1 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) in the last three years, how many foreign brides in transnational marriages are employed in Singapore; (b) how are their children supported in terms of integration; (c) how successful have the Marriage Preparation, Marriage Support, and Friendship Programmes been since they were introduced; (d) what has been the divorce rate of transnational marriages in the last three years; and (e) what support is given to divorced foreign spouses, especially those with no income.
2 Mr Mohamed Irshad asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what support is given to family units comprising a foreign spouse in terms of integrating and entrenching themselves in Singapore.
\tThe Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 1 and 2 together, please.
Mr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Sam Tan Chin Siong: Thank you, Sir. Sir, we recognise that marriages between Singapore Citizens and Non-Residents may face unique circumstances, such as cross-cultural differences. Therefore, in 2014, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) introduced the Marriage Preparation Programme (MPP) and Marriage Support Programme (MSP) to help these transnational couples. These two programmes are designed to help transnational couples build a strong foundation for their marriage. The MPP focuses on key marital issues, such as roles and expectations, communications and conflict management, while the MSP follows up on the MPP post-marriage by helping Non-Resident spouses adapt to life in Singapore.
The programmes are well-received, with more than 98% of the MPP participants reporting that the programme has prepared them for marriage and that they could apply what they have learnt to their marriage. Similarly, more than 97% of the MSP participants said that the programme has helped Non-Resident spouses adjust to living in Singapore.
In 2015, we also introduced the Friendship Programme, where a trained volunteer is matched to a Non-Resident spouse to help him or her integrate into Singapore. More than 95% of the Non-Resident spouses who participated in the Friendship Programme reported that the programme has helped them adjust to living in Singapore.
To help Non-Resident spouses feel a sense of belonging in their community, the People’s Association (PA) also organises informal chit-chat sessions to bring transnational families, new immigrant families and their neighbours together. Between 2016 and 2018, PA organised 243 chit-chat sessions at Residents' Committees and Neighbourhood Committees, reaching out to about 15,600 residents.
Sir, most children from transnational families attend our local schools, just like other Singaporean children, and interact with students of different backgrounds in their classes and co-curricular activities. Through the Character and Citizenship Education curriculum in schools, children also learn about our society's norms and values. Being immersed in our local school environment is the best and most natural way to ensure that they are integrated, and children of transnational families do just as well in school as any other children.
In terms of employment, over the past three years, an average of 14,000 Non-Resident spouses holding Long Term Visit Passes (LTVP/LTVP+) were employed in Singapore each year with a Letter of Consent issued by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). This figure includes Non-Resident grooms and brides married to either Singaporeans or Permanent Residents.
Sir, transnational marriages are as resilient as marriages between Singaporeans. The divorce rates for transnational marriages before the fifth and 10th year of their marriage anniversaries are comparable to those for Singaporean marriages from the same cohorts.
For Non-Resident spouses of Singaporeans whose marriages end in divorce, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) would generally facilitate their continued stay in Singapore through a renewable LTVP, as long as they have custody over young Singaporean children. This is to allow them to care for their Singaporean children here. They can seek support from community agencies for a range of financial assistance and social services, and approach Social Service Offices (SSOs) for an assessment of their needs. SSOs and our Family Service Centres will also provide help and socio-emotional support, if the need arises.
Mr Speaker: Ms Anthea Ong.
\tMs Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): I thank the Minister of State for the clarification. What prompted me to ask the question was that one in three marriages in Singapore involves a Singaporean and a foreigner. We understand that a quarter of our babies born are born to a Singaporean and foreigner parent. In light of what the Minister of State has shared, does the Ministry have plans, be it in the long or short term, to introduce new policies or strengthen existing policies?
\tMr Sam Tan Chin Siong: Sir, I thank the Member for a very useful question. Every child born in Singapore, whether to a Singaporean couple or to a Singaporean and a non-resident spouse, is a child of Singapore. So, we will do our best to help. I have mentioned that MSF has three programmes to help transnational couples, particularly the foreign spouse, to adapt to living in Singapore. We also have the Letter of Consent issued by MOM to help the foreign spouse find work and employment in Singapore. So, we do have a few programmes to help them, namely, the MPP, MSP and the Friendship Programme, all are designed to help foreign spouses to adapt to Singapore and eventually be integrated with our society.
Although I mentioned that these programmes have produced very positive results, we know that there is always room for improvement. My Ministry is in the midst of doing a review of the MPP and MSP to find out whether there are shortcomings in the programmes and, if there are, then we would want to strengthen them further. In the process, we will also explore whether there is a need to offer new programmes. If there is a need, we will seriously consider that.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review MediShield Life's Claim Limits to Address Gaps","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Health in light of the recent case of MediShield Life disbursing only $4.50 as payout for an eye operation (a) whether he can reiterate the role of MediShield Life in our public healthcare financing system; (b) how does the Ministry determine the claim limits and ensure that MediShield Life provides adequate coverage for Singaporeans; and (c) whether the Ministry will review MediShield Life's claim limits to address the gaps.
4 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Health how does the Ministry ensure that the pegging of hospital charges for complex medical procedures for the purpose of assessing MediShield Life coverage is made current so that subsidised patients who undergo complex medical procedures will continue to be protected against large hospital bills.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 3 and 4 together?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Speaker, our public healthcare financing system comprises several components that work together to keep healthcare affordable for Singaporeans.
First, patients in public healthcare institutions enjoy subsidies of up to 80% of their bills. Second, we have introduced MediShield Life, a universal healthcare insurance which provides all Singaporeans lifelong protection against large hospital bills and selected costly outpatient treatments, regardless of age or health condition. Third, MediSave can be used for the balance of the bill and helps Singaporeans lower their out-of-pocket cash payments. Finally, MediFund and various forms of financial assistance at our public institutions provide discretionary, targeted assistance for those who have financial difficulties. Last year, MediFund provided about $150 million in assistance to patients who require additional help with their bills.
Taken together, this \"S+3M\" framework – the subsidy plus 3M – has worked well. It ensures that healthcare is affordable to Singaporeans, and no Singaporean is denied appropriate healthcare due to an inability to pay. To underscore this point, in our public hospitals, seven in 10 subsidised bills are fully paid without any cash outlay by the patient. In other words, 70% of all subsidised bills do not require any out-of-pocket cash payment by the patient at all. Of the remaining 30% of bills, one-third require payment of $100 or less in cash, and another one-third of that 30% is paid for using a cash outlay of between $100 and $500.
The enhanced MediShield Life was launched in 2015. This is a key component of our healthcare financing framework which provides universal and lifelong coverage, including for those with pre-existing illnesses. The Government provides premium subsidies to the lower- to middle-income to keep premiums affordable, and additional support to those who need more help with their premiums.
MediShield Life aims to strike a balance between keeping premiums affordable and ensuring adequate coverage of subsidised care. For this reason, MediShield Life has design features, such as claim limits, an annual deductible and co-insurance.
Coverage of claims and amount of payouts have improved since the introduction of the enhanced scheme. To provide members with a sense of the comparison, in 2017, 555,000 MediShield Life claims were approved and $845 million was paid out. This is up from 344,000 claims and $448 million in 2015 under the old MediShield. The average payout per claim was $1,520 in 2017, compared to $1,300 in 2015. For larger bills, the payout was correspondingly higher. For the largest 10% of subsidised hospitalisation bills, which was above $4,000 in 2017, the average payout per claim was $5,800. In comparison, MediShield paid out $4,000 on average for the largest 10% of subsidised bills in 2015.
As I had mentioned earlier, claim limits are one feature that helps MediShield Life strike a balance between keeping premiums affordable and also ensuring adequate coverage. MediShield Life claim limits and premiums were last revised in 2015 when the enhanced scheme was launched. At the time of launch, the claim limits were set to cover nine out of 10 subsidised bills. In addition, for larger bills within claim limits, the patient’s co-payment is reduced as the claimable amount goes up, dropping from 10% to 5%, and finally to 3%. So, for illustration, for claimable amounts above $10,000, the patient’s co-payment is 3%.
For bills that exceed the claim limit, patient’s co-payment will include the remaining bill not covered by MediShield Life. These bills tend to be for more complex cases or where patients received lower means-tested subsidies because of their higher income.
The latest available figures show that eight in 10 subsidised bills remain fully within the MediShield Life claim limits. This has come down from the limits set in 2015, caused in part by increased healthcare costs. We will review this and adjust the limits as necessary. However, even at present rates, in respect of the bills which fall outside the claim limits – in other words, outside of the eight out of 10 – about half exceed the claim limits by $230 or less.
The claim limits are necessary as they serve to keep premiums affordable. If we are to remove the claim limits altogether, there will be significant premium increases for all Singaporeans across the board, to the order of about 30% or more. Therefore, rather than impose this on all Singaporeans across the board, those who prefer to have higher coverage and are willing to pay higher premiums can consider private Integrated Shield Plans which can include \"As-Charged\" features that cover 100% of the bill. Conversely, where patients cannot afford the cash outlay, they can tap onto MediFund as I explained earlier, or on other financial assistance schemes.
In the recent case of Mr Seow Ban Yam, which Members raised, we understand that he had undergone a duct drainage procedure at the Singapore National Eye Centre (SNEC). The surgical procedure, which was performed by a senior consultant in an operation that took three hours, was complex, given his age. It is also not common for the procedure to be performed on both eyes at the same time. As an indication, this was only done for seven patients out of 42,000 procedures performed by SNEC that year. Mr Seow's bill was about $12,000 before subsidy. Of this amount, the Government subsidises approximately $7,500, leaving a balance of $4,500, or about $1,400 above the MediShield Life claim limit in this case.
Because the SNEC bill was significantly higher than the claim limit, the payout was comparatively small, after the yearly deductible of $3,000. However, the balance of Mr Seow's bill was thereafter fully covered by MediSave, which meant that Mr Seow did not have to pay any cash out of pocket for the procedures which he underwent. Nonetheless, we had asked SNEC to review their charges. Following the review, SNEC has decided to scale down its fees for this procedure and a number of other complex procedures with higher fees, and will do so from 1 March 2019.
\t
MOH regularly reviews MediShield Life claim limits and benefits. For example, we recently extended coverage to Home Parenteral Nutrition and direct admissions from emergency departments of public hospitals to community hospitals.
Last year, we also started a review of claim limits, with a view to making the appropriate adjustments as may be necessary. This ongoing review requires a careful assessment of the appropriate claim limits and also the consequential impact it may have on premiums, to ensure that the coverage of MediShield Life remains broad-based and also sustainable. This review is also being done in the context of the commitment to keep premiums constant for five years after the scheme was introduced in 2015. We expect the latest review to be completed by end 2020, but if the review is completed ahead of time, we will, of course, announce the revisions earlier. Moving forward, MOH intends to conduct these reviews of claim limits more regularly, around once every three years.
Just as important as having a good healthcare financing framework is managing healthcare costs effectively, so that overall affordability can be maintained. We have to work hard on this and also explore various fronts on which this can be done.
The need to monitor and manage costs and charges in public healthcare is particularly important. The majority of Singaporeans utilise subsidised healthcare in our public healthcare institutions. Some examples of our efforts to keep costs sustainable are the use of group procurement to get better prices, tapping on technology to improve productivity and applying healthcare technology assessments to guide the appropriate use of services, devices and drugs. We have also introduced programmes and services to help Singaporeans receive care earlier or at more appropriate settings. For example, under the hospital to home programme, patients receive visits at home for a few months after hospital discharge to ensure that they recuperate well and do not get re-admitted to the hospital. Together, these initiatives help Singaporeans manage costs and moderate increases in healthcare bills. We will keep a close watch on public healthcare costs and redouble our efforts to keep healthcare costs sustainable and affordable for Singaporeans.
To sum up, we have a healthcare financing framework that has worked well in striving to keep healthcare affordable for Singaporeans. The healthcare financing framework is designed with several different but overlapping components to provide holistic support to meet Singaporeans' healthcare costs. MediShield Life is one key component that provides Singaporeans lifelong protection against large hospital bills and selected costly outpatient treatments. Its features are aimed at ensuring adequate coverage while keeping premiums affordable. We will continue to review, refine and strengthen MediShield Life and other components of our public healthcare financing system, and, just as importantly, manage our healthcare costs to ensure that public healthcare remains affordable for all Singaporeans.
Mr Speaker: Ms Tin Pei Ling.
\tMs Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the very comprehensive answer. I have two supplementary questions. Firstly, for such an eye operation, which I would imagine is quite common for the elderly and with the ageing population, it will be imperative that we keep the cost affordable for them. So, since SNEC is reviewing its charges, will MOH also ensure other public hospitals or other healthcare institutions offering similar procedures also review their charges to make sure that they are on par and, therefore, ensure affordability for elderly citizens? That is the first question.
Secondly, I think Mr Seow's case has been quite unsettling for a lot of the elderly, given that it seems like a very reasonable procedure, common enough and yet the experience is that the payout is only $4.50. Given the spirit of MediShield Life, such an example will not be very helpful in giving that sense of assurance in terms of healthcare affordability. While I am heartened that there is a review, I am wondering if the review can be brought forward, given that MediShield Life was launched quite a number of years ago. So, whether the review could be brought forward and, in terms of the review frequency, I understand that the Senior Minister of State is estimating around every three years. Would this be timely enough? Does this coincide with the general healthcare inflation pattern?
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I thank the Member for the questions. Yes, we have to keep healthcare cost affordable. Members have heard me explain that that is our objective in designing the framework that we have. And in doing so, we try to strive to do that with two broad prongs. The first, obviously, is to look at the claims limit, which is the thrust of the Member's second question. And yes, we will review the claims limit and we will ensure that it is in tandem with the cost and ensure that the differential, as they move towards the inflationary cost for the healthcare sector, that it is kept in check and in tandem. Whether it is five years or three years, the objective is the same – to ensure that there is parity and that it rises in tandem, so we have decided to do it at three years. But, if necessary, we can always relook at the timescale as well.
The second prong is to deal with the charges side, because one has to look at the claim limits as one sector. The other one is, of course, the amount of cost that is charged at the healthcare institution. That will also be looked at to ensure that there is parity. And that is one key aspect of trying to bring down and maintain healthcare cost to keep it affordable. So, both will be looked at at the same time. In terms of timing, three years is what we aim for, both the reviews that we are doing now. And thereafter, we will see if that is in tandem with the trends and patterns in the healthcare industry. We will adjust as necessary.
Mr Speaker: Dr Lily Neo.
\tDr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, may I ask the Senior Minister of State how are deductibles derived at, and how do we make them more affordable? I am glad to hear that SNEC will look into the high cost of the eye duct operations. May I now ask whether MOH would also look at other departments, especially those with high charges on the conditions that require operations, in order to keep healthcare costs down? And how does MOH reassure Singaporeans that public healthcare costs, including the deductibles, are affordable to give them peace of mind?
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Deductibles are necessary, because they are one component of ensuring that the premiums remain affordable. If there were no deductibles, or there are no other co-payment schemes, then one would imagine that the premiums would rise and we want to ensure that, for the broader base of Singaporeans, premiums remain at a scale which is affordable. So, deductibles are necessary for that reason.
In terms of how the deductibles are looked at, one has to consider it in the context of the kinds of treatments, the claims assessment, the actuarial assessments as well, and then when you look at that in contrast with the premiums that we want to maintain, the levels at which we want to fix the premiums, that is how the deductibles are looked at and determined.
In the context of assurance, as I have explained earlier, the healthcare financing framework is made up of not just MediShield Life. It is a combination of MediShield Life, together with MediSave and, if necessary, MediFund, along with the subsidies, all working in tandem and often overlapping with one another. Which is why, even in the context of Mr Seow's case, which Members have heard me explain, is not quite as common as one might imagine. Even in that situation, with the deductibles and with the co-payments after MediShield Life, the patient does not have to be out of pocket because of MediSave. So, one has to look at the entire framework working in tandem as being the framework that will sustain affordable healthcare in Singapore.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for some of the statistics he gave. Mr Seow's case, of course, has started a whole enquiry into MediShield Life and how it works amongst many members of the public. I had a resident who has come to me, was hospitalised for two days for a minor stroke, out-of-pocket, including MediSave, from his own monies, it is about 25% of the bill. He sees a line item \"MediShield Life\" contributing zero dollars, that is, because it is within the deductible limit. So, my question really is about the review that MOH is undertaking – whether it is in line with the spirit of the MediShield Life Review Committee report, to have greater transparency on reserve requirements. Because that is where a large chunk of the public discussion is going to now – whether the amount of premiums collected is too high or is it just right? It is unclear to members of the public as to whether MediShield Life is over collecting premiums. Some clarity on that would be helpful, in line with the spirit of the MediShield Life Review Committee report.
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Well, there are two different questions at play here in Mr Pritam Singh's questions. The first obviously deals with the review of the claims limit, and that is a product of working out where the claims limit lie in the context of how many bills MediShield Life is designed to cover and looking at the healthcare cost in tandem with that and to achieve the ratio that one seeks to. That is the review of the claims limit that I spoke about earlier.
What Mr Singh is separately asking about is the adequacy ratio. The adequacy ratio is something which is kept at a pace that ensures longer-term sustainability of the fund, longer-term ability to meet vicissitudes of life, and also to ensure that the MediShield Life scheme, on a longer-time basis, remains sustainable. That is something we constantly look at as well. But I want to emphasise that it is a separate issue from looking at the claims limit, which deals with the actual cost itself and how many bills are covered by MediShield Life.
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
\tMr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two questions for the hon Senior Minister of State. The first question is in relation to claim limits for day surgeries. As the Senior Minister of State would know, with the advancement of technology, a number of procedures would entail patients to go through day surgeries instead of being warded in hospitals. This may result in cost-savings. Could these cost-savings be taken into account in setting the claim limit for complex procedures in day surgeries? That is the first question.
The second question is in relation to the information flow between the national health agencies setting their costs and MOH when assessing whether or not the claim limits would be sufficient and relevant. In the context of this case, for example, would ordinarily these healthcare agencies inform MOH, have that discussion on whether or not the price setting is appropriate before it is finalised?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: There are several hundred thousand bills that are put out in our public healthcare institutions, so it is not possible to look at every bill that goes out and in discussion with the healthcare institution before that. There are basic guidelines and benchmarks, and that is something that we look at. It is, in fact, the subject of the review that we will do as well. And particularly in the context of this case, that is what SNEC has reviewed and will implement from 1 March. So, I assure the Member that we will constantly look at that and keep that within the range that fits in with the philosophy of MediShield Life.
On the question of day surgery, to some extent, shortening procedure timings or use of technology might save time and possibly expenses and money. That would be another feature that would be looked at in the context of setting the claims limit. As the Member knows, there are tables of charges for different procedures and these are regularly reviewed with a very broad spectrum of expertise. Certainly, the issue as to whether or not cost savings might be gained from day surgeries or shorter surgeries or procedures which may be truncated because of technology, all these would be taken into account as we review the amount of claim limits that we have.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his detailed answers. Just three supplementary questions. The Senior Minister of State alluded to the adequacy ratio. Can I ask if the Government consciously benchmarks the adequacy ratio of MediShield Life against other similar healthcare insurance schemes where the insurance is mandatory by legislation in other countries in the world? Is MediShield Life's adequacy ratio benchmarked to be similar or in the same range as the similar schemes worldwide?
The second question is in relation to – if I understand the Senior Minister of State correctly – the 10% or so bills which fall above the claim limit where the difference is more than $230. Would the Senior Minister of State be able to share with us any pertinent common characteristics in such bills? For example, are they usually for older patients, where procedures may necessarily be a bit more complex? That may be helpful for various stakeholders out there to know what are the common characteristics as we think about this problem.
And the third question is just a clarification. For patients whose bills go above the claim limit, are they, as matter of routine, informed by public healthcare staff that MediFund assistance that is means-tested, is available to them?
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The adequacy ratio is not necessarily compulsorily or in a fix fashion benchmarked against other jurisdictions. But nonetheless, there are comparables that are looked at in determining and also assessing what the adequate ratio would be. But ultimately, we have to look at it in the context of our own domestic situation, our own claims pattern, the kind of procedures that we expect to see and also the healthcare trends that we expect in Singapore itself. And the ratio has to be determined based on those factors.
\t
\tOn the second question, the bills that fall outside the last 10%, as I explained in my speech earlier, they are largely made up of complex cases. I do not have the age breakdown for those cases. But, also, a sizeable component of those would be made up of patients who do not pass the means test for subsidies and that is why the amount outside of that would be larger.
Finally, the question of MediFund, at various stages in different hospitals, there will be counsellors, medical social workers as well who will be able to advise on the particular patient's case and the accessibility to MediFund based on the individual situation of that patient.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of Standard versus Non-standard Drugs Prescribed for MediFund Compared to Non-MediFund Assistance Patients","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the percentage of standard versus non-standard drugs prescribed for MediFund assistance patients in comparison to non-MediFund assistance patients in restructured hospitals; and (b) what is the governance in place to ensure appropriate prescribing of non-standard drugs for MediFund assistance patients.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, doctors in our public healthcare institutions typically prescribe patients with standard drugs. Doctors may sometimes prescribe non-standard drugs in specific instances, for example, if the patient does not respond to treatment with standard drugs or cannot tolerate the effects of standard drugs commonly used for his or her condition.
We currently do not have ready data on the percentage of non-standard drugs prescribed for patients on MediFund assistance versus those who are not. Overall, however, 85% of drugs prescribed in public healthcare institutions are standard drugs. This has been consistent over the last five years. Available data from our public hospitals do not suggest that there is a systematic difference in the percentage of non-standard drugs prescribed amongst subsidised patients.
To guide appropriate utilisation of drugs, the Ministry of Health's (MOH's) Agency for Care Effectiveness (ACE) publishes guidelines on the appropriate use of selected standard drugs. To encourage the use of standard drugs, they are included on a Standard Drug List (SDL) as well as a Medication Assistance Fund (MAF) list where subsidies are provided and patients receiving the drug should meet predefined clinical criteria. Where clinically appropriate, drugs that are not on the lists may also be accorded financial assistance on a case-by-case basis. Internal hospital committees are charged to ensure that drugs funded under MAF follow the guidance. In addition, MediFund provides additional subsidies to those who are facing financial difficulties, including for non-standard drugs, to ensure that they are affordable.
MOH tracks drug utilisation in Public Healthcare Institutions (PHIs) to monitor compliance to ACE Guidelines. Each public healthcare institution also has governance in place to ensure appropriate drug utilisation. For example, Pharmacy and Therapeutic Committees evaluate drugs for inclusion in their hospital drug formulary and guide doctors on the drugs to use in the course of treating their patients.
MOH shares the Member's concern that patients should be prescribed the drugs that are appropriate for them. MOH will continue to remind our healthcare institutions to do so and also strengthen our governance processes where necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Promote Use of Generic Drugs in Public Healthcare Institutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health (a) what measures are in place to promote the use of generic drugs in public healthcare institutions where they are assessed to be both cheaper and clinically equivalent to branded versions of the same drugs; (b) whether the Ministry tracks what proportion of the volume of all drugs prescribed are generics for those drugs where generic versions exist; and (c) if so, what is that figure in each of the last five years.
The Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Health (MOH) works with doctors and pharmacists from public healthcare institutions (PHIs) to encourage the usage of suitable generic drugs. In 2017, to better guide institutions and doctors in the use of generic drugs, we introduced a basket of clinically and cost-effective generic drugs which can replace the more expensive branded equivalents.
MOH and the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) monitor new generic drugs that enter the local market and add them to the basket on a regular basis.
MOH and PHIs have also implemented other measures to drive use of generic drugs. These include automatic substitution at the point of drug ordering, requiring doctors to provide explanations on the usage of more expensive branded drugs where generics are available and monitor its usage.
The utilisation of the generic drugs in the basket has risen over the years. By volume, the usage of the generic drugs in the basket has increased from 87% in 2013 to 99% in 2017.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Just a few supplementary questions. Firstly, are there plans from the Government to monitor the extent to which, across the board, branded versus generic drugs are prescribed in healthcare institutions because, as I understand it, the cost differences can be really tremendous? For one active ingredient that I just checked at retail, the cost difference is actually a factor of seven times. So, it can make a huge impact on curbing a spiraling healthcare cost. That is the first question.
Secondly, at the retail level, of course, given the trend that many people are self-medicating, anecdotally, it has been observed that at our pharmacies, generic versions of drugs sometimes cannot be found so easily, they are not displayed so prominently or sometimes they are not available at all, compared to pharmacies in countries like the United States (US), for example, where generic versions are prominently displayed with huge cost advantages. Is that something that the Government is looking into?
Thirdly, again, anecdotally, there are cases that one hears about where in the private healthcare space, generic versions of drugs are sometimes prescribed at the same price as the branded version without the patient really being aware of it. Is this also something that the Government is looking at?
Lastly, is there a resource that patients can go to to access typical retail prices of branded versus generic drugs for common cases? Is this something that is available and, if not, can that be looked into as well?
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Mr Leon Perera for those supplementary questions. In the PHIs, we do have a committee called the National Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee that looks into the various kinds of drugs that can be included into this basket of generic drugs. We review them very regularly and these drugs are included because they have a high impact on the costs in terms of drug prescription. Basically, these drugs are usually assessed to have high spending and high utilisation in the PHIs.
With regard to the generic options at retail pharmacies, I think this will be up to the business model of the pharmacy in deciding whether it is better to bring in the generic options or the branded options. However, I have come across many private pharmacies that do carry generic options for patients' purchase.
