for HPS coverage is assessed based on each member's personal health risk profile, taking into account overall severity, prognosis and control of all of their medical conditions. Where required, CPF Board obtains relevant information from medical professionals to gain a comprehensive understanding of the members' health status.
Mr Louis Ng and Ms Jean See asked if previously rejected HPS applicants will be notified that they can submit a new application to be considered again. The CPF Board will reach out to such members that may be eligible for cover under the expanded HPS. In fact, the Board already conducts outreach to members whose health conditions might improve to invite them to reapply for HPS with a medical report on their current health condition.
Mr Edward Chia also asked if the Ministry would introduce tiered coverage options within HPS. Similar to other HPS members today, those subject to premium loading can choose the extent of coverage by adjusting their share of HPS cover, as long as the co-owners' total cover add up to 100% of the outstanding housing loan. Participation for those subject to premium loading will also be on an opt-in basis. We regularly review HPS coverage and affordability and we will also study Mr Chia's suggestion.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the rationale for HPS premium loading for members with higher health risks and whether there are safeguards in place to prevent individuals from lower-income groups from being disproportionately affected. Instead of premium loading, Mr Chia asked if HPS can broaden the risk pool to reduce the premiums charged on higher-risk individuals.
Today, all approved HPS applications are covered at a standard premium rate. With the expansion of HPS, the premium loading will apply to members with certain pre-existing health conditions that are not so severe and who previously would not have been eligible for cover. And the additional premiums will be commensurate with their higher claims likelihood. This is in line with industry practice and is necessary to keep the HPS scheme sustainable. Without premium loading, HPS premiums may need to rise across the board for all members, including for those in the lower-income groups, in order to cross-subsidise the higher claim rates by members with more serious conditions. Doing so would not be equitable.
Even with premium loading, HPS would provide coverage at one of the lowest premiums in the current market for all members. For members facing financial hardship, their familial co-owners can help to pay outstanding premiums. CPF Board also extends the grace period for premium repayment based on member's circumstances. Should members require help with their mortgage loans, HDB will assess each case and provide assistance. This can include allowing members to temporarily reduce or defer their loan instalments or extend their loan tenure to reduce their monthly instalments. Mr Neil Parekh asked about the appeal process for members who disagree with their risk assessments.
Mr Edward Chia and Ms Jean See asked about reviewing premiums for members in remission. Members subjected to premium loading who are looking to have their premiums revised, can submit a medical report on their current health condition. CPF Board will then assess their requests and adjust premiums accordingly.
For members who have signed on and they are under the HPS cover, if they develop health conditions after they have already signed up for the coverage, they will see no changes to their premium as a result. The HPS cover can also be ported over if they are looking to purchase a new flat.
Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Chia also asked about the process to review HPS premiums and Mr Chia also asked if advancements in medical treatment are taken into account when revising premiums.
Members of the House, to ensure that HPS premiums remain affordable, the CPF Board conducts premium reviews annually. During the review, several factors are considered, including the market competitiveness of HPS premium rates so that HPS remains affordable to members. CPF Board also considers the sustainability of HPS premium rates by taking into account factors, such as the claims experience, projected investment returns as well as the overall financial health of the Home Protection Fund.
For example, when there is significant improvement in health outcomes among the general population due to advancements in medical treatments, this will be reflected in the claims experience and factored in during the review process. The underlying assumptions are also validated by an external actuarial consultant to ensure robustness of the premium review.
Let me move on to clarifications regarding the second set of amendments to streamline the administration of the CPF Board and CPF schemes for better service delivery.
Mr Edward Chia asked for clarity and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim highlighted on potential gaps that could happen from the calculation of the subsidy recovery amounts when Prime and Plus flats are sold. As Mr Chia has rightly pointed out, the recovery rate will be applied to the flats' resale price or prevailing market value, whichever is the higher at the point of sale. The subsidy recovery percentage will be commensurate with the extent of the initial additional subsidy provided. HDB informs flat buyers of the subsidy recovery rate up front at the point of launch and the recovery rate remains fixed at the point of resale, regardless of whether the flat was eventually sold at a profit or loss compared to the original launch price.
This ensures fairness to other Standard flat buyers who did not enjoy the additional subsidies, who are, likewise, subjected to the vagaries of the market. The set of additional restrictions imposed on Plus and Prime flats helps to keep these flats in attractive locations affordable at the point of resale.
Finally, Mr Neil Parekh asked about the support provided to SMEs to manage the change of the internal systems to handle the new CPF procedures. The amendments are not expected to impact SMEs and employers. Nonetheless, there are existing channels for businesses and employers to provide feedback.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill will allow us to ensure that the CPF system evolves to continue to meet the needs of Singaporeans over the course of their lives. I would like to, again, express my appreciation to Members of the House who expressed their support for the Bill. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications for Minister? Looks like there are no clarifications for Dr Tan.
[(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 Tan See Leng]. (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":"Income Tax (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
Mr Speaker, in addition to this Bill, the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill, I will also be moving later today the Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Bill, or the MMT Bill for short, and I seek your consent to have the two Bills debated together for the following reasons.
Both Bills are closely related because they levy taxes on businesses' income. The MMT Bill will also be construed as one with the Income Tax Act, if passed into law. It shares certain common provisions with the Income Tax Act, such as the powers of the Comptroller and service of summons. As such, I propose that both Bills be debated together, so that I may address issues from both Bills holistically, but we will still have a formal Second Reading of the MMT Bill to comply with the procedural requirements.
Mr Speaker: I give my consent.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The provisions of these two Bills are to implement the changes to our tax regime announced earlier this year in Budget 2024, as well as those arising from other policy reviews. They are intended to anchor and encourage high-quality investments in Singapore, to grow our economy and create good jobs for Singaporeans. They are also intended to ensure that our tax system remains relevant and fair to businesses and individuals and align Singapore's tax regime with international tax developments arising from the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) 2.0 initiative. Overall, the changes will sustain Singapore's economic competitiveness, provide better support to businesses and individuals, and ensure that Singapore keeps in step with international tax developments.
The Ministry of Finance (MOF) sought views from the public on the two draft Bills in June. We thank the respondents for their feedback and have taken onboard some of the suggestions.
Let me deal with the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill first.
I would like to elaborate on two key proposed changes. First, we will introduce the Refundable Investment Credit (RIC), which was announced by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong at Budget 2024 to enhance our tools for investment promotion.
The global economic landscape is becoming increasingly competitive, and Singapore needs to keep pace with the competition in order to continue attracting investments to grow our economy and create good jobs for our people. Other countries around the world are not standing still. Their governments are rolling out initiatives to attract investments, especially in strategic sectors such as semiconductors and advanced manufacturing.
For instance, the United States (US) CHIPS and Science Act sets aside US$53 billion, or about S$70 billion, to support semiconductor manufacturing, research and development (R&D) and workforce development in the US. In July last year, Germany announced plans to invest around 20 billion euros, or around S$29 billion, as part of the European Union (EU) Chips Act to bolster its semiconductor manufacturing sector. Japan also announced in November last year that it would allocate two trillion yen, or about S$18 billion to support its semiconductor industry.
Though we cannot match the financial resources of these large economies, we must continue to do our best to remain attractive to investments and encourage business growth in Singapore. The RIC will give us a useful tool to attract and support businesses that undertake substantive and high-value economic activities here. It will allow us to anchor and encourage high-quality investments, create good jobs for Singaporeans and support our green transition.
So, let me explain how the RIC will work. This is an expenditure-based grant delivered through the tax system. Companies awarded the RIC will receive tax credits to support their local expenditure in areas, such as capital investments, R&D, manpower, and freight and logistics, when they make new investments in high-value and substantive economic activities. These include the development or expansion of manufacturing facilities, setting up of headquarters and services, pursuit of R&D and innovation activities, commodity trading and decarbonisation. These activities and expenditure categories are aligned with the four pillars of our Singapore Economy 2030 vision – trade, enterprise, manufacturing and services – as well as to support our green transition.
The tax credits will be offset against corporate income tax payable in the first instance. If the RIC quantum exceeds the amount of taxes paid by the company, the unutilised credits will be refunded to the company within four years from the time the company makes the claim application in respect of the qualifying expenditures incurred. This feature is particularly useful for companies in an early stage of growth, where they have yet to turn a profit.
The RIC support will be commensurate with the size and quality of businesses' economic contributions to Singapore. This will be based on our economic agencies' assessment of how much the projects will bring in, in terms of new fixed asset investment, productive capacity and skilled jobs created for locals, as well as whether the investment involves state-of-the-art technological development, strengthens our competitiveness, builds resilience in our economy and creates broader economic spillovers.
Another key amendment in the Bill is on the Renovation and Refurbishment, or R&R scheme for short. This was also announced at Budget 2024.
Under our normal tax rules, R&R expenses are not tax-deductible because they are capital in nature. The R&R scheme specifically allows a deduction for such expenses, up to a cap of S$300,000 every three years. This is to support small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in customer-facing sectors, like food and beverage (F&B) and retail, which typically need to incur such expenses to enhance their customer service and experience.
We are enhancing the R&R scheme in three ways.
First, from Year of Assessment (YA) 2025, the scope of qualifying expenditure will be expanded to include designer and professional fees, as it is now common for such fees to be incurred for renovation works. Next, we will standardise the three-year period for determining the expenditure cap for all businesses, instead of having it commence when each business makes its first claim. The Bill will fix the relevant three-year period, with the first three-year period being from YA2025 to YA2027. This will simplify the process and reduce compliance costs for companies. The third enhancement provides all businesses with a permanent option to claim R&R deductions in one YA, instead of over three YAs. This will give businesses more flexibility to manage their cashflow needs.
Clauses 13 and 30 of the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill provide for these amendments.
Sir, let me now move on to the second Bill, the MMT Bill. This Bill implements two new top-up taxes, arising from the BEPS 2.0 initiative. These were also announced at this year's Budget. The two taxes are: first, the domestic top-up tax (DTT); and second, the multinational enterprise top-up tax (MTT). The MTT applies the Income Inclusion Rule, which is part of the BEPS Pillar Two Global Anti-Base Erosion, or GLoBE rules for short.
DTT and MTT will apply to large multinational enterprise (MNE) groups – those with annual group revenue of €750 million or more in at least two of the four preceding financial years. DTT and MTT will apply from businesses' financial years commencing on or after 1 January 2025.
DTT will apply to the Singapore entities of a large MNE group and will be payable if the group's effective tax rate in Singapore is below 15%. MTT will apply to large MNE groups that are parented in Singapore. If the effective tax rate of the MNE group's entities in any foreign jurisdiction is below 15%, MTT will be imposed to top up the effective tax rate to 15%.
The implementation of the DTT and MTT ensures that Singapore is aligned with the international implementation of BEPS 2.0. The EU, the United Kingdom (UK), Switzerland, Japan, Korea, Malaysia and Hong Kong, among other jurisdictions, have either implemented similar rules or intend to do so in 2025. If we do not impose the DTT and MTT, affected MNE groups would have to pay these taxes to other jurisdictions that have imposed the GLoBE rules. Hence, it is in Singapore's interest to impose the DTT and MTT, so that we can collect the tax, rather than cede it to other jurisdictions.
In the new environment where companies are subjected to a minimum level of tax wherever they operate, ecosystem factors will become increasingly important for companies' business decisions. We plan to reinvest the additional revenues from DTT and MTT to enhance our overall business environment in areas, such as upskilling our workforce, growing a vibrant innovation ecosystem, and providing quality infrastructure and connectivity.
Finally, the MMT Bill will also provide the Comptroller of Income Tax with the powers to administer, collect and enforce the DTT and MTT. Offences in the Bill include the failure to keep proper records, tax evasion and the obstruction of the Comptroller. These powers and offences mirror those that already exist under the Income Tax Act and ensure that the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) has the necessary powers to enforce compliance with the DTT and MTT.
In conclusion, the provisions in both Bills will sustain Singapore’s economic competitiveness, provide better support to businesses and individuals, and ensure that Singapore keeps in step with international tax developments. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will touch on the MMT Bill. This is an important piece of legislation with wide-ranging implications for Singapore's economy. As someone who works in a global investment firm, I am deeply interested in how this Bill will impact both our local and international business environments. While I fully support the principle of global tax fairness as stated in the Bill, I have clarifications about the potential impact on our local businesses and Singapore’s competitive edge in the global market.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my first concern is the economic impact on local businesses, particularly SMEs. Although the Bill primarily targets MNEs, the effects could trickle down. If MNEs choose to relocate or scale back operations in Singapore, it could hurt SMEs that rely on these larger corporations for business.
Section 14 outlines the top-up tax chargeable on MNEs, but it is critical to consider the ripple effects that this might have on SMEs. These smaller businesses may lose significant revenue if MNEs move to more tax-friendly jurisdictions.
Are our local SMEs prepared to adapt if MNEs downsize or leave? What strategies are in place to help SMEs diversify their business models? Do we have initiatives to enhance their competitiveness so that they can remain resilient in this shifting landscape?
Mr Speaker, Sir, if MNEs do shift their operations due to this new tax regime, we must equip our SMEs to respond effectively. Government-SME partnerships and incentives for innovation within local industries will be key to help these businesses thrive. I would also urge that we build in support measures for SMEs to mitigate any negative effects from potential MNE relocations.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my second concern relates to the increased compliance burden on local subsidiaries of MNEs, particularly smaller subsidiaries. Sections 31 to 36 deal with registration and record-keeping requirements. These could be challenging for smaller entities with fewer resources.
Has the Government assessed the compliance costs for these smaller subsidiaries? Should we consider exemptions or reduced obligations for those that may struggle with these requirements? Additionally, section 36, which imposes surcharges for failure to register, could disproportionately affect these smaller entities.
Mr Speaker, Sir, we must find a balance between global tax fairness and the practical realities faced by smaller businesses. If not handled carefully, these compliance demands could lead to layoffs or reductions in employee benefits. It is important that we consider exemptions or reduced compliance burdens for smaller subsidiaries, to avoid placing unnecessary strain on local businesses and their employees.
Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, while the MTT is intended to generate additional revenue, there appears to be a lack of clarity on how this revenue will directly benefit Singaporeans. Section 58 touches on the recovery of unpaid MTT. However, it does not specify how these funds will be allocated for the public good.
What is the estimated additional revenue from enforcing this Bill in Singapore? How will these funds be directed to improve public infrastructure, healthcare and workforce development? I suggest the creation of a dedicated fund to ensure that MTT revenues are reinvested into areas that directly benefit Singaporeans. This would not only boost public confidence in the Bill, but also ensure transparency and accountability in how the revenue is spent.
Additionally, could the increased tax revenue be used to support initiatives, such as the RIC or the Research, Innovation and Enterprise (RIE) 2025 plan? These measures will help Singapore remain a competitive and attractive destination for investments while also benefiting our local workforce.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my fourth concern centres on Singapore’s global competitiveness. Section 17, which defines the effective tax rate for MNEs, could make Singapore less attractive to foreign investors. If MNEs find more tax-friendly environments elsewhere, we could see companies relocating their operations.
Presently, there have been MNEs moving their headquarters or downsizing their operations in Singapore. This could be due to a variety of factors, including costs of business. This tax regime could further diminish the allure of having a presence in Singapore.
What measures are in place to prevent this? How will the Bill ensure that Singapore remains an attractive hub for MNEs, even while adhering to global tax regulations? I suggest introducing additional tax incentives for MNEs to reinvest their savings into local workforce development, which will benefit both businesses and our workers. This would position Singapore as not only a tax-efficient jurisdiction, but also an innovation-driven economy.
Furthermore, we must not overlook Pillar One of BEPS 2.0, which reallocates taxing rights to the markets where consumers are based. This could have significant implications for Singapore. I would like to understand the Government’s plans to address these challenges and ensure that Singapore's economy remains resilient in the face of such global changes.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, while this Bill aligns Singapore with global tax standards, we must ensure they do not place undue burdens on local businesses. I have proposed several measures in my speech. First, provide targeted relief and resources to help SMEs adapt if MNEs downsize or relocate. Second, consider exemptions or reduced compliance requirements for smaller subsidiaries to avoid excessive strain on local businesses. Third, introduce incentives for supporting initiatives, such as the RIC, and address the implications of Pillar One of BEPS 2.0 to maintain Singapore’s competitiveness.
Most importantly, we must guarantee that the benefits of this new tax regime are tangible within our own communities. Corporations that have thrived in Singapore on our good governance, infrastructure and talent pool should contribute to the public good. We must use the additional tax revenue to strengthen our public infrastructure, enhance healthcare services and upskill our workforce, ensuring that Singaporeans see and feel the direct benefits.
Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a moment for us to reaffirm Singapore’s commitment to fairness and sustainability. We must ensure that our policies support economic resilience and social equity while keeping Singapore an attractive hub for global businesses. I urge the Government to engage closely with MNEs, SMEs and the public to implement this Bill, ensuring it leads to sustainable growth, innovation and shared prosperity for all Singaporeans.
This is our opportunity to ensure that Singapore continues to lead on the global stage while protecting the interests of our people. Let us take decisive action to make sure that this Bill not only promotes global tax fairness, but also builds a more resilient and equitable future for Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, the MMT Bill will put into legislative force the terms associated with the second pillar of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD's) BEPS Treaty. Given that Singapore has been a signatory of the original convention since mid-2017 and, four years thence, having signed on to the second phase, this is essentially a ratification of our pre-existing international commitments.
Moreover, the stipulations give effect to a corporate minimum tax that, absent action on our part, as Minister Indranee has shared, would simply afford other jurisdictions the opportunity to apply a top-up tax, if our effective rates were to fall below the minimum threshold of 15%. This will allow others to capture tax revenue that we otherwise could. Given our well-telegraphed future expenditure needs, this would be foolhardy.
For these reasons, the Workers’ Party supports the Bill. Even so, some may caution that subscribing to a corporate minimum tax will erode some of the cornerstones of Singapore’s global competitiveness: our attractiveness to foreign capital. In my speech, I will explain why such fears are probably misplaced and what we can do to avoid it.
Sir, there is a standard refrain for those who believe that BEPS 2.0 will herald an unrecoverable erosion of our nation’s competitive advantage. Absent low taxes, they say, we will be unable to attract the necessary investments from abroad which, in turn, will leave us adrift.
If there were any truth to such a claim, it would perhaps have been applicable half a century ago. It is no secret that, in Singapore, in our formative years as a nation, we did, indeed, rely heavily on attracting foreign direct investments via multinationals. This, in turn, hinged on factors, such as attractive corporate incentives, including tax holidays for multinationals, which kept the effective company tax rate as low as 10%.
Still, even a casual examination of statutory corporate tax rates would reveal that statutory rates were as high as 40% until the late 1980s. It was only later that they were progressively reduced to 32% through the early 1990s, then 26%, then to the 17% that prevails today. Whether this was a belated effort to chase the tail of low costs to sustain our competitive edge, or if it was driven by pressure from foreign businesses to keep rates attractive, I do not know.
What I do know is my belief that we should already have evolved away from such unvarnished tax competition. The determinants of foreign direct investments are, after all, rich and varied. But there is only some mild indication that the corporate tax rate, whether statutory or effective, matters. Indeed, one study that summarised the extant evidence suggests that factors like market size, trade openness and infrastructure quality are between four and seven times more important. Another concluded that: “the effect that tax policy had on foreign direct investment (FDI) was small compared to other factors” and that “tax policy cannot compensate for a negative investment climate”.
One important reason for this relatively muted effect of taxes on FDI is that sufficiently large MNCs will, ultimately, confront foreign taxes on their earnings when their profits are repatriated back to their home country anyway. This could even lead, paradoxically, to a situation where, depending on the tax regime of the home country, raising taxes may even stimulate more investment. Of course, tax treaties designed to mitigate the effects of double taxation may blunt this effect somewhat. However, such treaties have often been found to have little effect on actual FDI flows.
Such conditions are precisely what are being addressed by BEPS 2.0. The new regime targets large MNCs, many of which are already domiciled in higher-tax regimes. While these home countries can now officially apply a top-up tax, many firms would have faced such higher taxes anyway when profits were eventually booked at home for redistribution to shareholders. Furthermore, even compared to our ASEAN neighbors, a corporate tax rate at the 15% minimum remains below the regional average of a little more than 20%. Hence, my sense is that while BEPS 2.0 may hurt at the margin, it is far from being game-changing.
The bottom line, Sir, is simple. As a high-income economy, Singapore’s attractiveness as an investment destination is not, and should not, be fundamentally reliant on low corporate taxes, but on all the other things that set us apart. Lest one takes this as an idiosyncratic opinion, I should stress that this is not just my own conclusion.
According to the World Competitiveness Report, Singapore owes its competitiveness landscape more to our efficient labour market, openness to international trade and investment, and educational and technological infrastructure, all of which we rank in the top three globally, other than our tax policy, where we place 10th. Similarly, our score on the Global Competitiveness Report is due more to our country's transport and utility infrastructure, sophisticated and stable financial system and quality of institutions, as opposed to low taxes.