For like-minded practitioners, such as private general practitioners or even intermediate long-term care providers who are mindful of drug cost, we are also trying to encourage them to have some form of collaboration in terms of group purchasing or group procurement. This will, hopefully, help reduce the cost of drugs in the private sector.
The Member also mentioned about whether we could encourage private healthcare providers, such as private hospitals or private clinics, to use more generic options, and also the amount of generic drugs versus branded drugs that are being charged. This is a business decision by the private hospitals and practitioners. As they have different operational expenses and considerations, it is difficult for MOH to dictate exactly how much or what kind of drugs they prescribe to their patients.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera: I thank the Senior Minister of State for his very detailed answers. There was one question I asked: is there an online resource available for patients to check the price of generic versus clinically equivalent branded drugs, to educate patients so that they can perhaps demand for generic versions to lower the cost that they will need to bear? And if such online resources are not available, is this something the Government is looking into?
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I thank the Member for the suggestion. I am not aware whether there is an online resource for that purpose. But I can check and update the Member.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"HDB Flat Owners Who Gave Up their New BTO Flats in 2018","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the number of HDB flat owners who gave up their new BTO flats in 2018, broken down by flat type; (b) what are the reasons for owners giving up their new BTO flats; and (c) whether their deposits are forfeited.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, in 2018, about 900 Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat buyers cancelled their Build-To-Order (BTO) flat bookings, of which 25% were 2-room flexi or similar flats, 15% were 3-room flats, 38% were 4-room flats and 22% were 5-room flats.
The main reasons cited for cancelling the BTO flat bookings were either a change in housing plans, for instance, they wished to remain in their existing flat, or buy a resale flat, or a change in financial circumstances which affected the flat purchase.
Flat buyers who cancel their flat booking before signing the Agreement for Lease forfeit the booking fee, which ranges from $500 to $2,000, depending on flat type. If they cancel the flat booking after signing the Agreement for Lease, the forfeiture is 5% of the flat price. They would also need to wait a year before they may apply for another subsidised flat. These measures are in place to ensure that buyers are serious when they apply for a flat, and do not deprive others who are in urgent need of buying a flat. Nevertheless, where there are valid grounds, HDB has waived the forfeiture on a case-by-case basis.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong): I thank the Minister for the answers. I have three supplementary questions. Firstly, do we see a significant increase in the number of Singaporeans giving up BTO flats in 2018 compared to the past few years? And based on percentage, are there more second-timers that gave up BTO flats than the first-timers? Thirdly, are there plans to pick up the profile of Singaporeans who give up their BTO flats so that we can have a simple profile at the point of application and counsel them accordingly so as to minimise the chances of them giving up their BTO flats?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, can I ask the Member to repeat the third question? I did not quite get the question.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng: For those who give up the BTO flats, do we have a profile of whether they are trying to sell the flat, they cannot sell, or for other reasons, so that we can identify this profile and, at the point of application, counsel them accordingly?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for these supplementary questions. We have not seen a spike in the numbers. Every year, there will be a few who come to HDB to cancel for the reasons that I have cited. There are some second-timers who would like to give up because, as the Member Mr Ang Wei Neng has cited, they find it difficult to sell their present flat and choose not to proceed with the purchase. But these are not that many because, very often, when they have these difficulties, our first recourse is to give them more time to sell the flat. And, very often, with more time, they are able to sell the flat and then move on to their next flat that they have purchased.
So, we continue to analyse each of these cases and, as I said earlier, we are flexible. If there are genuine reasons, if there are financial difficulties, we will have different ways of helping them.
Mr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, may I ask the Minister, when these flats are given up by the purchaser after they have signed the agreement, are these flats subsequently put up for sale under the Sale of Balance Flats (SBF)? Does HDB suffer losses when the flats are resold? The third question is: instead of forfeiting 5% of the purchase flat price, would HDB consider charging an appropriate administration fee, considering that HDB is not a commercial entity and, really, if there are no losses suffered by HDB, would there be a lighter penalty imposed? Otherwise, the flat buyers do suffer quite a heavy loss for losing 5% of the flat price and considering that he also has a one-year time bar imposed on him.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, the flats are all put back to the Sale of Balance Flats. So, they are all eventually sold through the SBF exercise. As for why 5% and whether there are other mechanisms, at the end of the day, as I have said, we need a mechanism that ensures buyers consider very carefully the flat purchase. This is a major commitment; a major commitment for the flat buyer as a couple or as a single, and it is a major financial commitment as well. So, we want to have that in place to ensure that buyers take it very seriously and are also mindful that, when they make a flat purchase, it is a commitment on their part. If they were to apply and unwind it later, they are, in fact, depriving others who may want the flat more urgently.
So, it is not so much a loss on the Government but, in fact, they are depriving others of an opportunity to get a flat. So, we want that mechanism in place. But, as I have said, we do exercise flexibility and if there are individual cases that for some reason or another decide not to proceed with the application, they can put up the case and we will look at it on a case-by-case basis.
Mr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
\t
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Minister, I am speaking for the non-first-time home owners. How does the Ministry of National Development propose to help residents who, as home owners, have genuine difficulty in selling their homes because of the Ethnic Integration policy? For instance, in Little India, where flats are more popular with a certain ethnic group and it is really hard to sell to Chinese potential buyers, some of my residents really have genuine difficulty in selling their flats, yet have to commit to purchasing their BTO flats.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, I have mentioned earlier our first way of addressing these appeals is to give them more time and, very often, we find that by giving more time to complete the transaction of the new flat and to sell the existing flat, they are able to proceed. But if even after more time is given, they are still unable to proceed and they wish to not proceed with the transaction of the new flat, they decide that it is better for them to just stay with their existing flat, they do not want to sell, then I suggest that they approach HDB and we will look at their particular case and, if indeed there are genuine difficulties with proceeding with the transaction, we will consider whether or not the forfeiture may be waived.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
\tMr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Minister, what I want to raise is for joint applicants. What if something happens, say, if someone passes on or for whatever other reason, would HDB allow them to continue to purchase the flat, that is to say, as a result, they do not fulfil the conditions? And if they cannot, would a special waiver be given not to impose a penalty on them for such unfortunate cases?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, in the event of a demise of an applicant, if the remaining applicant wishes to purchase the flat and is able to meet the eligibility conditions, certainly we will facilitate that transaction. And if in the event the eligibility conditions are not met and the applicant chooses not to proceed, we will certainly be prepared to consider waiver of the forfeiture.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of Land Cost in Actual Prices of BTO Flats Constructed in 2016 and 2017","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for National Development what is the percentage of the land cost out of the actual cost price for a 3-room, 4-room, and 5-room type Build-To-Order (BTO) flat constructed in 2016 and 2017.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, the cost of building Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats includes the cost of land, construction, consultancy fees, financing and other project-related costs. The proportion of land and construction cost for individual projects will vary from project to project, depending on specific site, design and market conditions, as well as other factors affecting land and construction cost. For projects that were awarded in 2016 and 2017, the land cost was about 60% of total development cost, and this percentage was about the same across 3-, 4- and 5-room flat types.
In general, HDB's total development cost cannot be fully covered from the sale price of the flats. This is because the pricing of new HDB flats is guided by our objective of keeping public housing affordable. That is why in the last three years, from financial year (FY) 2015 to FY2017, HDB incurred an average annual deficit of about $1.14 billion per year for its Home Ownership Programme.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Just a point of clarification to the Minister. The Minister mentioned 60% is the average cost borne by HDB, on average, in 2016/2017. Just to confirm, for land cost, does that mean cost that is paid to the Singapore Land Authority by the HDB?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, that is correct. We have a robust and transparent process for the purchase of land and also for construction. Essentially, HDB, as a developer, is treated like any other developer with regard to land sales. And as Mr Leon Perera and other Members would appreciate, land sales are governed under the Constitutional rules for the protection of Reserves. So, the sale of land is benchmarked at a price set by the Chief Valuer, and land proceeds go on to past Reserves and we use a share of that through the Net Investment Return contributions that come to the Budget every year.
On the construction side, HDB will put up a tender and the tender will set the basis for the construction cost.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Prevent Malaysian Vessels from Entering Singapore Waters","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Defence whether steps have been taken or will be taken to prevent any further Malaysian Government vessels from entering the waters which Singapore has recently gazetted as part of her port limits on 6 December 2018 besides the existing Malaysian Government vessels which are currently within such waters.
\tThe Minister for Defence (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Mr Speaker, in his Statement to Parliament yesterday, the Minister for Foreign Affairs comprehensively set out this Government’s position and that of the Malaysian agencies with regard to intrusions by Malaysian Government Vessels into Singapore Territorial Waters (Tuas). For short, I will say STW (Tuas). Despite our disagreements, both sides want to resolve differences through discussions and peaceful means. To this end, the two Foreign Ministers agreed at their meeting on 8 January this year, to set up a working group of their officials that will \"discuss the legal and operational matters to de-escalate the situation in the waters off Tuas and will report within two months.\"
Against this context, Members – Mr Dennis Tan and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, who has now converted her Parliamentary Question to Written Question – have asked how our security personnel will respond to intrusions into STW (Tuas). It is a matter of public record that Singapore has been exercising jurisdiction in STW (Tuas) without any protest from Malaysia until 25 October last year. Our Police Coast Guard, the Republic of Singapore Navy and the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore will, therefore, continue to protect and assert our sovereignty over STW (Tuas) and the waters within Singapore Port limits.
Our security agencies carry out their operational duties with the utmost professionalism. While our security agencies do have the capability to compel the intruding Malaysian Government Vessels to leave, they have been ordered for now to exercise restraint and avoid escalating tensions with Malaysia, so as not to jeopardise the conditions necessary for constructive discussions and peaceful resolution of the dispute. Since 3 December, when intrusions by Malaysian Government Vessels began, our security personnel have repeatedly pressed these vessels to withdraw from STW (Tuas). We will continue to do so as their presence does not strengthen Malaysia’s legal claims in any way and, indeed, as we have said before, can result in mishaps or regrettable incidents.
Singapore has welcomed assurances by the Malaysian government that they would take measures to de-escalate the tensions in STW (Tuas). We hope that all Malaysian agencies will abide by this stated policy. Incidents, like the recent incursion by the Johor Menteri Besar, are provocative and escalatory, and contradict the officially stated policy of the Malaysian government. Tensions and real risks increased during this incident. Our security agencies had detected early the movement of the Menteri Besar’s entourage, which sharply increased the number of Malaysian Government Vessels in STW(Tuas) from two to five. Our Police Coast Guard and Republic of Singapore Navy vessels responded promptly to this provocation, as they had to. As a result, the total number of vessels in the area more than doubled. These provocations do nothing to help resolve disputes and, indeed, can precipitate incidents on the ground which will do lasting harm to bilateral ties.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Causeway Jams on Businesses in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) to what extent the recent Causeway jams have impacted businesses in Singapore; and (b) what measures are in place to reduce the extent and impact of such jams in future.
\tThe Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, Sir, the security and sustainability of supply chains are integral considerations for all of our businesses. To sustain business continuity, our economic agencies and businesses work closely together to diversify our supply chains where needed and possible, and anticipate and put in place measures to mitigate possible disruptions caused by natural disasters, seasonal factors or external circumstances. Such measures will include holding a certain amount of buffer stock for factors of production, and timing the deliveries to minimise delays by avoiding expected seasonal peak periods.
The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) regularly releases notices to anticipate jams, for example, during the year-end school holidays and festive periods on the Causeway. Many of our companies will schedule deliveries to avoid peak periods and factor in additional travel time to buffer for any delays due to such seasonal factors or external circumstances.
If there are significant disruptions to supply chains over land route, businesses will also use alternative routes through air or sea freight, and/or reserve stocks for essential supplies. So, while the jams may affect the schedule or timeliness of deliveries, we have not received feedback that it constitutes a major source of business disruption for our companies recently.
We will continue to monitor the situation closely and work with our businesses to diversify and put in place anticipatory measures to ensure the security and sustainability of our supply chains, such that no one factor – be it natural disasters, seasonality or externally imposed actions – can cause a major disruption to our economy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proceeds from Sale of Drugs or Related Activities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the Ministry's stance on proceeds arising from the sale of drugs or related activities which are criminal offences in Singapore but not in other jurisdictions; and (b) whether existing laws are robust enough to deal with persons or entities in Singapore who have dealings with persons or entities in other jurisdictions who are involved in such activities and where these activities are not illegal.
\tThe Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mrs Josephine Teo) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Singapore takes a firm stance against money laundering. We recently strengthened our ability to take action against money launderers through the amendments to the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act, passed in Parliament on 19 November 2018.
However, in order to prosecute a person who launders proceeds from the sale of drugs or other related activities in an overseas jurisdiction, those acts must be offences in that jurisdiction. This is in line with the international legal principle of dual-criminality.
Nevertheless, when we are aware of individuals who are involved in such dealings, we pay special attention to them when they come to Singapore.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
\tMr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, may I confirm that those persons who actually conduct such activities, which are deemed illegal here but are legal there, for them to launder their money over here, we cannot do anything against them?
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, what the Member said is not quite the case. Perhaps, I will take the opportunity to remind Members of the House on the set of legislative amendments that we made in November last year and how that has strengthened our position.
As I have explained in my earlier reply, Singapore needs to observe the principle of dual-criminality when dealing with money laundering offences linked to overseas crime. But this has never been the only challenge that prosecutors face. Previously, even after satisfying dual-criminality, prosecutors needed to obtain a certificate from the foreign government or a testimony from an expert in that foreign law to fulfil the burden of proof. This can be a very time-consuming process.
What we did with the recent legislative amendments is to reduce the burden on the prosecutors by allowing our Courts to decide on the basis of evidence presented by the prosecution that an offence has, indeed, been committed in the overseas jurisdiction. So, that requirement of dual-criminality must still be satisfied without having to rely on the foreign governments or experts.
\t
Sir, this has helped to address the delays that we have encountered in obtaining the certificate in cases in which the foreign government may not act on our request expeditiously or, in some cases, may not be willing to issue it. With the amendments, we are, therefore, able to prosecute the moneylending offences more effectively.
But to the very specific question on what if you cannot establish dual criminality, as I had said in my earlier reply, if they have the intention to do money laundering and if they set foot in Singapore, we will pay special attention to these individuals and do what is necessary to bring them within the law.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
\tMr Gan Thiam Poh: What I want to clarify is that lately, there are many countries that have legalised the sale of certain drugs which are considered illegal in Singapore. But in those countries, they have legalised these drugs. In other words, they allow retail of those drugs. But in Singapore, these are definitely prohibited; we will not allow them. So, for persons dealing in those drugs, I know they are not welcomed to Singapore, but they are okay in their country. In regard to that, the proceeds that are derived from sale in those countries, if they were brought to Singapore, how should we treat them?
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, to the Member's question, as I had explained earlier, the conditions of dual-criminality must be met in order for the money laundering offence to be established. But they may have other activities, and it is not for us to speculate on what other activities they may be engaged in. We pay attention to them and, if they have done something that is against the law in Singapore, then, we will take the necessary actions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Successful Appeals for Earlier Withdrawal of CPF Payouts ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in the past three years, what is the percentage of successful appeals for earlier withdrawal of payouts by CPF members who had to retire early; (b) what are the main reasons for disallowing the appeals; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider another option for CPF Life payments that start payouts at the minimum retirement age.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, on reaching the age of 55, all CPF members are eligible to make Central Provident Fund (CPF) withdrawals of up to $5,000, subject to available balances in the Ordinary and Special Accounts. Those with savings above the applicable Full Retirement Sum can withdraw all the monies above that amount. Those who own a property may also withdraw their savings above the Basic Retirement Sum using property charge or pledge.
Under the Medical Grounds Scheme, CPF members may apply to withdraw or start their payouts before the CPF Payout Eligibility Age of 65. The eligibility criteria include being permanently incapacitated, terminally ill, or having a severely impaired life expectancy due to illness. Such applications have to be accompanied by the relevant doctors’ certification. In the past three years, about 65% of applications under the Medical Grounds Scheme were successful. The remaining 35% were not successful because applicants did not meet the eligibility conditions. Unsuccessful applicants were referred to other avenues of help, such as Workforce Singapore (WSG) and the Social Service Offices.
In the last decade, the employment rate for residents aged between 60 and 64 has risen from 47.2% in 2008 to 60.4% in 2018. The unemployment rate for the same age group has remained consistently below 3% in the past five years.
A contributing factor is the introduction of re-employment legislation in 2012, which made it an obligation for employers to offer eligible employees continued employment after the age of 62, up to the age of 65. Re-employment has made it possible for many Singaporeans to work beyond the age of 62. Of those eligible for re-employment and who wished to continue working, over 98% were offered re-employment. In 2017, the re-employment age was raised further from 65 to 67.
In 2018, a Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers was formed to review, among other things, the longer-term relevance of and the next moves on the retirement and re-employment ages. However, as the CPF Payout Eligibility Age was raised to 65 only in 2018, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) does not have plans to lower it. The Medical Grounds Scheme will also continue to be available to eligible members who may need to withdraw or start their payouts earlier than age 65.
Mr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): I have one supplementary question. I am not asking the Minister to lower the payout age to 62. The majority are okay with the payout age of 65. But from time to time, there are residents who approach me. They are retired at 62, there are no \"medical grounds\" justification, they are healthy. What they do not have is money. So, they are asking whether CPF Board will consider another option. For the majority, the payout age is 65, whereas some can get it earlier. They are prepared to get a lower sum but at the retirement age of 62.
\t
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I am glad to hear the Member's clarification on what she is asking. If I heard the Member correctly, it is to make the payout eligibility age lower for some people who want it, but maintain it at 65 for the rest. May I ask the Member whether she thinks that it is possible for us to do that – allow some people to have a lower age, and then require other people to stick to the payout eligibility age of 65? The option has to be made available to all?
[(proc text) The hon Member Er Dr Lee Bee Wah nodded in agreement. (proc text)]
Mrs Josephine Teo: I see. I think we have explained it before. If you make early withdrawal an option for all, then, in effect, it is really a reduction of the payout eligibility age. Today, the payout age can already be voluntarily deferred to 70 but the payout eligibility age remains at 65. That is the earliest that the person can withdraw.
So, the substance of the Member's request is really not an option but a reduction. I hope I have correctly understood the Member's suggestion.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah: Yes, it is true that, currently, for those who want to extend and withdraw their money later, it is available as an option. It is only for those who have money who can afford to opt to withdraw their CPF money at a later age. But there are some who do not have money and they would like to withdraw earlier. So, we can have: Option 1, withdraw at 62 years and at much lower sum; Option 2, the current one, where withdrawal of the money is at age 65; Option 3, withdrawal of the money at 70 years old.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I think we can establish that the substance of the Member's suggestion is to reduce the payout eligibility age. Here, some international benchmarking could be helpful. By international standards, setting the payout eligibility age at 65 is not unusual at all. Among the 35 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, well over half have pension withdrawal age at 65 or above. In fact, the highest today, as far as I know, is 67. In light of increasing longevity, people living longer and the likelihood of them working longer, some countries have already set in motion the raising of the pension withdrawal age. In the case of the Netherlands, for example, the pension withdrawal age will go up from 66 to 67 in the year 2021. In the case of Denmark, it will go up, if I recall correctly, from 65 to 67 in 2022. In the case of Germany, it will go up to 67 by 2031.
Against such a backdrop, we must really ask if it is wise to lower our own payout eligibility age for all. There will be no option, it will have to be for all, especially considering how we now have re-employment legislation that puts an obligation on the employers to offer work up to 67.
My sense is also consistent with what the Member said earlier that most workers understand this. They understand we are living longer. In the last few months since we started the tripartite workgroup on older workers, I have met many union leaders. At the National Trades Union Congress' (NTUC's) suggestion, we did this in clusters – aerospace, logistics, healthcare, financial services and even the public sector – a very diverse group of workers. We talked about many things. The CPF payout eligibility age did not come up very much at all. What has been said very clearly is that the workers want the opportunity to work longer. This is also consistent with the focus group discussions that we held with members of the public. They want to keep working and save more. I hear these workers and I understand them. I want to be able to help make it happen.
At the same time, the employers have also expressed their concerns to me. They have worries about their increased obligations and their considerations. I think we must not also dismiss lightly.
The main priority for now is to build a tripartite consensus on the way forward. And this tripartite consensus concerns the retirement age which is currently 62, the re-employment age up to 67 today. The new tripartite consensus is an important one and it is the topmost of my priority this year. In this process, we take reference from what we have always done in the past, which is that the workers express their views, the employers express their views, and we try to find a common ground for the best way forward. That is how we did it with the re-employment age of up to 65 and then, subsequently, to 67. If we can have a good new tripartite consensus on the retirement age and the re-employment age, it will point the way forward for all of us that is helpful. I ask for some time to get this done.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Make Public Data on Complaints of Unfair Employment Practices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry will consider making public the data on complaints of unfair employment practices received by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) or the Ministry that identify the employer, specific complaint, and action taken; and (b) what considerations the Ministry has in publishing such data or keeping such data confidential.
\tThe Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) already publishes aggregated statistics on complaints of unfair employment practices. TAFEP and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) received 450 such complaints a year on average between 2015 and 2017. The vast majority of complaints are claims of unfair consideration for Singaporeans or age discrimination. In investigating these complaints, TAFEP would engage the employers involved, and employers are generally cooperative. Most of the complaints arise because employers do not have a proper system to address internal grievances or are insensitive to the different needs and conditions of employees. For the former, TAFEP would help employers improve their internal practices and processes. For the latter, our priority is to resolve such complaints amicably in a way that allows both the employers and the employees to move on from the incidents.
Some complaints result in sanctions. These involve employers who are not cooperative with TAFEP or who are found to adopt unfair employment practices. MOM takes enforcement actions against such employers, including curtailing their work pass privileges.
MOM and TAFEP will consider publicising cases in situations of public interest or where the conduct is egregious, as we have done so in the past. However, while naming all errant employers publicly would serve as a deterrent, there could be unintended consequences, such as indirectly identifying the affected employees and breaching their privacy.
To raise public awareness and prevent unfair employment practices, TAFEP develops case studies from actual cases and educates employers through focused channels, such as TAFEP's briefings and workshops, to share contextualised learnings from specific cases. Employers can better understand and appreciate the need to adopt fair employment practices through such in-depth discussions.
\t
\t
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.
\tAssoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for his response. I think the concern here among the public is whether there is effective action taken when they make a complaint on discrimination. Of course, I understand the Ministry and TAFEP are doing all they can on this matter. But I suppose when many employers are not named specifically, when only case studies are made, perhaps the most erroneous are named, then perhaps, there may be the perception amongst discriminated against parties that not much is being done by the Government on this front. So, I would appreciate if the Minister of State could reconsider this policy of not naming, in general, employers in cases.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. One thing that I wish to assure the Member and Singaporeans in general about is that TAFEP will assess every complaint that comes in, especially those that are based on facts, and certainly, where you have a formal complaint where the employee also identifies himself, puts a specific complaint on the employer. We will listen to both sides, the employer as well as the employee. In fact, to assure Members that action has been taken, from 2013 to 2017, MOM investigated, and we took action against 521 companies for discriminatory employment practices. Among the 521 companies, 300 or 58% received warnings, and 221 or 42% had their work pass privileges curtailed.
So, to a certain sense, Members can see from the number of complaints and the number of companies that we have taken action against, it is quite substantive. So, to a certain sense, Members can see that there is action being taken. And certainly, we have to be fair to both employees and employers to make sure that the cases are dealt with fairly.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Suppat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of State a follow-up question with regard to the first question. Since the inception of TAFEP, has the number of complaints, in terms of discriminatory practices or in addition to that, increased over time? Can the Minister of State share the general trend of the number of complaints since the inception of TAFEP?
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: The Member's question relates to publicity, so I do not have the statistics from the time TAFEP was conceived. But as stated in my earlier reply, there has been 450 complaints a year on average between 2015 and 2017. So, that is the number we got.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): I thank the Minister of State. I just wanted to give a suggestion. As TAFEP flags out annually the kind of complaints it receives, is it possible to outline it? If the Minister of State cannot pinpoint a company and name a company, then perhaps the type of companies, that is, the sectors, the nature of the complaints, what kinds of discriminatory practices or unfair practices and as well as the size of the company.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank the Member for his question. Mr Speaker, as I had mentioned earlier, we do share with companies in general some of the cases and contextualise. And, in certain cases where the situation can be egregious, we actually name the companies. So, we are not shy from naming companies. But to name every single one, well, there are different considerations. One, there are different levels of egregiousness. Two, you may end up breaching the privacy of the employers, especially if it is just one targeted. So, we have to be quite careful about the kind of cases we put up. But generally, we do contextualise and put up case studies for other companies. But certainly, we will consider the Member's suggestion.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Link Between Size of Endowment Funds and Differences in Student Educational Resources, Expenditure and Opportunities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has studied whether the larger endowment funds held by older autonomous universities (AUs) result in differences in student educational resources, expenditure, and opportunities across AUs; (b) whether the Ministry will consider measures to help newer AUs build their endowments to provide their students and faculty with comparable resources; and (c) whether the Ministry has any measures to ensure that differences in endowments do not unduly affect the quality of education and research across AUs.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, our autonomous universities (AUs) raise donations to build up their endowment funds, which generate a steady stream of investment income to supplement annual Government funding, student fees and various grants to support university expenditures.
Since 1991, the Government has encouraged donations to tertiary education by providing 1:1 matching grant. This was raised to 1.5:1 in 2010 for AUs. For the newer institutions, for example, the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT) and Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS), the Government further enhanced our support to them by granting them sizeable seed monies to start up their endowment fund, as well as more generous matching grants at 3:1.
The sizes of endowment funds across the AUs differ today. They depend on the ability of the AUs to raise donations, investment returns and, of course, how long the AU has been in existence.
Government funding continues to be the main source of funding for university education. Regardless of which AU they are enrolled in, Singaporean students receive a subsidy of around 75% of costs. There is also an array of funding initiatives from the Ministry of Education (MOE) and other Government agencies that AUs can tap on to support projects and research.
The Government will continue to support every AU, both financially and otherwise, to provide the best education experience for their students.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.
\tAssoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his response and, of course, also MOE for funding the newer AUs generously.
The National University of Singapore, I understand, has an endowment of about $4 billion and the Singapore University of Social Sciences of about $400 million. And these endowment funds may be used by the universities to support scholarships, professorships, teaching and research. So, while I do not begrudge the more established universities for their success at fundraising and using funds, I do wonder if the Ministry could monitor the use of endowment funds to contribute to teaching and research, and if it results in disproportionate access or quality, if the Ministry could use that as a consideration when granting operating funds to the universities.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for sharing his concern. Indeed, this is what we do. In fact, we not only engage the AUs at the staff level, even my own Minister visits all the different AUs regularly, especially the newer ones. And when we discuss, we discuss issues like these and we monitor them closely. At the end of the day, we also want to support them at the initial phase and we want to journey with them to ensure that it is about a long-term horizon. We want to develop universities that can last for many years. The National University of Singapore (NUS) has been in existence for 114 years. And we want our newer ones to be like NUS and beyond, so that we can give the best education experience for Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reports of Mental Health Cases in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Education over the past five years (a) what is the annual number of cases related to mental health issues reported to the Ministry involving (i) primary school students, (ii) secondary school students and (iii) post-secondary students; (b) how many have been diagnosed through referrals made by mainstream schools or the Ministry; and (c) how many have made requests for special provisions for examinations or other assessment-related issues.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Education): Speaker, mental health issues occur in a variety of forms and severity levels. Some students remain undiagnosed due to lack of awareness or prefer not to disclose their condition for various reasons. Further, as medical diagnoses are confidential, schools and institutions may not be kept informed of the outcome following a referral. It is, therefore, difficult to determine the precise number of students diagnosed with mental health issues.
Mental health issues are on the rise internationally. The World Health Organization projected that mental illness rates will continue to increase. Students are particularly vulnerable as they grapple with significant social, emotional and physical transitions in their growing up years. Having said that, most do not develop mental health issues but need support, especially from their families, for personal issues.
Schools and post-secondary institutions also provide support to students regardless of whether they have a specific diagnosis. Our teachers and lecturers are equipped to look out for students in distress, provide timely support, and refer them to school counsellors for additional support where necessary.
On the separate issue of Access Arrangements for examinations, over the last five years, the annual number of applications for Access Arrangements across the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) and GCE-level examinations that have indicated conditions, such as anxiety and depression, is very small, at between 0.1% and 0.2% of the cohort.
We are monitoring the levels of stress and taking systematic steps to take care of students’ well-being and strengthen their resilience. We are also working closely with parents to raise awareness on mental health, so as to encourage early identification and increase help-seeking for their children.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Intan Mokhtar.
\tDr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Speaker, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answers. I have two supplementary questions. Can I check whether the Ministry makes provisions for extra time for students who are diagnosed with conditions, such as anxiety or depression, when they take their examinations, very much like that for students who are diagnosed with dyslexia, for example? The second question is whether the Ministry would also consider alternative assessments, such as regular assignments rather than a one-time pen and paper test or examination, for such students who are diagnosed with mental health issues.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the questions. Indeed, we take on a case-by-case approach in the cases that we come across. We want to see how we can help the students as much as possible, and that is what we do for the Access Arrangements which I have shared earlier. It also includes working with professionals and specialists, and we take on the advice from the specialists on what would be the best approach to provide that educational experience to the children. So, we will take in the Member's feedback and, at the same time, we will continue to help as many people as possible.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government's Response to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Cyberattack on SingHealth's IT System","subTitle":"Statements by Minister for Communications and Information and Minister for Health","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for Communications and Information (Mr S Iswaran): Mr Speaker, on 6 August last year, I informed this House that I had convened a Committee of Inquiry (COI) into the cyberattack on SingHealth's database system. The scale of the cyberattack was unprecedented. The personal particulars of about 1.5 million patients were illegally accessed and copied. It was malicious. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's records were specifically and repeatedly targeted. And there were serious implications for public health and safety, as SingHealth's database system is part of our Critical Information Infrastructure (CII).
Therefore, I convened this COI because the Government wanted a robust and transparent inquiry that would get to the bottom of this cyberattack and, in particular, the COI was asked to, firstly, establish the events and contributing factors and evaluate the incident response by the Integrated Healthcare Information Systems Private Limited (IHiS) and SingHealth. And secondly, to recommend measures to safeguard public sector information technology (IT) systems that contain large databases of personal data against similar cyberattacks.
The Committee conducted a rigorous and comprehensive inquiry over five months. They examined testimonies from 37 witnesses, including local and foreign experts, as well as 26 written representations from members of the public, professional associations, organisations and companies. The COI conducted 22 days of hearings which were opened to the public except when there were implications for national security or patient confidentiality.
The COI submitted its classified report to me on 31 December 2018. The COI also released a public version of the report on 10 January 2019 which my Ministry has distributed to Members of this House. The public report contains all recommendations and material findings from the full COI report. It only excludes highly sensitive information heard by the COI in closed-door sessions.
Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I ask the Clerk to distribute the notes on the COI findings and recommendations?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members.]
Mr S Iswaran: At this juncture, on behalf of the Government, I would like to place on record our deep gratitude to the Committee for its hard work in undertaking a robust and transparent inquiry. I would also like to thank the Attorney-General's Chambers, investigators from the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) and the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), and the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) officers who supported the COI, witnesses who gave evidence, as well as organisations, professionals and members of the public who contributed their views and suggestions in the course of the Inquiry.
Let me now highlight the main findings of the COI.
The COI has been candid in its report, which establishes the sophisticated nature of the attacker, but also gives a detailed and stark account of shortcomings at the staff and systems level that contributed to the failure to prevent the attack or limit its impact.
Specifically, the COI found that while SingHealth fell victim to an Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) group, the success of the attacker in obtaining and exfiltrating the data was not inevitable. IHiS and SingHealth should have been better prepared and more robust in their actions. If they had done so, the cyberattack could have been limited or even stopped. I will now go into the findings.
First, the COI found significant shortcomings at the staff level. IHiS staff did not have adequate cybersecurity awareness, training and resources to appreciate the security implications of their observations and to respond effectively to the attack.
Also, certain IHiS staff holding key roles in IT security incident response and reporting failed to take appropriate or timely action, even when there were clear signs of an ongoing attack. However, and this is noteworthy, the COI also commended specific IHiS IT administrators who were vigilant, noticed the suspicious activities and took the initiative to follow up.
Second, the COI found a number of vulnerabilities, weaknesses and misconfigurations at the technical level in the SingHealth network and database system which allowed the attacker to obtain and exfiltrate the data. Many of these could have been remedied before the attack.
Third, the COI observed that although SingHealth was ultimately responsible, it had no management line of sight with regard to the assessment of the cybersecurity risks. SingHealth lacked the necessary expertise and resources and was wholly dependent on IHiS, even at the management level.
The COI, having heard evidence from CSA, also established that the cyberattack was the work of a skilled and sophisticated actor bearing the characteristics of an APT group. This finding was corroborated by international expert witnesses. An APT group is a class of cyberattackers, typically state-linked, who conduct extended cyber campaigns to steal information or disrupt operations. The COI found that the attacker was well-resourced and had used advanced techniques and tools to target the SingHealth patient database and illegally exfiltrate patient data. The attacker was persistent, evaded detection for a long time and even re-entered the network after being detected.
Appropriate action has been taken, and we know the identity of the attacker. But for national security reasons, I will not comment further.
The detailed evidence for all of the COI's findings are in the public report, but it does not include highly sensitive information – pertaining to SingHealth's network architecture, technical vulnerabilities exploited in the attack, and the identity of the attacker – which is only in the classified COI report.
Turning to the recommendations. The COI has made 16 recommendations to strengthen SingHealth's patient databases, as well as public sector IT systems which contain large databases of personal data. Seven are priority recommendations which should be implemented immediately, and nine are additional recommendations which are to be seriously considered. The recommendations fall into four broad categories – People, Process, Technology and Partnerships.
On People, the COI notes that frontend users are often the weakest link targeted by attackers, and that it is line staff who are often the first to notice a security incident and respond. Hence, the recommendations include enhancing cyber hygiene practices, building a culture of cybersecurity across the entire organisation, and ensuring that IT staff are well-trained and equipped to respond to cybersecurity incidents.
The COI also calls for strong institutional Processes. In incident response, for example, there should be clear plans and standard operating procedures (SOPs) and regular exercises with realistic scenarios to test their effectiveness. There should also be regular and comprehensive checks to identify vulnerabilities and high-risk areas, accompanied by audit and compliance checks, to ensure that the identified gaps have been plugged.
On Technology, the COI has proposed various measures to strengthen cybersecurity to better prevent, detect and respond to future attacks. These include stronger encryption for data, heightened monitoring of database activity, and an integrated system to aggregate and analyse threat information in real-time and rapidly isolate and contain the infected system.
The COI has highlighted the need to build up collective security over our systems, given that Singapore is highly connected and a high-value target. This can be achieved by strengthening Partnerships between the Government, industry and international partners, in areas, such as threat intelligence sharing.
The COI has emphasised that, ultimately, cybersecurity must be an integral part of a broader risk management framework and cannot be treated merely as a technical matter. Organisations need to strike a balance between security considerations, operational requirements and cost, and these tradeoffs and decisions must be made at the Board and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) level, and not just by the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) and technical staff.
Mr Speaker, the Government accepts all of the COI's findings and recommendations. Cybersecurity is a critical enabler of our Smart Nation ambitions. We will, therefore, fully adopt the COI's recommendations and do our utmost to ensure that our IT and database systems are secure, and that personal data collected by Government systems is well-protected.
I will now elaborate on the Government’s efforts, ongoing and in response to the COI report, to strengthen cybersecurity at both the national level and across the public sector. Minister Gan Kim Yong will cover the public healthcare sector’s efforts.
The Government’s approach to cybersecurity is underpinned by two key principles that have also been highlighted by the COI.
First, we adopt a \"defence-in-depth\" strategy, with multiple layers of cyber defences to impede an attacker. These layers of defence cascade from the perimeter to within our systems, as we recognise that a sophisticated and determined attacker, given enough time and resources, may find a way through. This is why we also have capabilities in our layered defence that enable swift detection of a breach and a decisive response.
Second, we seek to enhance our system defences by strengthening our people, processes and technology. Our aim is not only to monitor and respond robustly to an incident, but also to ensure a quick recovery and resilience in our system.
The COI emphasised that the battle against today’s cyber threats must be based on networked defence across organisations and sectors. The COI also recognised the Government’s commitment to such collective security, by establishing CSA to coordinate our national cybersecurity efforts. CSA leads our national-level response to the cyber threat, including by reinforcing cybersecurity in all CII sectors.
Immediately after the cyberattack, and even as the COI proceedings were underway, CSA instructed all CII sectors to strengthen network security by taking additional prescribed measures, such as removing non-essential connections to unsecured external networks and implementing uni-directional gateways like data diodes to prevent data leakage.
CSA also accelerated the implementation of the Cybersecurity Act, which provides the legislative framework for the oversight and maintenance of national cybersecurity. The Act came into force on 31 August last year and CSA designated all CIIs by 31 December last year. All CII owners must now comply with their obligations under the Act. These include adhering to essential cybersecurity measures set by CSA through the Cybersecurity Code of Practice, reporting cyber incidents to CSA within prescribed timeframes, and conducting regular risk assessments and audits of their CIIs.
In addition, CSA also instructed all CII owners through their sector leads to conduct thorough internal reviews of their cybersecurity posture against the gaps identified during the COI hearings. These included reviews of their people, process and technology measures, such as mandating cybersecurity training and awareness programmes, establishing a robust patch management process and implementing access management solutions to manage privileged administrator accounts. CSA has directed CII owners to implement plans to close any identified gaps and report the results.
CSA will continue to actively work with the sector leads and CII owners to reinforce their cyber defences and cyber resilience and safeguard the cybersecurity of our systems and networks.
I now turn to the cybersecurity of public sector systems, which is a key enabler for our Smart Nation initiatives to improve public services for our citizens and businesses. The Smart Nation and Digital Government Group (SNDGG) had already started enhancing the cybersecurity of Government systems before the cyberattack.
Upon discovering the cyberattack, SNDGG paused the rollout of new Government systems from 20 July to 3 August 2018. During this pause, first, SNDGG checked and confirmed that other systems were not breached by the same attacker, whether through the IHiS system or via a separate breach. Second, SNDGG and CSA reviewed the Government’s cybersecurity posture, and introduced additional measures on critical Government systems to enable us to detect and respond more quickly to cybersecurity threats.
The findings and recommendations of the COI give added impetus to our efforts to continuously review and enhance the cybersecurity of Government systems. In particular, the findings reaffirmed the \"defence-in-depth\" approach that the public sector had adopted towards cybersecurity. The public sector will also continue to strengthen our defences on all fronts – people, process, technology and partnerships – as informed by the COI recommendations.
In terms of people and processes, SNDGG will strengthen existing processes to prevent lapses and heighten vigilance. The public sector will use technology even more to support its IT staff and automate cybersecurity tasks, such as patch management, so as to carry out these tasks more reliably. SNDGG will further tighten internal checks and enhance security audits, for example, by increasing their frequency. We will also instil a stronger cybersecurity culture across the Public Service. This will be done by conducting more exercises to sharpen our officers' readiness and train all public servants in cybersecurity. Above all, we expect our officers at all levels to be aware of their responsibilities, to be accountable for their actions, and to perform their duties to the best of their ability.
On the technical front, SNDGG will continue to shore up defences at the perimeter of Government systems, while introducing measures to better detect and respond to intrusions within our systems. Beyond the measures implemented during the pause in the rollout of new Government systems, such as monitoring critical Government databases, SNDGG is also looking into improving the architecture of Government systems to enable more extensive monitoring and detection of abnormal activities.
We also recognise that the Government cannot strengthen its cybersecurity alone. Therefore, the Government will enlist the expertise of the larger cybersecurity community, including ethical hackers, to help us surface and detect vulnerabilities in our information and communication technologies (ICT) systems. The Government Technology Agency (GovTech) and CSA have launched a Government Bug Bounty Programme, and have invited local and international white-hat hackers to search for and uncover vulnerabilities on five Internet-facing Government systems and websites. This will help us draw in a wide range of expertise to help identify cyber blind spots and benchmark our defences against skilled global hackers.
In terms of tracking the follow-up, CSA will oversee the follow-up on the COI's recommendations across all CII sectors, which includes the public sector. To do this, CSA will work through the sector leads of the 11 CII sectors who are responsible to monitor implementation for their respective sectors and to report progress to CSA as the national cybersecurity authority. SNDGG, as sector lead for the Government sector, will monitor implementation for Government systems. We will then track overall progress via regular updates at the relevant Ministerial committees.
The Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) has also completed its investigations of the data breach incident. Both IHiS and SingHealth have been found to be in breach of the Personal Data Protection Act. PDPC has imposed a total financial penalty of S$1 million, comprising S$750,000 and S$250,000 on IHiS and SingHealth respectively. These are the highest penalties meted out by PDPC to date.
The measures recommended by the COI will help us defend ourselves better against malicious cyber activities, including from international attackers. This was not the first instance where we were targeted and it will not be the last. Our networks are continually probed for weaknesses and regularly attacked.
A cyberattack of the scale and sophistication that was launched against SingHealth could also be mounted on any one of our major IT systems, threatening the safety and security of Singapore and Singaporeans, which are of paramount importance. Singapore is firmly committed to the establishment of a rules-based international order in cyberspace. We condemn all malicious cyber activity that seeks to undermine the integrity of the international political and economic system and violates the norms of behaviour in cyberspace as set out in the 2015 United Nations (UN) Group of Governmental Experts consensus report. This includes the cyber-enabled theft of sensitive data. Such activities can have a disruptive impact on Singapore and internationally in our highly interconnected world.
Singapore has consistently advocated that the international community come together to build consensus and develop a rules- and norms-based international order in cyberspace, a cyberspace that fosters trust and confidence, and one where its users can remain safe and secure. This is consistent with Singapore's fundamental stand that a rules-based multilateral system is indispensable to secure peace and stability in the international arena. To this end, Singapore has been actively hosting and supporting regional and international discussions and cybersecurity programmes aimed at building consensus on the rules of behaviour in cyberspace. Singapore stands ready to work with all parties toward closer international cooperation in the cyber and digital sphere.
Mr Speaker, Sir, to conclude, the Government takes very seriously its responsibility of ensuring the cybersecurity of our systems that are vital to the provision of essential services. The findings and recommendations of the COI into the SingHealth cyberattack have helped to sharpen our focus and given further impetus to our efforts to secure our systems and databases, especially against a sophisticated cyberattacker.
But there is no permanent fix nor absolute cybersecurity. It is a constant battle against cunning adversaries with advanced capabilities. And we cannot let incidents like this derail our Smart Nation initiatives that can enhance our economic competitiveness and deliver better public services for the benefit of our citizens.
We will do our utmost to strengthen Singapore's cyber defence capabilities and prevent cybersecurity breaches. However, if a breach occurs despite our best efforts, we must have the capability to detect it quickly and respond robustly to minimise the damage. Our people must stay resilient in the face of such a continuing threat while doing their part for our cyber defence. We will learn from this incident, emerge stronger and uphold the trust of Singaporeans.
Mr Speaker: The Minister of Health will be making a related Ministerial Statement. I will allow Members to raise points of clarification on both Statements after this Statement. Minister Gan Kim Yong.
The Minister for Health (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to make this Statement on the COI into the cyberattack on SingHealth's IT system.
The healthcare system’s foremost priority is our patients' well-being. This encompasses not just safe and effective care, but also the protection of their personal data. We, the healthcare family, have a responsibility to our patients to ensure both these aspects.
The cyberattack on SingHealth's IT system has resulted in the data of a large number of patients being illegally accessed. Once again, I apologise to our patients on behalf of our healthcare family. We are deeply sorry.
Minister Iswaran has provided a summary of the COI’s findings and recommendations. I would like to thank the COI for its comprehensive work and detailed findings on the incident.
I agree with the COI that we were lacking in several areas.
Some of our IT personnel did not have sufficient levels of cybersecurity awareness, training and resources to respond to the attack. Certain staff with key roles in IT security incident response failed to take essential actions, resulting in missed opportunities to prevent the attack or minimise its impact.
There were vulnerabilities in our IT system that were exploited by the attacker. Examples include servers that were not adequately secured against unauthorised access, and weak passwords and administrator account controls.
There were gaps in the management of IT assets, compliance with security policies, as well as inadequate remediation of known system vulnerabilities.
The public healthcare family needs to do much better. I welcome the COI’s wide-ranging recommendations. These have been touched on by Minister Iswaran. So, I will not go through in detail.
I will instead focus on the healthcare family’s responses and follow-up actions. The COI findings and recommendations will play an important role in guiding our actions and our cybersecurity direction going forward.
Following the discovery of the cyberattack, IHiS implemented several measures to tighten cybersecurity. These included: (a) creating firewall rules to block further malicious callbacks to the suspected command and control servers; (b) reloading servers with clean images to eliminate any remaining presence of the attacker; (c) disabling the tool used by the attacker to enter the network; (d) implementing temporary Internet Surfing Separation (ISS) for the public healthcare sector; (e) accelerating the deployment of Client Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) to public healthcare servers and endpoint devices. ATP identifies threats based on the techniques used by more advanced threat actors and is better able to detect customised hacking tools designed to bypass conventional defences; and (f) IHiS has also improved its incident response processes and SOPs, with clearer channels of reporting and escalation criteria.
Subsequently, in November 2018, IHiS announced further measures which are being implemented progressively across public healthcare agencies. Let me highlight a few key ones.
Database Activity Monitoring (DAM) has been implemented for the SingHealth electronic medical record database. DAM provides more comprehensive alerts and blocks database queries from unauthorised sources. DAM will be extended to the electronic medical record databases of all the other healthcare clusters by mid-2019.
IHiS has strengthened the security of domain controllers, by limiting login access and requiring two-factor authentication for administrative access. This has been fully implemented.
In assessing and developing these measures, IHiS had benefited from the inputs and advice of CSA. I would like to record our thanks for CSA's support.
Parallel measures were also taken by SingHealth in patient engagement. SingHealth took steps to contact more than two million patients and successfully reached around 97% of them. These include all patients who visited SingHealth Specialist Outpatient Clinics and polyclinics from the start of 2015 to the attack, including those whose data were not accessed, in order to reassure them.
SingHealth has since also taken steps to improve the accuracy of patients’ contact information for better patient engagement. For example, it has identified patients without valid contact details so that staff can update the patients’ contact details at their next visit. Since November 2018, SingHealth has been sending short message service (SMS) to all patients on the day of their outpatient appointments to remind them to approach counter staff to update contact details if there are any changes.
SingHealth will be sharing their learning points with the other clusters and we will be making similar improvements across public healthcare institutions.
On our part, MOH has initiated independent security reviews on key public healthcare IT systems to identify vulnerabilities and recommend measures to address them. At a broader systemic level, MOH has appointed a Cybersecurity Advisory Committee (CAC) to conduct a horizontal review of the cybersecurity governance structures and processes across the public healthcare clusters and IHiS.
The Committee is chaired by Prof Tan Chorh Chuan and comprises industry experts. It is supported by independent consultants from KPMG. The Committee has just submitted an interim update to me on the findings and recommendations. We will be studying these closely and will start pursuing key interim proposals even as the Committee continues its work.
Beyond our own plans and efforts, the COI report has provided us valuable inputs and useful recommendations. We will follow up on them, but I will highlight our thinking and plans in response to some of the key recommendations.
First, enhancing governance and organisational structures. The COI has recommended that we enhance our security structure and readiness across IHiS and the public healthcare institutions.
We need to better organise and govern our cybersecurity oversight and efforts and give cybersecurity considerations more weight in decision-making. It is an important area that is also being reviewed by the CAC I mentioned earlier.
CAC has highlighted the need for clearer cybersecurity risk ownership and accountability between IHiS and the public healthcare clusters, underpinned by a strong relationship to avoid fragmenting our healthcare IT strategy. It also highlighted the need to elevate cybersecurity roles and functions to strengthen management oversight over cybersecurity, supported with the appropriate resources and expertise.
MOH agrees and we will implement the following organisational changes in line with these guiding principles.
At the Ministry, the MOH Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) is currently also the Director of Cyber Security Governance at IHiS. We will separate these roles. The MOH CISO will be supported by a dedicated office in MOH and report to the Permanent Secretary. The MOH CISO office will be the cybersecurity sector lead for the healthcare sector. It will coordinate efforts to protect the CII in the healthcare sector and ensure that the sector fulfils its regulatory obligations under the Cybersecurity Act. For its part, IHiS will have its own separate Director of Cyber Security Governance.
At the clusters, the cluster Group Chief Information Officer (GCIO) office will now be made fully accountable to the respective cluster management and Boards. The GCIO office will be adequately resourced to carry out its roles. The position of the Cluster Information Security Officer will be elevated to report directly to cluster management and be accountable to the IT and Risk Management Committees of the cluster Boards.
Together, these moves will strengthen oversight and minimise potential conflicts of interest between cybersecurity and operational demands.
Second, we will put in place a cybersecurity model with multiple lines of defence. The COI has recommended that the public healthcare sector review our cyber stack for adequacy in defending and responding to advanced threats and subject the systems to tighter control and monitoring. The CAC, too, has highlighted the need for a more robust \"Three Lines of Defence\" model.
We agree and we will establish a more robust \"Three Lines of Defence\" structure within public healthcare.
The first line comprises units and personnel who develop, deliver and operate the IT systems. This is the Delivery Group. We will strengthen the IT delivery group to better integrate cybersecurity into IT delivery initiatives, improve the management of network security, and increase emphasis on security architecture and monitoring.
The second line of defence comprises units and personnel who have the specific responsibility to oversee security strategy, risk management and compliance. We will strengthen and elevate this second line of defence by establishing a dedicated Cyber Defence Group in IHiS headed by a senior leader at or equivalent to the Deputy Chief Executive level. The strengthened group will have independent oversight of cybersecurity implementation, compliance and risk management, and will oversee incident reporting and management. This will ensure that cybersecurity is managed at the senior management level, and an appropriate balance is struck between service delivery and cybersecurity considerations.
The third line of defence comprises checks and assurances independent of IHiS and our healthcare clusters, and independent of the first two lines of defence. MOH Holdings Group Internal Audit will continue to play this role. We also intend to commission and tap on independent third parties where appropriate.
These changes will make our public healthcare system more resilient and robust against emerging and evolving cyber threats.
Third, we will improve our staff’s cybersecurity awareness and capacity. The COI has made several recommendations in this area. We agree that the \"people\" element is foundational and critical to our cyber defences. Every user needs to be trained and equipped to understand the important role that they play in cyber defence.
For example, to raise the competence of our security incident response personnel, IHiS will engage specialist providers to conduct realistic hands-on \"Cyber Range\" simulation training starting this year. This will augment the classroom discussion-style table-top exercises currently conducted for security incident response personnel.