The reality is that our competitiveness is not anchored in low taxes and it is also reflected in real world investment advisory. PwC, the corporate advisory lists – in a 2022 report – 10 factors that make Singapore the best in class in the region and none of these 10 are about taxes, per se. To the extent that taxes were featured at all, it was in the context of double taxation agreements, which I agree should continue to be a priority for IRAS.
Mr Speaker, in addition to not bluntly competing for foreign capital inflows along the corporate tax margin, we should also be mindful that, given our status as a high-income country, we should not be blindly courting capital either. This is not to say that foreign investment is not important. Rather, it is that we should pursue FDI more for its secondary benefits, rather than for the financing itself.
Singapore is already a capital-rich economy. Where we have fallen short, rather, has been in bringing our levels of productivity and innovative capacity to the global frontier. What should, instead, become ever-more important is a focus on elevating the efficiency of our capital deployment and an upgrading of our technological capabilities. If that comes along with FDI, wonderful. But FDI should not be the goal.
The Government has, for its part, made it clear that it plans to reinvest any excess revenue garnered from participation in BEPS 2.0 back into the economy to ensure competitiveness. I could not agree more.
If we are not to expend our efforts in courting global capital, then, what should we do instead? We should reinvest as much as possible in the human capital of our people, of course, as this will bring not only more bang for the buck, it also comes with improved productivity and innovation. Notwithstanding how money is ultimately fungible, this implies that we should, nevertheless, seriously consider earmarking the funds for R&D, education, or, as my Sengkang colleague will suggest later in his speech, healthcare.
In prior interventions in this House, I had repeatedly emphasised the importance of placing the investment in human capital on at least the same footing as that of physical capital. I had suggested, for example, that funds targeted toward infrastructure development can and should be broadened to accommodate expenditure on training and education or warned that those deigned for productivity improvements do not somehow get diverted toward yet more physical capital accumulation. Even in the most recent context of Prime Minister Wong's Budget Statement this year, I cautioned against the Refundable Investment Credits scheme morphing into some kind of loophole for simply increasing production, rather than R&D or green transition efforts.
I will reiterate the appeal here: that as we reinvest the proceeds from the top-up taxes accruing from BEPS 2.0, we once again consciously channel these toward bolstering our intangible capital, the education and skills of our workers, to generate knowledge and ideas that would keep us at the forefront of the global competitiveness frontier.
At risk of oversimplification, Mr Speaker, let me offer an analogy to the points I am making. We can think of tax rates as parking fees one pays to access a mall. Sure, all else equal, one would probably choose a mall that charges less for parking or offers free parking for the first hour or two. But ultimately, we choose the mall we do because of the range of shops, the price of the goods that are sold there, the quality and service of its restaurants and how pleasant the overall shopping experience is. Such thrusts should be the focus of our investment regime, going forward.
In future, we are likely to see more, not less, of such multilateral economic agreements, led by the major economies. As frustrating as the lack of progress in carbon pricing worldwide has been, especially for those of us that are advocates of the approach, the go-it-first strategy of the EU in implementing its Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), it is heartening to see how unilateral approaches have nevertheless sparked complementary legislation in other jurisdictions. Similar progress has been made, within the G20, on the rollout of a global wealth tax.
The reality is, international agreements that used to sting as a result of difficulties associated with free-riding, are now finding renewed life, via unilateral mechanisms by major players that better align the incentives of those that would previously have rankled at the prospect of such coordination. It behooves us to play to our nation's inherent advantages, as they exist today and not as they used to be, as we navigate this changing global geoeconomic and political landscape. For this reason, we should, nay, we must, not only embrace the spirit of BEPS 2.0 for our economy, but proactively channel our energies to refreshing our growth model toward the genuine drivers in the 21st century: our people and the knowledge embedded in them.
Mr Speaker: Ms Usha Chandradas.
Ms Usha Chandradas (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I will be speaking on the Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Bill, or the MMT Bill. I support the Bill but I have some clarifications to seek from the Minister.
The rules under the MMT Bill implement Pillar Two of the OECD/G20 BEPS framework. These changes represent an important step in our ongoing efforts to align with international tax standards. They introduce a global minimum corporate tax rate of 15% for large MNEs. This move reflects our commitment to ensuring fair taxation while continuing to position Singapore as an attractive destination for business and investment. We are making these adjustments thoughtfully. I thank the Government for its long consultation period with tax professionals before putting these legislative changes forward.
My first clarification has to do with how these new rules fit in with our existing tax treaty network. According to IRAS, Singapore has signed a number of Avoidance of Double Taxation Agreements (DTAs) and these include limited DTAs and Exchange of Information Arrangements. At the moment, we have concluded treaties with around 100 jurisdictions. These treaties have set a firm foundation for us to do business with countries all over the world and they provide certainty on cross-border tax positions.
The new Pillar Two rules deviate from the traditional source and residence-based rules of taxation which our existing tax treaty network is built on and they introduce an additional layer of taxation on profits that may have already been allocated and taxed under treaties.
My first question for the Minister this. Will more detailed guidance be issued on how Pillar Two rules will affect the application of Singapore's current network of DTAs, if at all?
Secondly, to summarise very broadly, the success of the new Pillar Two framework depends on their collective adoption by a \"critical mass\" of countries. Presently, the United States (US) and China which are the two major economies in the world, as well as key trading partners of Singapore, these two countries have not yet adopted these rules. Does MOF have clarity on how Singapore might be affected if we enact the MMT Bill, but the US and China do not go ahead to implement Pillar Two?
Thirdly, I note that Pillar Two rules are generally enacted through domestic legislation in each participating country. Despite the OECD's Model Rules serving as a foundation, variations will inevitably arise between jurisdictions, in how the rules are written, interpreted and enforced. These differences could lead to prolonged disputes due to unintended consequences or inconsistent application of the Pillar Two rules across different jurisdictions.
MOF has replied in its response to the public consultation on this Bill that the dispute resolution process for Pillar Two matters is presently under discussion by the Inclusive Framework for the global implementation of the BEPS Project. Would the Minister be able to provide a timeframe as to when we can expect to see guidance being issued on these processes?
Prime Minister Lawrence Wong commented in this year's Budget Statement that the implementation of BEPS Pillar Two initiatives will provide additional revenues to the Government in the short term. However, he noted that it was \"uncertain\" as to how much this additional revenue would amount to, or for how long it would last. He stated that Singapore may even see a reduction in its tax base, should MNEs choose to shift some of their activities to other jurisdictions. Around 1,800 MNEs in Singapore with global revenues above €750 million have an effective tax rate below 15% and thee are the entities that will be affected by the new rules.
While the financial impact of the Pillar Two rules will only play out in FY2027, has the Government, at this stage, identified any specific industries or sectors within the country that are likely to be negatively impacted by the global minimum tax? If so, has the Government considered how to mitigate any employment or other losses that might result from MNEs leaving Singapore? Have any MNEs already indicated that they will relocate as a result of the MMT Bill and if so, what steps has the Government taken or will it be taking to manage any detrimental effects of these relocations?
Although Pillar Two targets large MNEs, its influence will also extend to other areas of Singapore's business landscape. Smaller firms connected to these MNEs, such as suppliers and service providers, could feel the indirect impact. This is a point that the hon Member Mr Yip Hon Weng has brought up as well. For example, if a major company adjusts its operations to better align with new tax requirements, for example, if it shifts its production to a different country or it alters its procurement strategies, this could significantly disrupt its current relationships with local businesses. Its local suppliers may face reduced demand for their products and service partners could see decreased revenue as well. And so my next question is this. What is the Government's outlook on these broader effects and are there any specific challenges that the Government can see at this point in time, which are coming for non-MNEs, with the introduction of the new Pillar Two rules?
To say that the new Pillar Two rules are Byzantine would really be a severe understatement. They import OECD principles and guidelines into our domestic legislation and these are extremely complicated rules. We are not alone in facing this challenge. Many other countries that have implemented Pillar Two rules also faced similar problems with implementation. In many ways, Pillar Two represents a fundamental shift in the way that we view international tax rules.
My next clarifications pertain to how ready businesses are to implement these rules. Compliance with Pillar Two rules will impose additional reporting requirements and prohibitive costs on MNEs. They will need to navigate much more complex tax regulations. As set out in clause 46 of the Bill, surcharges are imposed where MNE groups fail to register and Part 8 of the Bill lists a string of offences and penalties that entities could be exposed to under the new law. To this end, I would like to ask if the Government has any plans to assist to MNEs to meet their new enhanced compliance obligations.
Of course, where there are new and complicated rules to apply, there will also be plenty of opportunities. Trained tax professionals should be able to rise to the challenge of the expanded demand for well-qualified service providers. On this point, will the Government be committing any resources towards the training or re-training of local tax professionals so that they may be well-equipped to serve the demands of this changing tax environment.
Here, I declare my interest as a part-time lecturer in international tax and trade at the Nanyang Technological University. In my personal role as an educator, I see many young people with a keen interest in international tax developments. My own class enrolment has quadrupled over the space of around five years. As we move into a world defined by the developing rules of the BEPs project, would the Government consider devoting more resources to the development of international tax education in Singapore at the tertiary level and beyond?
Finally, many commentators have noted that with the arrival of Pillar Two, competition for foreign investment will no longer be tied to low rates of corporate taxation. Rather, in order to encourage and retain foreign investment, countries will need to present other attractive factors, such as a skilled workforce, political stability, excellent infrastructure, a strong legal system and perhaps, more importantly, a high quality of life. To the specific point of being able to offer our residents a good quality of life, let us not forget that a thriving arts and cultural scene is one of the linchpins of a vibrant and dynamic society. According to National Arts Council's 2023 Population Survey on the Arts, 75% of respondents agreed that arts and culture had the effect of improving one's quality of life.
As noted by a 2021 report from United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and the World Bank, culture and creativity contribute to a so-called \"amenity effect\" and this is where people and businesses prefer to dwell in places that \"foster social interaction and knowledge spillovers\". The report also refers to the work of urban economist Richard Florida, who has developed a gauge referred to as the \"Bohemian Index\". With it, he measures the numbers of certain types of creatives, such as writers, actors and musicians, who are located in different regions and cities. His studies have shown that a high number of creative occupations can be a strong predictor of a region's high-tech industry concentration, density and employment growth. In its assurance to potential foreign investors and expatriates that Singapore offers an excellent quality of life for its citizens and residents, the Economic Development Board (EDB) itself refers to the country's \"lively creative arts scene.\"
As we move forward in a BEPS 2.0 tax environment for foreign investment, I hope the Government continues to prioritise the funding and development of our arts and cultural groups. This is a sector that is not only tied specifically to our creative economy, but to the general well-being of society and the attractiveness of Singapore as a whole. A thriving arts and cultural scene is the lifeblood of a vibrant city. It draws talent, inspires creativity and will make us a magnet for global talent and businesses. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the MMT Bill seeks to give effect to Pillar Two of BEPS 2.0. One of the key provisions of the Bill is the introduction of a minimum effective tax rate of 15% for large MNEs that have a consolidated group revenue of at least €750 million annually in at least two of the four preceding financial years.
This will mark a major shift in Singapore's taxation policy, which the Progressive Singapore Party (PSP) supports. PSP believes that more profitable companies should pay more taxes. I first articulated this policy position during my Budget speech in 2023. During that speech, I also spoke about the highly inequitable nature of our corporate tax system, where companies with the highest profits pay the lowest percentage of their profits as tax. For example, I pointed out that companies earning profits before tax of between $200,000 and $10 million paid on average 8% to 9% of their profits as taxes, whereas companies with profits beyond $1 billion pay less than 1% of their profits as taxes.
We hope that the introduction of a minimum effective tax rate for MNEs under this Bill will make for a more equitable corporate taxation system where large MNEs pay their fair share of taxes relative to their profits.
We have debated the impact of this Bill on tax revenue before in this House and it is likely to be substantial, especially considering recent data showing strong corporate earnings following the post-COVID-19 economic recovery. IRAS announced last month that corporate tax revenues increased by $5.9 billion in FY2023, reaching $29 billion or 36% of total tax revenues. The OECD's 2024 Corporate Tax Statistics report showed that large MNEs accounted for 73% of total corporate income tax revenue in 2021. The percentage is likely similar today. If investments and business activities in Singapore remain the same, then we are likely to soon see a very substantial increase in corporate tax revenues.
During the Budget debate in 2022, the Finance Minister cautioned that \"BEPS 2.0 represents a fundamental change in the competitive environment for Singapore\" and we would likely \"need to find other ways to stay competitive, from investing even more in our workers to building new infrastructure and incentivising R&D\", and any additional tax revenue from Pillars One and Two would need to be reinvested to ensure Singapore remains competitive. In 2023, he again said that \"we cannot afford to price ourselves out of the competition, or else Singapore and Singaporeans will end up the biggest losers\".
Singapore does have inherent disadvantages, such as limited land, a small population and a high-cost structure. But we also have strong advantages compared to other countries in the region, such as a highly educated workforce, a well-developed and globally-connected financial system, excellent international connectivity for the movement of people and cargo, respect for rule of law and strong property rights. These advantages will not go away, even after the provisions of the Bill come into effect. It is highly unlikely that all the MNEs in Singapore will pack up and leave overnight just because there will be a minimum effective tax rate after this Bill is passed. What this Bill does represent is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reshape our tax and incentive structure for companies and our policy towards attracting foreign investments.
For many decades, we have used various tax incentives and schemes to lower effective corporate tax rates and attract foreign investments, especially from MNEs. But such a strategy could never have lasted forever. Other countries could and did replicate Singapore's tax incentives, in whole or in part, creating a destructive race to the bottom where governments across the world slashed corporate tax rates to attract businesses. This trend has only stabilised in recent years with BEPS 2.0.
This imposition of a global minimum corporate tax regime is a step in the right direction that has hastened the inevitable for our nation, which is, the need to make ourselves competitive and attractive to foreign investments in ways other than providing them with economic incentives and low taxes.
As I mentioned earlier, we still have strong advantages as a nation. But the additional economic resources that this Bill provides will allow us to do more. With the additional tax revenue from this Bill, we can help to create a more level playing field between domestic companies and MNEs. The OECD's Corporate Tax Statistics report found that we are the fourth-most dependent economy on large MNEs for corporate tax revenue. Many of the MNEs in Singapore are foreign-owned, and this dependency has increased in recent years.
Instead of pouring all the additional tax revenue back into more economic support for MNEs, we can invest part of the additional revenue in our SMEs, which employed 71% of our workforce as of 2023, and help them leverage on AI and other new technologies, so that they can become more productive and internationally competitive, and hopefully grow into local MNEs of our own. And finally, we can take steps to address our high cost structure. In particular, PSP feels that the rising rent and cost of property is an area that requires urgent attention. Mr Speaker, Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, the Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Bill we are debating today marks a significant change in Singapore's tax policy. PSP supports this Bill. We believe that more profitable companies should pay more taxes. As I have pointed out in my 2023 Budget speech, our current corporate tax system is highly inequitable, with the most profitable companies paying the lowest percentage of their profits in income tax. Companies with pre-tax profits between $200,000 and $10 million pay an average of 8% to 9% of their profits as taxes, while companies with profits exceeding $1 billion pay less than 1%.
The minimum effective tax rate introduced by this Bill will top up the effective tax rate of the high-profit multinational enterprises in Singapore to 15%. For a long time, our country has relied on low tax rates and tax incentives to attract foreign investments. After this Bill is passed, we will no longer be able to rely on these measures to attract foreign investment.
This Bill provides our country with a rare opportunity to transform our corporate tax and incentive structure as well as our policies for attracting foreign investment. Our corporate tax revenue currently heavily depends on foreign multinational enterprises. PSP believes that we should invest the additional tax revenue brought by this Bill into our SMEs, helping them utilise artificial intelligence and other new technologies to improve productivity and international competitiveness, potentially helping them to become multinational companies.
We must also create a fairer competition environment between local companies and multinational corporations. The additional tax revenue can also provide resources for the Government to take measures to help businesses reduce operating costs, help Singaporeans reduce living costs, and continue to attract foreign investment at a lower cost. In particular, the rise in property prices and rents needs urgent attention.
PSP sincerely hopes that our fourth-generation leaders will use this opportunity to reshape our economic structure, renew our social contract and create a better living environment for Singaporeans.
(In English): This Bill presents us with an opportunity to reshape our economic structure and refresh our social compact, instead of using it towards the same economic playbook that has been used for decades. PSP hopes that the 4G leadership will make full use of this opportunity. PSP supports the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, the time has come for us to debate this long awaited but keenly anticipated Bill, for us to implement the GLoBE Model Rules or Pillar Two of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS. It is a topic which I feel strongly about and have spoken on many occasions, including the last four Budget debates from 2021 to 2024.
As Singapore is one of the 147 countries who are members of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework, it is important that at the heart of it all, we adhere to the principles of BEPS and why a global tax consensus on this matter is so important. The rules are designed to ensure that large MNEs pay a minimum level of tax on their income in each jurisdiction where they operate, thereby reducing the incentive for profit shifting and placing a floor under tax competition and bringing an end to the race to the bottom on corporate tax rates. This can only be beneficial to all countries, including Singapore.
In Singapore, corporate income tax is by far the single largest contributor to the Government's budget, more so than the Net Investment Returns Contribution, personal income taxes or even the Goods and Services Tax (GST). Any changes to our corporate income tax policies are going to have the most significant impact to our country's operating revenues, and by extension, our long-term fiscal position and fiscal strategies; that is, if we allow it to be as such, as I will be elaborating further in my speech.
Beyond the technicalities of the tax legislation to be implemented, my first question is on MOF's assessment of the scope and impact of this new legislation.
Broadly speaking, the GloBE rules apply to a multinational enterprises (MNE) group that has a consolidated group revenue of at least €750 million annually in at least two of the four preceding financial years. Just how many of such MNE groups are operating in Singapore as of today, what is their total reported revenues, profits before taxes, corporate income taxes paid to Singapore and their effective tax rates?
Moreover, as with the past decades, many MNEs operating here in Singapore are given various tax incentive schemes and these include the pioneer industries and service companies' incentive, development and expansion incentive, investment allowances, concessionary tax rates for global trading companies, finance and treasury centres, maritime sector incentives – just to name a few. How many of these incentive schemes will still be in force by the time this Bill is operationalised, and what would happen to the effective tax rates of the companies who are currently enjoying these preferential schemes? Would the top-up taxes prescribed by Pillar Two supersede these schemes?
I am reminded of an article on Bloomberg in 2021, which looked into the data collected by the US Internal Revenue Service on US companies' country-by-country filings on where they book their profits and pay taxes. According to the article, \"65% of US firms foreign profits are in low-tax jurisdictions, such as Ireland and Singapore, tax-havens like Bermuda, or in stateless entities.\" What I find most interesting is the finding that the effective tax rate for US companies in Singapore based on the filings is a mere 4% instead of our statutory tax rate of 17%.
It is quite clear to everyone that our statutory corporate income tax rate of 17% in Singapore is low by global standards. But especially with the whole suite of tax incentives on offer, our effective corporate income tax rates are even lower, with some companies under the pioneer tax incentive scheme effectively paying no taxes for a number of years; and companies under various other schemes effectively having tax rates as low as 5%.
Mathematically speaking, it is thus not hard to imagine the potential increase in corporate income tax revenues from implementing a minimum tax rate of 15%, especially when many of these tax-incentivised companies are likely to be the ones who fall under the scope of the Pillar Two rules. What then is the Government's assessment of the potential increase in tax revenues when changes in this Act are implemented from 2025?
In my Budget 2024 debate speech, I shared that the OECD has published a working paper earlier this year, which finds that the global minimum tax \"can raise between US$155 billion and US$192 billion of additional CIT revenues per year, with revenue gains accruing to all jurisdiction groups\". Moreover, estimated participating countries categorised as \"investment hubs\", which includes Singapore, would have the largest expected gains from the reforms, with corporate income tax revenues rising from 14% minimum to up to 34%.
Subsequently in his round up speech, then-Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong suggested that based on data points from the OECD, Hong Kong and Switzerland, the range for Singapore could be anywhere from around $2 billion to $11 billion a year and that the Government will provide its own detailed revenue estimates in due course. Will the Minister now be able to provide an update given that most other countries would have enacted or are in the process of enacting these legislations and MNEs would have to adhere to the same set of rules internationally from 2025?
My second question, is the Government's plan to effectively return any additional corporate income tax revenues back to these in-scope MNEs, such that we will not have any additional net revenues going forward?
In Budget 2024, RIC was introduced, which is to be awarded on qualifying expenditures incurred by a company in respect of a qualifying project, during the qualifying period. According to IRAS' website, the credits are to be offset against Corporate Income Tax payable. Any unutilised credits will be refunded to the company in cash within four years when the company satisfies the conditions for receiving the credits. This is introduced in the new section 93B under the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill.
The list of economic activities and qualifying expenditure categories specified by IRAS, however, appear to be notably broad-based in scope and wider than the tax credit schemes in some other jurisdictions, which primarily focus on R&D activities. Qualifying expenditure, for example, covers a whole range of categories including capital expenditure, manpower costs, training costs, professional fees, intangible asset costs, fees for work outsourced in Singapore, materials and consumables and freight and logistics costs.