We will also tap on the expertise of the wider cybersecurity community to test our systems. IHiS intends to learn from GovTech's bug bounty and vulnerability disclosure programmes and start similar efforts. This will be a further step to ensure that our systems are tested, our people are ready to deal with new challenges, and our processes are robust.
Next, we will pilot a tiered model of Internet access. In its report, the COI has recommended that an Internet access strategy which minimises exposure to external threats should be implemented.
Following the cyberattack, temporary ISS was implemented across our public healthcare sector. This was a necessary precaution as suspicious activity continued to be observed on the SingHealth systems, even after initial containment actions were taken. I had mentioned in my previous statement in this House that we would study the impact of ISS, determine whether ISS can be kept as a permanent measure and if long-term mitigation solutions can be developed to overcome the operational challenges arising from ISS.
While the implementation of ISS was necessary, it has, indeed, posed challenges in the provision of patient care in some areas, such as emergency care, decision support for prescriptions and treatments, access to patient education resources and booking of clinical appointments. ISS also caused delays to frontline patient management and backend administrative tasks. Research and education initiatives in the public healthcare institutions have also been impacted by ISS.
Let me give an example. ISS impacted the functionality of Internet-based video conferencing software used to conduct tele-consultation with the National Neuroscience Institute for suspected stroke patients. This software was used by some of our hospitals which do not have inhouse specialist neurology capabilities as timely diagnosis is critical for stroke cases. A dedicated leased line to support high resolution video conferencing had to be provided to overcome this challenge.
Where possible, we have put in place fixes and workarounds like this to reduce the impact to patients and healthcare staff. I thank them for their cooperation and understanding during this period of time.
While we can continue to operate on this current model of ISS, we have also been looking for longer-term solutions that are more efficient and sustainable. We also need a solution that will allow us to implement new models of care in the future, such as telemedicine, that leverage the Internet to improve patient care and services in the community.
This is why we have been experimenting with a \"Virtual Browser\" solution, even before the cyberattack. A \"Virtual Browser\" allows access to the Internet through strictly controlled and monitored client servers. Let me explain what a \"Virtual Browser\" means. If we imagine loading a webpage or downloading a file from the Internet to be like receiving a letter, the client server is like a decontamination room where the letter is opened and only a picture is taken and sent to the recipient. The recipient reads the letter only via the picture that was taken and does not touch the letter itself. This process makes things safer for the recipient as malicious material or hidden messages are left behind in the decontamination room. Although such a solution does not fully eliminate cybersecurity risks, it reduces the attack surface significantly, while minimising impact on service efficiency and patient care.
Our earlier trial conducted at the healthcare clusters has shown that a \"Virtual Browser\" is technically feasible. Our next step will be to run a pilot in an operational environment across different settings and healthcare roles, so as to assess its effectiveness in meeting both operational and cybersecurity needs.
If the Virtual Browser is found to be effective, we envisage putting in place a tiered model of Internet access among our healthcare staff in the longer term.
For some job roles, Internet access would not be required. For example, administrative staff handling certain backend tasks, may not need Internet access for their routine work, and these staff will not be provided Internet access.
For a number of job roles, Internet access is required but can be managed through the use of separate Internet and non-Internet facing devices. This would likely be the case for the majority. ISS will remain for this group and they will have access to the Internet via a separate device. We will further improve our current arrangements so as to make it more convenient for this group of users.
For some, access to the Internet and intranet systems on the same device is essential. This group could include clinicians who need to access the Internet for information from clinical reference databases and match them urgently against patients’ electronic medical records, such as information on new and complex drugs or obscure toxins. The Virtual Browser may be the best solution for this group.
The pilot will begin this quarter at the National University Health System (NUHS). Virtual Browsers will be deployed in selected job functions at selected departments and clinics. Some of the job roles participating in the pilot include frontline pharmacists and emergency department clinicians.
Apart from this small group of pilot Virtual Browser users, all other public healthcare staff will remain on ISS for now.
The conduct and evaluation of the pilot is expected to take about six months. We will work closely with CSA to assess the cybersecurity adequacy of the solution. We will also evaluate the effectiveness of the Virtual Browser. This will enable us to make a more considered decision on our Internet access model in public healthcare.
Earlier, I mentioned that we have also started independent security reviews of other key public healthcare IT systems. One such system being reviewed is the National Electronic Health Record (NEHR) system.
Over the past few months, NEHR has been undergoing a series of cybersecurity assessments conducted by CSA, GovTech and independent firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). These cover technical architecture design and existing cybersecurity measures. In addition, we are completing a series of penetration tests to uncover any security vulnerabilities against cyberattacks.
The NEHR system will be subject to further testing and reviews, including exercises to test its defences against targeted attacks, as well as business continuity and disaster recovery plans.
I had informed this House in August that we would be deferring plans for mandatory contribution of patient medical data to the NEHR. As NEHR is an important large-scale national system, we want to be fully assured that all the necessary safeguards are in place to handle the evolving cybersecurity threat landscape. We will, therefore, proceed with the introduction of the Healthcare Services Bill first, and continue to defer the NEHR mandatory contributions until we have completed these reviews.
Even as we conduct the reviews, IHiS will implement further enhancements to strengthen cybersecurity of the NEHR system. These include software and application upgrades, additional preventive and detection measures, and enhanced process and technical controls.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the COI has identified inadequacies in specific individuals employed by IHiS in preventing and responding to the cyberattack. The IHiS Board has appointed an independent human resource (HR) panel to examine the roles, responsibilities and actions of specific individuals involved and recommend the appropriate actions to be taken. The panel was chaired by an IHiS Board member and comprised two other members from the public and private sectors with relevant HR and IT expertise.
In assessing the appropriate HR actions, the panel considered whether the officers had acted in accordance with their job responsibilities. It also considered whether the officers’ action or inaction had contributed directly or indirectly to the outcome.
The panel has submitted its recommendations to the IHiS Board and the Board released its decision on this matter yesterday.
To recap, two IHiS staff – the Team Lead of the Citrix Team and the Security Incident Response Manager – were found to be negligent and non-compliant with orders.
While the Citrix Team Lead had the necessary technical competencies, his attitude and approach to management of the servers introduced unnecessary and significant risks to the system. He could have mitigated the impact of the attack if he had enforced proper compliance and exercised effective management of the servers.
The Security Incident Response Manager persistently held a mistaken understanding of what constituted a \"security incident\" and when a security incident should be reported. His passiveness even after repeated alerts by his staff resulted in missed opportunities which could have averted or mitigated the impact of the cyberattack.
Their behaviour had significant security implications and contributed to the unprecedented scale of the incident. The employment of the Citrix Team Lead and the Security Incident Response Manager has been terminated.
Financial penalties were imposed on the two middle management supervisors who are accountable as supervisors of the staff that were terminated.
A Cluster ISO was found to have a wrong understanding of what constituted a \"security incident\" and failed to comply with IHiS’ incident reporting procedures. The Board decided to demote the Cluster ISO and reassign him to another role.
Let me now come to the IHiS senior management team. As the senior management team, they hold collective leadership responsibility over the organisation and the incident. They know this. IHiS CEO wrote a letter to me in December. In his letter, he expressed disappointment that he and his IHiS colleagues were not able to prevent or respond better to the cyberattack. He apologised for the incident. He and members of his senior management team acknowledged their collective responsibility. The CEO expressed that he would accept whatever the IHiS Board may decide for him.
The IHiS Board has decided to impose a financial penalty, higher than that imposed on the middle management supervisors, on the CEO and four other members of the IHiS senior management team. They have all accepted the penalty.
I have emphasised to the IHIS CEO and his senior management team to learn from this episode and lead the organisation and its staff through the recovery and rebuilding. I expect them to do their utmost to remedy the shortcomings and help the public healthcare family emerge stronger, so as to win back public trust. MOH and the rest of the public healthcare family will render them our full support.
The COI did not identify lapses in specific individuals that are employed by SingHealth. However, SingHealth recognises its duty to its patients and its responsibility as the owner of the database system. The SingHealth senior leadership, including the Group CEO, has volunteered for a financial penalty which the Board has accepted.
Sir, beyond these disciplinary actions and penalties on specific individuals, penalties have also been imposed at the organisational level. Earlier, Minister Iswaran had shared that PDPC has completed its investigations into the incident. PDPC has decided to impose financial penalties on IHiS and SingHealth, which comes to $1 million in total. This is the highest penalty meted out by PDPC to date.
IHiS and SingHealth have accepted PDPC’s decision and penalties. This is the right response.
Mr Speaker, Sir, in the COI report, several IHiS officers were commended for their diligence in handling the incident beyond their job scope and responsibilities. They were proactive and demonstrated resourcefulness in managing the cyberattack.
The IHiS Board has presented Letters of Commendation to three IHiS staff from the Database Management Team, SCM Production Support Team and Security Management Team respectively. Each of them showed commitment to serve and had the persistence to get to the bottom of things. I am glad that their contributions have been recognised. I would also like to acknowledge members of our public healthcare family who have worked hard together to ensure patient care is not compromised by this incident.
At the same time, I thank Singaporeans for their patience and understanding on the inconveniences they may have encountered at our public healthcare institutions arising from the implementation of tighter cybersecurity measures.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I have sketched out the responses of the public healthcare family to the SingHealth data breach and the COI report. The public healthcare family will ensure that priority and attention are given to the implementation of COI’s recommendations as well as the cybersecurity initiatives that the public healthcare system has embarked on.
We are organising our efforts into six key workstreams spanning technical measures, cybersecurity policy, organisational structures, governance enhancements, management of CII and patient engagement.
Senior management and key personnel from MOH, IHiS and healthcare clusters will lead these efforts. They will report their progress regularly to the Healthcare IT Steering Committee chaired by my Permanent Secretary. The Steering Committee will oversee the implementation and closely monitor its progress. It will also tap on independent auditors to verify the completion of the follow-up actions.
Mr Speaker, Sir, this cyberattack has been a regrettable and painful incident for us and for the affected patients. We must learn from it. But we must not allow it to hold back our push towards using technology to provide better care for our patients. IT systems have improved the safety and effectiveness of patient care. It remains a key enabler we cannot do without for better delivery of healthcare to benefit Singaporeans.
Yet, we recognise that the cybersecurity landscape has shifted and the threat level has risen. So, the cybersecurity posture of the healthcare sector needs to be correspondingly raised. This will not be a one-off exercise as new and evolving threats will continue to target our systems. We must continually fortify our defences, and we need a strong team working together to achieve this.
Mr Speaker, Sir, to conclude, I would like to thank the COI once again for its work and the comprehensive findings and recommendations. We in the public healthcare family will take guidance from the COI report and strengthen our systems and capabilities. We must and we will emerge with stronger cyber defences. This will be the most fitting way to fulfil our responsibilities to our patients.
Mr Speaker: Mr Cedric Foo.
Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng (Pioneer): Speaker, Sir, I have a supplementary question for the Minister for Communications and Information. I recall that he talked about three parallel investigations: the COI, the PDPC as well as the Police. Any update on the last of these, whether there are any criminal findings?
Mr S Iswaran: Mr Speaker, the three streams of activity: one is the COI, the report of which has been furnished; second is the independent investigation by PDPC which took reference from some parts of the public COI report and is now concluded, and penalties have been meted out; and third is the investigation by CID which has been closed without any further action.
Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): I thank both Ministers for their thorough Statements. Recommendation 4 of the COI states \"enhanced security checks must be performed, especially on CII systems.\" My question is, what is the accountability mechanism for this? Essentially, who will regulate cybersecurity officers to ensure such checks are up to a professional standard and performed regularly? Further, what is the professional standard we are pegging the expectation to and how regularly will security checks be undertaken?
Mr S Iswaran: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. The mechanisms and the framework for doing such an audit and compliance is actually set up under the Cybersecurity Act and CSA which has oversight of the overall national cybersecurity effort, in particular, the work that is being done by the CII owners in the 11 vertical sectors, who will be the ones that oversee the execution and compliance, if you will, of the processes that are needed to continually strengthen our cybersecurity system. And, in that regard, CSA issues various directives and advisories from time to time. There is a Code of Practice that CII owners are expected to adhere to. There are provisions for regular audits, minimally once in two years but, if not, can be more frequent, if mandatorily required by CSA. And also, the audit will be conducted by an auditor that must be approved by CSA.
So, we have the framework in place. As I pointed out, these have all been enabled with the legislation that came into force in August last year and, now, in having designated the CII, CSA is operationalising it and we have a mechanism to follow through on the broader imperatives that CSA has mapped out and also on the implementation of some of the COI recommendations.
Mr Speaker: Prof Lim Sun Sun.
Prof Lim Sun Sun (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the two Ministers for their illuminating Statements. On the issue of ISS, it is encouraging that we are exploring the Virtual Browser option. But at the same time, during the exercise of ISS, I wonder whether there were instances of healthcare workers using their personal devices and data plans to access the Internet for work purposes and whether such practices introduced security risks and if, in future, there will be safeguards to caution our healthcare workers against these kinds of actions?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Thank you very much. Indeed, some of the healthcare professionals have taken the initiatives to use their own personal devices to access Internet for work. Because their personal devices are not connected to the intranet, to our database system and, therefore, they are less risky from the systems point of view. Whereas our own internal intranet system – we have imposed ISS on our own internal system and, therefore, our internal system will have no access to the Internet for surfing purposes.
Mr Speaker: Ms Rahayu Mahzam.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Speaker, I have a question for the Minister for Communications and Information. I appreciate that the cybersecurity regime and ecosystem are a fairly relatively new frontier. I am just wondering, as part of our review and assessments, whether we look to the practices and systems in other countries and whether we benchmark ourselves against the technological capabilities as well as rigour and practices in those countries?
Mr S Iswaran: Mr Speaker, the answer is yes. Obviously, because it is a highly interconnected world that we live in, in a sense, while we do what we can in our own jurisdiction, we also have to take reference from what is happening elsewhere. Indeed, that is why cybersecurity agencies across the world formed these partnerships to share information and also to share best practices because the threat is an evolving one. I think that is the way we continue to ensure that we are plugged in. So, the short answer to the Member's question is yes, we do. But having said that, the onus is on us to ensure that we are up to the mark, and I would add that many countries look to Singapore for best practices.
Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): I thank the Ministers for the comprehensive replies and the report which has been a very good learning experience for all of us. But the one elephant in the room, of course, is the decision that was made not to name the perpetrator. I have two questions related to this.
First of all, what actions, if any, can be taken against the perpetrators of such attacks? And if the answer to this is \"none at the moment\", can we change our domestic laws at least, so that if any of these perpetrators are within our jurisdiction, we can take action against them?
Mr S Iswaran: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. If I may reiterate my earlier response: we know the identity of the perpetrator. We have taken appropriate action. But it is not in our interest to make a public attribution, and it is not because we lack the legislative capacity to do so, if indeed it is within our jurisdiction.
Mr Speaker: Dr Chia Shi-Lu.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): I also want to echo my thanks to both Ministers and also to the COI for their work. Three questions to the Minister for Health. First, while we are trying to strengthen the systems, if we take a leaf from how we manage infectious diseases while we are trying to think of better treatments and so on, I think a key focus would be surveillance, that means detection and containment. So, there was some talk about the advanced threat protection and other systems to detect the systems and, as I know it, our healthcare system has hundreds of computer systems, not just in SingHealth but also the private sector. Could I just ask what is the extent to which these detection systems have been deployed through the national healthcare system, just to get an idea? Because there are other healthcare systems out there that could still be vulnerable and may not have these systems. I just want to have an idea about that.
Second, there was a point in the COI which merits study, which is the impact on patient care. Can I also find out what has been the work of MOH in looking at the impact that this cyberattack has had on patient care efficacy and efficiency?
Third, I am also concerned about the impact on the rollout of NEHR. It is something that is very useful. I think it is something that we should all have. It is for the future of Singapore's healthcare. So, in terms of the study on NEHR, could I get a sense of what sort of goals we are looking at in terms of the assessment of whether or not NEHR will be safe in terms of cybersecurity threats and so on, so that maybe we have an idea how long this may be delayed?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Sir, as I explained earlier in my speech, Advanced Threat Protection has been implemented in our healthcare system, generally. So, it is there to help us detect potential malicious activities. But for the private sector, it is something that we will have to work with them and see what would be applicable for them. But it is also important for us to always remember that whatever system we put in, there will always be the risk of exposure. The greatest risk for us is to assume that after putting in Advanced Threat Protection or ISS, we are quite safe and, therefore, we let our guard down. So, we always must remember \"道高一尺，魔高一丈\". That is, you must always be on alert and assume that we are being attacked all the time and be vigilant and get to know what is the latest development, what is the latest landscape, and continually upgrade ourselves to make sure that we are ready for them as best we can. So, this is a lesson we learnt from this incident.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu also asked about the impact due to this incident. Some patient care, some processes have been slowed down because of additional steps that they have to go through. But by and large, we have not compromised the quality of care. And particularly on patient safety, we have been quite conscious about this. I have always reminded our cluster leadership to make sure that despite all the additional cybersecurity measures, we cannot compromise our patient safety. So far, I think it has been going on all right.
On NEHR, I agree with Dr Chia Shi-Lu that we do not want to delay it unnecessarily. But given that it is a very large system and a very important national system, we want to be extra cautious to have it tested and tested again before we make it mandatory. We foresee that we will probably be able to complete our review within this year and then we can make a decision at the end of this year to see when we are ready to implement then because the process is still ongoing. This is an indicative timeline and we will probably give an update nearer the time.
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Speaker, Sir, I have a question for the hon Minister for Health in relation to the relationship between IHiS and SingHealth and, for that matter, the other healthcare clusters.
I note that PDPC had fined SingHealth in its capacity as a data controller. But IHiS, which is owned by MOH Holdings (MOHH), is a nominated agency to deal with IT matters for all healthcare clusters. So, how would these two entities work to strike a balance between operational needs on the one hand and to maintain cybersecurity on the other hand? Do they work as equal partners, or would there be another arbiter to deal with any differences between these agencies?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Sir, I explained in my speech the significant reorganisation of IHiS, the cluster IT organisation, as well as MOH. Let me just quickly focus on the questions that the Member raised. Particularly within the cluster, currently, the GCIO is an IHiS staff and, therefore, there is a question: does he have sufficient resources, does he report to IHIS or does he report to the cluster? So, we have made it clear now that the GCIO in the clusters will report to the Board and the management of the cluster. So, he may be a secondee from IHiS, he may be a direct recruit, he may be someone that is loaned to the cluster, but his responsibility and accountability is towards the cluster. So, this provides the cluster some independence from IHiS as a system operator.
Particularly on security, the Cluster ISO now reports directly to the management, he does not report to the GCIO. So, security and operations now have separate reporting lines, and this provides significant independence between security considerations as well as operational requirements.
Within MOH, I mentioned that we are going to set up a separate Chief Information Security Officer (CISCO) which would report directly to the Permanent Secretary. And this will also be quite separate from IHiS' Cyber Defence Group.
So, I think the separation of roles among these few key functions will provide greater independence and check and balance between operational needs and cybersecurity needs.
Mr Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat.
Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Speaker, this is for Minister Iswaran. The public version of the COI report is comprehensive on the technical facts of the cyberattack and also recommendations to prevent a repeat of such an incident. But it has fallen short on the damage control for the victims of the cyberattack. Imagine if someone were to receive an email/SMS and now, possibly, a hardcopy letter, purportedly from SingHealth or even CSA, stating his name, National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) number, date of birth, gender, race, to name some of the stolen data, and asking that unsuspecting person to call or to go online to verity some information because someone has given him wrong medication or some innocuous matter, life is going to be hell for this person if he were to make the first contact and fall victim to the scam.
So, my first question is, in the aftermath of the cyberattack, why did CSA say that there is no strong commercial value for such data when the danger for loss of privacy and financial for our victims of this cyberattack is clear and present?
To summarise, what is the Government going to do next to assure and alert this group of victims about such a danger? Because telling the victim to make a Police report is rather moot after they have suffered financial/privacy loss because it is very difficult to investigate cross-border cybercrimes.
Mr S Iswaran: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. It is a reasonable concern. Let me start by saying that in the aftermath of the incident, we have been monitoring the Dark Web to see whether the data that had been exfiltrated has emerged in any form, and, to date, there has been no evidence of that.
Secondly, the kind of scenarios that the Member has highlighted about people being approached for personal data and so on and to verify, these actually have been occurring even before the cyberattack and they occur in different contexts. Because the way some of these scams, as the Member put it, are being perpetuated, is not just depending on this particular kind of incident. They are approaching it from different angles, using different resources at their disposal.
So, on the one hand, we are doing everything we can in taking it absolutely seriously that this has been an incident that we should not have allowed to happen. But it having happened, we want to contain it and ensure that every measure is put in place to protect the interests of the patients. So, if Members recall, SingHealth has made an extensive outreach to all the patients through SMSes and so on to inform them and also to advise them of the risks and what they need to do and why they can be assured in terms of the security of their data.
The second point I would make is, we have been emphasising, not just CSA, but the Government as a whole, whether it is this incident or any others, we have, each and every one of us, an obligation to exercise appropriate cyber hygiene habits. And that means if you have an unsolicited call seeking personal data, then our antenna should go up and we should be taking appropriate steps to ensure that this is a bona fide approach and not something that is a scam that is trying to take advantage of us.
So, first, and if I can summarise it, overall, the data, we are monitoring the situation. There is no evidence to date in terms of its use or emergence in the Dark Web.
Secondly, our agencies and, specifically, in this case, SingHealth, have reached out to all the patients to inform and advise and also, where they have had queries, they have been able to approach SingHealth.
Thirdly, we have, in general, an important and repeated advisory on appropriate cyber hygiene habits that should be undertaken by all of us.
Mr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): I have two questions for the Minister for Health. Firstly, I wish to ask the Minister for Health if IHiS, which is a unionised company of the Healthcare Services Employees' Union, has notified and heard the union before taking action and meting out punishments to the affected employees because this is to be done regardless of whether they are or not union members.
Secondly, with regard to the financial penalty of $1 million imposed by PDPC on SingHealth and IHiS, I urge and appeal that the salaries and bonus of the workers in both organisations will not be affected as a result.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Sir, I do not know whether they have informed the union. I will inform the management. I agree with Mr Patrick Tay that it is a good practice whenever these incidents happen and we have to take disciplinary action, it is best to keep the unions informed. I do not know whether they are union members. And if they are, it would be useful for the management to keep them informed. And if they have not done so, it is still not too late. Better to do now than not to do so at all.
Secondly, the Member asked about the bonuses of IHiS staff and SingHealth staff. I think other than those I mentioned as part of the disciplinary action, the rest of the staff should not be affected. Should they continue to do well, they should continue to get what they deserve. And for those who have done well, their contributions will be recognised at the end of the year.
Mr Speaker: Dr Lily Neo.
Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to declare that I am a medical practitioner. May I seek clarification from the Minister for Health on the implementation of the recommendations he mentioned earlier. Will MOH also assist private practitioners in coping with this cyberattack, especially those who are already embarking on NEHR? My concern is that cyberattacks on NEHR in the private sector may be linked to the public sector's. So, if there is a soft part in this area, will that affect the whole public sector in the end?
I would also like to echo Dr Chia Shi-Lu's question earlier whether the Minister will ensure that the NEHR is robust before it is widely implemented, to give confidence to patients and doctors.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Sir, I agree with Dr Lily Neo that it is important for us to ensure that NEHR is robust before we make it mandatory for data submission. Dr Lily Neo also mentioned how we can help private sector doctors, particularly if they are connected to NEHR. Indeed, we are aware that there is a risk, because we have many private operators which have to tap on to our NEHR in order to submit their data, and that is why we are taking additional precautions to test our NEHR cybersecurity and cyber defences to ensure that they are robust before we require everyone to submit.
At the same time, we will also be developing advisories to help advise our private practitioners how to strengthen their system, how to do audits on their system to ensure that their own systems are protected. We must remember that even without NEHR, many of our doctors have their own data system and keep their own patient records. Of course, these are limited to their own patients, not national data. Nevertheless, it is also important for our private doctors to ensure that the patient data that they collect and maintain are protected from potential cyberattacks.
In the past, our doctors may be using paper and pen, they have paper card records, it is less risky. But still, the sense of responsibility to safekeep these data is there among our medical practitioners. I think it is no different when it comes to electronic records. When doctors have their records kept in an electronic form, they should be quite mindful that they are also responsible to ensure that such electronic records within their own premises where they are kept, they also have to ensure that they are protected to a satisfactory extent.
So, we will help them. We will give them advice from time to time, especially arising from this incident. We will give them general advice on what they ought to do to ensure that their databases are protected.
Mr Speaker: Ms Irene Quay.
Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching (Nominated Member): Sir, I thank both Ministers for their detailed Statements. While we understand that there are deficiencies and they will be implementing comprehensive recommendations, we must not forget that our IHiS staff have been working very hard and performing their best over the years as we move towards a Smart Nation. So, can I ask what are the resources – as we are piling them up with more recommendations and more work – as well as emotional support that we are rendering to these ground IHiS staff while they are going through this trying period, to boost their morale as we learn and move forward stronger together in this Smart Nation journey?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Thank you! I would like to thank the Member for her encouragement. Indeed, IHiS has been working very hard over the last few years in reorganising itself, strengthening its governance, as well as rolling out many major systems. But this is an important incident and it is a very critical and regrettable incident and, IHiS' staff morale has, indeed, taken a toll from this incident. We will continue to support them.
As I have mentioned in my speech, even as they go through the reorganisation, going through the repositioning, reprioritising, MOH and all our clusters will extend our full support for them and we want to encourage them to soldier on because there are still many important tasks ahead of us, and not the least, the implementation of the recommendations of the COI. On top of that, there are still many systems that they have to deliver and they have to deliver them with strong cybersecurity measures.
So, I would like to thank the Member for her encouragement, and will convey this to the IHiS team and to encourage them to press on with our task. Thank you.
Mr Speaker: Mr Cedric Foo.
Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I empathise with my colleague Mr Vikram Nair's view about the non-attribution of the identity of the perpetrator. It seems that the COI process has been very robust. It has been thorough, rigorous, public, transparent, and open. This will go some way to restore public confidence from the incident itself. However, even with recommendations on strengthening defences, the \"vault\", and many other areas, the person who actually \"broke into the house\" was not revealed. There seems to be a vacuum as far as the sense of justice is concerned. I am sure the Government's position was well-calibrated and considered, but perhaps the Minister can share more on the considerations of the Government for not revealing who the perpetrator is.
Mr S Iswaran: Mr Speaker, I think the Member's question, if I can put it in a broader context, is that, first, this incident has occurred. The basic question we have to ask ourselves is how do we ensure that Singaporeans continue to have trust and confidence in our public sector systems – IT systems and databases – because it is inevitable that when you have an incident like this, it will raise such qualms and questions. And I would say that in deriving a sense of confidence, our citizens should be looking at the totality of our response and not focus on one particular aspect of the response. Let me elaborate on what I mean.
Firstly, why do we collect data and have these IT systems? Because they enable all these services, conveniences that we take for granted, whether it is in our transportation system, our healthcare system, in our dealings with various other Government agencies. The fact that we can transact with ease and convenience is because it is enabled by data and the IT systems that we have. So, firstly, we are doing this because we want to serve the interests of our citizens.
The second point I would make is that, directly as a result of this, we should be looking at what has our response been, the Government's response to this. In that regard, I would highlight a few things. Firstly, we made the knowledge of the cyberattack public within days, if I recall correctly, 10 days after it was brought to the attention of CSA. I think it was 10 July that it was brought to the attention of CSA, and on 20 July, Minister Gan Kim Yong and I held a press conference and we announced it and shared it with members of the public. Why do we do that? Because we want to demonstrate that we are transparent and we want to ensure that all Singaporeans understand that we have nothing to hide here. We want to get to the bottom of it as much as Singaporeans do.
Thirdly, if Members look at our response thereafter, we appointed a COI. Why do we appoint a COI? Because the Government wants a robust and transparent investigation and inquiry into the matter, not because we want to lay fault – although if there are, those who have been negligent or egregious, then they have to be accountable – but also because we want to learn from this, understand what went wrong and rectify them. So, if Members look at the COI report, we have released all the recommendations and material findings in full in the public version. The only parts that have been held back are those that pertain to sensitive national security matters and also patient confidentiality. Everything else is out there – unvarnished, stark but very clear on what we need to get done. So, again, if Members contrast what we have done with the responses in other domains by different parties, I think we can hold ourselves up to the best practices and standards in terms of how we responded.
Finally, what are the actions we have taken? Apart from action against individuals, we have taken actions against the organisations and we have also undertaken a slew of activities and measures in order to further strengthen our cybersecurity system, some informed by the COI, others that our agencies have already been working on.
That is the totality of our response. And I do not think we should reduce whether we have confidence in the sense of justice to just one specific point, that there is no public attribution of the perpetrator. I can understand that Members have a desire, and on behalf of their constituents, to know this, but I think we have to exercise judgement as to what is in our national interests and whether a public attribution serves our best interests. And as I have said, we know who the perpetrator is and appropriate action has been taken.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Ministerial Statements. Introduction of Government Bills. Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore Food Agency Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to establish the Singapore Food Agency, to repeal the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority Act (Chapter 5 of the 2012 Revised Edition) and the Cattle Act (Chapter 34 of the 2002 Revised Edition), and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan); 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":"National Parks Board (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the National Parks Board Act (Chapter 198A of the 2012 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Ms Sun Xueling); 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":"Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Last year, there was a Parliamentary Motion filed by Mr Christopher de Souza. It was titled \"Strengthening Singapore's Fight Against Drugs\". A number of good observations were made. There were suggestions on how we can respond to challenges in the fight against drugs in the drug situation that we were and are facing. Several Members also made good suggestions on how we can improve our approach to rehabilitation, how we can involve families more in the rehabilitation process and how we can provide better support for abusers after they have been released.
Sir, there have been changes in the operating environment, with feedback from Members and stakeholders. We have looked at these carefully and we have been analysing the situation and also looking at the evidence that we have been collecting in our dealings with abusers both in the Drug Rehabilitation Centres (DRCs) and post-release. And the current amendments arise from that set of factors. So, these amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) have two primary focuses in broad categories.
First, we will enhance our anti-drug framework. They will make some additional actions offences; they will give some greater enforcement powers. The second part of it, they will give a much greater focus on rehabilitation and move away a little bit from the philosophy of long-term detentions.
Sir, if I can deal with the first point first, on the enhancement of the anti-drug framework and the increase in the enforcement powers. We will make some actions, including actions which we will categorise as contamination offences. There is a range of contaminative behaviours that may not meet the current definition of trafficking or abetment, but they contribute to the spread of drug abuse. And in that way, they harm others.
So, clause 3 introduces a new set of offences which targets acts of contamination. The proposed new section 11C will make it an offence if you introduce a person to a trafficker, and if you know or have reason to believe that the person intends to procure or consume drugs and the trafficker is likely to supply them. One example would be a student who offers to introduce friends to a trafficker to buy cannabis. The student himself does not take cannabis, did not take part in the transaction, but he facilitated his friend's drug consumption. We have to try and deter such conduct.
Section 11D(1) will make it an offence if you were to teach, instruct, provide instructions to another person, on the carrying out of drug activities. They could be activities like consumption, cultivation, manufacturing, trafficking, importing and exporting, knowing or having reason to believe that the person intends to carry out such drug activity.
Sections 11C and 11D(1) will have a mandatory minimum imprisonment sentence of two years for subsequent convictions and a maximum imprisonment of 10 years. There will be no mandatory minimum for the first conviction.
Now, supposing the perpetrator has no knowledge of the recipient's intent to commit a drug activity, nevertheless, the perpetrator has still caused harm. He has spread information on the carrying out of drug activities. So, clause 3 will have a section 11D(2), which will make it an offence to disseminate or publish information on the carrying out of any of the drug activities – those which I mentioned earlier.
So, this can cover a range of behaviour, from the irresponsible – like putting out or posting information on how to manufacture drugs, and if you were to put it up on social media where others can see it, to the downright malicious, like trying to teach and influence friends into taking drugs with one. We have to try and stop such behaviours.
Section 11D(2) will impose a maximum imprisonment of five years or a fine of up to $10,000 or both, for first-time convictions. If there are second or subsequent convictions, there will be a mandatory minimum sentence of one year.
When you criminalise with this framework, you need to provide a proper set of defences. Defences would include legitimate purposes, like administration of justice, science, medicine, education, art. So, if you did this for any purposes of any of those, then there could be exemptions. Subsidiary legislation will set out scope of authorised activities which will not be caught by the contamination offences I just spoke about, and clause 20 provides for that.
Clause 3 introduces new offences. This is aimed at better protecting our children. So, if you would look at section 11B – if an adult possesses illicit drug and then, knowingly or recklessly, leave it within the reach of a child, access of a child, that would be an offence.
If an adult permits a young person to consume drugs which are in the adult's possession, or does not take reasonable steps to prevent that from happening, that would also be an offence – the young person is under 21.
One example: in October 2016, or two years ago, we had two young children, aged two and four; they accidentally consumed their father’s drugs, fell unconscious and they were rushed to the Accidents and Emergency (A&E) department.
The new offences would carry imprisonment of up to 10 years for first-time convictions, and a mandatory minimum imprisonment of two years for subsequent convictions.
Moving on to a different point, we will also mandate that parents and guardians of young drug abusers where the young drug abusers are under the Central Narcotics Bureau's (CNB’s) supervision order, the parents/guardians must attend drug counselling. Clause 19 will provide for this.
At present, parents and guardians are required to attend counselling, but some parents persistently absent themselves. CNB will, even after the new legislation comes into force, understand their context, try and understand why they do not want to come, and will use these powers very sparingly. But as a last resort, if the parents and guardians refused to be involved in their children's counselling without reasonable excuse, then they can potentially be exposed to charges.
When there is a young drug abuser, the impact is on that person, and on the rest of the society. It cannot be just the State's responsibility. The parents must bear some responsibility, too, and they must come in and try and help. The State provides the counselling, so they should come in and take the counselling and see how they can help their children.
Next, we move to hair analysis and oral fluid testing. In 2012, we introduced hair analysis in the MDA as an alternative drug detection tool. Urine tests are able to detect only drugs that had been consumed within the week. Hair analysis goes further back; it can detect drugs which had been consumed earlier. Hair analysis now applies to the monitoring of those under supervision. The Health Sciences Authority (HSA), in its research and science, has enhanced the effectiveness and reliability of hair analysis. So, we will expand its use.
Clause 18 gives the Director of CNB the power to subject an abuser to rehabilitation and supervision based on the positive result of an hair analysis. So, if you are tested positive on hair analysis, you can be directed for rehabilitation and supervision orders. If a person fails to provide hair specimens, then he or she will face the same punishments and liabilities as a failure to provide urine specimens. So, these persons, if they intentionally refuse to provide the required specimens for testing with no reasonable excuse, then they can face charges.
We are also introducing the use of oral fluid, saliva, to test for drug abuse. This is clause 15 of the Bill with a new section 31B. So, enforcement officers can require a suspected abuser to provide oral fluids for the purpose of testing. The punishment can be a maximum of two years' imprisonment, a $5,000 fine, or both, if there is a failure to provide.
But the testing of oral fluids is for the purpose of immediate and effective and efficient screening of suspects, particularly in the context of a mass raid or large crowds. Officers can then prioritise individuals who require further hair or urine testing.
Oral fluid tests will be an efficient method of screening; they will not be used for prosecution or emplacement on rehabilitation or supervision. So, they are screening tests. We will continue to rely on urine or hair tests for the purposes of rehabilitation orders or supervision orders.
Those are the aspects in which the Act is proposed to be changed in terms of increasing the powers, enforcement powers, or adding in some new offences.
Now, let me move on to the rehabilitation aspect of the Bill. Drug abusers today, arrested for the first and second time, go through rehabilitation, which is mandatory, in DRCs. We call it DRC1 and DRC2, first time and second time.
It is done through orders made by the Director of the CNB under section 34 of the MDA. There is no criminal record for DRC1 and DRC2.
The Long-Term Imprisonment (LT) regime was introduced in 1998. That targeted hardcore abusers, who, at that time, formed three-quarters or more than three-quarters of the abusers who were being arrested. The purpose was to punish, but also to deter their drug use because everything else has been tried, but it was not possible to keep them away from drugs. They were getting into drugs, and they were contaminating others, and the problem was spreading. So, it was to protect the public from abusers who turned to crime to feed their drug habits as well.
So, third-time abusers face mandatory imprisonment of five to seven years, and three to six strokes of the cane. Fourth time and beyond: seven to 13 years in LT. In LT2, six to 12 strokes of the cane.
So, from the beginning of the LT regime, together with other efforts on the enforcement side as well as the rehabilitation side, the drug situation in Singapore has improved. The number of drug abusers arrested each year: in 1996, roughly, just under 6,000 to now, slightly over 3,000 in 2017. So, you can say, it is about halved, which is, as I have said in other fora, quite a remarkable record because all things are not equal. People's ability to afford drugs has increased, the amount of drugs being produced in the region and available internationally has increased, so, all things being equal, the number of arrests should have gone up, not gone down. So, it is a testament to the way CNB has worked. But it is not just CNB. The entire framework has worked to help our people keep off drugs. Education, prevention, a strong enforcement, an efficient CNB, an efficient legal framework – all have worked together. And the strong support that has been given, both in this House and outside, by the public, for the stand we have taken.
At the same time, over these years, Singapore Prison Service (SPS) and the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises (SCORE) have stepped up support for abusers. They include high-intensity psychology-based programmes, especially for those with a higher risk of reoffending. They were also given skills training and work programmes. In 2014, we introduced the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme. So, we target the higher-risk offenders, and they will be given compulsory structured programmes even after they are released. After their release is when they are at the highest risk.
Throughout this period, the evidence that we have been collecting, we have been studying how to bring down recidivism down even further. Our assessment is that, for pure abusers, we can now afford to shift our balance quite decisively and focus more on rehabilitation as opposed to detention. We all know that long periods of detention can affect the abusers' employability after they are released. They are in for seven years, or 12 years or 13 years; when they come out, their ability to reintegrate back into society, their ability to hold down a job, there is a lesser ability.
So, really, the question is, how do you strike the balance? What is the risk of allowing them into the community without long-term detention versus the consequences of keeping them in long-term detention?
In 1998, we said, looking at the numbers and the way the problem was going, we have to go for long term, and one or two other number of significant factors then, too. Today, looking at the numbers and the profile of detainees, and looking at how we are managing, we think we can afford to take the risk and let them out from DRC into society faster, without going the long-term detention route.
The answer as to where you strike the balance depends on a variety of external factors. Our view is that the situation has now changed compared to 1998. So, SPS has been studying this. Our two-year recidivism rates for LT inmates are encouraging. The recidivism rate for the 2015 cohort is 27%. That is down from 35% for the 2008 release cohort. Significant. But, unfortunately, the five-year recidivism rate for LT inmates remains high at over 60%. What that means is that within five years of their release, six out of 10 of the LT inmates will be back in prison.
Addiction is a complex problem. Staying clean is ultimately dependent on a variety of factors, including the resolve of the abuser. But it is a difficult journey for the abusers. Often, they become estranged from their families, communities and the workplace. It is harder for them to reintegrate once released. A number get back into bad company, on drugs, and then they get re-arrested at various points; the cycle repeats itself over and over again.
So, we have decided, let us try and distinguish between those who only consume drugs – I call them the \"pure\" abusers – and those who also face charges for other offences, for example, trafficking, property offences, violent offences. So, if they have abused drugs and they have committed some of these other crimes, we put them in one category. We put those who only abused drugs in one category.
For the second group, those who consume drugs and commit other offences, they will continue to be charged for their drug-consumption offences as well as the other offences. If they are liable, they will be sentenced to LT.
For those who only abuse but do not have any other criminal offence, that means they only consume drugs and they admit to their drug abuse, then the general approach, regardless the number of times, would be that the Director of CNB will make the appropriate supervision or detention order, and channel them into the rehabilitation regime.
So, this group of abusers may also include those who have minor consumption-related offences like possession of drug-taking utensils or possession of small quantities of drugs. If the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) agrees with CNB that there is no need to charge the drug abusers for these minor offences, then these persons will also be channelled to the rehabilitation regime.
This will be conditional on the abusers admitting to their drug offences. If they deny their drug abuse despite the evidence, that means they have really not accepted the need for rehabilitation, they are likely to be charged in Court, if AGC concurs.
These changes, as Members will appreciate, are quite significant. Around 50% of LT-liable abusers could now be channelled to the rehabilitation regime. That means one out of every two for those who are going into LT could now go into a pure DRC regime.
And, really, to benefit as many persons as possible, CNB, with the concurrence of AGC, will generally not charge abusers who meet the criteria I have explained, from tomorrow, 16 January 2019, on the assumption that the Bill is passed today.
We also want drug abusers to come forward voluntarily for rehabilitation. So, moving forward, drug abusers who voluntarily submit themselves to CNB will be considered for a shorter detention in DRC. We will do a risk analysis but, based on that, they can and will be considered for shorter detention.
The abuser will still need to undergo operational and risk assessment before he or she can be considered for this. All abusers will be given two surrender opportunities in their lifetime. These are administrative under the MDA.
I will now highlight the key features of this enhanced rehabilitation regime. In general, first-time drug abusers assessed to be of low risk of further abuse, will be put on the Enhanced Direct Supervision Order (EDSO). That is a non-custodial supervision order with compulsory counselling. A case manager will provide dedicated support to these persons and their families.
Higher-risk first-time abusers, as well as repeat abusers, will undergo intensive, mandatory rehabilitation in the DRC, because that is a secure environment run by the Prisons. It maintains strict discipline. The interventions will be based on their assessed risk and needs of the abusers. These will include psychology-based correctional programmes. So, in order to correct it, you need to target the underlying attitudes and drug addiction issues. So, that is one: psychology-based correctional programmes.
Second, we will also run family programmes, so that, in a sense, they will be taught how to have better relationships with their loved ones. Because, by and large, a significant number would have very strained relationships.
We will also give them skills training and employment assistance. This is to improve their employability upon release.
Third-time and subsequent drug abusers, the Prisons will be introducing DRC3 and DRC4. The periods will be longer than DRC1 and DRC2. Clause 18 of the Bill increases the maximum period of detention for rehabilitation; to be increased from three years now to four years. That will apply to high-risk repeat drug abusers who are going to require a longer period of rehabilitation.
Those who are assessed to be ready to be discharged from DRC to move into Community-Based Programmes (CBP), they will be put into a halfway house, or a day release scheme from a community supervision centre. Or they could be allowed to go home with electronic tagging.
So, from DRC, released into CBP, where you could be leaving in the morning, going and doing your work, coming back at night, really to keep you in as safe an environment as possible. Last week, I just opened the first Prisons-run halfway house. There are other halfway houses, so we work with partners and we financially support them as well. They work quite well.
So, after CBP will be the supervision phase. During this phase, the abusers – ex-abusers, hopefully – will be required to report regularly to CNB for urine and hair testing.
Prisons, SCORE and CNB will also work with community partners. This is to try and help the abusers in areas, such as job training and support, casework, counselling and befriending.
We have been devoting a lot of resources to the post-release support and that is why we feel confident that we can move ahead with this.
The risk of recidivism is highest in the first two years. I have given Members the figures for five years. If they can be clean for five years, then the recidivism rates drop quite sharply, particularly for those who are able to keep a job.
The current supervision period is two years. So, I have decided that that should be increased. Clause 18 will increase the maximum supervision duration to five years. So, you are released but you are subject to supervision for five years, which, hopefully, will help in keeping you clean.
So, the changes, taken as a whole, mean that if you have abusers who only consume drugs and admit to their drug use, they will undergo shorter but more intensive rehabilitation in the DRC as opposed to LT. And then, they will be placed on CBP, and then they will report for a longer period of supervision of up to five years.
During the period of CBP and supervision, the abusers will be encouraged to hold a stable job, strengthen their relationship with their families and build better ties with the community.
So, really, the aim is successful reintegration back into society and to reduce reoffending. The journey is not an easy one for abusers. But we want to give them the best possible chance, and we want to motivate them to stay drug-free, and also put in the infrastructure like a longer period of supervision, which can help them in the long term.
Clauses 13 and 14 give the Director of CNB the power to require abusers who have completed their rehabilitation, supervision or imprisonment to still report to CNB for urine or hair tests when required. If the person fails to comply, then it is an offence, and the penalty could be an imprisonment or a fine, or both.
With the changes we implement, we obviously will track the recidivism rates very closely. If necessary, we will adjust our approach or change.
What are the consequences of this? A very substantial number, maybe up to one out of every two persons who are arrested, who would have gone to LT, could now go through this rehabilitation route that I have sketched out. Some will still be charged in Court. As I mentioned earlier, those who could be charged would likely be persons who face other criminal charges or deny their drug use.
Sentencing trend for first-time drug consumption is usually six to eight months. With one-third remission, the period in custody will come down to four to five months. That is shorter than detention in DRC. Those charged and punished with imprisonment should serve a sentence that is more reflective of the strong deterrent stance against drugs. They should not serve a period which is less than what a person in DRC would serve.
Clause 16 provides mandatory minimum sentence of one year for first-time conviction for drug consumption. Previously, there was no mandatory minimum. The mandatory minimum sentence will also apply for first-time conviction for failure to provide a urine specimen or hair specimen.
We have also reviewed the antecedents which count towards enhanced punishment for second-time abusers who are convicted in Court and LT.
For abusers convicted in Court, clauses 16 and 17, they will receive enhanced punishment or LT, whenever is applicable, if the current offence of which they are convicted is one of drug consumption, or failure to provide urine or hair specimen and their antecedents include any of the following: a previous conviction for drug consumption; a previous conviction for failure to provide urine or hair specimen; a previous admission into an approved institution for rehabilitation; and a previous conviction for drug consumption under the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) Act.
I will now briefly summarise the other amendments, which are really of a more operational or technical nature. Clause 5 repeals and re-enacts section 13 to clarify that the punishment for abetting an MDA offence in Singapore from outside of Singapore carries the same punishment as the primary offence abetted.
Clauses 7 and 8 remove the powers of Vigilante Corps members for MDA offences, as they are no longer involved in drug operations. They also extend the powers of \"Special Police Officers\" to conduct search and arrest for MDA offences, they are often involved in ground patrols or operations which may entail the arrest of drug offenders. Special Police Officers will include full-time National Servicemen (NSFs) and operationally-ready (OR) National Servicemen during their periods of service.
Clause 2 sets out the different categories of transport devices to make clear the different types, including unmanned craft, that enforcement officers may seize in the course of investigations.
Clauses 6 and 8 define the related powers of search and seizure.
Clauses 9 and 11 set out the processes and requirements for forfeiture, return and disposal.
Clause 13 allows appointed SAF enforcement officers to collect urine specimens from persons subject to military law, if these persons are suspected abusers.
The current practice for suspected abusers is to be committed by Director CNB to a specified place for a maximum of seven days for medical examination or observation. Clause 18 codifies that. It also extends the initial period to which a person may be detained or rehabilitated and the period for which this may further be extended from the previous six months, now to 12 months. This is really to make it more streamlined, when now the detention order of every single abuser in our institutions needs to be extended every six months. But the total detention will not exceed four years, as I have stated earlier.
Finally, clause 20 provides the Minister with regulatory powers to provide for the supervision and aftercare of persons who have been convicted under the SAF Act for drug consumption or for failure to provide urine or hair specimens.
So, we intend for these groups, like all other groups, to undergo post-release supervision to encourage them to stay drug-free. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, we have an exceptional anti-narcotics force in the form of CNB. CNB officers, working with the wider Home Team, risk life and limb to deter the trafficking and consumption of drugs in Singapore.
It is only right that anti-drug laws are amended and updated to give the team of officers the needed powers and tools to deter and fight against pro-drug activity in Singapore.
Therefore, significant amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act being debated today are timely, useful and relevant.
Compared to many jurisdictions around the world, it can be said that Singapore does have the upper hand in the fight against drugs. But there is no reason why we should not continue making that upper hand more robust and stronger. We can do this by training our focus and resources on the threats at hand.
In 2017, four out of 10 total drug abusers were below 30 years old. Also, 40% of total drug abusers were new drug abusers. Of those, about two-thirds were below the age of 30. These are the kinds of proportions we have been looking at year on year since 2015. As the use of drugs leaves an indelible mark on the life of a person, the proportion of new drug abusers is particularly concerning.
What is also of concern is the increasing number of youths who take on a drug-tolerant attitude towards drugs. According to the National Council Against Drug Abuse’s Youth and Public Perception Survey, the proportion of youths aged 16 to 21 who agreed with statements, such as \"I do not mind trying drugs when I am overseas\" and \"I would try taking drugs if it was not illegal\" rose from 11% in 2013 to 16% in 2016.
This attitude towards drugs was more prevalent in older youth segments, that is, NSFs, university students and young working adults, than in younger youth groups, that is those from secondary school, junior college, polytechnic, Institutes of Technical Education (ITEs) and out-of-school youths. Over 33% of youths up to 30 years old misperceived cannabis as less harmful or non-addictive.
One suggestion I have, in addition to the amendments proposed today, is that we include clear and informative learning material in our Ministry of Education (MOE) Science syllabus, which should detail the host of ills and harmful effects of experimenting with drugs. Make it examinable material. We need to start young and reinforce it regularly by putting it in the primary and secondary school syllabus. For university students, students travelling to places where drugs are more accessible, pre-exchange briefings, for example, could be arranged to remind them that drugs are not just illegal but also harmful.
To supplement drug prevention education efforts, this Bill introduces new offences in new sections 11C and 11D to prohibit introducing a drug trafficker to another person or instructing a person to cultivate plants from which cannabis can be extracted, and manufacturing or consuming drugs.
Even as this offence provides tools to clamp down on contaminative actions and contain the spread of drug abuse, we cannot let this lull us into a sense of comfort. We still need to continue to be vigilant in equipping people with the skills to (a) find credible sources of information and (b) guard against the rhetoric used by the pro-drug camp.
There are also other offences introduced by this Bill that seek to limit exposure and contaminative acts. New section 11B introduces a new offence to protect our children against the harms of drug abuse. This is to be welcomed. In particular, it requires a person who possesses drugs or drug paraphernalia not to leave them lying around where a child may unknowingly take it. This is a crucial amendment. Why do I say this?
In April 2017, in Utah, a girl was born – born a drug addict. Her mother had used drugs heavily during her pregnancy. But lest we think that this can only happen in Utah, here are some stories from newspapers that let us catch a small glimpse of how children are impacted by their parent’s drug abuse in Singapore.
One, in February 2018, a one-year-old boy was rescued from suspected drug traffickers after his caregiver left him in their care. When his mother was found later, she was four months pregnant and had tested positive for drugs.