While more information was said to be available on the EDB and EnterpriseSG websites by 3Q 2024, it is now mid-October and, to date, I have not been able to see any substantive information on RICs thus far. Are there expenditures that do not actually qualify and how would EDB or EnterpriseSG make such a determination as to what activities and expenditure would qualify under RIC and whether objective criteria on the assessment of the quantum of RIC to be awarded will be published in due course?
In my view, the effectiveness of the MNE Bill and the amount of net revenues we collect from in-scope MNEs will substantially depend on the extent of the generosity of EDB and EnterpriseSG towards these MNEs.
What I am also concerned about is that under subsection 51 of the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill, \"The Minister may make regulations to carry out the purposes and provisions of this section\". This gives the Minister a broad mandate to make regulations concerning RICs and there are two particular areas which I hope the Minister can provide further clarifications on.
First, even though each RIC award will have a qualifying period of up to 10 years and that the credits are supposed to be offset against Corporate Income Tax payable, subsections 30 to 32 effectively enables the company to choose to receive the RIC in cash ahead of the payout date specified, in lieu of being used to offset taxes. What is the rationale for this, how will this be applied and will the Government end up incurring out-of-pocket expenditure, as though it is a grant being given to the company?
Second, under subsection 46, the company can apply for RICs to be given to offset any taxes of one or more of its other related companies under the same group. Would this not go against the principle that RIC is granted to incentivise certain specific economic activities by certain entities and for certain qualifying expenditure only? Again, what is the rationale for this and how will this be applied?
My third question, which is arguably a rhetorical one, is does the Government see Singapore as just another a tax haven? For avoidance of doubt, I strongly believe that we are not a tax haven.
A few weeks ago, Singapore was ranked second in the IMD's World Talent Ranking and fourth in the world financial centres ranking. In June this year, Singapore took the top spot in the IMD World Competitiveness Ranking and, in January, Singapore was ranked the most liveable city for Asian expatriates, among others.
To quote an International Tax and Transaction Services Leader in one of the Big Four Accounting firms, \"overall, for the smaller nations like Singapore, the curtailing of tax competition from the global minimum tax proposal will drive a greater focus on economic fundamentals. Singapore's long-standing merits in its institutions, infrastructure, labor market and financial and legal systems – qualities it has conscientiously nurtured for decades – would arguably be an even greater source of distinctiveness.\"
Should the rollout of the global minimum tax be proceeding as scheduled, I would say, yes, let us not be complacent, but we should take this window of opportunity to adapt and innovate when it comes to considering new economic development models that are more sustainable and less reliant on short-term tax incentives. Let us also be a bit prouder of our non-tax advantages, including our most important asset, Singaporeans themselves, and not fall prey to the thinking that without aggressive tax incentives, we would not be competitive to international MNEs.
Lastly, in addition to GloBE rules, Pillar Two also includes a Subject-to-Tax Rule (STTR). STTR allows a developing country to impose additional taxes of up to 9% on certain payments, such as interest and royalties, that an entity makes to related entities in another jurisdiction, if that payment is taxed at less than 9% in the other jurisdiction.
In September last month, I note that nine jurisdictions signed a new multilateral treaty that will allow early adopters to swiftly implement the new Pillar Two STTR, with 57 countries attending the first signing ceremony of the Multilateral Convention.
The OECD has stated that the STTR is an integral part of the consensus achieved on Pillar Two and is especially important for developing Inclusive Framework members. As such, may I ask the Minister what is the Government's position on STTR, given that this MNE Bill is, as far as I observe, silent on STTR? As the Government often reiterates that Singapore is a developing country, can I confirm with the Minister that Singapore is considered a developing country under STTR and will be able to benefit from this rule?
Allow me to conclude, Mr Speaker, by returning to the first principles of BEPS 2.0, which is that these reforms were introduced to stop the race to the bottom when it comes to sovereign tax policies and to facilitate international collaboration to end tax avoidance.
Should we decide not to adhere to the principles of BEPS 2.0, we once again return to the vicious race to the bottom where countries compete to offer the lowest tax rates in a bid to attract corporate profits, undermining fair competition, penalising smaller local SMEs that cannot engage in aggressive tax planning and, ultimately, weakens national and international economies by depriving it of the resources necessary for sustainable development.
It is only fair that MNEs, which benefit from our skilled workforce, advanced infrastructure and stable regulatory environment, pay their proportionate and fair share of taxes and contribute to our nation building. And by supporting BEPS 2.0, we not only promote a more equitable tax system but also signal our commitment to responsible global governance and economic fairness, thereby dissociating ourselves from the terms tax havens or tax-favoured jurisdictions.
Let me repeat once again that OECD expects all economies to benefit from extra tax revenues as a result of the Two-Pillar Solution. That is all economies. It is perfectly reasonable for the Government to reinvest additional tax revenues, such as through this landmark global tax reform into Singapore's developmental needs. After all, this is the function of Government, to direct our operating revenues, such as from income taxes, into operating and development expenditures across a range of areas, such as healthcare, education and defence. But it is an entirely different thing to roundtrip additional income received from in-scope corporates, back to the same corporates. I hope the additional tax revenues from BEPS 2.0 will not simply be in substance returned to MNEs through other forms but invested in Singaporeans and our collective future instead.
Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise today to support the Bill, specifically the Pillar Two of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS. This Bill, through the introduction of MTT and DTT, represents a significant step in ensuring that MNEs pay a minimum tax of 15%, reinforcing Singapore's commitment to international tax transparency. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The MTT provisions, from clauses 21 to 36, are aligned with the global consensus to combat tax avoidance strategies among large MNEs. While we welcome this alignment, I would like to ask the Minister: how will the Government ensure that these new rules, while in line with international standards, will prevent double taxation for Singapore-based entities? Are there robust mechanisms in place to ensure consistency across jurisdictions, avoiding discrepancies in tax treatment?
Singapore has built its success as a global hub for MNEs by maintaining an attractive tax environment. While the introduction of this global minimum tax is important, we must not lose sight of the competitive edge that has made Singapore a top choice for businesses. I urge the Government to consider complementary measures, such as enhancing R&D incentives and talent acquisition programmes, to continue attracting investment in key sectors. These additional policies can ensure that we remain competitive, despite the increasing global tax harmonisation.
Furthermore, if fewer MNCs come to Singapore, it will not benefit our SME ecosystem, and fewer good jobs will be created. Maintaining our appeal to MNEs is essential for supporting both the broader business landscape and job creation.
(In English): Clauses 37 to 94 introduce new registration and compliance requirements. I urge the Government to carefully assess the administrative burden this will place on both the Government and MNEs. Will the Comptroller's office be adequately resourced to manage this increased workload? Moreover, what measures are in place to assist businesses in navigating these complex compliance frameworks, especially in the early stages of the implementation? Clear guidance and streamlined processes will be crucial to ensure smooth compliance and avoid stifling business operations through excessive bureaucracy.
One specific area of concern is the treatment of joint ventures and investment entities. While the Bill includes joint ventures, where the parent holds 50% or more of the ownership interest, certain investment and insurance entities are excluded from the DTT. Could this exclusion incentivise certain entities to exploit the system and avoid paying their fair share of the top-up taxes? I seek clarification on how the Government plans to ensure that these exclusions do not inadvertently open doors to aggressive tax planning.
The Bill's provisions under clauses 49 to 55 allow for a 15-month filing period after the financial year-end, which aligns with the international norms. However, given the complexities of multi-jurisdictional operations, I ask: could we consider offering grace periods or additional guidance for entities facing exceptional circumstances?
Furthermore, the penalties for late payments and non-compliance should deter misconduct without overburdening businesses facing administrative challenges. I suggest that the Government explore a tiered penalty structure to balance enforcement with fairness.
It is anticipated that the introduction of the MTT and DTT will increase tax revenues for Singapore. I propose that we channel these funds into strategic areas that will directly benefit Singaporeans, such as sustainability initiatives, green infrastructure projects and education programmes. By investing in these areas, we can further strengthen our long-term economic goals while enhancing Singapore's competitiveness in the global arena.
In conclusion, Speaker, Sir, this Bill marks a crucial step in aligning Singapore with global tax efforts to ensure fair and transparent taxation of multinational enterprises. However, as we implement these changes, we must safeguard our competitive advantage and ensure that businesses are not unduly burdened by compliance requirements. I look forward to the Minister's response and trust that we can continue to strike a careful balance between global alignment and protecting Singapore's economic interests.
Mr Speaker: Second Minister for Finance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment of Debate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\"
Mr Speaker: Resumption of debate, what day?
Ms Indranee Rajah: Tomorrow, Sir.
Mr Speaker: So be it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progressive Wages and the Revaluing of \"Low-wage Work\"","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Leader.
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.
Mr Raj Joshua Thomas: Sir, the first Progressive Wage Model (PWM) came into effect in 2014, 10 years ago. This was for the cleaning sector. The PWMs were introduced, championed and coordinated by the Labour Movement, and the nature of them is that they are interventions. They were introduced in sectors that had either seen market failure in terms of wages or that had wage growth that lagged increases in the costs of living.
This is why PWM wage increases are generally higher than National Wage Council recommendations, in order to close the gap of wages in these sectors. PWMs have been implemented in seven sectors and for two occupations. The PWMs have significantly improved the wages of over 150,000 workers or 50% of low-wage workers. Statistics prove that this is so. But, of course, it is always easy to posit academic questions about what these statistics all really mean.
I wish to offer the perspective of an industry representative who has been part of the process of one of the first PWM sectors and has close interactions with industry representatives from several others. I declare my interest, Sir, as President of the Security Association Singapore, which represents security companies. I sit on the Security Tripartite Cluster that formulates the PWM for our sector.
My view is that the PWMs are not just a minimum wage plus scheme. The PWM has revalued the work that is done in these sectors, not only in terms of wages, but also in terms of career progression, in terms of perceptions of the jobs in these sectors and their contribution to our economy. More can be done as the PWMs advance.
Most of these low-wage work are in jobs of the hands. Cleaning, waitering, landscaping, waste management are some of the examples of these jobs. With the emphasis on meritocracy in Singapore's development since Independence, jobs of the hands were increasingly seen as unattractive and were relegated to occupations that people would only go into if they were not academically meritorious. In many cases, these became occupations of last resort.
Because the emphasis has been on studying hard to get a good job, it seemed natural that for jobs that did not require academic qualifications, their wages should be low. In other words, these jobs were valued lowly in terms of how important they were and therefore, how much workers should be remunerated. They were also considered low socio-economic status occupations. Hence, wages in the first three PWM sectors – cleaning, security and landscape – had stagnated at a low level for a long time and required intervention.
The PWMs have already started to challenge how work in these sectors is valued. First, because the PWMs stipulate not just wages, but skills and training, the idea that these are generic jobs that anyone could do has been chipped at. Workers now have to attend courses and pass assessments to be able to qualify for entry into the sector and for promotion to the next rung of the wage ladder. Essentially, there are now some barriers to entry and advancement.
Second, the PWMs are wage ladders, that recognise increases in skills and experience and essentially create a career path. It would fall to reason therefore, that workers in the higher rungs of each PWM are performing work that is more valuable, for example supervisory work or work that requires specific skills.
Third, the PWMs prescribe year-on-year wage increases over several years. This means that there is a compounded increase in value over time.
Value, of course, does not exist in vacuo. Value must be ascribed by someone or recognised by someone. In real terms, value would also suggest that a person is willing to part with something of a certain worth to enjoy the benefits of that item or service. So, in what ways has the value of work been enhanced in the PWM sectors and to what extent?
First, we can look at the value ascribed to these jobs by consumers and society at large. A 2020 Sunday Times survey found that 78% of respondents were willing to pay more for essential workers, such as cleaners and security officers. Even better, they were willing to do so if the extra amount went to the workers themselves. And 55% were willing to pay at least 20% more. This suggests that at least for cleaners and security officers, there is significant value placed on the work that they do, such that consumers are willing to pay more for their services. The survey also made reference to the progressive wages in these sectors, so, there was a nexus between the progressive wages and responses in the survey.
However, consumers have continued to raise concerns about costs. Cheap-sourcing continues to be the primary method of buying for the outsourced PWM services.
Furthermore, while there has been improvement in the treatment of low-wage workers and in their working environments, there are still situations that underscore a continuing discrimination against these workers. I had raised in this House in one of my first speeches the absurd situation of a condominium in the Grange area that disallowed security officers and cleaners from using the condominium toilets. The Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST) had instead installed temporary toilets for them at the basement carpark, which did not even have proper lighting nor running water on the weekends. This was presumably to prevent mixing between residents and workers in the condominium toilets. There is therefore still some socio-economic stigma prevailing in some quarters, as regard this type of work and workers.
Second, statistics show that the PWMs have significantly increased growth in wages in the respective sectors and therefore of the placing of a particular monetary value on work. Cleaners, for example, have enjoyed an over 70% increase over a decade. However, while of course workers will be happy with mandatory wage increases, have these workers re-considered the value of their own work? There are many anecdotal accounts of workers who now put more paid on training and upgrading themselves. A Union of Security Employees study published in 2022 found that over 90% of security officers were prepared to use more technology at work and to undergo training for it. But, these are not clear indications on whether they feel that the value of their work has appreciated.
My own experience has been, at least for the security industry, that workers now value their work better and expect to be compensated better. By way of background, I joined the security industry the year before the PWM for the sector came into effect, some nine years ago. When I first looked at the wages of officers, I was appalled. Basic salaries were at $800 to $1,200. Today, security officers at the basic level must earn a minimum of $2,650, and by 2028, their minimum wage will grow to over $3,500.
With this significant growth in wages and many having progressed above the basic rung, I have also seen over the years, officers understanding their functions better, taking more pride in what they do and asking for better wages and working conditions. There is a greater sense of professionalism and more importantly, of dignity. And Sir, this is not an academic take on the industry, or a survey, this is what I have seen myself. Pride, Sir, in one's work and dignity in your occupation is something that is truly powerful and it is priceless.
Third, we must look at whether employers in these sectors have re-valued the contributions of their workers. There have been positive accounts. In the 2023 Straits Times article, Uniqlo said that \"When we have employees who are happy working at Uniqlo (due to the increase in wages), that will translate into excellent customer services. To a certain extent, that will therefore boost sales\". In another article, cleaning company LS2 Services said, that it recognised their cleaners as \"valuable resources contributing to Singapore's clean and green city\". LS2 Services strongly supported the PWM wages.
However, many employers, especially in the outsourced sectors, still see workers as deployable assets rather than as their company's human capital. Buyers of outsourced services still complain that some companies are still just deploying manpower rather than providing a skilled service. They therefore justify a cheap-sourcing approach because services are indistinguishable – but for the price.
Employers for their part also complain that some workers merely attend at the site to \"mark attendance\" – but the question is what we need to do to get out of this cycle of finger pointing? If a outsourced services company adopts a laissez-faire approach to quality and effectiveness of their manpower, it would invariably lead to a reduction in the perceived value of that occupation. Employers must therefore up their game as well, to offer services that are more cost-effective, more innovative and more productive.
In the round, the PWMs have undoubtedly contributed to the revaluing of low-wage work, but this is just the beginning. The PWMs moving forward can do so much more.
Looking forward and in the past few years, the Prime Minister has consistently called for a broadening of definitions of success, as well as for remuneration to be based on also on skills and not just academic credentials. The Prime Minister's vision is one which I support and share, including the Prime Minister's call to fairly remunerate jobs of the hands, which tend to be low-wage work. The PWMs have, fortuitously, been contributing over the past decade to precisely the Prime Minister 's vision of a labour market where the rewards of work are more fair and equitable.
Looking forward, how can the PWMs continue to contribute to the reshaping of attitudes and perceptions towards low-wage work and consequently, its value?
First, I think we should acknowledge that it is probably not sustainable nor desirable for the PWMs for all sectors to continue indefinitely. As I set out earlier, PWMs were first conceived to address market failures in wage growth or persistently stagnant wages in specific sectors. It would appear then, that once these issues are resolved, the PWMs could lose their purpose. Indeed, in this weekend's Straits Times article, Senior Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad had entertained the possibility of sectors being eased out of the PWM, although there are no plans to do so as yet.
This is a prudent approach. Sectoral PWMs, once they have achieved their objective of correcting wages that were valued wrongly must at some point return the determination of wage increases to the market. This is critical, because otherwise, the PWMs may become a crutch to workers – who will only be able to achieve wage growth due to interventions by the tripartite partners and not through themselves showing the value of their work, nor negotiating for it.
In this regard, it is absolutely critical that while the PWMs are in force, we empower workers in these sectors to realise the value of their work, to realise the value of their skills and training and to organically demand for higher wages as they grow in expertise and seniority. This will position them to be able to continue to grow their value and their wages even if their sector is eased out of the PWM. If we fail to do so, then these vulnerable workers will remain vulnerable forever. We must avoid this as one of the outcomes of the PWMs.
It is also important to note that there are cost consequences of the PWMs beyond just the specific professions covered. Companies in PWM sectors will also have to review the wages of their non-PWM employees and to ensure they are commensurate with the increases of the wages of PWM-covered sectors. Hence, for example, Starbucks, which is required under the F&B PWM to increase the wages of its baristas, also increased the wages of supervisors and managers to ensure parity and fairness across all job levels. Each company, after all, will also have to reconcile the PWM job roles and wages with its own internal pay scale and advancement route for all its different types of staff. While increases in non-PWM job wages are of course a good thing, the question is sustainability and consequent effect on increases in costs and overall inflation in the economy.
I have started to think about what an easing out of the PWMs would entail. My view is that it should not mean that the PWM would be removed or no longer apply. For sectors that are ready, I would suggest that they should instead evolve into a PWM 2.0 to preserve the wage levels already achieved and to provide a base from which the value of these jobs will continue to be enhanced.
How could a PWM 2.0 look like? These are my suggestions.
First, the respective sectoral tripartite clusters would no longer need to prescribe year-on-year wage increases over a period of a few years, which is the current practice. The prevailing wage floors at the point of moving to 2.0 would continue to apply and to be enforced as a form of sectoral minimum wage for each rung. This is important to ensure that wages do not make a u-turn. And a possible U-turn is a particular concern in the outsourced sectors, given that the profit of outsourced services companies is based on the difference between the wage of the outsourced worker and the charge out rate by the company.
Second, the skill ladders should remain and should be periodically reviewed, including whether there is a need for further training or refreshers. This will ensure that skills remain relevant and productivity continues to grow. One example is how the security industry is looking to train our workers to be AI-literate. The AI Literacy Programme designed by Certis and the Singapore University of Technology and Design was launched by Minister of State Gan Siow Huang last week and aims to upskill 5,000 security professionals with AI knowledge by 2027. Skills and courses like these could be incorporated in the periodic review of the skills ladders to ensure continued growth in the value proposition of workers.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, the PWMs would not be inactive, they would merely be dormant. If wages in a PWM 2.0 sector stagnate for some time after they are returned to the market, then the tripartite partners can step in again to prescribe wage increases. The PWMs in PWM 2.0 will be living, breathing creatures, vigilant and ready to take corrective measures if necessary.
Finally, each tripartite cluster should also continue look at matters ancillary or related to the value of work in their sector. This would include factors like working conditions and workplace safety and health. In the security industry, we are trying to reduce working hours in a sustainable manner, while adhering to the prescribed PWM wages. Companies in each sector can also be encouraged to leverage on productivity-building initiatives like the NTUC's company training committees. In this way, we can continue to enhance the value of low-wage work through the operation of PWM 2.0.
Sir, it would be remiss of me not to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the introduction of the PWM this year and its many successes.
The PWMs are a triumph of tripartism. It is unique to Singapore that employers, unions and Government agencies can sit down, negotiate and agree to very wide-ranging increases in wages, year-on-year. As Minister Tan said last month, there are many heated debates between tripartite partners behind closed doors, and the periodic PWM negotiations are probably the most heated of them all. This is because the unions make very robust representations and put up a good fight.
And Sir, I can attest to this, because I am on the opposite side of the table, representing industry, and we come in with equally well-reasoned arguments. The Government bodies then come in with policy input and objectives, and we negotiate hard to come to a consensus. Truly, it is something that you cannot fully understand until you are involved in it. You can be arguing one day, even publicly, and hugging the next. This is because we have a shared objective, to achieve the best for our workers and our businesses. We merely differ on occasion, on how to get there.
Sir, I am humbled and privileged to have had the opportunity to be part of the tripartite process. Our tripartism is precious and we must defend it against unfair criticism and strengthen when needed.
Finally, Sir, I would also like to thank the many people from the unions, trade associations and government bodies who have contributed to the PWMs and to a process that has enhanced the value of work in these sectors over the past decade. I would especially like to thank the team from the NTUC U-Care Centre who are the Secretariat for all the PWM sectoral negotiations. I mention them specifically because theirs is not an easy job. They are the ones caught in the middle of these heated discussions, trying to reconcile positions between the tripartite partners and to actually draft the PWMs and statements of the tripartite clusters. Tripartite partners, including myself, can be very demanding and difficult and sometimes the secretariat itself comes under fire. And yet, they trod on, motivated to see through their mission.
In particular, Sir, I would like to express gratitude to Mr Zainal Sapari and Ms Phyllis Lim. Mr Sapari championed and led the implementation of the earlier PWMs and Ms Lim continues to lead the secretariats. It is without exaggeration to say that these two people are probably the two people, in Singapore who have contributed the most to the success of the PWMs, and through the PWMs, the uplifting of the lives and livelihoods of tens of thousands of low wage workers in Singapore. They are unsung heroes. To Mr Sapari and Ms Lim, thank you.
To conclude, Sir, the PWMs have raised wages and skills in their respective sectors. This has contributed to the enhancement of the value of the work in each sector. As the PWMs mature beyond their 10th year, I am confident that we will continue to position the PWMs to raise wages, increase productivity, to improve the working conditions of our workers and to contribute to their sense of dignity and pride in their work.
And I am hopeful, Sir, that one day, we will be able to call “low-wage work” just “work” or even better, “good work”. Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State, Mr Zaqy Mohamad.
The Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his support of Singapore’s PWM to improve the livelihoods of our lower-wage workers and hopefully in future, just workers.
I also thank the Member for affirming the importance of tripartism to contributing to the success of PWM. Indeed, our low-wage workers perform essential jobs and should be recognised for their contributions. They form the backbone of our economy and provide many important services that we should not take for granted. And this is why we must ensure that they are paid meaningful wages.
A decade ago, tripartite partners recognised that wages in some jobs were stagnating, as Mr Raj Joshua Thomas earlier on shared, especially in outsourced sectors like cleaning, security and landscape. At the same time, workers found themselves entrenched in the same job with little opportunity for skills upgrading and progression.
In response, NTUC conceptualised the PWM to chart out better wage, skills and career pathways. Tripartite partners implemented the first mandatory PWM in 2014 in the cleaning sector, followed by landscape and security in 2016. Today, we have seen good outcomes. Real cumulative wage growth of locals in these initial PWM sectors grew by 31% from 2014 to 2019, outpacing wage growth of the 20th percentile (P20) worker at 23%. This gave us confidence and we further expanded PWM to the lift and escalator maintenance sector in 2019.
When I chaired the Tripartite Workgroup on Lower-Wage Workers in 2020, I recalled we had several challenges to overcome. First, the lowest paying jobs were in domestic sectors, whether they were in kopitiams, heartland retail, cleaning jobs, security. And this presented the dilemma of how to uplift low-wage workers significantly while convincing consumers and businesses to pay more. The second challenge was raising the coverage of progressive wages from only 10% of low-wage workers in the early days of the first few PWMs and making wage increases meaningful to narrow the gap between the bottom 20% and the median worker.
To address these challenges, then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in his National Day Rally speech in 2021 announced the Government's acceptance of the Tripartite Work Group's recommendations to expand PWM to more sectors like food and retail and occupations including administrators and drivers. And back then, if you recall, we were in the midst of COVID-19. Despite COVID-19 challenges and business uncertainties, tripartism prevailed and delivered significant boosts in PWM wages.
For example, the basic wage requirement for entry-level cleaners will increase from $1,312 back in 2022 to $2,420 in 2028. The security sector, Mr Raj Joshua Thomas would be very familiar with this, will see even stronger growth, as the Member had highlighted. Today's security PWM wage requirements are minimally at $2,650. This is higher than the P20 salary range today.
By 2028, entry-level security officers will earn at least $3,530. And that is a 56% increase from 2022. These significant wage increases are possible for the security sector, in part because of its high potential for productivity gains. Through deployment of digital technologies, more efficient work processes and robust skills certification framework to guide officers in improving their productivity.
But of course, as the Member also shared, we are still working on how to improve their work environment and reduce reliance on work hours. Beyond PWM, we also require employers to pay all their local employees at least the Local Qualifying Salary (LQS) to qualify for foreign work passes. And we implemented the Progressive Wage Mark Accreditation Scheme to encourage consumers to support employers who are paying progressive wages. So, as a whole, collectively, these measures benefit up to nine in 10 local full-time low-wage workers today, up from where we were – one in 10 prior to 2021.
So, we agree with the Member that if we want wages to continue to increase, both workers and businesses must continue to improve productivity. And this is why the PWM is not just about raising wages, but also raising the value-add of the jobs involved. Tripartite partners regularly review the skills letters while workers are required to go through skills training and encouraged to take on higher value jobs.
Businesses too, have a significant role in transforming business models, improving operations, as well as redesigning jobs. And they can also take reference from the respective industry transformation maps too. So, we recognise that uplifting low-wage workers is a journey. The Government has thus provided employers substantial transitional support through the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme, which partially offsets employers' costs of paying lower-wage workers better wages.
The Government disbursed around $1 billion to 70,000 employers who gave wage increases to more than 345,000 employees in 2022. So, employers must take advantage of this transitional support by accelerating business transformation, such as adopting technology and refining processes to improve productivity. And the security sector has shown that it can be done.
The Member is right that the success of PWM rests in part on public recognition that PWM jobs are important jobs and that society must support fair remuneration of our workers. When I speak to our low-wage workers across sectors, it is clear that they want their work to be recognised by society. They prefer the dignity of earning a fair salary over receiving handouts any day. And this is fundamental to our social compact here in Singapore.
In this regard, tripartite partners agree with the Member that service buyers and consumers also play important roles. Tripartite partners have been promulgating good industry practices among service buyers, such as outcome-based contracting to specify clear deliverables in a contract, rather than the number of workers. This allows service providers to redesign work processes holistically to deliver quality outcomes with lower labour intensity, enabling employers to pay higher wages. And it is also important for consumers to treat fellow Singaporeans with respect and recognising that paying a little more for goods and services goes a long way to rewarding their efforts and to improve the livelihoods of our low-wage workers.
The Member spoke on the future of PWM. I agree that we should regularly take stock and make adjustments. In fact, this is why we had convened the Tripartite Workgroup in 2020, to take stock and to refresh our approach. I thank the Member for his suggestions for PWM 2.0. Currently, there is some flexibility in the PWM for market forces to play a role.
In jobs where the skills levels are higher and wages have risen to an appropriate level, we recognise that their wages could then be decided by market forces. Examples are the retail and food services sectors, where jobs such as retail managers and senior cooks are part of the PWM ladder, but their wages are not mandated by PWM. Of course, we hope to see the wages in more jobs rise sufficiently, such that there is no longer a need to mandate PWM wages which increases.
As PWM sectors negotiate wage requirements over the next few years, we hope that more workers can see significant uplift and over time, more higher-level job roles can have their wages left to market forces. But for now, the majority of our PWM workers still need the support and uplift from our PWM requirements. We will certainly continue to monitor and review PWM together with our tripartite partners.
Mr Speaker, as the Member has affirmed, our progressive wage approach is a triumph of tripartism. It will continue to be a vital pillar of support and uplift for our low-wage workers. For now, having extended the coverage of our wages, we must double down on our efforts to implement our PWMs effectively. Employees must recognise that they have the largest influence on work productivity outcomes in transforming businesses and jobs and supporting the continuous and upskilling of our low-wage workers. But at the same time, workers too need to do their part by embracing change and being open to work with technology. If we get this ecosystem right, we will not just uplift our low-wage workers, but also enable our businesses to thrive and our economy to grow.
And to conclude, I would like to thank our tripartite partners, our employers, our union leaders who have done a lot, and also certainly our members of the public. Beyond just paying more, I think what we are doing is to give them respect and dignity for the work that they do. I think it is key that we value all our low-wage workers for all they do for us and our economy. So, with that, I want to say a big thank you. Certainly, this is a whole-of-society effort to uplift our low-wage workers for a stronger social compact for Singapore.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 2(3)(a), I wish to inform hon Members that the Sitting tomorrow will commence at 12.00 noon.
Adjourned accordingly at 7.00 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":"Assessment Criteria for and Potential Extension of Overseas Humanitarian Assistance Tax Deduction Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what criteria will the Ministry use in assessing the initial four-year pilot for the Overseas Humanitarian Assistance Tax Deduction Scheme; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider extending the pilot to not just emergency humanitarian assistance but to all other humanitarian assistance if the first year of the pilot is successful.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The pilot run of the Overseas Humanitarian Assistance Tax Deduction Scheme (OHAS) is purposefully scoped to apply only to overseas emergency humanitarian assistance, a cause which resonates with many Singaporeans, rather than a broader range of causes. This approach is in line with the current policy framework and is intended to strike a balance between encouraging overseas giving while ensuring that our local charity sector continues to receive the necessary support.
The Government will assess the OHAS at the end of its four-year pilot as time is needed to gather sufficient and relevant data on the outcomes of the pilot scheme. The OHAS pilot will be evaluated based on various metrics, including uptake, its impact on giving to both local and overseas causes from Singaporeans, and qualitative feedback from designated charities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strengthening Safety at Construction Worksites following Recent Deaths of Two Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether safety procedures will be reviewed to further strengthen safety at worksites, in view of the recent deaths of two workers at a worksite in Lentor Avenue and another worker at a worksite in Resorts World Sentosa; and (b) if so, what are these measures.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has issued Stop Work Orders (SWOs) to the contractors involved in the incidents at Lentor Avenue and Resorts World Sentosa, requiring them to review their workplace safety measures before the SWOs can be lifted. The contractors must conduct risk assessments for workplace activities and audits of their safety and health management systems. They are also required to submit plans to address the audit recommendations to MOM. Meanwhile, investigations into the two incidents are ongoing. MOM will determine if additional safety measures are necessary for all worksites, after investigations have concluded.
Nonetheless, the Multi-Agency Workplace Safety and Health Taskforce (MAST) has continued to roll out measures to strengthen the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) standards in the construction sector. These include the enhanced WSH requirements for public sector construction and construction-related projects introduced in April 2024 and the mandatory Video Surveillance System for construction worksites with contract values of $5 million and above introduced in June 2024. These measures complement the suite of measures that MAST has implemented since the Heightened Safety Period in 2022, which has led to improvements in WSH performance for 2023 and the first half of 2024. Specifically, the workplace fatal and major injury rate for the construction sector declined from 41.3 per 100,000 workers for the first half of 2022 to 30.5 for the first half of 2024.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safety Measures and Regulations for Installation and Maintenance of Solar Photovoltaic Systems","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry in light of the recent fire incidents involving solar photovoltaic (PV) systems (a) how does the Ministry ensure the proper installation of solar PV systems; (b) whether there are any mandatory maintenance requirements for solar PV systems in Singapore, especially those which service critical infrastructures, such as data centres; and (c) whether the Ministry will ensure that there is proper training for professionals who install solar PV systems, to reduce the risk of electrical faults.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Solar photovoltaic (PV) installations are safe if properly installed. The installation must, first, be certified by a licensed architect or engineer to ensure that the PV system complies with all relevant regulations. Thereafter, a Licensed Electrical Worker (LEW) must ensure that the solar PV system meets the requirements to connect safely to the grid or an electrical installation (EI), such as the electrical system of a building. LEWs are licensed by the Energy Market Authority (EMA) and are required to undergo regular refresher training to stay updated on advancements in technology and adhere to good engineering practices.
There are no mandatory maintenance requirements specifically for PV systems. However, most industrial and commercial solar PV systems are connected to EIs which require a licence from EMA to operate. Under the licence, the EI, including the solar PV system, must be regularly inspected by an LEW to ensure compliance with electrical safety regulations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allocated Spaces and Time-controlled Charging Points in HDB Car Parks for Motorised Personal Mobility Aids","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Transport whether there can be allocated spaces and time-controlled charging points in HDB carparks for motorised personal mobility aids, with priority charging given to those staying in smaller HDB flats with space limitations.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Currently, motorised personal mobility aids and other motorised active mobility devices (AMDs), such as power-assisted bicycles and motorised personal mobility devices, do not require special charging infrastructure and can be charged using standard wall sockets found at home. We urge AMD users to practise safe charging practices, such as maintaining their devices based on the manufacturer’s guidelines and not to modify their devices.
I thank the Member for her suggestion of having public charging points in Housing and Development Board carparks. We will assess if this could help to enhance safety for device users and the public.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Measures to Support Employers for Increased Parental Maternity Leave Provisions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Manpower whether there are other measures besides salary support to jointly resolve with employers the manpower challenges that arise from the upcoming increase in parental maternity leave.
Dr Tan See Leng: In reviewing parental leave policies, the Government consults the Tripartite Partners and seeks to strike a balance between supporting parents’ needs and managing the impact on businesses.
In introducing the recently announced parental leave enhancements, the Government recognised that employers will need to make adjustments to their manpower planning. To help employers manage the cost impact, the Government will reimburse employers for the salaries of their employees who take up Government-Paid Paternity Leave or Shared Parental Leave (SPL), up to the prevailing reimbursement limit of $2,500 per week, or about $10,000 per month. This is not an insignificant sum and underscores the Government’s support for both employers and employees. Employers can use these wage savings to hire temporary workers or make operational adjustments.
The Government also incorporated employers’ feedback in the design of the SPL scheme. For example, to allow sufficient time for employers to plan for covering arrangements before an employee goes on parental leave, there will be a new minimum notice period requirement of at least four weeks, which employees must serve before taking leave. This will apply for the existing Government-paid maternity and paternity leave, as well as the new SPL. Additionally, parents will only be able to make changes to their SPL sharing arrangement within the first four weeks of the child’s birth. Any changes thereafter will require their employer’s agreement. This balances between the need for parents to have sufficient time to decide on caregiving arrangements and the need for employers to have certainty and plan for covering arrangements.
Beyond that, employers can tap on resources from the Institute for Human Resource Professionals, which provides playbooks on business and workforce transformation, to improve the capabilities of their human resource (HR) teams. With stronger HR capabilities, employers will be better able to design more flexible and sustainable manpower arrangements for covering their employees on parental leave and ensure business continuity. For example, employers can provide more workplace flexibility by allowing parents to effectively go on a part-time work arrangement by taking a few days of SPL each week rather than consuming the leave in a single block. Such flexible work arrangements can also enable employers to recruit and retain seniors and caregivers who are looking for such part-time work opportunities, effectively complementing and expanding their overall manpower pool.
Employers can also tap on workforce grants, such as Workforce Singapore’s Career Conversion Programmes, to reskill workers to improve overall productivity and address operational challenges. On top of workforce grants, the Government also has schemes to support business transformation. Business owners can visit the GoBusiness portal at gobusiness.gov.sg for more information on the Government schemes available.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of Divorcees Being Able to Own HDB Flats after Selling Matrimonial Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"
46 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for National Development in the past three years, of the divorces filed where the couples co-own HDB flats, what is the proportion of (i) the matrimonial flats being sold on the open market and (ii) the divorcees being able to own flats after selling their matrimonial flats.
Mr Desmond Lee: From 2021 to 2023, about half of co-owned flats that underwent transactions due to divorce were sold on the open market, while the other half was transferred to one of the divorced parties. A very small number of flats were surrendered to Housing and Development Board (HDB) as neither party was willing and able to retain the flat, and the flat was not eligible to be sold on the open market.
In the same period, about 12,800 divorcees bought a resale flat or booked a new flat, either with their children or on their own. HDB does not track whether they had previously sold a matrimonial flat.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prohibiting Smoking in Area Directly under MRT or LRT Viaducts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry will consider prohibiting smoking in the area directly under MRT or LRT viaducts.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency (NEA) adopts a pragmatic approach in identifying places where smoking should be prohibited and takes into consideration whether the places have high footfall, are frequented by families, or are air-conditioned or enclosed. To reduce the public’s exposure to the harmful effects of second-hand tobacco smoke, NEA has progressively extended the smoking prohibition to cover more than 49,000 places island-wide. This includes covered and underground pedestrian walkways, playgrounds and void decks.
There are currently no plans to specifically prohibit smoking in areas under Mass Rapid Transit and Land Transport Authority viaducts. We encourage smokers to exercise social responsibility and be considerate when smoking in public spaces.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Refining Skills Framework for Arts Education","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether the Ministry has plans to further refine the Skills Framework for Arts (Arts Education) such that the general skillsets required for professionals in the Education Track and Research Track are defined in a more targeted way in relation to each of the specific fields of dance, literary arts, music, theatre and visual arts.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The Skills Framework for Arts is intended to create a common skills language for the arts education sector, instead of being specific to artforms.
The work functions, skills, competencies and benchmarks have, therefore, been articulated broadly, so that they can cater to different settings, artforms and student profiles. Examples of these technical skills and competencies include artform pedagogy, arts curriculum design and vendor and partnership management for arts educators, and artform history and culture and project management for arts researchers.
Approaches to arts education and research will vary across and even within artforms. Users of the Skills Framework, whether they are individuals, employers or training providers, should customise the information provided in the Framework to their specific contexts. To illustrate this, the National Arts Council (NAC) and SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) have included real-world examples of how these general competencies are applied by arts educators, contextualised to their own artforms and informed by their artistic practices. These case studies were drawn from a study by the National Institute of Education that was commissioned by NAC as part of the Framework development process.
NAC and SSG will review the Framework periodically to ensure that it remains relevant and applicable to the industry and our practitioners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Address Findings in National Study on Rising Prevalence of Severe Mental Health Symptoms amongst Youths","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health (a) what preventive strategies are being implemented to address the key factors contributing to mental health issues among youths, such as excessive social media use or having body shape concerns; and (b) how are schools and youth services being supported to implement these measures.
52 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health (a) what targeted measures are being implemented to address the findings of the National Youth Mental Health Study on the rising prevalence of severe mental health symptoms, such as depression, anxiety and stress experienced by youths; and (b) how will the Ministry ensure equitable access to mental health services for all youths, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: My response will also address the oral question filed by Assoc Prof Razwana for the subsequent Sitting. I would invite Members to seek clarifications, if need be. If the questions have been addressed, it may not be necessary for them to proceed with the Questions for future Sittings.
Regarding Dr Wan Rizal’s queries on targeted measures and preventive strategies, upstream efforts include Mental Health Education integrated into the school curriculum to help students regulate their emotions, recognise mental health symptoms and seek help early. Student Development Experiences like co-curricular activities and camps reinforce such learning, fostering resilience and mental well-being. Peer support structures established in all schools and Institutes of Higher Learning also enable students to look out for one another and encourage peers in distress to seek help from trusted adults. These efforts are aligned with the protective factors identified in the National Youth Mental Health Study, including resilience, social support and self-esteem.
To ensure mental health services are accessible to youths in the community, Youth Community Outreach Teams (CREST-Youth) and Youth Integrated Teams (YITs) provide mental health services to all youths aged 12 to 25 and are fully funded by the Government without any out-of-pocket payment. Subsidised mental health services are also available at most polyclinics and participating general practitioner clinics. We aim to extend these services to all polyclinics and Healthier SG GP clinics and expand the number of CREST-Youth and YIT teams to 15 teams by 2030.
Regarding Assoc Prof Razwana’s query on measures yet to be rolled out, we will be designating first-stop touchpoints to enable individuals to receive support early and to facilitate access to higher-tier services when needed. For instance, a new National Mental Health Helpline and Textline service will be introduced in mid-2025 to offer psychological first aid to those facing mental distress. Those who require additional support, including crisis management, will be referred to the relevant services.
Other upcoming measures include the Positive Use Guide on Technology and Social Media, which will be ready in the first half of 2025. It will guide healthy and positive uses of technology and social media and provide recommendations to mitigate their potential negative impact. In addition, the Ministry of Digital Development and Information and Infocomm Media Development Authority are studying whether further requirements, such as age assurance, are needed to prevent children and youths from accessing age-inappropriate content on relevant online communication services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Compliance of Orders Issued by Small Claims Tribunals and Failure to Comply Due to Lack of Resources","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Law since 1 April 2022 (a) what is the number of orders issued by the Small Claims Tribunals; (b) whether the Ministry tracks the compliance of these orders; (c) whether the Ministry is aware of cases where either party fails to execute or enforce the order due to a lack of resources to hire a lawyer; and (d) if so, what is the percentage of such cases.
Mr K Shanmugam: From 1 April 2022 to 31 July 2024, the Small Claims Tribunals (SCT) issued about 10,750 money orders and work orders.
The Ministry does not track compliance with SCT orders nor the reasons that a party fails to execute or enforce an order.
Parties who require legal advice on the enforcement of SCT orders may approach the State Courts’ Community Justice Centre for free onsite legal advice or seek assistance from other legal clinics, such as those organised by the Law Society Pro Bono Services or community centres.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Studies on Quantifiable Effects of Dense Urban Living Environment on Individuals’ Physiological Stress Responses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for National Development whether the Government has conducted any recent or ongoing studies to measure any quantifiable effects of a dense urban living environment on individuals’ physiological stress responses and, if so, to share the findings of these studies.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Urban Redevelopment Authority, the Housing and Development Board and the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) Institute of Human Development and Potential have recently embarked on a three-year study on the impact of the urban environment on mental well-being, which will inform the way that we plan for a healthy living environment in Singapore.