Two, in June 2018, a four-year-old girl was discovered with her mother – within reach of sachets of methamphetamine.
Three, in August 2018, a three-month-old girl was found in a unit with a suspected drug trafficker and drug abuser, with preliminary investigations showing that \"ice\" was abused during pregnancy and after the child was born.
These are real-life stories of how drugs ruin lives, including that of innocent children. Therefore, this new offence is important to protect children from harmful exposure to drugs. Singapore must continue to take a firm and tough stance against drugs and questionable pro-drug narratives.
While these amendments to the MDA will put another tool in the legal toolbox for grappling with contamination and exposure to drugs, I would suggest that the medium of the Internet should be given special consideration. This is because the Internet poses unique concerns. The Internet makes it easier to commit an offence and there is a greater potential for harm. This is especially true when it comes to buying drugs online where the convenience and relative ease of accessing the Dark Net in the \"comfort of one’s own home\" makes it little more than a click away.
Therefore, to counterbalance these factors which make drug trafficking over the Internet easier, lucrative and also more harmful, we should have targeted offences or aggravated offences if the medium of the Internet is used. Additionally, with the increase in online purchases, we need to make sure that our capacity to detect drugs in parcels will be able to match the volume being sent and received domestically and internationally.
Another suggestion is that the MDA give due consideration to the potential harmfulness of the drug when mixed or cocktailed with available consumables. We should not just be concerned about the weight of the illicit drug. This is because using such contaminants or mixers could make the cocktailed drug more addictive, more harmful.
Related to this issue, there is a rapid proliferation in number, type and availability of new psychoactive substances worldwide. We need to ensure that they are reclassified quickly into a First Schedule drug so that charges for trafficking, manufacture, import, export, possession or consumption can be made. Could the Minister consider this? This will help reduce the demand for and supply of such drugs, that is, through deterrence.
Besides preventing the spread of drug abuse and a drug-tolerant culture, it is important to step up rehabilitation efforts. I support these key and important steps of promoting rehabilitation of drug addicts.
This Bill seeks to support rehabilitation efforts in a few ways and build on the ongoing excellent work of the Prisons Officers, counselling staff and voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) who put in tireless efforts in the area of rehabilitation.
Firstly, clause 19 empowers the Director to require the parent or guardian of a supervisee under 21 to attend any counselling session. This is good in that it goes further to try to ensure that low-risk youths in the non-residential Youth Enhanced Supervision (YES) scheme are given the best shot at rehabilitation. This amendment also recognises the importance of the family in rehabilitation. Because the family can play an important role in providing not just practical support but also morale, encouragement and purpose in life, I hope that older drug abusers would also be given opportunities to engage their families, such as to help drug abusers reconcile with their families who could be their pillars of support upon release. Would the Ministry consider the possibility of having more open visits, such as that reported by The Straits Times during the Children's Day in 2017, for suitable cases, especially for inmates with young children?
Secondly, clause 18 increases the length of time for rehabilitation and supervision. Instead of six months, there will be a minimum of 12 months rehabilitation. The maximum duration has also been increased from three years to four years for rehabilitation and from two years to five years for supervision. This increases the amount of time that our captains of lives have to work with drug addicts to rehabilitate and decrease recidivism. This is excellent as there is greater support and accountability for a longer time during the integration phase.
With this longer supervision period, it is also important that supervision is not too disruptive so that the ex-offender's studies or employment will not be too affected. With the possibility of hair tests, how often does an ex-offender need to report for testing? For long-term resilience, could the Ministry consider providing some opportunities for physical activity or games so that former or recovering drug addicts can experience that there can be meaning to life and relief without drugs?
Besides increasing the time of the supervision order to decrease recidivism, would the Ministry consider giving a workbook for the ex-offenders to record and review what they have learnt in therapy sessions in relation to staying off drugs, for example, how they themselves can better cope with stress or how to replace drug cravings with sports? This would provide them with a resource that they can have on hand whenever they may need to refer to it so as to assist in quashing the urge to take drugs.
Also, because this Bill allows a supervision order to extend up to five years, it would be useful if the recidivism rate is tracked at the one-year, two-year, three-year, four-year and five-year marks. Would this be considered?
Currently, under section 34, the Director may require any person whom he reasonably suspects to be a drug addict to be medically examined or observed by a Government medical officer or medical practitioner. This Bill extends the power to committing the person to a place specified by the Director for up to seven days. Could the Minister please expand on the purpose behind this amendment and why seven days was chosen?
Thirdly, there seems to be greater differentiation between drug abusers as a result of this Bill's amendments. This is to be welcomed.
At paragraph 19 of the Ministry of Home Affairs' (MHA's) press release relating to this Bill, it reads, and I quote, \"However, drug abusers who commit other criminal offences and harm society will continue to be dealt with very strictly. They will be charged in Court and be liable for imprisonment and caning, including LT.\" Is this differentiation between those who commit other offences and those who do not, the reason why clause 16 introduces a tiered minimum punishment for consumption and possession offences?
Let us be clear that these amendments do not mean that Singapore's stance against drugs has softened. We are still treating drug abuse as a clear menace which needs to be eradicated, not tolerated. In fact, if we look at the Bill closely, the changes are actually mixed in strategy but single in purpose. We want a drug-free Singapore. Clause 13 allows \"random spot-checks\" to ensure that ex-addicts stay off drugs while long-term imprisonment is still on the books. Clause 16 introduces minimum punishment for those charged and convicted for consumption or possession offences even though it is their first time.
So, what is clear is that while some amendments are rehabilitation-focused, the law does not hesitate to be harsh when it needs to be.
Sir, as we step up rehabilitation efforts, we cannot lose sight of the reason why Singapore is so hard on drugs in the first place – drug abuse itself is harmful. By consuming drugs, a drug user is harming himself or herself, his or her family, his or her community, and society. Even cannabis, which has been legalised in some countries, is harmful.
Even though patients try to minimise the consequences of cannabis, treatment providers say that many report feeling isolated, paranoid and are unable to effectively interact with the outside world, and experience psychosis and hallucinations.
In Colorado Springs, marijuana has even been called, and I quote, the \"gateway drug to homicide\" by a district attorney. In 2016, eight of 22 homicides had a \"marijuana nexus.\" And I quote again, \"In most cases, robbery of marijuana was a motive, or the victim was killed during a marijuana narcotics transaction.\" Homelessness had also increased by 50% since marijuana was legalised.
The impact is so great that there has been much local response to the harm marijuana is causing. Out of 64 counties in Colorado, 61% have prohibited or have a moratorium on recreational marijuana and, out of the 243 municipalities that have taken action on this issue, about 69% have prohibited it. In the Netherlands, the Hague has become the first Dutch city to outlaw smoking cannabis in and around its city centre, central railway station and major shopping areas.
So, why do we want a drug-free Singapore, not a drug reduced Singapore, not a drug tolerant Singapore, but a drug-free Singapore? Why? Because drugs are harmful. No insidious pro-drug camp should deter us from our view that drugs are, indeed, harmful – harmful to the abuser, their families, society and a country's human potential. Indeed, Minister Shanmugam has taken this clear line on the international stage and I support it.
Last year, Canada legalised recreational marijuana. I do not agree with questionable groups who push pro-drug rhetoric.
Singapore is on the right path in its tough stance against drugs. We must continually be on our guard, never taking a defeatist attitude. We have to look at threats beyond our shores in order to guard our shores.
Regionally, there has been a surge of synthetic drug manufacturing in the Golden Triangle, especially for methamphetamine. There has also been international concern that the drug gangs there will diversify into other kinds of synthetic drugs, such as ketamine and fentanyl, which are highly addictive, highly destructive.
Sir, in conclusion, our resolve to fight against drugs in Singapore will not be diluted. Rather, with legal amendments, such as these, the resolve is made even more steely. As this Bill adds steel to Singapore's determination to deter a potential drug menace, I support it.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, the proposed amendments to the MDA represents an important philosophical shift to some aspects of the fight against drugs while reinforcing the uncompromising stance against drugs in Singapore.
Almost 20 years ago, the Ministry took a very specific approach towards hardcore addicts through the MDA, initiating long-term mandatory imprisonment and caning for hardcore drug addicts, a hardcore addict being warned, defined as having been caught more than twice for drug consumption.
Back then, the priority was not on framing drug addiction as a social issue afflicting drug addicts but a behaviour that has been criminalised. Addicts who consume drugs for the third time face up to seven years' imprisonment and six strokes of the cane, while addicts caught four times or more face up to 13 years' imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane.
In introducing the long-term regime, the then Minister moving the amendments noted that the proportion of hardcore addicts amongst the total drug rehabilitation centre population has increased from 65% in 1994 to 71% in 1997.
In his Second Reading speech, the Minister also referred to hardcore addicts as \"bad people\" who are likely to become drug pushers and traffickers, too. The position revealed the state's philosophy that was focused on an uncompromising stance towards drug addicts, towards hardcore drug addicts, with rehabilitation openly seen as having its limits. In the words of the then Minister, I quote, \"Sometimes, despite all the good heartedness, the love and the hard work put in by volunteers in halfway houses, some of these volunteers do feel disheartened that these addicts just do not have the discipline to take the treatment. But the Government will do what it can to help them, that is, both the recovering addicts as well as the halfway houses. In terms of financial support, I think if we can justify a case to ask for more money, we will look at it. But the Government does not just spend money, throwing good money after bad money to people who do not want to change.\"
One of the main amendments proposed today is to finetune the LT1 and LT2 regimes and circumstances where the drug addict does not have concurrent criminal charges. In parallel, the amendments raised the time an addict can spend in the DRC from three to four years, along with the longest supervisory window from two to five years to submit himself or herself at random to the authorities for urine tests or to provide a hair sample.
Speaker, I am supportive of the aforesaid changes and commend the significantly more enlightened attitude taken by policymakers to shift the focus on helping selected repeat drug offenders in a more purposeful and surgical manner through the calibration of the MDA rehabilitation regime. This is no mean feat, given the risks that some members of the public may erroneously construe this shift as a relaxation of attitude towards hardcore drug addiction.
However, I see it as an example of rational and sensible policymaking. In fact, this policy shift is significant, considering the LT regime was introduced a mere 20 years ago and to cover even more offenders when the Act was amended in 2006. Notwithstanding my support on these points, I have some clarifications I want to seek from the Minister.
The first clarification is a request for information. In 1998, the then Minister, in introducing the LT regime, shared that more than 73% of hardcore drug addicts have some form of a criminal record. I originally intended to ask how the percentages have changed over the years and what the figures were today and, with specific reference to the amendments, how many drug addicts imprisoned under the LT1 and LT2 regimes currently face concurrent criminal charges when they were originally sentenced to long-term detention.
But the Minister earlier shared that the figure was about 50% now. But the Minister also shared that, given easy access to funds and a general rise in access to drugs in the region, in view of these realities, and the latest statistics provided by the Minister in his Second Reading speech, would the Minister be able to share the family background and income levels of those with criminal charges and those without under the current LT1 and LT2 regimes?
Separately, to give the public a better sense of the rehabilitation task ahead, can the Minister share, out of the inmates committed to DRCs, how many are repeat offenders to date?
My second clarification, while the amendments do not foresee any increase in public expenditure, how much more support will be given to counsellors and the halfway house employees and volunteers, to help keep recidivism numbers low? The reality, when we speak of rehabilitation and the new calibrated approach, is that someone somewhere will be on the delivery end of the outcome sought – far fewer repeat drug addicts, compared to the current regime.
So, the proposed changes are likely to put an acute focus on the people behind rehabilitation as they endeavour to get drug addicts out of a dangerous situation for good. What sort of training and support will these individuals undergo so that they do not feel disheartened about addicts who do not respond well to treatment, such that they can continue plugging away at the hugely important task of rehabilitation? This is likely to become more significantly as a large part of rehabilitation involves reintegrating the addicts into the community and in gainful employment, something that may be even more challenging in this age of economic destruction. It is vital that maximum support is extended to the volunteers, workers and supporters throughout the drug rehabilitation chain, from DRC staff to uniformed officers, CNB officers and to families and parents that need help and assistance to, in turn, help their loved ones and individuals under their care to kick the habit for good.
Clause 3 of the Bill introduces a number of new laws that are far-reaching and reflective of the state's uncompromising and continued hard stance against drugs. Amongst other things, it criminalises the act of contamination which facilitates or promotes drug use, including actively introducing a drug trafficker to another person, knowing that the trafficker is likely to supply him with drugs. A person should also be guilty of a contamination offence if he teaches, instructs or provides information to another person on how to cultivate, manufacture, consume, traffic, import or export controlled drugs, such as cannabis, for example, knowing or having reason to believe that the other person intends to carry out these activities. It makes it an offence for an adult to leave drugs or drug utensils within easy access of a child, knowing that the child is likely to be in proximate range of a drug or drug utensils.
Mr Speaker, what is needed is for knowledge of these new laws to be widely disseminated within the community so that they help send a strong deterrent message. I would like to ask the Minister what measures would be taken to make these new laws well-known, particularly amongst foreigners, who may not be familiar with the minutiae of our various laws on drugs, and amongst high-risk individuals like former drug addicts.
Finally, I would suggest that more preventive education across platforms on these amendments as introduced in clause 3 would be particularly important because of the rising permissiveness and attitudes across the region on drug consumption and the general relaxation of the laws against drugs in the region. Mr Speaker, I support the amendments to the Act.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting. I will take the Chair at 4.20 pm. Order.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.01 pm until 4.20 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.20 pm
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]
MISUSE OF DRUGS (AMENDMENT) BILL
Mr Deputy Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, despite repeated efforts by law enforcement agencies, the problem of drug trafficking and drug abuse is still an issue in Singapore. A whole menu of drugs from cannabis, heroin, methamphetamine and others are commonly abused by teens and older persons, including women. In light of this, it is, indeed, timely to review the Act and implement much needed revisions to address the issue. In 2018, a number of large drug seizures, including one 8.8 kilogrammes (kg) of heroin, the largest heroin haul in three years, and a 5-kg haul of cannabis in June that year. Drug offenders nabbed by various CNB-led operations included Singaporeans and foreigners. The number of new drug abusers also remained high.
But what is even more worrying, however, is the increasingly liberal attitudes towards drug abuse among young people. A news report in 2017 revealed that, in line with rising trends of drug abuse among young people, more of them expressed that they are willing to experiment with drugs for a new experience. Among youths aged 13 to 21, 16% of those polled held such views, up from about 11% in 2013. Furthermore, one-third of the respondents had misconceptions about cannabis, believing it to have medicinal properties and overlooking its harmful side effects. This would not come as a surprise as more prolific use of social media means exposure to pop-media and a large population of youths in the West that normalises drug use. And, with more youngsters travelling, studying and working abroad where drugs are more accessible and even legal, certainly they would be able to find more opportunities to consume drugs.
The Bill seeks to criminalise acts of contamination, which include teaching and instructing others about drugs that could lead to the person carrying out drug-related crimes and usage, and introducing a drug trafficker to the person. I am happy to know that it is an offence for parents to consume drugs in the presence of their young children. In fact, I have seen young parents, both father and mother, go in and out of prison because of drug-related offences and that is why I brought up in this House recently, asking if there is any systematic ways of following up with those who have young children at home to make sure that their well-being is not compromised. Criminalising such acts of contamination is a form of deterrence that could save the lives of many young people who could potentially become drug offenders.
However, I am concerned about how this can be effectively enforced. We do not expect an offender to engage in a conversation, say, on how to use drugs, in an open setting. The conversation is likely to be held in private and would only come to light if there is a whistleblower. Perhaps, the only time this would come to light would be when the offence has been committed and the perpetrator squeals while under interrogation and there are records of text messages as evidence. Otherwise, I think it is difficult to enforce.
So, in the case of young children who do not know what their parents are doing but then they are exposed to drugs because their parents are drug abusers, so, I just wonder, in cases like these, how is this law going to take action?
Having said that, criminalising this act could serve as a deterrent to get people to think twice before intentionally influencing others to be involved with drugs. The question that arises then is: what is the definition of instruction? What if someone asks a question about manufacturing drugs and another person gives answers? Would that constitute an act of contamination? I am sure the authorities do not mean to restrict genuine public education to create awareness as a deterrent against drug abuse. But we must also be aware that those who are curious about drugs can turn to the Internet where there is an abundance of materials to get information. So, how will the Ministry address this?
I am pleased to note that the existing rehabilitation programmes will be improved. Drug addicts and offenders will certainly benefit from the increased counselling, supervision and longer detention.
However, do we have sufficient resources and skilled counsellors to execute these programmes? How many prison counsellors do we currently have versus the population of drug abusers? How many more will we need to meet the requirements of the amendments? Prison counselling is intensive work. So, I wonder if we have the relevant support networks for our prison counsellors. I know someone who does prison counselling work, and the nature of her job is such that she sometimes gets negatively affected, getting insomnia and even depressive feelings. I hope our prison counsellors and other professionals have a good care network as we have to ensure that their mental well-being is not being compromised in order for them to do their work well.
Additionally, what kind of benchmarks will be used to determine whether one is completely rehabilitated and ready to commit to a life that is completely drug-free and thus no longer requires supervision?
The Bill introduces some thoughtful new measures to enhance rehabilitation programmes and curb drug abuse through peer influence. But we have to get to the root of the problem. It is far more important to equip young people with the correct mindset and knowledge about drugs. It is far more impactful if they make the decision to say no to drugs, rather than for authority figures to make the decision for them. In Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Surveys show that young Singaporeans are more and more liberal towards drugs, with 16% of them indicating that they are willing to try it out, while one-third of the respondents think that marijuana is harmless. As young people these days can easily access online information and more and more people are going overseas, they can easily be tempted by drugs. I believe this trend will become increasingly salient in the future.
Therefore, it is wise to amend the law to prohibit the act of introducing drugs to others. Although such behaviours are difficult to spot, having such laws would serve as a deterrent. At the same time, we should also pay attention to drug information that is originating from the Internet. Even without an introducer, someone who has his mind set on finding drug information will be able to find it on the net. The correct way is to equip the young people with sufficient information so that they can decide for themselves to stay away from drugs.
More counselling will help the drug addicts to kick the habit. However, do we have enough Prison counsellors, do we have enough support for the mental health of the counsellors themselves? Please clarify the above points. I support this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Irene Quay.
Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as President of the Pharmaceutical Society of Singapore.
I salute our Government for maintaining strict control over the misuse of controlled drugs in Singapore, especially with the recent and timely amendments to the MDA to hold accountable any person knowingly or recklessly leaving controlled drugs exposed within a child's reach. We have seen many tragic stories of children ingesting such controlled drugs by accident which had resulted in overdose cases ending up in hospital emergency departments.
At my recent attendance at the World Pharmacy Congress in Glasgow, I learned from pharmacists practising in Africa, Canada, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US) about the worldwide issues regarding drug abuse. The situation is currently out of control, resulting in countries no longer looking to curb the problem, but instead, resorting to setting up needle stations to try to, at the very least, prevent abusers from contracting the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or Hepatitis C infections. Such a defensive approach does not attack the root cause of the problem. The harm caused by the abuse of these substances on the abusers, their families and the society at large is devastating.
First and foremost, even though the situation is much more controlled in Singapore due to our strict laws regarding drug trafficking, I still have my reservations and concerns for potential abuse in prescribing of controlled drugs in Singapore.
According to the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) Annual Report from 2012-2017, there is an average of two to three cases of errant prescribers who were being censured, fined and suspended every year due to inappropriate prescribing or sale of hynoptics, codeine-containing preparations or controlled drugs. Could this be just the tip of the iceberg?
I quote Prof Tay Boon Keng, Emeritus Consultant and SMC Council member, who is also the Chairperson of the Ministry of Health (MOH) Opioid Guidance workgroup: \"These past errant cases are all from the private health sector and tremendous expense was taken to take action (mostly legal) against these practitioners. In contrast, as prescriptions in public hospitals and polyclinics are limited by information technology (IT) system restriction and second layer of screening by pharmacists, this problem is almost non-existent.\"
Are there plans for MOH or MHA to consider dispensing separation for controlled drugs and other drugs of abuse, including hypnotics and codeine-containing preparations, to deconflict prescribing and dispensing of such drugs with potential for abuse?
Such a move will allow pharmacists to provide oversight of such prescriptions, evaluate for appropriateness of use and duration of treatment, as well as contribute to national aggregated information to flag out high-risk prescribers or patients. The dispensing separation will add additional barriers to access for addicts and, hence, reduce opportunities for abuse, prevent unintended addiction to a significant extent by the general public, and safeguard physicians from such malpractices.
Secondly, over the years, there has been an increase in the use of cannabis by drug abusers worldwide. Cannabis is now legalised for recreational use in Uruguay, Canada and eight other states in the US, while decriminalised in the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Jamaica, Slovenia and Columbia within recreational limits.
With such ease of access to such substances overseas, how can we heighten public awareness, especially for our children going abroad to study during their formative years, so that they are more prepared for the potential risks? Can we incorporate such awareness programmes with \"rehabilitated ex-offenders sharing their experiences\" into briefing sessions for students before they go abroad? Should we conduct more studies to find out the risk factors and reasons as to why these kids pick up such habits when they were away from home?
To add on, cannabis may be the active ingredient in many non-medicinal products presented in a myriad of formulations, such as cigarettes, vaporisers, herbs, lotions and oils. Some may mistakenly purchase these items innocuously, without knowing that the active ingredient is prohibited in Singapore. How can we ensure that the public is well informed of these risks when they travel overseas and avoid unknowingly bringing in these illegal products when they return home? Can we include a mandatory inflight education video/booklet for people departing and returning to Singapore?
Lastly, with medicinal cannabis now legalised in 44 countries worldwide, each claiming their benefits for certain intractable medical conditions, though yet to be proven but there are increasing clinical trials, how do we plan on handling patients prescribed with First Schedule Class A drugs, for example, cannabis for medicinal purposes, if they intend to enter Singapore? Notwithstanding my proposal and concerns above, I stand to support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Rahayu Mahzam.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me to begin my speech in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]\tI had relatives who were involved in drug addiction. I have personally seen how the drug problem can destroy someone's life and affect the family of the addict. I understand and frequently hear about the challenges faced by addicts and their families.
We often discuss the drug problem in terms of statistics, policies or programmes. But the reality is very different for the addict and his family. As the Malay saying goes, as hard as it is to watch, it is even harder to the one shouldering the burden. It is certainly difficult when one makes a mistake and falls into drug addiction. It is extremely tough to kick the destructive habit, and the impact of the addiction can also affect the lives of families and the future of innocent children. What usually happens is that when the addict leaves the rehabilitation centre, he finds it hard to return to normal life. Sometimes, these addicts have a hard time finding suitable jobs or they encounter challenges at the workplace due to stigma from society. They will once again look for friends who will lead them back to drugs or they begin to get involved in other crimes to sustain their nasty habit. It will be more complicated and more difficult to help the addict return to the right path. It will be good if we can stop this addiction and help former addicts rebuild their lives early on.
Therefore, I truly welcome this amendment which remains firm with anti-drug efforts, and yet at the same time, will hopefully further strengthen efforts to rehabilitate drug addicts. I agree that all the current legislation in place has done much to help prevent the drug problem from becoming prevalent. Tough laws are important in instilling fear to commit crime, described in English as having a deterrent effect. However, with a harsh and lengthy punishment, it will be more difficult for an addict to return to the workforce and reintegrate into society. I hope that through experience, data and knowledge about rehabilitation, we can enhance the rehabilitation programmes in drug rehabilitation centres and continue giving support, if necessary, after the addict is released.
I think that this amendment, which carries a specific approach towards addicts with the objective of reforming them, is an encouraging one. It is hoped that this approach, as well as the joint efforts of our people, will help former addicts and their families continue to strengthen efforts to curtail the drug problem in Singapore. I support the amendment.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, in English. Singapore has always had a tough anti-drug stance and it is a position I fully support. I believe this Bill can further enhance the management of the misuse of drugs and addiction in Singapore.
In particular, I note that in this Bill, there is a targeted and calibrated approach towards pure abusers who do not commit other concurrent offences. I appreciate the refreshing approach towards the issue of drug addiction. I have seen personally how challenging breaking the habit is for drug addicts and how severe addiction adversely impacts families. Drug addiction is the root cause of many social problems and it is important that we give enough attention to rehabilitation efforts. I am glad that the Ministry is working towards strengthening the rehabilitation regime and I hope that this effort translates into further reductions in the recidivism rates among addicts.
I appreciate that some may see this as a softening in the approach towards addicts. The fear is that addicts may not be deterred from abusing drugs because the penalty is not harsh enough and that these addicts can continue to be stuck in a loop and will remain social problems for the community. I can appreciate these concerns. However, I believe that the targeted approach in building on the rehabilitation efforts could be a better long-term solution. The effort in studying the rehabilitation process and building on our experience with drug rehabilitation centres can strengthen the rehabilitation regime and allow for more addicts to break the habit and have a new lease of life.
In addition, I am also not sure if we can say that imposing harsher penalties will yield better results. What we want to achieve is a drug-free society, a society that is resilient and improves over time. Whether we like it or not, these addicts are part of our community. The better option may be to work at the problem at its roots and break the addiction to the best of our ability, by providing the best recovery pathway and community support. I am, therefore, supportive of the proposed changes in this Bill that will allow for more focus on rehabilitation and reintegration of drug abusers into the community.