This study will build on current research, such as the benefits of greenery on mental well-being. We will share the findings when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Usage Rates and Waiting Times for Cross-border Point-to-point and Taxi Services between Singapore and Johor Bahru","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are (i) the current usage rates of cross-border point-to-point transport services between Singapore and Johor Bahru and (ii) the average waiting times for a cross-border taxi in Singapore; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider increasing the number of pick-up and drop-off points in Singapore and Johor Bahru for cross-border taxies to afford greater convenience and accessibility to travellers.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Between August 2023 and August 2024, Singapore-registered taxis completed around 4,000 cross-border trips between Singapore and Larkin Sentral Terminal in Johor Bahru.
Licensed cross-border taxis are available for hire at Singapore’s Ban San Street Terminal. Alternatively, passengers who wish to make advance bookings for Singapore cross-border taxis may contact local taxi operators via their hotlines to arrange pick-up from their desired locations. Given that the pick-up arrangements depend on commuters’ preference, the Land Transport Authority does not track passenger waiting times for cross-border taxis.
We currently have no plans to expand the number of designated pick-up and drop-off points for cross-border taxis in Singapore. Any such discussion will have to be based on the demand for cross-border taxi services and take into consideration the impact of expanding such services on traffic congestion and demand for other modes of cross-border transport, as well as the livelihoods of local taxi and private hire car drivers. It will also be subject to bilateral agreement with Malaysia.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhancing Support for Special Needs Education and Potential Use of Assistive Technologies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Education (a) as the number of students diagnosed with special educational needs (SEN) increases, how does the Ministry plan to enhance the capacity and competency of the education system to support them; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider leveraging technology, such as autocorrect and voice-to-text tools, to aid SEN students like those with dyslexia.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Ministry of Education (MOE) has been enhancing school resourcing and building competencies in teachers to better support students with Special Educational Needs (SEN) in both mainstream and special education (SPED) schools.
Students with SEN who can cognitively access the national curriculum and adapt to a mainstream learning environment are supported in our mainstream schools.
The number of SEN officers in mainstream schools has increased from around 450 in 2017 to about 680 as of July 2024. These specialised personnel provide learning and behaviour support to students and equip them with learning tools and strategies.
All teachers have been trained to have at least a basic understanding of SEN and capabilities to support students through inclusive classroom practices. Five to 10 teachers in every mainstream school have attended a 130-hour course and are designated as Teachers Trained in Special Needs. They have deeper expertise and can share effective pedagogical practices with other teachers to support students with more complex needs.
MOE’s Educational Psychologists regularly visit schools to provide consultation and advice to build schools’ capacity to support students with SEN.
Students with more severe needs who cannot be supported in our mainstream schools attend SPED schools. The Government spends more on education for each SPED student compared to mainstream school students, and further enhancements were announced at the Committee of Supply 2024 to strengthen SPED resourcing and capabilities building. MOE works closely with the Social Service Agencies running SPED schools to review the provision and training of teachers and allied professionals.
Technology is a key means by which MOE and our schools support teaching and learning for all students, including those with SEN. MOE provides funding for assistive technology devices for students with SEN in mainstream and SPED schools. The Singapore Student Learning Space has artificial intelligence (AI) and non-AI enabled features that support accessibility, such as video and audio transcriptions and text-to-speech feature. To better customise learning for students with diverse needs, AI-enabled feedback assistants and adaptive learning systems have also been progressively rolled out.
MOE will continue to monitor technological developments and adopt what is useful and appropriate to support the teaching and learning of all students, including students with SEN.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulatory Coverage for Singaporean Freelancers in Expertise- and Knowledge-based Professions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry will consider extending its purview and resourcing of human capital development to cover Singaporean freelancers across industries in expertise and knowledge-based professions to enhance the economic value of their contributions to local firms and to align with Singapore's economic transformation efforts; and (b) if not, why not.
Dr Tan See Leng: We recognise the challenges that the workforce faces in keeping pace with technological trends and evolving skills needs, particularly for freelancers who lack access to training and development opportunities that are typically provided for the traditional employees by employers. Nonetheless, the Government has invested in a variety of programmes and resources to directly support workers that will benefit freelancers.
Workforce Singapore (WSG) and SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) provide a range of resources for macro trends and insights to help individuals make informed career and training decisions. These include the sectoral Jobs and Industry Transformation Maps, an annual Skills Demand for the Future Economy report, the SkillsFuture Jobs-Skills Insights publications and the Skills Frameworks. These would be useful references for freelancers to consider on how they might pivot or enhance their careers and reskill or upskill accordingly to meet future needs. WSG’s MyCareersFuture portal also features the CareersFinder, which uses artificial intelligence and labour market data to help individuals, including freelancers, identify career options based on the individual’s skills and job experience, as well as relevant training opportunities. Additionally, a suite of personalised career guidance programmes, Polaris, is available through WSG and its appointed providers, Ingeus and AKG, offering tailored support from certified career coaches for career planning needs.
The Government also provides substantial support for all Singaporeans’ training needs, including freelancers. Singaporeans can access up to 90% subsidies for SSG-approved courses and use their SkillsFuture Credit base tier1 to offset the out-of-pocket fees. The MySkillsFuture portal offers about 30,000 courses, ensuring a wide range of options for skills upgrading. In addition, individuals can tap on SkillsFuture Advice workshops and one-to-one Skills and Training Advisory with Skills Ambassadors for more information, resources or guide.
Freelancers, like employees, would benefit from these Government services and can seek further support from WSG and SSG to chart out their plans and take concrete actions to stay relevant and future-ready in the fast-changing economy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Consists of the opening credit of $500 at age 25 (no expiry) and a one-off top-up of $500 given in 2020 to those aged 25 and above (expires in 2025)."],"footNoteQuestions":["58"],"questionNo":"58"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Estate Agents Disciplined or Fined for Breach of Professional and Ethical Standards","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for National Development (a) in each of the past five years, how many estate agents have been disciplined for breaching their professional and ethical obligations and are (i) fined or subject to financial penalty (ii) suspended from practising as an estate agent (iii) disqualified from acting as an estate agent and (iv) sentenced to imprisonment, respectively; and (b) whether the penalties for breaching the Estate Agents Act and its subsidiary regulation are sufficient to deter misconduct by estate agents.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Council for Estate Agencies (CEA) takes a serious view of errant behaviour by property agents and will take agents to task for breaching their professional and ethical obligations.
Today, there are about 36,800 registered property agents in Singapore. Property agents who commit offences under the Estate Agents Act 2010 (EAA) or its subsidiary legislation may be prosecuted in Court or issued composition fines by CEA. Between 2019 and 2023, 19 property agents were convicted in Court and fined for offences under the EAA, with none sentenced to imprisonment, 38 property agents were issued composition fines and 23 property agents had their registrations revoked for not being fit and proper to remain registered.
Property agents who commit disciplinary breaches may be subject to disciplinary proceedings before a Disciplinary Committee (DC) or disciplined under the Letter of Censure (LOC) regime, depending on the severity of the breach. Between 2019 and 2023, 101 property agents were given financial penalties and some of them were also suspended by a DC. Since the introduction of the LOC regime in 2021, CEA has censured a total of 38 property agents in 2022 and 2023, of which 16 were also given a financial penalty.
In 2021, to strengthen deterrence, CEA raised the maximum financial penalty that a DC can impose from $75,000 to $100,000 per case for property agents and $200,000 per case for property agencies. Disciplinary actions taken against property agents are also published in the CEA Public Register for added deterrence and transparency. CEA will continue to monitor and recalibrate the enforcement framework where necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Children Enrolled in and Average Waiting Time for Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in view of the 32% increase in the number of children aged six and below with developmental needs from 5,300 in 2019 to 7,000 in 2023 (a) what is the current average waiting time for a child to be enrolled in the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC); and (b) how many children have been enrolled in EIPIC annually in the last three years.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The total number of children aged six and below identified to have developmental needs has increased over the years, partly due to enhanced early screening and detection. Children are assessed by paediatricians and referred to suitable programmes according to the level of early intervention (EI) support required.
Children requiring medium to high levels of EI support can receive Government-funded services via the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC), EIPIC-P, or the Inclusive Support Programme. The total number of children enrolled in these programmes annually was 3,600, 4,400 and 5,700 in 2021, 2022 and 2023 respectively. This is a 58% increase in enrolment from 2021 to 2023.
In 2023, the average waiting time for a child to be enrolled in EIPIC or EIPIC-P was 7.5 months. Waiting time depends on factors, such as the volume of new referrals, sector capacity and the matching of children’s individual needs to available class types at their preferred EI centre. To improve the waiting time, the Early Childhood Development Agency is increasing EIPIC and EIPIC-P capacity by 1,500 places in 2024, or a 26% increase from 2023, by launching four new EI centres and maximising capacity at existing centres.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Qoo10's Payment Issues on Micro and Small Businesses and Available Support Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Government has information on the number of micro enterprises and small businesses that are (i) affected by or (ii) facing cash flow difficulties due to unfulfilled payments from the Qoo10 e-commerce platform; (b) what is the current median waiting time for a Small Claims Tribunal hearing for claimants filing against Qoo10 on such matters; and (c) what support is available to small business owners facing cash flow difficulties and are concerned about timely recovery of the amounts due from Qoo10.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Government has been engaging Qoo10 and the affected merchants who have approached us for assistance. While we do not have information on the total number of micro enterprises and small businesses affected by Qoo10’s unfulfilled payments, we have raised the cases that we were aware of to Qoo10 to resolve.
There are established processes for Small Claims Tribunal (SCT) hearings, and cases are usually resolved within four months of filing. Parties involved in a SCT claim must first attend a consultation. If the matter cannot be settled, the claim may proceed to a hearing before a tribunal magistrate, which is generally scheduled within 28 working days.
Merchants who face cash flow difficulties may contact any of the participating financial institutions listed on Enterprise Singapore’s website to apply for the Enterprise Financing Scheme-Working Capital Loan.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improving 4G Cellular Network Coverage at Underground Parking Spaces","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the measure of more than 85% per building of in-building service coverage for the 4G cellular network required of mobile operators under IMDA’s 4G Quality of Service framework covers below ground parking spaces of buildings; (b) what is the extent of service coverage in such spaces; and (c) what are the plans to ensure that the in-building service network coverage extends to such spaces, in view that many buildings situate their delivery bays at building basements.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mobile operators are required by the Infocomm Media Development Authority to provide coverage of at least 85% within buildings, including first-level basement carparks. If mobile operators’ overall coverage for a building falls below 85%, they are required to take action to improve.
Within a building, mobile operators can decide whether to provide coverage in specific areas like lifts, equipment rooms and car parks located at second-level basements or below. Footfall in these areas tends to be transient and it is up to building owners to assess if they require mobile service coverage. They may engage mobile operators to do so on a commercial basis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans on Revising Qualification Threshold of $1 Million for GST Registration by Companies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in light of the increased rates of inflation experienced over the past few years, whether there are plans to revise the qualification threshold of $1 million for GST registration.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: At the Committee of Supply debate on 28 February 2024, I explained to Mr Pritam Singh the considerations for the Goods and Services Tax registration threshold and why the current threshold remains relevant. The Member may wish to refer to the Hansard for my reply. [Please refer to \"Committee of Supply – Head M (Ministry of Finance)\", Official Report, 28 February 2024, Vol 95, Issue 126, Budget section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"New and Existing Worker Dormitories That Have Fulfilled Interim and New Standards for Better Living Conditions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower what percentage of (i) new dormitories and (ii) existing dormitories have informed the Ministry of their plans to start work earlier to meet the interim standards and New Dormitory Standards, respectively, under the Dormitory Transition Scheme to improve living conditions for dormitory residents.
Dr Tan See Leng: Today, about 200 dormitories, with a combined capacity of 70,000 beds, already meet the new dormitory standards. These include all new dormitories that were licensed after September 2021, which are required by law to meet the new dormitory standards.
Of the remaining dormitories required to transition to interim standards by 2030, 14 have either commenced works or informed the Ministry of Manpower of their transition plans. The 14 dormitories have a combined capacity of about 100,000 beds, and account for about half the number of beds that need to meet the interim standards by 2030.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sustainability of Public Transport Services with Recent Fare Increases and Additional Government Subsidy","subTitle":"Comparison between Singapore's public transport fares and that of other cities","sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Transport with regard to the recent fare increase announced by the Public Transport Council (a) whether the public transport services remain economically sustainable moving forward, given that the Ministry provided an additional $250 million subsidy this year; and (b) how does Singapore fare in terms of transport fare increases compared to other large cities with similar public transport systems, such as Hong Kong, Seoul and Taipei, over the last four years.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: I thank the Member for her question. We have received related questions for the subsequent Sitting. I will address them together in my reply at the 16 October 2024 Parliament Sitting. [Please refer to \"Impact on Public Transport Operators' Viability and on Commuters when Recommended Fare Increases are Deferred\", Official Report, 16 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 144, 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":"Protecting Teachers from Unreasonable Demands and Harassment by Parents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has any new plans to further build trust between parents and teachers regarding children's education; and (b) what additional measures are being considered to protect teachers from harassment by parents with unreasonable demands.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: A strong and positive partnership between parents and teachers is important for children to learn and develop. This year, the Ministry of Education (MOE) and its national advisory council on partnership, COMPASS (COMunity and PArents in Support of Schools) refreshed the Guidelines for School-Home Partnership after consultation with parents and teachers. These guidelines focus on key aspects where schools and parents can work together to nurture our children – notably, parents and teachers should communicate respectfully with each other, be good role models to our children and support our children to develop strong relationships and healthy habits in this digital age. MOE and COMPASS will work with schools and Parent Support Groups to raise awareness and support for these guidelines.
MOE values our teachers and their well-being. While most parents appreciate and partner well with our teachers, there is a small number of parents who engage in unreasonable behaviour towards teachers. The new Engagement Charter makes it clear that firm action will be taken against such individuals. This includes warnings to the individual to desist such behaviour and disengaging the individual. Where staff are harassed or their safety is threatened, measures to be taken include calling the Police for assistance. For the most egregious cases, legal action will be taken, including under the Protection from Harassment Act.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Restricting Numbers in Group Gatherings at HDB Common Areas during Quiet Hours","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Police will consider restricting the number of people gathering in groups and causing congregational noise at HDB common greens during the quiet hours after 10.30 pm and before 7.00 am.
Mr K Shanmugam: The law sets out the circumstances when public gatherings require permit. In addition, the Police also take action when there are law and order issues. Where there are no law and order issues or where the gatherings do not require permit, the Police will generally not intervene or restrict such gatherings.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures of Success for Government's Integrated Facilities Management Contracts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"72 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the key performance indicators used to measure the success of Integrated Facilities Management (IFM) contracts entered into by Ministries; (b) how have IFM contracts improved the efficiency and quality of facilities management services; (c) whether there are provisions for contract price adjustments or cost escalation clauses to renegotiate these contracts when circumstances change; and (d) if not, what is the process for renegotiating IFM contracts.
Mr Desmond Lee: Integrated Facilities Management (IFM) seeks to achieve higher quality and more efficient facilities management (FM) services by integrating various services, such as maintenance, cleaning, security and landscape management, under a single contract.
Typical key performance indicators used by Government Procuring Entities (GPEs) to measure quality and efficiency of FM services include response time for resolving issues, energy and water savings and manpower productivity.
With IFM contracts, FM companies can avoid duplicative efforts between functions. They can also deploy workers to handle a wider range of tasks, instead of having separate systems and teams for different FM functions. IFM also brings about better coordination across various FM services, so that service requests can be managed in a more timely and responsive manner.
Government procurement guidelines allow GPEs to insert provisions in their contracts to adjust the Schedule of Rates, if they are found to be grossly excessive or inadequate after a tender is awarded. GPEs, such as Housing and Development Board and JTC Corporation, have clauses in their IFM contracts that allow the awarded Schedule of Rates to be updated to fair market rates where needed or cater for regular reviews to assess the need for such adjustments. FM companies may also raise rate adjustment requests and accompanying justifications to their respective GPEs, who will assess these requests accordingly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Pricing Guidelines for Plastic Bag Charge Imposed by Merchants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether there are any plans to introduce pricing guidelines for amounts that merchants may levy for the plastic bag charge.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Supermarket operators with an annual turnover of more than $100 million are required to charge a minimum of five cents per disposable carrier bag, regardless of material and size, provided at their supermarket outlets.
For all other retailers, charging for disposable carrier bags is a business decision. There are currently no plans for the Government to introduce pricing guidelines for these retailers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Evacuation Protocols for Commuters during MRT Disruptions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"74 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport with regard to the disruptions affecting the MRT's Circle Line in September 2024 (a) what are the evacuation protocols in place for the affected commuters to leave the train cabins as safely and as soon as possible; (b) whether there are plans to review these protocols; (c) whether back-up power is in place so that air supply within the trains can be boosted and announcements can be made; and (d) whether preventive maintenance can be augmented to prevent such disruptions.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Commuter safety is the top priority in the event of a train disruption.
During a disruption, the operator would first attempt to resolve the fault so that normal train service can resume. If the fault cannot be immediately or easily resolved, the operator would seek to let commuters alight at the platform of the nearest station. This ensures the safety of commuters while allowing the operator to withdraw the train. Where this is not possible, there are procedures in place for detrainment onto the tracks. After the necessary protections, including switching off the traction power to ensure safe detrainment to track, are established, staff onboard the train will deploy the detrainment door and guide all passengers to proceed safely to the nearest station platform.
All our trains are equipped with back-up battery systems to maintain emergency lighting, ventilation fans and the public address system, in the event of a disruption to the power supply.
The Land Transport Authority's (LTA's) investigations into the Circle Line disruptions on 17 and 18 September 2024 are ongoing. As part of investigations, LTA will identify areas of improvement to help prevent the recurrence of similar disruptions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government’s Expectations for Population Growth over Next Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"75 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the 2% year-on-year overall increase in Singapore’s total population as of June 2024 is in line with the Government’s expectations of population growth rates in the next five years.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister): While Singapore’s total population increased by 2% from June 2023 to June 2024, the annualised growth rate over the last five years (2019-2024) has been lower, at 1.1%. This is in line with our expectation for our total population to remain significantly below 6.9 million by 2030, as stated at the Committee of Supply this year.
76 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider offering a translation tool for digital resources, such as Parent Kits and Parents Gateway, to support parents and caregivers whose first language is not English.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Currently, parents and guardians can make use of in-device translation functions on smart devices to select and translate relevant parts of any digital text, or scan images of text for translation using free translation apps. These tools can be applied to Parents Gateway messages, Parent Kits and other education resources. Parents and guardians who need support can reach out to school staff.
The Ministry of Education will continue to study ways to enhance our digital resources so that translations can be even more convenient for parents and guardians.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Promoting Awareness and Help-seeking Behaviour for Early Diagnosis of Young-onset of Dementia","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"77 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health in light of the survey findings revealing that half of Singaporeans resist young-onset dementia testing even when exhibiting symptoms (a) whether the Ministry can clarify the impact of a confirmed diagnosis on insurance coverage and job prospects; (b) how may these barriers be addressed to encourage early detection and intervention; and (c) how does the Ministry plan to enhance public awareness regarding young-onset dementia, address prevalent misconceptions and promote help-seeking behaviours for early diagnosis and support.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Under the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices, employers should not ask job applicants to declare any medical condition, including young onset dementia, unless it is a specific job-related requirement.
A confirmed dementia diagnosis will not affect MediShield Life coverage, the Government-run national health insurance scheme which does not exclude individuals with pre-existing illness.
It can, however, affect new applications for commercial insurance products, such as life, critical illness and Integrated Shield Plans insurance, which are subject to underwriting based on actuarial and commercial considerations.
The Member is right that this can deter them from seeking screening which may result in early detection. Some members of the public, therefore, purchase these commercial insurance products, especially when they are young and premiums are low, before they go for any comprehensive screening tests. If sufficient individuals do that, logically, it will preserve the viability of insurance companies’ risk pools while enabling individuals to practise good preventive care habits.
As for raising awareness on the importance of early detection, the Agency for Integrated Care collaborates with various partners to do this, including through mass media, public events, web portals and ground engagement activities, and assists those with related concerns in obtaining assistance from service providers, such as Community Intervention Teams and polyclinics.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Increased Work Pass Qualifying Salaries on Singaporeans' Pay","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"78 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry has studied if the increased salary qualification thresholds for Employment Pass and S Pass holders may have paradoxically led to a divergence in salaries paid to such Work Permit holders vis-à-vis Singaporeans as companies raise salaries to satisfy the qualification criteria for their existing workers.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Employment Pass (EP) and S Pass qualifying salaries are benchmarked to the top one-third of resident professional, manager, executive and technician (PMET), and Associate Professional and Technician wages respectively. This ensures that EP and S Pass holders are of good calibre relative to the improving wages of resident workers. The salary benchmarks are based on actual resident wages from previous years. Thus, EP and S Pass qualifying salaries follow, instead of lead, resident wages.