The other aspect of this Bill which I would like to commend on are the provisions relating to the criminalisation of acts of contamination and acts exposing children and permitting young children to consume drugs. In the course of my volunteer work in the past, I have come across anecdotes of children of addicts or those who live in the vicinity of drug abusers. These unfortunate young people are more likely to be influenced and entrapped into the unsavoury world of drug addiction.
Recently, I attended a focus group discussion on youths, and a volunteer shared that one of the children he was supervising at an after-school care centre told him that he was offered drugs by a group of men, presumably addicts, on his way back from school. Apparently, this is not an uncommon story in that particular area, and other participants in the group also shared about young people they know who had access to drugs. These young people may not have the maturity or savviness to respond appropriately to the influences. I am, therefore, pleased that efforts are being made to curb the irresponsible conduct of exposing and giving drugs to young people, and those who commit these acts that could ruin the future of our young ones would receive the necessary punishment.
I believe that the implementation of this Bill will preserve our strong anti-drug position and allow for a more meaningful management of misuse of drugs in Singapore. I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Thank you, Sir. I will deliver my speech in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill that is tabled intends to further enhance preventive, eradication and rehabilitative measures so that the current efforts to manage the drug menace will be more effective overall. I would like to give some views and suggestions with regard to this amendment Bill.
First, I would like to refer to sections 11B (1) and (2) that are being introduced via clause 3. Section 11B (1) is meant to punish adults, that is, individuals who are 21 years old and above, who expose children to any prohibited drug or paraphernalia that is used to consume prohibited drugs. In addition, section 11B (2) is meant to punish adults who allow a child to use any prohibited drugs, and adults who did not take any steps to prevent the child from doing so. Sections 11B (1) and (2) were introduced because CNB had faced situations during their operations whereby addicts left the drugs or paraphernalia used to take drugs which were exposed to children. The exposure of children to such situations may eventually cause these children to also take drugs.
The irresponsible behaviour of the adults mentioned earlier is truly deplorable. As an adult, especially as a father or head of family, it is their responsibility to inculcate positive values in a child. Unfortunately, such individuals not only neglect their responsibility, but, in fact, the actions mentioned earlier will or can cause damage in the young life of the child, as described in a Malay proverb which means \"the one responsible for giving protection instead destroys what it is supposed to protect.\" Therefore, the introduction of sections 11B (1) and (2) is timely and appropriate.
Sir, I would like to suggest that information on the laws to be introduced, that is, sections 11B (1) and (2), is disseminated to schoolchildren through brochures and briefings by CNB during school visits so that these children know and are aware that if they encounter the situations mentioned in sections 11B (1) and (2), the adults who commit these offences must be reported to the authorities because they have committed a crime.
Sir, clauses 13 and 14 made amendments to sections 31 and 31A, which empowers the Director of CNB to order certain individuals to report at certain times to undergo a urine test under section 31 and a hair test under section 31A to ensure that they no longer use prohibited drugs.
Regarding this issue, I hope that individuals who are ordered to report themselves are given the flexibility to choose the reporting time so that it does not affect their working hours. I have heard from several individuals, who are daily-rated employees, that they had to forgo their income for the day because they had to report for the test. Sir, the majority of these individuals face difficulties in getting a regular job and they have no other choice apart from taking on any available jobs. For these individuals, forgoing the daily income results in a huge loss and it also impacts their family’s daily expenses.
These individuals usually have a less stable psychosocial condition. They need a more supportive environment that gives them an opportunity in their efforts to make a fresh start in life by becoming a responsible breadwinner. However, Sir, for these individuals, they will see a situation where they lost their daily income because they have to report for the tests as an obstacle and it will result in them feeling that the authorities are hindering them from performing their responsibility to take care of their families. Although this matter may be seen as a minor issue by some, it is not a minor issue at all to the affected individuals. For this group, even the smallest emotional disturbance can cause excessive stress to them.
Sir, I now turn to the amendments made to section 33. This amendment separates and differentiates the rehabilitation path or process for first-time offenders with low and medium risk, from those who are at a high risk of reoffending. I welcome this amendment because I believe that this new approach will result in more specific and effective efforts for each group. I also welcome the increasing use of psychology and psychotherapy approaches in the current rehabilitative programmes. I would like to suggest that the psychology and psychotherapy approaches are combined with spiritual values to make it more effective. The use of appropriate and specific approaches for these two groups will result in a more satisfying outcome. For example, the approach taken for first-time offenders with low and medium risk should give emphasis on being remorseful about the offence committed and, at the same time, plant the seeds of hope in the offender whereby they can still work towards a better future.
Sir, the new section 34A empowers the Director of CNB to require the parent or guardian of individuals who are under supervision to attend any counselling session. I agree with this approach because an individual’s transformation process requires the involvement of immediate family members so that they understand their role in facilitating the offender’s transformation process. For the same reason, I hope that this requirement will also include the husband or wife of a young offender who is married, or individuals who have a family with their partners. I also request for some flexibility whereby a suitable time to attend counselling sessions can be given to offenders and their family members so that it does not impact their efforts to earn an income.
Sir, the effort to fight the abuse and trafficking of prohibited drugs is a continuing effort and it requires the involvement of all levels of society, including the Government, NGOs, VWOs, the public and families. Each and every one of us can play a part and contribute towards this effort. For the Malay community, we are grateful to have individuals and organisations who are committed and are actively involved in efforts to tackle the drug problem, for example, the late Mr Harun Ghani, a highly respected individual in the Malay community. I have personally heard from ex-addicts who paid tribute to the sincere efforts and selflessness of the late Mr Harun Ghani in helping them and their families throughout his life.
Even though he is no longer with us, his efforts are still continuing in the form of the Harun Ghani Education Fund (HGEF), which is a fund to help the children of drug addicts, ex-addicts and also counsellors who are actively involved in helping offenders. This is described in a Malay proverb, which means, \"the good deeds of a man will never be forgotten.\"
The Hira Society is a VWO established and managed by Ustaz Razman bin Saridin. As previously shared by Ustaz Razman himself, he was previously involved in drugs but has turned his life around and he embarked on this noble effort to help those caught in the world of drugs to rebuild their lives. Sir, with this, I support this amendment Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Chia Shi-Lu.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore has been described by many as having the toughest laws against the misuse of drugs in the world. And we continue to be unrelenting in our fight against drugs in a global environment which seems to be going in the opposite direction, becoming more liberal towards drugs, with more countries considering or already implementing drug decriminalisation.
Singaporeans are travel addicts and have access to information and news from all over the world. It is inevitable that we compare our nation with other regimes, particularly the west. In fact, for many of us who fly into Singapore, we are often given the announcement, in no certain terms, that Singapore has very harsh penalties against drug offences. So, in this respect, some of us may ask, are our drug laws too antiquated, too draconian?
As a doctor, I cannot emphasise enough the damage illicit drugs can wreak upon one's body, much of which is irreversible. But you do not need a doctor to tell you this. It is the Government's duty to protect its people from harm and, hence, its firm stance on drugs should be supported and applauded. Our traditional position had been to set firm and harsh penalties for those involved in drugs, to serve as a deterrent. So far, our measures had been quite effective for an open economy which welcomes visitors and the free flow of goods and services. Our statistics and results speak for themselves.
The Ministry is now attempting a more calibrated approach to segment drug abusers who only take drugs from those with other concurrent criminal offences. I would like to take this opportunity to express my concerns about the new rules for detention, or rather, the lack thereof.
Currently, drug abusers arrested for the first and second time undergo rehabilitation at the DRC.
Under the new proposed framework, first-time abusers assessed to be of low risk will, instead, be placed on the Enhanced Direct Supervision Order (EDSO), a non-custodial supervision order, get assigned a case manager and undergo counselling.
Only first-time abusers with moderate or high risk of further abuse, as well as those arrested for the second time and above will go through programmes of varying degrees of intensity and durations at the DRC.
The plan is, of course, to better help all drug abusers break this vicious cycle of addiction and reintegrate into society sooner.
While I fully support the decision to focus more on rehabilitation and move away from penalties for first-time offenders, I am concerned that this approach may be perceived to be soft – a slap on the wrist – and may send the wrong signal to those tempted to experiment with drugs.
I am particularly worried by the results of the 2015 survey commissioned by the Government's Task Force on Youth and Drugs. It found that even some of the young with good academic results from middle and upper middle-class families are abusing drugs. In the past, most drug addicts were dropouts from school or from troubled or lower-income families.
We also have anecdotal feedback from CNB and lawyers who observe more youths of both genders, across wider income and education spectrums, testing positive for drugs after returning from overseas trips or studies.
If they perceive that they would be treated more leniently because they are first-time offenders, would not they perhaps be more open to trying out drugs? Would harsher penalties, such as detention, be more effective deterrents so they do not get started on drugs at all?
I do support this more calibrated approach in principle and welcome the increased focus on rehabilitation for drug offenders, but would seek the Minister's assurance that these amendments still signal a firm approach towards drug abuse. Finally, I would like to ask the Minister if he could elaborate on the appeal processes for those charged with drug offences. I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I will speak on the welfare of the family, which is a key goal of our drug policy. Before I discuss my specific concerns, I wish to commend the Government for devoting a significant part of this Bill and policy to focusing on the rehabilitation of the drug abuser. Rehabilitation is the only way to restore the lives of those affected by drug abuse.
This Bill implements a new section 11B which makes it an offence to expose or permit young children to consume drugs. Protecting our youths against exposure to drug abuse must be a central plank of our drug abuse policy. We must take a stern view of family members who abuse their position of trust by encouraging drug abuse in the youth.
My concern is that section 11B(1) sets an extremely low bar for criminalising reckless exposure of drugs to youths. As worded, an abuser who merely hid their drugs at home in a place accessible by a child, but without lock and key, would have committed an offence punishable with a term of up to 10 years. The examples given in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill confirm that 11B(1) is aimed at deterring drug abusers from casually or recklessly exposing youths to drugs in a family setting even when there is no intent to encourage the youths to consume the said drugs.
This raises several issues. First, there is the question of risks versus benefits to the family unit. I agree that all measures should be taken to prevent exposure of the youths to drugs. At the same time, the drug abuser subject to section 11B(1) is a family member who may be a parent or a breadwinner. Having that family member at home, provided they are not actively abusing drugs, is likely to be beneficial to the family. The problem is similar to that of child abuse and neglect, where we must decide whether the child is better served by removal from the family. In fact, research by economist Joseph Doyle, published in the American Economic Review in 2007, shows that at-risk children have better long-term outcomes when they remain at home instead of being fostered. Of course, if the drug abuser is encouraging drug consumption within the family, section 11B and all measures should be employed to separate the drug abuser from their family. But otherwise, the aim must remain the rehabilitation of the drug abuser to restore the functioning of the family unit as soon as possible.
Second, there is the issue of disparate impact. Drug abuse is a problem that cuts across all strata of society. However, drug abuse is particularly hard on the less well-off who have fewer resources to cope in general. Our less well-off drug abusers may live in family settings not because they want to expose their family to drugs, but because they cannot afford separate living quarters. Their family may be torn between the risks of living with a drug abuser and their desire to support a family member. There is disparate impact if a financially able drug user who can afford separate living quarters, is under no risk of being charged under section 11B(1), but a financially impoverished drug abuser may offend under section 11B(1) because they must live in a family setting.
Unlike some criminal justice systems, Singapore has been careful to avoid drug policies that criminalise to a disparate extent drugs associated with underprivileged socio-economic classes or minorities. This is important because it ensures that our drug policies have broad support, and they are not seen as a policy that targets specific communities. We must do everything we can to ensure that our drug policy targets all abusers, regardless of class or status. I would like to know what measures the Ministry may take to ensure that section 11B(1) does not have a disparate impact on more underprivileged communities, notwithstanding that differences in drug abuse rates may affect this.
Third, we have existing laws that may already apply to the problem of youth exposure to drugs, and I would like to understand the Minister's views on why these may be insufficient. Part II of the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA) already criminalises acts that contribute to the delinquency or endangerment of children. In addition, the proposed section 11B(2) criminalises permitting or failing to take reasonable steps to prevent a young person from consuming controlled drugs. So, is this an issue of the penalties under CYPA not being sufficient, or the threshold for prosecution under the proposed section 11B(2) being too high? In addition, as a matter of policy, would offenders in section 11B(1) also be subject to prosecution under CYPA?
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is important that our policies be evidence-based to have the best chance of achieving the policy intent and to attain broad public support. Policies, such as section 11B, must be based on empirical evidence from drug abuse policing and intervention that shows a causal link between reckless exposure and subsequent drug abuse by the youth. So, I hope, in this regard, the Minister can discuss the evidence on the number and proportion of drug offenders in family settings where children are at risk; proportion of cases where investigating officers found that the drug offender was recklessly exposing their family to drugs and the number of youths whose drug abuse appears to be linked to such family exposure.
Next, section 11B must also deter reckless exposure to be effective. Unlike the question of drug trafficking, where the offence is premeditated, the offence of reckless exposure may, by definition, result from thoughtless negligence. A drug abuser may have no intention of encouraging their children to consume drugs, and yet, they may fail to take necessary care when securing their own drugs. The question is whether the Ministry's experience in the field is that 11B(1) is likely to motivate drug offenders to take strong precautions to limit harm to their family members. While I understand estimating a counter-factual outcome is difficult, I would like to hear the Minister’s views on the deterrent effect of 11B(1).
Finally, I would like to understand what policies would be adopted in enforcement to ensure that section 11B(1) is judiciously used to promote the welfare of the children and family unit. For example, it could enhance welfare if the CNB and Public Prosecutor would, before deciding whether to proceed with a charge under 11B(1), call for a report from the Ministry of Social and Family Development's (MSF's) Child Protective Service or other relevant authorities. Such a report would evaluate the extent of recklessness involved, and the ability of the drug abuser to contribute meaningfully to the family unit. In addition, if we are prepared to enact stronger legal measures against the drug abuser who puts his family at risk, then we must also be prepared to provide further assistance for that family, especially if a breadwinner may be incarcerated for a longer period. Combating drug abuse must be a whole-of-Government problem.
Sir, I believe there is broad social support for Singapore's zero-tolerance policy for drug abuse. That social support is based on the principle that we are protecting society – which includes drug abusers and their families – from the harms caused by drug abuse. I hope the Minister can outline how the stronger measures in 11B(1) are based on the evidence that such reckless exposure to young children is prevalent, increases the risks of youth drug abuse, and it can be effectively deterred by 11B(1) for the greater welfare of the families affected. In particular, I think both the Ministry and society would benefit from more public research by Singapore-based academics on our criminal justice system. Notwithstanding these concerns, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Mohamed Irshad.
Mr Mohamed Irshad (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker and hon Members of Parliament, allow me to begin my speech with greetings of well wishes to Singaporeans who are celebrating the Tamil festival of Pongal.
(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] May I wish Happy Pongal to all those who celebrate the Pongal festival. May your homes and hearts be filled with joy forever.
(In English): I support this Bill as it enhances and strengthens the MDA to effectively and comprehensively tackle the issue of drug abuse in Singapore.
Today, I wish to speak on two areas of concern: prevention and integration. Based on statistics by CNB, 3,091 drug abusers were arrested in 2017; 40% were new drug abusers and two-thirds of the new abusers were under the age of 30.
These statistics seem to underline a growing trend among the young in taking a more liberal attitude towards drug abuse, influenced by pro drug-related content. This was one of the conclusions drawn by the Youth and Public Perception Survey by the National Council Against Drug Abuse (NCADA). Online peddling of drugs has also been flagged out as a rising concern by CNB.
What efforts are undertaken by the authorities to counter these influences and online drug peddling? Are there plans to flag out and perhaps block such contents or access to websites promoting the use of harmful drugs?
Unlike the past, more of today’s drug abusers hail from middle and even upper middle-class families, with parents having no history of drug abuse. Undergraduates, NSFs and young working adults are taking drugs, with some even going overseas to consume drugs thinking they can evade detection and prosecution.
Can I propose that the authorities introduce a mandatory anti-drug course as part of NS? Having just completed my reservist, I believe NSmen can also benefit from this training. In tertiary educational institutions, can I suggest we have organisations, such as NCADA, step up engagements with students by tying up with student bodies and training these youths to be Anti-drug Ambassadors on campus?
There are currently many efforts aimed at addressing this growing pro-drug trend, including the recent media campaign launched by NCADA and the ongoing Dadah Itu Haram campaign, as well as the annual activities and efforts by CNB. But based on my interactions with youths from all spectrums, I have found that these campaigns are quite effective at reminding the mainstream youths, but not as effective at targeting the youths who are more at risk of drug abuse due to gang influence or other delinquency issues.
It is a challenging issue to address. One step towards targeting those youths-at-risk is this Bill's efforts to criminalise acts by adults who expose children to the risks of drug abuse. Often, these adults are the children’s own parents. Parents who do not seem to care that if you expose a child, who does not know better, to drugs, you condemn him to a life of misery and addiction. I agree wholeheartedly with this new provision. We must protect our vulnerable young from reckless parents or adults.
In the same light, I would also like to support this Bill's move to grant the Director of CNB the power to require possibly negligent parents or guardians to attend counselling to rehabilitate low-risk youth abusers. As they say, it takes a village to raise a child. I say we must do our part to fight and stamp out drug abuse, starting with the young.
I also understand that Singapore is studying successful models of engagement from Iceland and Finland to tackle the drug issue effectively. Can the hon Minister share if Singapore will be adapting or implementing these models or have drawn lessons from them to improve our local efforts?
On integration, Minister K Shanmugam recently announced that SPS will look into assigning inmates the same case officer from the start of their sentence until they are fully integrated into the community. He also shared of plans to have counselling sessions via video-conferencing and an App containing self-help resources and a database for jobs for former offenders. This is a welcome move to better rehabilitate former offenders and it shows the commitment of our officers.
Drug offenders who have been released from prison or DRC face a lot of obstacles in their efforts to reintegrate themselves into society. They navigate a world with a stigma on their backs, while coping with their obligations to report for mandatory urine tests at designated police divisions while trying to avoid some of their peers who may draw them back into drugs. I have learnt from ex-drug offenders that they have to report at fixed timings where they are clustered into batches to take their urine test. Although efficient, this posed some problems.
Firstly, I understand that, sometimes, due to processing delays, these tests may take longer than the stipulated one hour which the supervisees have to report for. This affects the livelihood of these former drug offenders as they have to take time off work to take the urine tests, sometimes up to three times a week. Many of these supervisees work simple jobs as delivery or dispatch riders on a part-time basis. Due to inflexible reporting timings or delays in taking their urine test, their jobs are affected and, in some extreme cases, they are laid off. Some of these supervisees are even putting off finding a job just because the potential employers cannot accommodate them taking time off for urine tests.
Secondly, clustering the supervisees in batches to take their urine tests provides an opportunity to meet other former drug offenders. Such gathering points while waiting to take urine tests provides a platform for ex-offenders who may be still active in illicit drug activities to prey on fellow ex-offenders. Even if a person wants to stay clean and away from drugs, the lure of bad company might lead them back to drugs.
Therefore, is there a possibility to allow the supervisees to report for urine tests at flexible timings without being clustered into groups? I hope that MHA could look into this issue to make the process less painful for those who are sincerely and genuinely trying to turn over a new leaf and find a stable employment.
Support from the community remains an integral part in the fight against drugs. I commend efforts, such as CNB's United Against Drugs Coalition (UADC), an anti-drug coalition made up of local organisations and business enterprises. I would also like to highlight the good work undertaken by ReviveSG, a ground-up initiative formed in 2017 by a group of former drug-related offenders and renounced gang members. ReviveSG not only provides support and counselling to youths-at-risk, they also conduct recovery programmes and educational programmes for parents, educators, employers and the public.
I would like to ask if there is funding to support other similar ground-up initiatives. Through such programmes, I hope more former drug offenders will come forward to help and perhaps mentor and even serve as a role model to those struggling with drug addiction to overcome and reintegrate back into the society.
In light of the daunting journey that a former drug offender faces after he leaves prison, I commend the pro-rehabilitation changes proposed in this Bill. I think we have a good regime in Singapore that balances deterrence and strict enforcement against drugs while providing as many opportunities as possible to drug offenders to turn around their lives.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill and the wider efforts to ensure a drug-free Singapore.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. The world drug situation remains challenging. Every country is affected by the scourge of drugs. In some countries, it has, in fact, worsened. Singapore is a transport hub. We can expect ourselves to be repeatedly targeted by syndicates as a transit point as well as a market for illicit drugs. The need to protect Singapore from drugs is even more critical now.
While I welcome the amendments to the MDA, we must ensure that, first, there must be no softening of Singapore's anti-drug zero-tolerance stance. And second, that a more finely calibrated rehabilitation approach will be useful in addressing our drug situation in the longer run. This is a careful balance to manage but critical if we are to continually improve our drug situation.
First, we must ensure that we continue our zero-tolerance approach to drugs. We have adopted a comprehensive and consistent approach to tackling both drug supply and demand. It has worked for us. In 2015, the number of drug abusers arrested comprised less than 0.1% of our population. Would-be and current drug offenders know that the consequences are dire, whether the offences are committed in Singapore or overseas.
Yet, a no-compromise approach to drugs does not mean that we cannot and should not evolve towards better means of improving the overall drug situation. The proposed amendments are founded upon distinguishing between abusers who only consume drugs and those who concurrently commit other offences of harm to society. I would like to seek a couple of clarifications. First, what are these offences of harm to society? And second, if an offender commits drug and unrelated criminal offences sequentially but within a short timeframe, would he still be eligible for EDSO?
The move towards greater focus on rehabilitation recognises that we must focus on helping the offender to kick the habit as a longer-term outcome. Yet, we must calibrate this against the potential harm to society as well. There are two important points in the anti-drugs policy. One, to prevent would-be offenders from getting started on drugs. Two, to deter repeat offenders.
Under the non-custodial EDSO regime, how can we position this publicly so that it is not seen as a light-touch approach for young people wanting to experiment with drugs?
For the drug offenders, the term \"LT\" or \"Long Term Imprisonment\" is much feared. The punishment of long minimum imprisonment sentences and mandatory caning can deter addicts from continuing their habits. I have often heard from offenders at my Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS) or even when I was a Police Officer that they will tell me \"No more drugs already, next time it is LT.\" It also protects society from potential harm from sustained demand for drugs feeding a drug market.
Under the proposed amendments, a repeat offender who does not commit other criminal offences would only go through the DRC regime without LT. By removing the threat of LT from these drug offenders, would this send a conflicting signal from our zero-tolerance policy? Would MHA consider setting a cap on the number of times an offender can go for the DRC regime before LT sets in? In addition, is the time limit of one year in DRC for first-time abusers too short or can we consider longer sentences for subsequent offences?
Furthermore, we know that offenders in jail must follow rules and adhere to a rigid regime. It has been suggested in some research that, for drug addicts, their isolation from society for a period of time, where they go cold turkey, might make recovery easier. Those who enter the DRC track have a whole host of other challenges to manage. They must find a job, go for urine tests, and learn how to say \"no\" to friends who ask them to do drugs again. So, are we prepared to also explore a policy whereby both imprisonment sentences and DRC work hand-in-hand in order to achieve a better longer-term outcome?
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a more rehabilitative approach for drug abusers shows that we are prepared to evolve our anti-drug measures for even better outcomes. Yet, we must balance this carefully. People who are tempted to try and who become addicted to drugs, are robbed of the opportunity to live life to the fullest. Families lose their livelihood. Children suffer. Let us ensure that our top priority is still a zero-tolerance anti-drug policy. With this, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Intan Mokhtar.
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very important Bill. It is a very timely one, particularly with the new year festivities just over a couple of weeks ago where several police arrests over drug abuse and dealings had been made in several countries.
For instance, at the recent end-of-year Field Day Festival in Sydney, Australia, there were more than 150 arrests made of young people abusing drugs at the festival, with six arrests due to drug supply and trafficking. Over the new year weekend in Louisville, Kentucky, in the US, a group of 40 people were arrested for drug abuse. Out of the 40 people, 14 were below 18 years old. In Belfast, Ireland, five deaths were recorded involving young people in their late teens to late 20s due to a prescription drug overdose during the Christmas period. The Belfast Mater Hospital claimed that there has been a spike in the number of cases of prescription drug overdose in young people, some as young as 13. These prescription drugs, such as Xanax and Lyrica, are sold illegally on the streets. These incidents are a serious cause for concern. It does not help that illicit drugs are now also available through the dark web, as well as in some jurisdictions that have relaxed their legislation against personal or recreational drug use.
In addition to the relatively easier availability of drugs on the streets or through online means, access to drugs in the home exacerbates the problem of drug abuse by minors and children. I quote Dr Mike Males, who is a senior researcher for the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice in the US and a former professor at the University of California Santa Cruz: \"California’s and America's drug fatality crisis is firmly centred in whites and middle-agers. California's 5.7 million white men aged 25 and older account for 40% of drug deaths. That is more than the total drug deaths among the state's 24 million Latino, African and Asian Americans of both sexes and all ages. True, many adult drug problems began in teen or young adult years. However, adult drug and family abuses are major factors in teens abusing drugs. The problem is circular and must be addressed with integrated strategies across families and communities.\"
The role of significant adults – parents, guardians and teachers – in a child's life cannot be underestimated and will have substantial impact on how that child turns out. This is also true when it comes to developing lifelong and life-changing habits. The struggle with marijuana abuse by Nick Sheff has been shared widely by his father, American journalist David Sheff. In his first revelation about his son's struggle with marijuana abuse that was published in the New York (NY) Times Magazine, David shared that \"Indeed, when he was 12, I discovered a vial of marijuana in his backpack. I met with his teacher, who said: ''It's normal. Most kids try it.'' Nick said that it was a mistake – he had been influenced by a couple of thuggish boys at his new school – and he promised that he would not use it again. You can read David's article published in the NYTimes Magazine dated 6 February 2005, titled \"My Addicted Son\" or you can watch the movie \"Beautiful Boy\" to feel the pain and anguish both David and Nick went through in trying to overcome Nick's marijuana addiction.