It is not a zero-sum game between foreign workers and local workers. Improving the quality of our foreign workforce enables our businesses to grow and move up the value chain. By enlarging the economic pie, we create better jobs for locals. This can be seen by the fact that over the last decade, we have raised EP qualifying salaries from $3,000 to $5,000, and S Pass qualifying salaries from $2,200 to $3,150. The number of EP and S Pass holders grew by 30,300 and 17,600 respectively. Over the same period, the median income of resident PMETs grew from $5,500 to $7,020, and the number of local PMETs increased by 381,100.
Most employers will not just raise the wages of their existing EP and S Pass holders to meet the qualifying salaries. Instead, they would let them go or convert them to another pass if their value-add to the business is not commensurate with the higher salaries. This is reflected in data showing that qualifying salary increases are associated with upticks in the churn rate of foreign workers. To provide employers with lead time to plan for such changes, we typically implement qualifying salary increases to existing work pass holders around 18 months after announcing the new qualifying salaries.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Guidelines on Attachments to Buildings Given Stronger Winds from More Extreme Weather Conditions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"79 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for National Development in view of stronger winds expected from more extreme weather conditions (a) whether the Ministry will review the regulations on panels and other attachments to buildings; and (b) how will safety checks and enforcements of such panels and attachments be enhanced.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Building Control Act and Regulations set out the requirements for the structural design and installation of cladding works, including panels and their attachments. These requirements have taken into account wind loads and other environmental factors to minimise dislodgements.
Under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act, building owners are required to maintain the exterior features of their buildings. The Government also introduced the Periodic Façade Inspection regime in January 2022, which requires inspection of certain older buildings once every seven years. This provides early detection of deteriorating façade materials and connections. To date, more than 2,000 buildings have undergone periodic façade inspections.
Amidst changing weather conditions, we will continue to review our regulations and inspection regimes regularly, to future-proof our buildings and ensure the structural safety and resilience of buildings in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prosecutions against Parents for Breach of Bond Terms in Care and Protection Orders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"80 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in view of the Ministry not tracking the number of bonds breached, whether the Ministry has data on the number of prosecutions against parents for breach of the bond terms signed under a Care and Protection Order for each of the past five years and, if so, what is this number.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: From 2019 to 2023, there were no prosecutions against parents for breaching the bond terms signed under a Care and Protection Order.
Most parents adhere to the bond terms, ensuring they provide proper care and guardianship for their child while attending counselling or treatment. For those who fail to comply, we adopt a practical approach by discussing the potential consequences of non-compliance with them. If the parents continue to be uncooperative, the Ministry of Social and Family Development's Child Protective Service will take the necessary steps to safeguard the child, including exercising statutory powers to remove the child from the home.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strategies and Measures to Support Tourist Guides amid Evolving Industry Challenges","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"81 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry what strategies and measures are being implemented to support tourist guides in the face of evolving challenges, such as shifting tourist preferences, competition from online platforms and unlicensed tour guiding by foreign operators.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Future of Guiding (FOG) 2.0 Taskforce was set up in 2023 by the Singapore Tourism Board (STB). It included industry stakeholders, such as tourist guides, travel agents and tourist guide associations. The task force worked with STB to develop a FOG 2.0 plan with the objective of ensuring a vibrant and steady pipeline of tourist guides who are able to showcase the different facets of our Singapore story.
In response to the growing trend of free and independent travellers and readily available online resources for self-discovery, tourist guides will need to offer more customised and unique tour experiences to remain relevant. Consequently, the training curriculum for tourist guides has been expanded to cover skills, such as storytelling, independent research, experience curation and the use of digital marketing tools.
STB is also working to simplify the regulations for existing and aspiring tourist guides. For instance, from June 2024, tourist guides can self-declare their language proficiency and are permitted to guide in these additional languages without waiting for the biannual Multi-Language Proficiency Test.
STB takes a serious view against unlicensed tourist guides and conducts enforcement checks regularly. We will not hesitate to take firm action against firms and individuals involved in such activities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Engaging Opposition MPs and Grassroots Advisers in Opposition Constituencies for Bus Service Enhancements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"82 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Transport with regard to the newly announced Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme announced in July 2024 (a) whether LTA is prepared to engage with Opposition Members of Parliament as well as Grassroots Advisers in Opposition-held constituencies on bus service enhancements for taxpayer benefit; and (b) whether LTA envisages the retention or reintroduction of bus services which may be relatively underutilised but provide convenience to senior citizens, especially where new MRT stations have become operational.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: As we enhance the bus network under the Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme (BCEP), we will continue to rationalise bus services which have experienced significant drops in ridership, such as long trunk routes that run parallel to new Mass Rapid Transit lines, so that the resources that are freed up can be reallocated to serve other commuter needs.
When reviewing proposed changes to bus services, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) takes into account changes in travel patterns among different commuter groups as well as the overall connectivity and resilience of our public transport network. LTA also takes in public feedback about connectivity to key transport nodes and amenities.
LTA will continue to engage grassroots advisers, Members of Parliament and other relevant stakeholders when planning bus services, including for initiatives under BCEP.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Policing Forested Areas to Ensure National Security and Common Illegal Activities Detected","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"83 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how does the Ministry police forested areas to ensure that they are not used to compromise national security; and (b) what types of illegal activities have been most commonly detected in forested areas over the past five years.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Singapore Police Force (SPF) works closely with various Government agencies and landowners, such as the Singapore Land Authority, National Parks Board and Ministry of Defence, to keep these locations free from illegal activities through monitoring, sharing of information and joint operations. SPF will respond when there are reports of suspicious activities with law-and-order concerns.
SPF is equipped with an array of capabilities to respond to such incidents. The Gurkha Contingent and Special Operations Command have specialised capabilities for search and rescue and manhunt operations within forested areas. SPF also deploys technological tools, including drones with thermal-imaging capabilities, to augment the ground response.
Illegal activities commonly detected in forested areas include those involving illegal immigrants and vice activities.
85 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Manpower what is the prevalence of a practice of \"wage resetting\" to base salaries amongst resident workers where workers’ wages are reduced when a company changes its service buyer contract, especially in the outsourcing sectors.
Dr Tan See Leng: When a service buyer changes its vendor, the incoming vendor may rehire workers from the incumbent or hire new workers. Firms bid for contracts guided by what is sustainable for their businesses and regulatory requirements. We should not intervene in this market-driven process, as long as the employer complies with Progressive Wage Model (PWM) salary requirements and employment laws.
The Progressive Wage framework has served our lower-wage workers well in the past decade. PWM, the Local Qualifying Salary and the Progressive Wage Mark accreditation scheme collectively benefit up to nine in 10 full-time lower-wage workers. Real incomes of lower-wage workers at the 20th percentile have risen cumulatively by 30% from 2013 to 2023, faster than the median worker at 22%.
Thanks to strong the tripartite partnership among employers, unions and the Government, the wage requirements for PWMs in outsourced sectors, such as cleaning, security and landscape, will increase at a rate of up to 10.8% per year from 2022 to 2028. These wage increases for outsourced sectors are announced in six-year schedules, so firms can account for these future PWM wage increases when bidding for multi-year contracts.
With our tight labour market, employers who do not pay and treat their lower-wage workers well will have difficulties attracting and retaining workers, especially since PWMs are lifting the wages of jobs in key sectors. Workers should also upskill themselves, either to take on higher-rung jobs within the same industry or to have more career options across adjacent sectors.
If any worker feels unfairly treated, they may approach the National Trades Union Congress or the Ministry of Manpower for assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safety Testing and Maintenance Requirements for Motorised Personal Mobility Aids Stored in HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"86 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider subjecting motorised Personal Mobility Aids (PMAs) that are stored in HDB flats to third-party safety testing and regular maintenance requirements to ensure safety of users and neighbours of surrounding HDB flats.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) is studying the standards for lithium-ion batteries in personal mobility aids (PMAs), as part of regularly reviewing safety standards for PMAs, as well as other measures to enhance safety for both device users and the public.
LTA and the Singapore Civil Defence Force will continue to educate the public on the safe usage of active mobility devices through campaigns, such as the \"Be Device-Safe Programme\". Active mobility device users are reminded to use only original batteries and maintain their devices according to manufacturer guidelines and not to modify their devices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review Force Needed for Opening of Automatic Doors in Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"87 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider updating the Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment to (i) strongly encourage the provision of automatic doors with a more stringent set of criteria for any exceptions and (ii) reduce the door opening initial force for interior hinged doors from 30 Newtons to 22 Newtons in line with similar accessibility codes in Hong Kong and New Zealand.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment (Code) recommends for buildings to have at least one power-operated or automatic door at the main entrance to a building. Where possible and practicable, buildings should provide sliding or swinging automatic doors instead of manual doors.
The Code also stipulates that interior hinged doors of new buildings and existing buildings that undergo addition and alteration works with plan submission to the Building and Construction Authority should have a maximum initial opening force of 30 Newtons. This is similar to the requirements in some jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom. We will consider the suggestion to reduce this to 22 Newtons in our regular reviews of the Code.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Temperature Setting in MRT Train Cars and Station Platforms and Feedback on Excessively Warm Train Cars or Platforms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"88 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the target temperature set for MRT train cars and station platforms; (b) how is this temperature monitored and controlled while the trains are running; (c) in the past six months, how many feedback reports have all the train operators and LTA received regarding excessively warm train cars or platforms; and (d) which MRT line received the most of such feedback.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Rail operators set the temperature for Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) trains and underground station platforms at around 25°C, to provide comfort for commuters while reducing the environmental impact of air-conditioning. I think Members would agree that both objectives are important.
Train cars and underground stations are equipped with temperature sensors and thermostats that continuously monitor and maintain the temperature in our trains and stations.
Commuters may experience temperature fluctuations during their journeys, such as when warm air enters the trains when the train doors are opened at station platforms, or due to direct sunlight when the trains are running above ground.
In the first six months of 2024, feedback on the temperatures in trains or station platforms made up about 10% of the total feedback received by the operators. Most of the feedback pertain to the North-South and East-West Lines, because the other MRT lines are fully underground.
We are progressively replacing the trains from the North-South and East-West Lines with new trains, which will be completed by 2026. The new trains will come with better air-conditioning and air circulation within the train cabins.
The air-conditioning systems for underground train stations along the North-South and East-West Lines are also being upgraded and the upgrading will be completed by end 2025.
The Land Transport Authority will also improve air circulation at the train stations by installing more large ceiling fans and floor mounted fans at both new and existing stations. These fans are an environmentally-friendly way to improve air circulation and enhance comfort for commuters.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Measures to Address Rising Wealth Inequality in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in light of a recent report which highlighted that Singapore’s average wealth has continued to rise but wealth inequality has also risen in the same period (a) what additional measures is the Government taking to address wealth inequality beyond the current Government handouts and CPF top-ups; and (b) whether there is a need to enhance the Progressive Wage Model to ensure that salaries, particularly in the lower and middle income brackets, can rise more rapidly to narrow wealth inequality.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The following reply will also cover the matters raised in Parliamentary Question by Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim, which is scheduled for a subsequent Sitting.
Wealth inequality is difficult to measure accurately, given the challenges in obtaining comprehensive wealth data. This is because wealth takes many different forms, some of which are difficult to value. Furthermore, financial wealth is highly mobile across borders, and bank deposit data in Singapore is protected by the Banking Act. Many countries and international organisations face similar data challenges in measuring wealth inequality accurately. Studies, such as UBS' Global Wealth Report which the Member may be referring to, would have made several assumptions to overcome these data challenges. Such a methodology would affect the comparability of wealth inequality estimates across countries and over time. The UBS estimates should be read in this light.
Nevertheless, we are working to improve our own data collection on income and wealth. More importantly, we have been proactively putting measures in place to tackle wealth inequality.
Our Central Provident Fund (CPF) and Housing and Development Board home ownership allow the vast majority of Singaporeans to own and build up significant net assets during their lifetimes. These provide them with a strong sense of security in owning their own homes and peace of mind in their old age. We provide significant housing grants of up to $120,000 to help the less well-off own a home, with the latest enhancement to our housing grants announced at the National Day Rally 2024. These grants are on top of the significant market discounts applied when new flats are priced, to ensure they are affordable to Singaporeans.
We have implemented a progressive system of taxes and transfers, with wealth taxes in the form of stamp duties, property tax and the Additional Registration Fee for motor vehicles. We have made these taxes more progressive over the years. In recent Budgets, we introduced higher marginal Buyer’s Stamp Duty rates for higher-value properties and raised property tax rates for all non-owner-occupied residential properties and higher-value owner-occupied residential properties. Our transfers are means-tested, with some of these schemes based on criteria, including multiple property ownership and/or the annual value of the home, as a proxy for wealth.
Our highly subsidised and high-quality education system provides every Singaporean, regardless of starting point, a strong foundation in life and multiple pathways to success. We invest an average of more than $250,000 in every Singaporean child from the preschool level to the Institute of Technical Education (ITE), polytechnic or university pathways to prepare them for their first career.
For lower-wage Singaporeans, we have put in place measures to support wage growth, which supports wealth accumulation in turn. With the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) that provides a wage-skills ladder where annual wage increases are tied to improvements in skills and productivity, real wages of lower-wage workers at the 20th percentile rose cumulatively by 30% from 2013 to 2023, faster than that of the median worker at 22%. Over the past two years, the tripartite partners have enhanced existing PWMs and introduced new PWMs for food services, waste management, administrators and drivers. In addition, we raised the Local Qualifying Salary from $1,400 to $1,600 from July 2024 and enhanced the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme to provide lower-wage workers aged 30 and above with additional cash and CPF support.
Further, we recently introduced the ITE Progression Award to encourage young ITE graduates to upskill to a diploma earlier, with $5,000 in their Post-Secondary Education Accounts to support their upskilling efforts, and a $10,000 CPF top-up upon completion of the diploma to boost their savings for home purchases or retirement. This will help ITE graduates secure a better starting pay and lifetime earning trajectory through their improved skills and competencies and provide support for their home ownership or retirement, thereby supporting wealth accumulation.
The Government will continue to explore ways to tackle wealth inequality, including by keeping our social support measures progressive and targeted at lower- and middle-income households.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of GST Charges on Regulatory Fees and Prescription of Non-taxable Fees in Subsidiary Legislation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is the status of the review of the charging of GST on regulatory fees by the Ministry and IRAS as well as the prescribing of non-taxable fees in subsidiary legislation; (b) whether any fees will become newly taxable as a result of the review; (c) how may this impact the public; and (d) what is the progress of the GST refunds on these fees.\n
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Ministry of Finance (MOF) has been working closely with Government agencies since the Goods and Services Tax (GST) (Amendment) Bill 2024 was passed in April this year to review the fees charged by Government agencies, in order to ensure the correct GST treatment.
The review has been completed. Fees that are non-taxable, such as those which grant approval for the conduct of a regulated activity, have been prescribed into the Non-Taxable Public Agency Supplies (NTPAS) Order since end-September. We will periodically update the NTPAS, when new non-taxable fees are introduced or existing fees abolished.
All fees not prescribed in NTPAS are taxable. These comprise the vast majority of Government fees that are already taxable, like the rental of public sports facilities and parking fees, and around 250 fees which are newly taxable.
Examples of the newly taxable fees are administrative processing fees for the application of a company name, examinations for plumbing or fumigation licences and other inspection fees related to the conduct of business operations, as well as replacement fees for a lost National Registration Identity Card or work pass. Most of these fees are typically borne by businesses which can claim the input GST from the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS), if they are GST-registered.
The Government will absorb the GST on these 250 newly taxable fees in the first instance, as well as impose a fee freeze until end-2025. Agencies are also reviewing their fees and charges and considering ways to streamline processes or manage underlying costs to stave off the need for fee increases after end-2025. Unavoidable fee increases will be phased in gradually after end-2025.
On refunds, MOF earlier estimated that around $1.5 million in GST was wrongly charged to individuals and non-GST registered businesses per year. Across five years, this amounts to around $7.5 million. Since then, we found that a larger proportion of fees were found to be charged to GST-registered businesses, which would have already claimed the GST charged as input tax. As such, the revised figure on wrongly charged GST is around $1 million per year, or $5 million over five years.
The agencies have notified all taxpayers, where records are available, and are also reaching out to affected taxpayers to process the refunds. Of the $5 million, we have refunded around 45%. Eligible taxpayers who have yet to provide their relevant details to the agencies may wish to do so in order to receive their refunds.
The Government is committed to upholding high standards of governance and integrity. Following the discovery of the wrongful charging of GST on Government fees, we moved swiftly to rectify it by working closely with agencies to assess the GST treatment of their fees and making clear the list of non-taxable fees via legislation. This is a better system moving forward, which will provide greater clarity on the GST treatment of Government fees.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Economic Contributions of Creative Industries in Past 10 Years and Projected Changes for 2024 and 2025","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) in the last 10 years, what has been the annual direct economic contributions of the six creative industries, namely, advertising, broadcasting media, publishing industries, interior, graphics and fashion design, photography, and industrial design in respect of (i) receipts, (ii) value-added, (iii) employment, (iv) value-add per worker and (v) exports; and (b) what are the projected changes in their direct economic contributions for 2024 and 2025.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Collectively, the creative industries have performed well in the last 10 years from 2012 to 2022. Receipts have more than doubled from $16.6 billion to $39.8 billion, with exports growing from $4.3 billion to $16.2 billion. Nominal value-added has also doubled from $5.7 billion to $11.4 billion. With employment remaining stable at about 63,000 workers, the value-added per worker has thus doubled from $90,400 to $184,100.
The outlook for the creative industries remains positive, with opportunities to leverage technology and international partnerships to grow in Singapore and beyond.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Importation of Nuclear-generated Energy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Government will consider importing electricity or energy that is generated by nuclear plants from other countries.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Based on our current understanding, countries in the region are still studying the potential deployment of nuclear energy and have yet to make a firm decision on it. It is, therefore, premature to discuss importing electricity that is generated by nuclear plants from other countries.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Key Factors Driving MNC Relocations and Measures to Address Singapore's Competitiveness","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry in light of the recent decisions by some multinational companies (MNCs) to relocate their headquarters, withdraw operations or retrench workers in Singapore (a) whether the Ministry has studied the key factors driving these decisions by MNCs; (b) whether the Government’s initiatives aimed at retaining these companies have achieved their intended outcomes; and (c) whether there are concerns that the Singaporean workforce is losing its competitive edge in terms of skills compared to workers from other countries.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The number of retrenchments in the second quarter of 2024 was 3,270, compared to 3,030 in the first quarter of 2024 and 3,820 in the first quarter of 2023. In comparison, total employment grew by 11,300 in the second quarter of 2024, more than double the increase of 4,700 in the first quarter of 2024. In the second quarter of 2024, more than half of all retrenched residents were able to secure jobs within six months of being retrenched.
Singapore remains an attractive location for investments. The Singapore Economic Development Board attracted S$5.4 billion in fixed asset investment (FAI) commitments in the first half of 2024 and is on track to meet its medium- to long-term investment commitment goal of S$8 billion to S$10 billion in FAI this year. Investments announced this year include plans by cloud service provider Amazon Web Services to invest an additional S$12 billion into its existing cloud infrastructure in Singapore over the next four years for cloud and artificial intelligence projects, and pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca’s planned S$2 billion manufacturing facility for antibody drug conjugates. These investments will translate into good jobs for Singaporeans. Some 60% of locals earning a gross monthly income of above $12,500 are employed by foreign-owned firms.
Singapore’s workforce is a key reason why multinational corporations (MNCs) invest in Singapore. INSEAD's 2023 Global Talent Competitiveness Index ranked Singapore’s workforce as the most competitive in Asia and the second most competitive globally.
Companies, including MNCs, may choose to close or reduce their presence in Singapore for various reasons, such as changes in market dynamics leading to poor performance by the firm, or shifts in the company’s global strategy leading to changes in their operating structure. In such situations, the Government works closely with the companies and unions to assist the retrenched workers with skills upgrading and job matching.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lessons from Simultaneous Explosion of Foreign-made Telecommunication Devices in Lebanon","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Defence following the simultaneous explosion of foreign-made telecommunication devices in Lebanon recently (a) what are the lessons learned and security implications for Singapore; and (b) whether the Ministry, together with other Ministries and agencies, is studying and reviewing the import or use of such telecommunication devices in Singapore.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: The recent simultaneous mass explosions of pagers and walkie-talkies in Lebanon show that communication and other common devices can be compromised, disrupted or weaponised. The incidents also underscore the importance of securing the supply chains of such equipment.
The Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) and the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) have in place various safeguards in our supply chains. Potential suppliers have to be security-cleared before being allowed to participate in MINDEF/SAF projects. To ensure that our equipment is delivered safely and securely without being tampered, the transportation providers and routes used have to be authorised by us. We also monitor the shipment closely. Upon receiving the equipment or system, we screen, inspect and test them before deployment. In some cases, this includes testing for cyber vulnerability. Given the number and range of technologies and equipment involved, we take a risk-differentiated approach.
Beyond implementing our own safeguards, we also engage in information and intelligence sharing with relevant local Government agencies and trusted international partners regarding the latest emergence or discovery of vulnerabilities, particularly in the cyber domain.
We will continue to review and improve our safeguards.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Death of Full-time National Serviceman at Pasir Laba Camp on 27 September 2024","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Defence whether he can provide further details concerning the death of a full-time National Serviceman at Pasir Laba Camp on 27 September 2024.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: We refer the Member to the statement released by the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) on 27 September 2024. As the Police investigation is ongoing and to respect the privacy of the late Serviceman’s family, it would not be appropriate for MINDEF and the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) to divulge further details at this juncture.
MINDEF and the SAF extend our deepest condolences to the family. We are extending to them our assistance during this time of grief.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Consular Support for Singapore Citizens in Middle East amid Regional Conflict","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs in view of the recent armed conflict escalation in the Middle East involving Israel, Lebanon and Iran, whether the Ministry is providing additional consular support to Singapore Citizens in the Middle East, especially in countries within close proximity to the conflict, such as Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: The safety and well-being of Singaporeans overseas are of utmost importance to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA). We are monitoring the volatile situation in the Middle East closely.
Our Overseas Missions in the Middle East will continue to be in touch with Singaporean communities in the region and stand ready to provide consular assistance. MFA has been working closely with the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore and its Student Liaison Officers in Cairo and Jeddah to maintain contact with Singapore students pursuing religious studies in the region. This enables us to reach out and provide consular assistance to them quickly in an emergency.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Prevent Theft by ICA Officers and Other Staff Members at Singapore Airports","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Mohd Fahmi Bin Aliman asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what measures are in place to prevent theft by ICA officers or other staff members at Singapore airports; (b) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the frequency of such incidents and the trend over the past five years; and (c) how frequently are background checks and internal audits conducted on ICA officers to ensure their integrity and adherence to professional standards.
Mr K Shanmugam: Between 2019 and 2023, there were six cases of theft committed by employees or staff working at Singapore airports, one of which involved an Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) officer.
All Home Team officers, including ICA officers, are subject to a stringent recruitment process and regular security vetting. Annually, they are required to declare their financial standing and subjected to credit bureau screening.
The Member asked about the measures in place to prevent theft by ICA officers. Supervisors monitor the officers to ensure that they are acting in accordance with established procedures. In addition, ICA officers performing security checks are deployed in pairs and any search of a traveller’s belongings is conducted in the presence of the traveller and closed-circuit television cameras. Officers also carry body-worn cameras which allow ICA to review and assess the conduct of the officers where necessary.
Our measures are generally effective in preventing misconduct by officers. But as Members will appreciate, there might always be someone, in any organisation, who is tempted to behave badly, regardless of training, rules and discipline. These things do happen from time to time.
We put in place processes to reduce the risk of this occurring and such cases are also likely to be detected if they do occur. Where such cases are detected, the officers involved will be subject to disciplinary action. If offences are disclosed, criminal investigations will also be initiated and they will face higher punishments, compared to others who commit thefts, for example.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Road Traffic Accidents and Fatality Rates in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Home Affairs in the past five years, what is the annual number of (i) road traffic accidents and (ii) road deaths per billion vehicle kilometres.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Member may refer to the report on the Annual Road Traffic Situation 2023 on the Police’s website for the annual number of road traffic accidents.
The Traffic Police (TP) do not track the number of road deaths per billion vehicle kilometres. TP tracks the number of road deaths per 100,000 population, which is one of the Global Health Observatory indicators, and Sustainable Development Goals tracked by the World Health Organization. TP also tracks the number of road deaths per 10,000 vehicles.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on and Citizenship Considerations for Stateless Population","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the current number of stateless residents who have lived in Singapore for more than 20 years; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider granting citizenship to stateless seniors who have resided in Singapore for over 20 years.
Mr K Shanmugam: As of 31 December 2023, we know of 853 stateless persons living in Singapore. But this number could vary for the reasons given below. The data on their length of residency, however, is unavailable because of the different circumstances under which they may become stateless.
For example, some have chosen to give up, or had lost their foreign citizenship, at some point during their stay in Singapore. Others were born in Singapore to foreign parents who did not obtain citizenship for them. We may come to know of their stateless status only when they surrender to or are referred to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority. Given that there are such cases, we would not have precise data on how many stateless persons there are and the precise period for which they have been stateless.
Applications for Singapore citizenship, including those submitted by stateless individuals, are evaluated on a range of criteria. These include the conduct and contributions of the applicant, links to Singapore, including if they have family members who are Singaporeans, and how long they have been in Singapore. The circumstances under which the person became stateless would also be taken into consideration.
As one of the world’s smallest and most densely populated countries, we must be highly discerning as to whom we grant citizenship. Hence, we carefully consider all applications for citizenship, on a case-by-case basis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Duration of Stay in Singapore for Those Granted Singapore Citizenship and Permanent Residency in 2023","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Home Affairs with regard to new permanent residencies and new citizenships granted in 2023, what is the 25th percentile, median, average and 75th percentile of the duration in which (i) adult foreigners have resided in Singapore prior to obtaining permanent residence and (ii) adult Permanent Residents have held their permanent residence prior to obtaining Singapore citizenship.
Mr K Shanmugam: The number of Permanent Residents (PRs) and Singapore Citizens (SCs) granted each year, including selected profile indicators, such as age group, highest qualification attained among those aged 20 and over, and region of origin, are published annually.
In granting permanent residency and Singapore citizenship, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority assesses each application based on a range of factors. The applicant’s length of residency is only one of the factors considered. The other factors include, but are not limited to, the applicant’s family ties to Singaporeans, economic contributions, educational qualifications, age and family profile, the applicant’s ability to integrate into our society and commitment to sinking roots in Singapore. Different criteria may apply to different applicants, depending on their background and circumstances, for example, an applicant applying as a spouse of an SC will be considered differently from someone applying on the basis of having stayed in Singapore for a period of time and contributed to employment creation in Singapore.
The Government will not make public data on the length of residency of new PRs and SCs by percentile. This could be used by others, including potential applicants, who may try to tailor their applications to game the system. Foreign countries could also make use of the data in a way that may not be consistent with our national interests. Thus, while we make public some indicators, as referred to in the first paragraph, we have to be careful that we do so in a way consistent with our national interests.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Licence Applications Rejected under Debt Collection Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether any applications for a licence under the Debt Collection Act 2022 (DCA) have been rejected since the commencement of the DCA on 1 December 2023; and (b) if so, how many applications have been rejected and what are the reasons.\n \n
Mr K Shanmugam: As of 30 September 2024, the Police have rejected six applications for a licence to operate a debt collection business under the Debt Collection Act. Police assessed that the applicants and key appointment holders do not fulfil the fit and proper criteria, including because of criminal antecedents of unlicensed moneylending and voluntarily causing hurt to others.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Good Class Bungalows Sold to Trust Companies with Foreign Beneficiaries and Purchase Applications Rejected","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Law in each year of the last five years (a) what percentage of Good Class Bungalows are sold to trust companies; (b) what percentage of these trust companies have foreign beneficiaries; and (c) what percentage of Clearance Certificate applications by trust companies to purchase Good Class Bungalows are rejected.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (The Second Minister for Law): Foreign individuals, including Permanent Residents (PRs) and foreign entities, who wish to acquire landed residential property in Singapore must seek approval under the Residential Property Act (RPA). This is regardless of whether the purchase is made by the individual or entity directly, or through any vehicle, including a trust company.
Singapore Citizens are not required to seek approval under the RPA to acquire landed residential property. In cases where the property is held through a licensed trust company, approval under the RPA is not required if the purchaser can show that the beneficiaries are Singaporean.
The Singapore Land Authority (SLA) tracks all cases where approval is required under the RPA where the purchaser is foreign and, in the case of licensed trust companies, where the beneficiaries are foreign. Beyond that, SLA does not collect general data on landed residential properties that are acquired through trust companies.
Based on SLA’s records over the last five years from 2019 to date, no approvals were granted under the RPA for a trust company to acquire a Good Class Bungalow (GCB) to hold on trust for foreign beneficiaries. As such, any GCB acquired during this time through a trust company were for Singaporean beneficiaries.
As has been made clear in Parliament, the Government takes a very strict approach when granting approvals for foreigners to own landed residential properties within mainland Singapore. Only PRs are allowed to purchase with approval and applicants are assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration factors, such as their economic contribution to Singapore and whether they have a strong Singapore nexus. There have been no approvals given to any foreign purchasers to acquire any GCB since 2021, in any capacity, whether personal or otherwise. For the period from 2012 to 2021, there were five approvals given under the RPA for acquisition of GCBs by foreigners (PRs), and of those five GCBs, two were inheritance cases. This was stated in Parliament on 2 August 2022.
Thus, in summary, (a) since 2021, there have been no approvals given to any foreigners to purchase any GCB; (b) since 2019, there have been no approvals given to any licensed trust company where the beneficiaries are foreign to purchase any GCB.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Individuals Placed under Debt Repayment Scheme and Regulation of Fees Charged by Debt Consulting Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Law (a) in the last five years, for individuals placed under the Debt Repayment Scheme administered by the Official Assignee, what is the average (i) total unsecured debt owed, (ii) total fees paid to the Official Assignee and (iii) total fees paid to third-party debt consultancies; and (b) whether the Ministry regulates the provision of such debt consulting services and their associated fees charged.
Mr K Shanmugam: For individuals placed on the Debt Repayment Scheme (DRS) administered by the Official Assignee (OA) from 2019 to 2023, the average total amount owed by each debtor is about $67,500.
The law specifies that up to $2,250 is payable to the OA by debtors on a debt repayment plan of a maximum five years under DRS. This amount covers costs of determining the debtor’s suitability for DRS as well as administration of the DRS.
The law also provides for 1.5% of amounts collected from debtors under the DRS and for 3% of amounts distributed to creditors under the DRS to be payable to the OA as fees. These amounts vary greatly between cases based on the details of individual debt repayment plans the OA approves, which depend on multiple factors, such as the debt size, the debtor’s income and the debtor’s circumstances.
The Ministry does not regulate third-party debt consultancies or the fees they charge and, hence, does not have information on fees.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Orders Issued by Small Claims Tribunals and Average Enforcement Cost for Consumers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Law for the past five years (a) what is the annual percentage of orders issued by the Small Claims Tribunals (SCT) that required enforcement; and (b) of these, what is the average cost for consumers to enforce the SCT order.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Ministry does not track the percentage of orders issued by the Small Claims Tribunals (SCT) that require enforcement.
From 2019 to August 2024, there were about 880 applications for enforcement of an SCT order.
The costs for enforcement are prescribed under the Rules of Court. We do not track the legal fees that consumers may incur in enforcing the SCT order. This is case specific and depends on the scope of work to be performed and is a matter to be agreed between the consumer and his lawyer.
Parties who require legal advice on the enforcement of SCT orders may approach the State Courts’ Community Justice Centre for free onsite legal advice or seek assistance from other legal clinics, such as those organised by the Law Society Pro Bono Services or community centres.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Provision of Complimentary Tap Water for Paying Customers at Food and Beverage Establishments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry will consider mandating food and beverage establishments to provide tap water free of charge for paying customers to reduce plastic waste from bottled water.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: There are currently no plans to mandate food and beverage (F&B) establishments to provide tap water free of charge for paying customers. Nonetheless, we encourage both F&B establishments and patrons to play a part in tackling plastic waste by reducing the excessive use of disposables.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Warning Systems for Extreme Weather Conditions Like Island-wide Damage Caused by Sumatra Squall on 17 September 2024","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in view of the islandwide damage to property and environment caused by the Sumatra squall on 17 September 2024 (a) whether the Ministry will consider having precautionary warning systems or measures to educate the public in cases of such extreme weather conditions; and (b) what are the lessons from the recovery and clean-up operations that can better prepare Singapore’s infrastructure for such storms in future.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Singapore Government is learning from the experience of the Sumatra squall on 17 September 2024 and reviewing our practices and responses in preparation for more of such extreme weather events in future.
First, in forecasting and providing early warning. While the Meteorological Service Singapore (MSS) can currently track the development of such squalls, MSS will invest more in forecasting their intensities and providing earlier warning to the public. MSS will also increase public education on early warning systems in preparation for more adverse weather scenarios in future.
Second, to ensure the structural safety and resilience of buildings in Singapore against strong winds, the existing regulatory requirements for the design, installation and inspection of exterior features of buildings have taken into account the impact of wind forces. The National Parks Board also has in place a comprehensive tree management regime that enhances the resilience of its tree population against intense rains and winds.
The Government will continue to update our regulations and practices where needed and strengthen our climate adaptation policies to ensure that Singapore remains resilient and prepared for such extreme weather events as they become more prevalent in the face of climate change.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Address Bullying in and Out of School and Ensure Student Well-being","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Education (a) how are students, especially those in primary schools, equipped to deal with incidents or threats of bullying within or outside school premises; and (b) whether there is a standard whistleblowing channel or hotline for all students to report on a confidential basis regarding incidents or threats of such bullying.
20 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education in view of the increasing severity and visibility of bullying incidents, including the use of social media to share such acts (a) how is the Character and Citizenship Education curriculum being enhanced to address bullying more explicitly; and (b) whether more should be done to equip Peer Support Leaders with the skills to intervene in and prevent bullying.
21 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education (a) in each year of the past three years, how many students involved in bullying, both the bullies and victims, have been referred to and met with school counsellors; and (b) what specific measures are in place to ensure the psychological and emotional well-being of these students.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: These questions have been answered as part of the Minister for Education’s oral reply to Parliamentary Questions on 14 October 2024. Members may refer to the transcript for the reply. [Please refer to \"Review of Measures and Help Provided in Student Bullying Incidents\", Official Report, 14 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 142, 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":"Training Programmes Teachers Undergo to Teach High-ability Learners in Primary School and Their Effectiveness","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr Mohd Fahmi Bin Aliman asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry can provide more details on the specific training programmes that teachers undergo to teach high-ability learners in primary schools, including the duration and content of such training; (b) how will the Ministry ensure that these trained teachers are effectively identifying and nurturing high-ability learners across diverse educational contexts; and (c) what metrics or tools are used to assess the effectiveness of the teaching strategies employed by these teachers.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: This question has been answered as part of Minister for Education’s oral reply on 10 September 2024 to Parliamentary Questions raised on the Gifted Education Programme. Member may refer to the transcript for the reply. [Please refer to \"Outcomes from Gifted Education Programme, and Rationale and Plans for Programme Revamp\", Official Report, 10 September 2024, Vol 95, Issue 141, 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":"Success from Reframing of SYF Central Judging as SYF Arts Presentation in Achieving Aims for Students and Educators","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the reframing of the Singapore Youth Festival (SYF) Central Judging as the SYF Arts Presentation has achieved its intended aims for both students and educators; and (b) if so, what are the factors that are taken into consideration when assessing whether such aims have been achieved.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The reframing of the Singapore Youth Festival (SYF) Central Judging as the SYF Arts Presentation (AP) was part of a suite of changes to the SYF from 2013 intended to deepen students’ holistic development and strengthen their joy of learning.
Based on surveys and other feedback from schools, the intent of the changes has largely been met. The change from a five-band award structure1 to the current three-band certification structure2, with a more achievable highest band, has reduced excessive competition and efforts. Schools have given greater focus on using the rubrics and adjudicator feedback provided for student learning and improvement. Schools have also become more inclusive, such as by including younger or newer members in SYF AP. More than 90% of students surveyed agreed that their performing arts Co-Curricular Activities focused on enjoying and learning about the arts. At the same time, students continued to give their best and adjudicators have commended the quality of performances across participating schools.
Another important change to the SYF in 2013 was the introduction of SYF Celebrations. With events and performances leading to Youth Day where students connect with audiences in less formal settings, SYF Celebrations have contributed to broadening the range of performance opportunities for students.
Since its inception in 1966, SYF has been part of Singapore’s journey in nation-building and in celebrating the vitality of our youths through the arts. We will continue to review the SYF to ensure its relevance and meaningfulness to our students.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Gold with Honours, Gold, Silver, Bronze and Certificate of Participation","2 : Distinction, Accomplishment and Commendation"],"footNoteQuestions":["23"],"questionNo":"23"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Resources for Learning Languages of Singaporean Communities to Better Reflect Local Landscape","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Education (a) what resources are made available by the Ministry for students keen to learn additional languages of Singaporean communities beyond their own Mother Tongue Language; (b) in the case of the Duolingo language learning app previously offered on some personal learning devices provided by the Ministry, what is the reason for Bahasa Indonesia being an option but not Singaporean Bahasa Melayu; and (c) whether there are plans to improve the available language learning resources in schools to better reflect the Singaporean language landscape.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Students interested in learning additional languages beyond their own Mother Tongue Language have access to Conversational Chinese and Malay programmes in schools and online learning packages on the Singapore Student Learning Space. Secondary school students can also offer Chinese (Special Programme) and Malay (Special Programme) in schools, and third languages in the Ministry of Education (MOE) Language Centres.
Schools can install teaching and learning applications offered by external developers on the personal learning devices. The language options available on these applications, such as Duolingo, are determined by the application developers.
MOE will continually enhance teaching and learning resources that can support students to learn additional languages offered in schools and MOE language centres.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Social Workers Employed by Public Agencies and Update on Hiring and Retention Rates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many social workers are currently employed by public agencies; (b) what is the gap between the desired number and actual employed number of social workers; and (c) whether an update can be provided on recent challenges and trends in hiring and retention rates for this group of employees.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: As of 2023, there were about 2,600 registered social workers in Singapore, the majority of whom work in the social service and healthcare sectors. We expect the demand for social workers to grow with demographic and socio-economic changes and the increasing complexity of needs. As mentioned in the Ministry of Social and Family Development's (MSF's) Committee of Supply 2024 debate, we project to need about 2,000 more professionals in the social service sector in the next five years, including social workers.
While Pre-Employment Training programmes continue to be an important pipeline, we are expanding the pathways for mid-career conversions to social work. Social service agencies can tap on the Career Conversion Programmes, which provide up to 90% salary and course fee support for mid-career professionals to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to join the sector. MSF and the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) will continue to improve the attraction, development and retention of social service professionals.
While financial reward is not the key motivation for social service professionals, MSF and NCSS have developed salary guidelines for the sector and strongly encourage Social Service Agencies to adhere to the guidelines and reward their staff fairly. This is so that the sector keeps pace with the broader labour market.
NCSS has also continued to promote the branding of the social service sector, through the Social Service Tribe. We will continue to work closely with the sector to recognise and celebrate the contributions of the social service professionals and ensure that they are adequately supported in their professional journey.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Timelines for Establishment of Singapore College of Islamic Studies and First Intake of Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) what is the anticipated timeline for the formal establishment of the Singapore College of Islamic Studies; and (b) when will it be fully operational for the intake of its inaugural batch of students.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Singapore College of Islamic Studies aims to develop our future Islamic religious teachers and scholars to provide sound and relevant religious guidance to Muslims in Singapore, in line with our multiracial and multi-religious context.
More details about the college will be shared in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Schedule for Completion of Active Ageing Centres from Proposed Increase in Budget","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Health what is the schedule, by region and on a quarterly basis, for the anticipated completion of Active Ageing Centres that will be funded by the proposed increase in budget for this purpose.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Since the inception of Active Ageing Centres (AACs) in 2021, the Ministry of Health and the Agency for Integrated Care have set up 208 AACs1. We will continue to scale this to 220 AACs by 2025. The AACs will be distributed across all parts of Singapore, such that eight in 10 seniors will have access to AAC activities near their homes by 2025. The locations of AACs, when confirmed, can be found on the SupportGoWhere website.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Number of AACs is accurate as of May 2024."],"footNoteQuestions":["27"],"questionNo":"27"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Hiring Targets for Healthcare Workers to Meet Projected Size of 82,000 by 2030","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health for each year over the next five years, what are the hiring targets for (i) nurses (ii) allied health professionals and (iii) support care staff, in order to meet the healthcare workforce size of 82,000 by 2030.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As our population ages, we can expect demand for healthcare services and manpower to increase. To attain a healthcare workforce size of 82,000 nationally by 2030, the Ministry of Health will need to recruit about 6,000 nurses, Allied Health Professionals and support care staff annually.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhancing Mental Health Support Systems in Schools and Availability of Outpatient Psychiatric Services for Youths","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi asked the Minister for Health given the results of the National Youth Mental Health Study released in September 2024 that one in three young people reported experiencing severe or extremely severe symptoms of depression, anxiety or stress, whether the Ministry will consider (i) strengthening the Response, Early Intervention and Assessment in Community Mental Health teams to support schools better and (ii) ensuring that all restructured hospitals have psychiatric services that are equipped to manage child and adolescent cases on an outpatient basis.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Findings of the National Youth Mental Health Study were self-reported. As such, the severe or extremely severe mental health symptoms reported in the study do not necessarily indicate a mental disorder. Nevertheless, we take steps to ensure timely and appropriate responses to young people with mental health needs.
The Response, Early Intervention and Assessment in Community Mental Health teams collaborate with schools to support students with mental health needs. There are ongoing efforts to enhance the capability of school counsellors and upskill community partners, such as social service agencies. For those who require more specialised care, public hospitals, such as the Institute of Mental Health, Changi General Hospital, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital and National University Hospital, provide child and/or adolescent mental health specialist services.
To facilitate early access to mental health services in the community, community touchpoints, including Youth Community Outreach Teams (CREST-Youth), Youth Integrated Teams (YITs), polyclinics and participating general practitioner (GP) clinics, provide mental health assessment and support. We aim to expand the number of CREST-Youth and YIT teams to 15 teams and extend mental health services to all polyclinics and Healthier SG GP clinics by 2030.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Display of Calorie and Nutrition Information in Menus for More Informed Decisions by Consumers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Health (a) whether additional steps will be taken to encourage food and beverage (F&B) establishments to display calorie and nutrition information alongside their menus; and (b) whether the Ministry is considering new regulations for F&B chains to provide such information to enable consumers to make more informed decisions in choosing healthier food.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: We have not made it a requirement for food and beverage (F&B) establishments to display calorie information. Based on our population disease profile, the Ministry of Health (MOH) assessed it is more important to provide information on nutrients that will be harmful if over-consumed, namely, sugar, sodium and saturated fat.
We, therefore, have several initiatives in place to achieve this. For example, larger F&B establishments are required to display Nutri-Grade labels on their menus for Grade C or D beverages that are higher in sugar and saturated fat.
Under the Health Promotion Board (HPB) voluntary Healthier Dining Programme, participating F&B establishments may display identifiers on their store fronts and menu boards to inform consumers of the availability of healthier options, including those that are lower in sugar or calories. As of March 2024, more than 3,100 F&B establishments, with over 9,000 outlets island-wide, have joined the Healthier Dining Programme.
We are also planning to introduce mandatory labelling of prepackaged products, for example, sauces and seasonings, for sodium and saturated fat content, and will continue to encourage F&B establishments to choose healthier ingredients.
MOH and HPB will continue monitoring the impact of existing measures. We remain open to considering further measures, voluntary or mandatory, that are practicable and implementable in our local context, to support Singaporeans in adopting healthier diets.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Transition to Planting of More Wind-resistant Trees in View of More Extreme Weather Conditions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for National Development in view of stronger winds expected from more extreme weather conditions, whether the Ministry can provide an update on the transition to planting more robust tree species that are less prone to uprooting and breakage.
Mr Desmond Lee: The National Parks Board (NParks) has in place a comprehensive tree management regime that enhances the resilience of its tree population against intense rains and winds. This includes a rigorous tree inspection and maintenance regime that is aligned with the best practices of the International Society of Arboriculture, and complemented by the use of technology to improve diagnostic capabilities and enhance inspection processes.
In tandem, NParks implements pruning to remove weak, dry or overgrown branches, to improve their structure and balance and ability to withstand severe weather conditions. Prior to seasons of wet weather, NParks also undertakes targeted crown reduction on mature trees.
NParks has also been replacing diseased and storm-vulnerable tree species with hardier species which are more suited to Singapore’s weather and urban conditions. For example, the population of Sea gutta (Planchonella obovata) and Shore Laurel (Neolitsea cassia) in parks, gardens and roadside verges managed by NParks has increased from around 25,400 to around 46,500 from 2017 to 2023.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Escalator Accidents and Causes and Plans to Build More Lifts in View of Ageing Population","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many escalator accidents were there in each of the last three years; (b) of the number of accidents, how many of these were due to technical issues and how many were due to users' behaviour or health condition, respectively; (c) what were their age groups; and (d) whether the Ministry will consider building more lifts, especially at public facilities to improve safety, in view of our ageing population.
Mr Desmond Lee: From 2021 to 2023, there were about 600 escalator-related incidents reported to the Building and Construction Authority each year. Of these, about 97% were due to user behaviours. For instance, the majority of incidents arose from escalator users losing their balance when walking on the escalators without holding onto the handrails or when carrying bulky items on escalators. More than 40% of the incidents involved users who were older than 60 years.
Since 2010, all new buildings comprising five or more storeys have been required to have one or more lifts. Owners of eligible existing buildings may tap on the Accessibility Fund, which co-pays up to 80% of the construction cost of basic accessibility features, such as lifts. To improve the accessibility for seniors and commuters with mobility challenges, the Land Transport Master Plan 2040 also includes the installation of more lifts at existing pedestrian overhead bridges and older Mass Rapid Transit stations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Multi-Generation Priority Scheme to Include Single Unmarried Children in Joint Applications for BTO Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for National Development whether the Multi-Generation Priority Scheme can be extended to include single unmarried children of elderly parents so that single children and their elderly parents can make joint applications for HDB flats in a BTO project and live proximate to one another.
Mr Desmond Lee: Today, married children and their parents buying new flats to live with or near one another, get priority access to Build-To-Order flats. As announced at the National Day Rally in August 2024, from mid-2025 onwards, we will extend such priority access to all parents and their children, married and single. The Ministry of National Development will share more details when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Priority for Senior Residents Relocating to 2-Room Flats or Care Apartments Nearby to Enable Ageing within Community","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider according priority to senior residents relocating to new short-lease 2-room HDB flexi flats or Community Care Apartments near to their current homes to promote successful and seamless ageing within the community.
Mr Desmond Lee: Today, the Housing and Development Board sets aside at least 40% of its public supply of 2-room flexi flats for eligible seniors. With the new Build-To-Order flat classification framework from October 2024, half of this supply in Standard and Plus projects, and a quarter in Prime projects, will be set aside under the Senior Priority Scheme for those who wish to live near their current home, or live with or near their parent or married child.
Seniors aged 65 and above can also purchase a Community Care Apartment (CCA), which integrates senior-friendly housing with care services. Access to CCAs is, therefore, prioritised for households with at least one applicant or essential occupier with care needs, regardless of the location of their current home. If the model of care provision proves to be effective and scalable, we will continue to build more CCAs across Singapore. This will enable more seniors to age well within their communities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria in BCA's Selection of Companies Participating in Annual Return of Construction Industry Survey","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for National Development (a) how does the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) decide which companies are to be selected to participate in the Annual Return of the Construction Industry survey conducted under the Statistics Act 1973; and (b) how can the BCA support these companies that are required under law to furnish specific information, especially when there are cost implications to them.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) conducts the Annual Return of the Construction Industry survey to obtain information to monitor the structure and performance of the construction industry. The survey is required by the Department of Statistics for the compilation of national accounts, which entails similar surveys of companies in other economic sectors.
For the annual survey, BCA selects companies that perform general building and civil engineering works, and larger companies that perform certain types of specialised construction-related activities, such as piling works and precast production. Other companies are also selected at random across the construction industry.
BCA has been providing companies with support and guidance in completing the annual survey. For example, those that need additional time to complete the survey can request a deadline extension, while those that face difficulties with the survey can also reach out to BCA for assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Injuries to Users of ActiveSG Gyms and Their Age Profile and Measures to Ensure Safe Use of Fitness Equipment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth for each year from 2021 to date in 2024 (a) what is the number of fitness injuries reported by users of ActiveSG gyms; (b) what is the distribution of such injuries by users aged (i) 12 to 17 years, (ii) 18 to 54 years and (iii) 55 years and above; and (c) what measures are in place to educate and supervise newer users of ActiveSG gyms on the appropriate use of fitness and strength training equipment to prevent fitness injuries.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The safety of ActiveSG gym users is our top priority. SportSG has implemented various measures to ensure that Singaporeans remain safe while using gym facilities.
First, on-duty Fitness Instructors (FIs) regularly move around ActiveSG gyms and guide users on the correct use of equipment if they observe any unsafe practices. ActiveSG gyms also display notices on the proper use of equipment to prevent fitness injuries.
Second, new ActiveSG gym users are encouraged to approach FIs for a gym orientation to familiarise themselves with the gym’s rules and equipment.
Third, those with pre-existing medical conditions are strongly advised to complete the Get Active Questionnaire (GAQ) and seek medical advice before engaging in high-intensity physical activities. These advisories are included in the ActiveSG Gym Rules and Regulations displayed at all gym entrances.
While ActiveSG gym visitorship has increased, the number of fitness injuries reported is comparable to those in previous years. In the past year, there were 111 reported cases of fitness injuries across all 28 ActiveSG gyms. This is one in 40,000 of ActiveSG’s total gym visitorship. Eighteen percent of these injuries were reported by those aged 12 to 17, 63% by those aged 18 to 54, and 19% by those aged 55 and above. These generally correspond to the age profile of ActiveSG gym visitors.
We will continue to monitor fitness injuries at ActiveSG facilities and ensure that gym users exercise safely.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Attendance at Performances, Shows or Exhibitions of Arts Groups Other Than Own Ethnic Group","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the Ministry tracks the number of Chinese audience members who attend the performances, shows or exhibitions of arts groups of ethnic minorities who conduct such activities (i) showcasing their respective minority cultures or (ii) in a language other than English or Mandarin; and (b) if so, what are the recent statistics.
38 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the Ministry tracks the number of non-Chinese audience members who attend the performances, shows or exhibitions of Chinese arts groups who conduct such activities (i) showcasing Chinese culture; or (ii) in a language other than English; and (b) if so, what are the recent statistics.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth does not collect data on the ethnicity of audience members who attend at each performance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inspections Conducted to Ensure Food Delivery Platform Operators Engage Only Singaporeans or PRs as Freelancers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"39 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Manpower (a) apart from acting on complaints received, whether the Ministry conducts proactive inspections to ensure that food delivery riders working for the major food delivery platforms as freelancers are legitimate workers who are Singapore Citizens or Permanent Residents; (b) if so, how often are these checks conducted; and (c) what is the total number of violations or arrests that have resulted from such checks in the past six months.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has worked with food delivery platform operators to advise riders against allowing foreigners to use or share their food delivery accounts. Platforms operators can also enhance their processes to prevent the misuse of accounts by unauthorised parties. Working through platform operators is more effective and efficient than conducting proactive inspection, given the decentralised and mobile nature of food delivery work.
MOM also acts on complaints to weed out these practices. This is also an effective channel of enforcement as legitimate workers have an interest in raising cases of offences to the authorities. From January to June 2024, MOM received a total of 14 complaints on suspected illegal foreign delivery riders. Enforcement action was taken against one case as the other cases were found to be unsubstantiated.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Maternity Protection to Singaporeans Engaged in Non-standard Forms of Employment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry will extend maternity protection to Singaporeans engaged in non-standard forms of employment, such as those under dependent self-employment to provide some recourse for termination of contracts on grounds related to pregnancy; and (b) if not, when will the Ministry consider doing so.
Dr Tan See Leng: Self-employed persons and service buyers are encouraged to negotiate contracts that are mutually favourable, including providing for scenarios where a party is unable to fulfil the contract, such as pregnancy.
Parties can take reference from the Tripartite Standard on Contracting with Self-Employed Persons, and any disputes can be brought to the Small Claims Tribunals.
41 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Manpower for the past five years, what is the annual number of cases of elderly Singaporean Citizens living in HDB executive apartments or maisonettes who have been successful in their applications or appeals to be eligible for the Silver Support Scheme.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Silver Support Scheme is targeted at seniors who had lower incomes during their working years and now have little or no family support and resources in retirement. Seniors who live in the Housing and Development Board (HDB) executive apartments or maisonettes are likely to have access to more resources and hence are not eligible for the Silver Support Scheme. Nevertheless, seniors facing unique circumstances can appeal to the Central Provident Fund Board, which will review their circumstances holistically on a case-by-case basis.
Over the past five years, an average of 10 appeals for the Silver Support Scheme by seniors living in HDB executive apartments or maisonettes have been successful each year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Bridge Gap in Current Healthcare Insurance Coverage for Post-retirement Employees","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"42 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has data on the current number of older employees who are not covered by any medical insurance provided by their employers; and (b) whether the Ministry has plans to work with insurers to provide medical insurance coverage for older workers who work past their retirement and re-employment age and, if so, what are the plans.
Dr Tan See Leng: \tThe Ministry of Manpower does not collect data on the age of employees who are not covered by employer-provided medical insurance.
Employers are not required to provide medical insurance to their employees, although some employers choose to do so as a form of employment benefits. Employers could choose to make contributions to their employees’ MediSave account, to help pay for the premiums of MediShield Life or Integrated Shield Plans. This allows employees to retain insurance coverage even when they change employers or stop working.
All Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents, whether employed or unemployed, are covered by MediShield Life throughout their lives.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Full-time Resident Employees Aged 25 to 64 Receiving Only Seven Days Paid Annual Leave in First Year of Employment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"43 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower for each year in the past five years, how many full-time resident employees aged 25 to 64 earning (i) below $2,000 per month, (ii) $2,000 to $4,999 per month and (iii) $5,000 and above per month, received only seven days of paid annual leave in their first year of employment respectively.
Dr Tan See Leng: The number of full-time resident employees aged 25 to 64 who were in their first year of employment and received only seven days of paid annual leave is shown in the table below:
44 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what are the current wage convergence targets for the 20th percentile of income earners; and (b) what is the expected path of convergence of wage levels for the 20th percentile of income earners between 2023 and 2030.
Dr Tan See Leng: From 2013 to 2023, real wages of the 20th percentile worker have risen cumulatively by 30%, faster than that of the median (50th percentile) worker at 22%1.
As recommended by the 2021 Tripartite Workgroup on Lower-Wage Workers, we will continue to narrow the wage gap over this decade. In line with the Workgroup’s recommendations, we have expanded the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) to cover more sectors and occupations, and the Tripartite Partners have negotiated meaningful and sustainable wage increases in the coming years.
With the full implementation of the recommendations by the Tripartite Workgroup, the expanded PWM, Local Qualifying Salary requirements and the Progressive Wage Mark cover up to nine in 10 lower-wage workers. The National Wages Council, in its annual guidelines, also recommends higher wage growth for lower-wage workers to narrow the wage gap between lower-wage workers and the median wage worker. With these efforts, we expect the wages of the 20th percentile worker to continue to increase in the lead up to 2030, at a rate faster than that of the median earner.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Source: Comprehensive Labour Force Survey, Manpower Research and Statistics Department, MOM. Based on gross monthly income from employment, including employer CPF, of full-time employed residents."],"footNoteQuestions":["44"],"questionNo":"44"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Enhance Resilience and System-wide Response in Light of Recent MRT Disruptions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"45 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the top 10 bus services near stations affected by the East-West MRT Line disruption on 25 September 2024 that saw (i) a week-on-week increase in ridership and (ii) the highest ridership levels; and (b) whether these bus services will be prioritised for future service enhancements and/or excluded from bus service rationalisations.
46 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the end-of-life date for the 48 first-generation MRT trains which have been in service for 35 years; (b) whether these trains currently pose increased derailment or safety risks while carrying passengers; (c) what is the failure rate of these trains compared to newer trains; (d) why are these trains not replaced earlier; and (e) how do their (i) maintenance regimen and (ii) maintenance costs differ from that of newer train models.
47 Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi asked the Minister for Transport with regard to the East-West MRT Line disruption in September 2024 (a) whether there are vulnerability concerns for further rail fractures in other parts of the MRT line; (b) what steps are being taken to reasonably prevent similar disruptions in future; and (c) what are the lessons learnt from the contingency responses employed to further minimise disruption for commuter journeys, especially during peak periods.
48 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the provisional mean kilometres between failures (MKBF) for the second and third quarters of 2024 for MRT trains across each line; (b) whether there are benchmark MKBF utilised by the Ministry for assessing the reliability of each line and, if so, whether they can be disclosed publicly; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider imposing more elaborate inspection requirements on MRT lines that have persistently lower MKBF than the overall 12-month moving average across the train network.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: These questions will be answered in the Ministerial Statement at the Sitting on 15 October 2024. [Please refer to \"A Safe, Reliable, and Resilient Rail System\", Official Report, 15 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 143, Ministerial Statements section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Current Percentage and Future Plans for All Cycling Lanes to Be Grade-separated from Footpaths","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"49 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Transport (a) what percentage of cycling lanes that run parallel to footpaths are currently fully grade-separated; (b) whether there are plans for all cycling lanes to be grade-separated from footpaths; and (c) if not, why not.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Land Transport Authority and National Parks Board generally do not design grade-separated cycling paths that are adjacent to footpaths, and have no plans to do so moving forward. A grade-separated path, such as a raised cycling path, can be a tripping hazard for path users and make it difficult for wheelchair and personal mobility aid users to navigate the level differences between cycling paths and footpaths.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Study on Combined Noise Level from Train Tracks in Choa Chu Kang","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"50 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether LTA has conducted any studies or assessments for the projected level of noise from the train tracks for the Jurong Region Line (JRL); and (b) whether the combined noise levels from the JRL, North-South Line and LRT Lines in Choa Chu Kang Central are expected to be within the recommended limits set by NEA for a residential area.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has conducted a study to estimate noise levels and assess the impact on residents when the Jurong Region Line (JRL) is operational. The study identified areas along the JRL corridor where noise mitigation measures, such as noise barriers, need to be installed to ensure noise levels remain within the National Environment Agency's (NEA's) limits. The new JRL trains will also be equipped with noise-dampening wheels to mitigate noise levels.
For Choa Chu Kang Central, LTA’s study took into account existing ambient noise levels, including from the North-South Line and Bukit Panjang Light Rail Transit. With the installation of noise barriers along the JRL, the projected noise levels at residential blocks in Choa Chu Kang Central near the JRL tracks are expected to be within NEA’s noise limits.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Trial for Priority Carriages on MRT for Commuters with Mobility Needs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"51 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether there is an update on the trial to create priority carriages on the MRT for less mobile and vulnerable commuters, such as seniors and persons with disabilities; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider implementing such priority carriages sooner, to aid passengers who require the use of personal mobility aids on the MRT, particularly during peak hours.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: A priority carriage is one where commuters are encouraged to give way to more vulnerable commuters by moving to alternative train carriages. With increasing ridership across all our train lines, there might not be sufficient capacity in alternative train carriages for commuters to move into, particularly during peak hours. This may lead to greater crowding in other carriages and create additional friction among commuters.
Therefore, it is more important and effective that everyone looks out for more vulnerable commuters using any carriage and not just at one particular carriage. In addition to designated priority seats across all train carriages, priority queues have also been introduced since 2019, and service staff are also deployed to assist commuters who need help to board the carriages.
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) will step up efforts to improve the commuting experience for those with additional needs, including those with less visible conditions like chronic pain or arthritis. For instance, the Helping Hand scheme allows commuters who require assistance to alert fellow commuters and public transport staff through a card that explains their needs. LTA has also been increasing its outreach through the Caring Commuter Champion programme, which includes an online training course for those who wish to learn how to assist commuters with various mobility needs. As of September 2024, 16,000 volunteers have completed the training under this initiative.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhancements to Existing Safety Measures and Protocols at LTA Worksites","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"52 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport in view of the workplace safety incidents at LTA worksites over the past year, including the incident on 17 September 2024 at the North-South Corridor worksite in Lentor Avenue where two workers lost their lives (a) what are the existing safety measures and protocols between LTA and its contractors and subcontractors to prevent workplace safety incidents at LTA worksites; and (b) whether the Ministry plans to impose enhanced safety standards and measures for its contractors and subcontractors at all LTA worksites.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) is committed to ensuring Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) in all its construction projects.
LTA adopts a multi-pronged approach and has progressively introduced additional safety measures and requirements over the years. For example, LTA provides mandatory safety training to its contractors and has fully adopted the Multi-Agency Workplace Safety Taskforce recommendations on improving WSH. LTA has also intensified surprise inspections to ensure compliance with WSH standards.
In July 2024, LTA launched the Zero-accident Action Plan 2.0, a commitment by LTA and its contractors to strengthen safety fundamentals at worksites through strengthened supervision.
LTA will continue to work closely with its contractors to ensure the safety of all workers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":6231,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Koh Poh Koon","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20241014/vernacular-Koh Poh Koon PQ 28 to 29 14 Oct 2024 - Mandarin.pdf","fileName":"Koh Poh Koon PQ 28 to 29 14 Oct 2024 - Mandarin.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6232,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Tan See Leng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20241014/vernacular-Tan See Leng CPF (Amdt) 14 Oct 2024 - Mandarin.pdf","fileName":"Tan See Leng CPF (Amdt) 14 Oct 2024 - Mandarin.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6233,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Hazel Poa","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20241014/vernacular-Hazel Poa Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Bill 14 Oct 2024 - Mandarin.pdf","fileName":"Hazel Poa Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Bill 14 Oct 2024 - Mandarin.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6234,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Don Wee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20241014/vernacular-Don Wee Income Tax (Amdt) 14 Oct 2024 - Mandarin.pdf","fileName":"Don Wee Income Tax (Amdt) 14 Oct 2024 - Mandarin.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}