It may be easy to point fingers at his then 6th grade teacher, or even at David himself, who smoked recreational marijuana with his son Nick. The fact remains that significant adults in a child’s life have that role and responsibility to ensure our children stay away from drugs and have significant influence towards a child's propensity and attitude towards drug use.
Hence, I strongly support clauses 3 and 19 of this Bill. Clause 3 of the Bill places greater emphasis on the responsibility needed by the adults within the family to ensure the home remains a safe and drug-free place for our children. Our home must remain a warm and loving sanctuary for our children, and not a worm hole to hell.
Clause 19 requires the involvement of parents and guardians to be included in the counselling sessions, not to punish them, but to ensure the rehabilitation process remains an integrated and positive approach involving the significant adults in a young person's drug recovery journey. However, may I clarify the following. Under clause 3, particularly sections 11B and 11C, will enforcement actions be taken only on the drug abuser or will other adult family members who are non-drug users within the household also be convicted if drugs are found within the reach of a child or minor within the home? Under clause 19, section 34A, how many counselling sessions will the parents be involved in? Why do we not make it compulsory for the counselling sessions to involve both the parents and the young drug user or supervisee? Why leave it as \"whether or not together with the supervisee\"? To me, having both the parents and the young drug user go through the entire counselling process and rehabilitation journey together will be useful in addressing the causes of drug use in the first place, and not merely addressing the symptoms.
In addition, while I support the emphasis on rehabilitation for young drug abusers, may I seek the Ministry’s assurance that it does not mean we are going soft on drug abuse and related crimes and that enforcement action will continue to be robust and will be meted out without fear or favour?
I am confident that with these new measures being legislated, proactive and educational approaches will also be enhanced to ensure we can keep our children safe from drugs through awareness and prevention, rather than just through the enforcement of enacted laws.
I also support clause 13 that confers powers on certain SAF servicemen to assume the role of enforcement officers and request for urine samples from suspected servicemen for urine tests to be conducted. I recall meeting a couple who are parents at my Meet-the-People Session more than a year ago, who shared about their son's foray into drug use while serving NS. Through their appeal to the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF), they asked for stricter enforcement in requiring servicemen to be tested for drug use, even though the drug use was not in the camp itself.
However, I would like to ask if there are even stricter enforcement actions to be taken if the drug use is discovered within any of our MINDEF premises or camps by SAF servicemen or regulars? At this point, Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to speak in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Drug abuse is an issue that continues to haunt us. Although drug offences carry harsh punishments, where the offenders can be jailed for life or given the death penalty if found guilty of drug trafficking, the number of drug abusers and drug traffickers in our community is still high, more than what we want it to be.
I have met my constituents at the MPS who shared stories about their husbands or wives being nabbed by CNB for taking drugs in their own homes. What is more worrying is the presence of their small children in the house, whereby the father or mother is taking drugs right in front of their children and those drugs are within easy reach to these children.
Therefore, I welcome the amendments to the Act whereby clause 3 underlines the responsibility of adults in the family to ensure that our homes stay drug-free for the sake of our children. A heavier punishment will be given to those found guilty, for instance, for allowing drugs in the house to be easily reached by their children, especially those who are minors.
As adults, we cannot neglect our responsibilities towards our children in shaping their habits or lifestyle, especially in instilling them with positive behaviour and helping them stay away from bad habits or addictions like drug abuse. We are the pillars of the family, and as the Malay saying goes, the sap from the leaf will trickle down its stalk, that is, children will imitate what their parents do.
(In English): In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the perils of drug abuse are very real, and no sufficient amount of legislative changes can fully protect our loved ones from the dangers of drugs. We still need preventive education, awareness and an abundance of love and care and continued vigilance to keep drugs at bay. Nonetheless, these legislative changes we are debating today are needed to ensure there is protection for our loved ones and that the necessary enforcement action can be taken to ensure that very protection for them. Notwithstanding the questions and clarifications I have, I support the amendments to the MDA.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I first declare my interest as a practising lawyer who occasionally handles criminal cases, including drug cases.
Singapore has always taken a hard stance on drugs. Hon Members who spoke before me support this stance. This is a reflection of our understanding of the pernicious effects that drugs and drug addiction have on our communities, and the need to ensure that drug consumption does not become an entrenched habit in our society. There is also a recognition in recent years that whilst it remains necessary to ensure that our laws deter drug trafficking, possession and consumption, there is also a need for a broader range of measures to rehabilitate offenders to mitigate the risk of relapse.
The proposed amendments to the Act serves these two purposes – enhancing our enforcement powers against drug-related activities, especially where young children are concerned and, at the same time, strengthening the drug rehabilitation regime by taking a more calibrated approach vis-a-vis drug abusers. I support the aims of the Bill. I have a few queries.
First, the Bill proposes a new section 33(3A), which prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence of one year for first-time offenders of a section 8 offence of drug possession or consumption. This represents quite a shift from the status quo currently where there is no prescribed minimum sentence and, therefore, a Court is entitled to impose a sentence of a fine and/or a jail term of less than one year.
The present sentencing norm for first-time drug consumption is between six and eight months’ imprisonment. Taking into account remission, the length of imprisonment is approximately between four and five months. At the same time, the present regime also contemplates rehabilitation in the DRC for first-time offenders with no criminal record, and this is generally a term of approximately eight months.
I understand that the proposed amendments would address the existing disparity, namely, that a first-time offender who is unsuitable for DRC, for example, if he had committed other offences, together with a drug consumption offence, and is sentenced to imprisonment, he would serve a shorter term than a first-time offender who is deemed suitable and sentenced to undergo treatment at a DRC.
If the focus is to address this disparity, why not put this before the Court, rather than impose a mandatory minimum sentence? The Court will then have a discretion to impose a sentence that suits the circumstances of the case, for example, drawing a distinction in sentencing between the consumption of a Class A drug, which is more serious, versus a Class C drug.
After all, the sentence should take into account the circumstances of each individual offender, to distinguish between their differing degrees of criminal culpability. The existing provisions allow the Courts this flexibility.
This is encapsulated by a High Court decision, where the Court said, \"Adopting this wider spectrum of sentencing options for first-time offenders will allow adequate regard to be duly given to the many imponderables involved when such offences are committed, such as: what was the amount of drug(s) consumed… what was the occasion that led to the act of consumption; was it planned or incidental to some other event… was any payment involved; is the accused a first-time drug consumer, a casual consumer or an addict? While this is by no means a comprehensive or exhaustive list, it is intended to highlight some of the thought processes a sentencing judge should apply when determining the appropriate custodial sentence for drug consumption offences. Given that not all offences of consumption are the same, it follows that not all acts of consumption ought to be punished identically with a rigid, immutable starting point that constitutes an end by itself.\"
This is not to say that the Courts would treat drug possession or drug consumption lightly. In the same case, the Court expressly recognised that a fine may be imposed in very limited instances where a young offender with no antecedents is involved, and even then, this cannot be an invariable practice for all young offenders.
Additionally, there need not be parity between the DRC regime and imprisonment, in terms of the length of time, given that they serve different purposes. We are not necessarily comparing apples with apples. A DRC incarceration is not a conviction, and the primary purpose of DRC is to rehabilitate, which understandably requires some time. In contrast, a person dealt with by the Courts, convicted and sentenced will have a conviction record. And the aims of imprisonment also include retribution and deterrence, rather than a pure focus on rehabilitation.
My concern is that there could be situations where it does not make sense for a person to be sentenced to a DRC, and yet it may not make sense for the person to be sentenced to a one-year imprisonment term, for example, a foreign national who commits a drug offence while on a social visit pass. There is little utility in sending him to a DRC for rehabilitation, given that he is not resident in Singapore. But with the amendments, the Court will now have no choice but to sentence him to imprisonment for at least one year, even if the offence may be on the relatively less culpable side.
May I please ask: what is the policy consideration for the decision to impose a minimum mandatory sentence for drug consumption and possession, regardless of the circumstances, and remove judicial discretion in this regard?
I now move on to section 34. Section 34 deals with the increased duration of supervision from two years to five years. I understand from the hon Minister's speech that this is because the focus is on making sure that the drug addict is fully rehabilitated and the chances of recidivism is reduced. I support this aim. As I understand it, if a drug addict beyond the five-year mark does not take drugs, then, the chances are, he would not take drugs in the future. This would be a good objective to realise because families fractured by their members who take drugs can then have a chance to be wholly reunited again.
I note that the Explanatory Note suggests that there is no increase in public expenditure arising from the amendments to this Bill. However, I would imagine that there would be resourcing and staffing issues, given that the contemplated extension of supervision is for a period of up to five years. May I please ask what are the plans the Minister has in this area?
Before I end, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to pay tribute to the good work of the CNB officers over the years since CNB was established in 1971. We had a serious problem with drugs then. This is a stark memory for me because, as a young boy, I grew up in a neighbourhood where I played football almost every day with some very talented footballers who could perform mesmerising tricks. They could have made it into the national squad. In fact, some of my teammates did. But they could not make it into the national squad because they became addicted to drugs and their whole lives were wasted.
It was the Government and CNB's tough and uncompromising stance against drugs that allowed us to emerge from that dark situation to now enjoy a relatively drug-free and low-crime environment. I highlight low crime because there has always been a link between drug-taking and crime. Many drug addicts resort to crime to be able to fund their habit. There is also a positive economic impact arising from the successful tackling of the drug problem. We managed to ensure that the people who would otherwise be snagged by the lure of drugs, would be economically active and contribute to their families and our country.
In contrast, a good number of countries have gone the opposite way. I had occasion to listen to the speech of Ms Bridget Brennon, the Special Prosecutor for Narcotics in the city of New York in the US last year at the Economic Crime Symposium in Cambridge, UK. She reported that, in the US, life expectancy has gone down for three consecutive years and she attributed it to the serious drug problem her country has. She also found that opioid addiction has led to less economic participation amongst her people. The situation has been exacerbated by the advent of synthetic drugs, such as fentanyl, which is very addictive and only a fifth of the cost of heroin.
I highlight this not to gloat but really to join in the suggestion that the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza made, in terms of highlighting these cases to people who may otherwise take a softer stance to drugs. Given our geographical proximity to the centres of production of controlled drugs, higher levels of drug production, as the hon Minister said, as well as our status as an international transport hub, we could easily be in the same situation as in the US, if not for our dedicated and courageous officers working in tandem with other Government agencies, and critically, with the whole-hearted support of Singaporeans. The job that our CNB officers do on a day-to-day basis is clearly not for the faint-hearted, as the people that they deal with, especially the drug traffickers, tend to be more desperate and violent, given the stakes should they get apprehended. We owe them a debt of gratitude. Thank you.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. It is important to review the existing framework to ensure that we are up to date with the evolving drug landscape.
I would like to seek a few clarifications and offer some suggestions.
I am happy to note that the proposed amendments, as a whole, reflect a move towards strengthening rehabilitation for drug offenders, and the whole-of-family approach, especially when it comes to younger drug offenders.
Just last week, at a visit to the new Selarang Halfway House, Minister Shanmugam announced a three-pronged approach to better rehabilitate ex-offenders. This includes assigning inmates to the same case officer for the entire period of incarceration, focusing more on correctional programmes targeted at individuals, and getting more family and community support. These amendments will codify the rehabilitative approach and align our legislative framework with ground initiatives.
I note that section 33 will be amended to introduce mandatory minimum sentences for offences of consuming controlled or specified drugs, failing to provide urine specimens and failing to provide hair specimens. Further, section 33A on enhanced penalties for repeat offenders will be expanded.
In light of the refocus on rehabilitation, can the Minister clarify the rationale behind introducing mandatory minimum sentences and enhanced penalties and how this might be consistent with the broader strategy for addressing repeat commission of drug offences? Both legislative and executive action should be aligned to present a coherent message on our renewed commitment to rehabilitation and reintegration.
The family is an important part of the rehabilitative process. At the DRC, I understand that only a third of inmates use their full quota of two 30-minute visits per month. This is already a clear sign that inmates lack family support and this problem might have existed prior to the drug problem. Strained family ties were perhaps one of the reasons they consumed drugs in the first place. The new section 34A will require parents and guardians to undergo mandatory counselling together with young offenders. This is a positive step forward.
In the same vein of embracing a more whole-family approach, I hope we will also consider a greater push towards a more forgiving and rehabilitative approach to all drug offenders. Beyond focusing on young offenders, we should also help inmates currently serving their sentences to maintain social connections with their immediate family. The family serves as an important social safety net upon the inmates' release. Families help to support inmates' efforts to change, reintegrate into society as responsible citizens and reduce the reoffending rates. Research has shown that family support is a key factor that prevents inmates from reoffending.
I have suggested this before, and I hope that we can consider removing the glass panel between inmates and their children more often. Today, family bonding and interaction with inmates' children are too limited. Family support, especially interaction with their children, could strengthen the resolve of inmates to change their lives for the better. Stopping parental contact with their child could cause resentment, a sense of abandonment on both sides and weaken the social support structure for an inmate. This works against our objective of a supportive rehabilitation process and also negatively affects the child.
There is precedence to remove the separation by glass panel on special occasions. On Children's Day in 2017, some inmates at the Tanah Merah Prison were allowed an open visit where they could hug and hold their loved ones. Some of the inmates had not seen their children for four years until that visit. Having physical contact with their families can be a strong reminder for inmates to turn over a new leaf for their families. As stated by the spokesperson for Focus on Family Singapore, \"Humans thrive when we know we are loved. When inmates connect and are reconciled with their families, there is a lower chance of them reoffending.\"
I would also like to take this opportunity to applaud MHA for increasing support for ex-offenders. The Development and Reintegration Programme is promising and aims to help inmates upon their release. It provides continuity of care from prisons to the community, to help the inmates better reintegrate and prevent reoffending. Beyond the support offered after ex-offenders are released, I also hope we can provide more support to inmates while they are in prison, especially during the initial incarceration phase and especially by ex-offenders who have managed to turn their lives around.
I had raised this before during the Committee of Supply debates and I hope the Ministry could consider including more programmes featuring ex-offenders and imparting life-changing strategies at this initial stage, especially during the initial two to three months, when inmates are most motivated to change and commitments are more sustainable. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the proposed measures to counter the harmful impact of drugs upon our society and applaud our Government in standing firm in their policies and measures to protect our citizens.
Drug addiction turns healthy people with potential into zombies. Drug dealers are not interested in killing their sources of income. Their best customers are addicts who manage to stay alive, keep buying for a while and help recruit new customers.
Criminalising acts of contamination which facilitate and promote use of drugs is necessary to stop the transmission of the \"infection\", which is the spread of drug use and addiction. I also fully support the amendments which criminalise acts which expose children to drugs and allow young persons to consume drugs.
One of my greatest worries is how we deal with the ease of accessing drug suppliers through the Internet, social networking and messaging platforms, such as WhatsApp, which provides end-to-end encryption. I would like to seek clarifications from the Minister on whether our Police and intelligence teams are empowered to access encrypted messages on these online messaging platforms.
Another issue I am deeply concerned about is how drugs still manage to find their way into Singapore despite our strict laws. Would the Minister elaborate on measures at our checkpoints to prevent the entry of drugs into Singapore? How thorough are our checks on items being transported in?
Last, I noticed that a focus in this Bill is to enhance rehabilitation of drug abusers and to ensure that they stay drug-free. May I ask if we have enough case managers and counsellors to assist addicts and whether these professionals have sufficient training and support to stay updated in this field so as to render the needful help. I conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Anthea Ong.
Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is clear that this Bill, among other things, seeks to introduce new offences to deter the promotion of certain drug-related activities. This is evident through the introduction of the new sections 11B, 11C and 11D.
I am in general support of these amendments to the MDA. They are in line with the current framework of statutory prohibition against drug misuse. I would like to take this opportunity to express my support, in particular, for the new section 11B which, to my mind, tackles the undesirable but unfortunately rampant phenomenon of intergenerational drug use.
We are beginning to see a more nuanced and calibrated approach to drug rehabilitation by MHA. MHA's intention is clear. There is a continued focus in helping drug abusers break the cycle of addiction more effectively and reintegrate into society sooner. I commend this intent, especially given that we all agree neither criminalisation nor imprisonment is viewed as the miracle solution.
However, our drug rehabilitation regime still tacitly acknowledges the stigma associated with drug use and addiction. Even without the World Health Organization declaring that addiction to illicit drugs is the most stigmatised, it is not hard to surmise that social isolation and marginalisation hamper the effectiveness of even the most effective rehabilitative efforts.
Mr Deputy Speaker, with the current amendments, I believe we now have an excellent opportunity to reinforce the statutory framework on the prohibition of drug misuse with concerted, Government-led efforts to destigmatise drug addiction. Public education and policy realignment in the direction of destigmatising drug addiction can and should complement institutionalised drug rehabilitation. Allow me to elaborate.
At the moment, it would not be a misstatement to say that illicit drug use and addiction are met with great social disapproval. Commonly held perceptions of persons with drug addictions are that they are weak in resolve, irresponsible and out to have a good time at society's expense. In short, addiction is viewed as a moral failing, and the associated harms of addiction considered wholly self-inflicted.
I believe that it is time we challenge the common wisdom that shame, a fundamental element of stigmatisation, is the best way to respond to undesired social behaviours and habits, especially in light of advances in neurobiology research which validate the characterisation of addiction as a brain disease tied to changes in brain structure and function.
Advances in the field of neurobiology show that addiction causes deficits to the functioning of the prefrontal cortex. While I have been informed that these studies have not been researched in our local context, some have been co-published by researchers hailing from, amongst others, our very own Department of Pharmacology at the Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, Yale University, Imperial College London and the National Institute on Drug Abuse in the US. In lay terms, addiction impairs the brain in ways which weaken the brain regions involved in executive functions, such as decision-making, inhibitory control and self-regulation.
It is easy to surmise, given this impairment, that stigma or externally-imposed shame would only provide very minimal, if at all, effective support or incentive for individuals who are seeking to quit their drug addictions. Additionally, according to a study published by the US National Institute on Drug Abuse, stigma towards addiction also externalises in practical ways, for example, lower priority in healthcare policies, such as insurance.
Conversely, I believe that if we are able to align (a) the public’s understanding of drug use, (b) our public health policies on drug misuse, as well as (c) our institutionalised drug rehabilitation programmes with the brain disease model of addiction, we could start creating the right conditions for decreasing or, who knows, even preventing, drug misuse and addiction. Similar recommendations have been made in studies published by researchers on drug abuse.
For clarity, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not saying that Singapore must soften its stance on the statutory prohibition of drugs. Rather, I am very encouraged by the widespread success of our whole-of-Government effort on War on Diabetes. That effort addresses the misconceptions and stigma, and has also begun to make headway in structural changes within business and community to influence social behaviours and habits. Learning from this, I urge the Government to consider commissioning an inter-Ministerial task force for our \"War on Drugs\" to undertake the following.
One, conduct a large-scale public education campaign to (a) educate the general public on the newly-introduced provisions, their underlying rationales and the increased severity of drug offences to ensure the deterrent intent of the amendments is well understood, and at the same time, (b) encourage destigmatisation of drug addiction to complement our calibrated rehabilitative approach.
Two, commission research, based in Singapore, which can be used to guide, strengthen and reinforce our national policies on drug misuse, ensuring they are aligned and remain up to date with neurobiological advancements and upstream prevention through public health education on substance abuse and mental health conditions. This would also support our public education programmes as shared earlier.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I now move on to more technical queries and proposals addressing specific clauses in the Bill.
First, the offences set out in section 11B apply to persons of or above 21 years of age in relation to exposing or permitting a child to drug use. The section also defines \"child\" to mean any person below 16 years of age. I would like to ask the Minister if this provision was intentionally drafted in such a way as to omit any legal effect on persons between the ages 16 and 20. If this was the case, why? If this omission was unintentional, may I then ask the Minister what effects this drafting might nonetheless give rise to?
Second, clause 16 both (a) introduces minimum sentences for some offences where there was previously none, and (b) enhances punishment of an offender convicted of certain offences. Further, clause 17 introduces enhanced penalties for a person who is convicted of certain offences under the Act and has certain antecedents. Aside from a clear and continued emphasis on the severity of drug-related offences, I wish to ask the Minister what specific goals these amendments are intended to achieve and how they do so. Further, I wish to ask the Minister if and how these amendments strike an appropriate balance between criminal penalty and rehabilitation.
Third, with regard to clause 18(a), I wish to ask the Minister how the number of seven years was arrived at for determining the period not exceeding which any person reasonably suspected to be a drug addict may be committed for the purposes of medical examination or observation. Further, I would like to ask the Minister if it would be more appropriate and prudent for the broad phrasing of the proposed section 34(1) which states \"to any place specified by the Director for the purpose of any medical examination or observation\" to be amended to (a) reflect a scheduled or predetermined list of places, and (b) reflect that the medical examination or observation be for the purposes of determining whether traces of drug remain in a person’s body.
Lastly, clause 19 requires a parent/guardian to attend any counselling session with a supervisee who is below 21 years of age. I wish to ask the Minister what type of counselling this section envisions. Further, in what ways does this provision ensure that the psychosocial support programmes, if any, put in place with a view to include parents and guardians are able to serve their intended purpose?
Mr Deputy Speaker, the challenge of drug use is a complex one because it is a human one. Studies have found that illicit drug users and persons with drug addiction are unable, due to social stigma, shame and guilt, to connect in healthy ways with fellow human beings thereby impeding their recovery and social integration. Perhaps this is why it has been said that the opposite of addiction is not sobriety, it is human connection.
I commend the Ministry for taking the first steps in the right direction with a more human-centred approach with these new amendments. Yet, beyond taking the legal, medical and institutionalised approach, we must have a concerted community response to this adaptive challenge of drug misuse and addiction. Social integration without destigmatisation is a job half done! We must remain open to evolving strategies as well as new social and scientific research that continue to put the human in the centre of our laws and their implementation on drug misuse and rehabilitation efforts. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. As a former Police Officer, I have seen how the problems associated with drug abuse extends beyond just the individual. It affects family, friends and, ultimately, harms society. Singapore needs to continue with our firm stand of zero-tolerance towards drug abuse.
According to statistics by CNB, 40% of drug abusers arrested in 2017 were new abusers, and about 64% of these new abusers arrested were below 30 years of age. It is, therefore, timely and crucial that we review the MDA and make necessary amendments to safeguard public interest and prevent the rise in first-time abusers. However, I do have some questions and suggestions.
First, I agree with the measures introduced to make it an offence to expose children to drugs and permit young persons to consume drugs. Exposing the young to drugs causes addiction to become intergenerational and we must strive to eradicate such cases in Singapore. However, the young are not just the only ones susceptible to the temptation of drugs, if drugs are left easily within reach. There seems to be an increasing trend among the public displaying more liberal attitudes towards drugs, as evidenced through the 2015/2016 survey conducted by the National Council Against Drug Abuse. This is an alarming trend and those who have not seen first-hand how destructive the use of drugs may be tempted to try if drugs and drug paraphernalia are within easy reach. Given that a significant number of new abusers arrested were below 30, would the Ministry consider making it an offence to expose persons below 30 to drugs and drug utensils, rather than just confining to young children?
On the topic of intergenerational addiction, I would like to suggest that the Ministry make it compulsory for all immediate family members to be counselled, if there is a young drug abuser in the family. Under the new measures, parents or guardians of youth abusers will be required to undergo mandatory counselling sessions. However, siblings of these young drug abusers need to be counselled, too, to explain to them the ills of drug abuse and what might have pushed their sibling to consume illegal drugs. This could go some way to help prevent the siblings from turning to drug abuse as well.
For adult offenders, I would also like to suggest mandatory counselling for immediate family members below the age of 21. It is important that we let these youths understand the ills of the misuse of drugs. CNB can work with SCORE to use these counselling sessions to teach them on how to rehabilitate their family member back into society upon release.
Mr Deputy Speaker, drug abuse has been trending upwards globally, and the introduction of synthetic drugs has made the problem even more complex and hard to contain. Let us continue our stand of zero-tolerance on drug abuse and do more to stop the rise of first-time drug abusers and intergenerational addiction. With that, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken. Many of them strongly support Singapore's comprehensive anti-drug strategy. I thank them for their views and their support as we continuously enhance our enforcement efforts, calibrate rehabilitation approaches towards drug abusers and penalise actions which can lead to the spread of drug abuse.
The amendments to the MDA are significant and I would like to, first, touch on the areas which relate to how we are better protecting our children and youths from the dangers of drug abuse.
Members have shown strong support for the creation of new offences relating to the exposure of children to drugs and permitting young persons to consume drugs. Mr Christopher de Souza has reminded us about the episodes which happened last year, where a one-year-old boy was rescued from suspected drug traffickers after his caregiver left him in their care; where a four-year-old girl was discovered with her mother, with sachets of methamphetamine; and a three-month-old girl found in a unit with a suspected drug trafficker and drug abuser and preliminary investigations showed that \"ice\" was abused during pregnancy and after the child was born. These are all shocking, sad and true. We need to move quickly to protect our children and prevent tragedies from happening.
Dr Intan Mokhtar asked whether aside from the abuser, other adults in the household will be implicated if drugs are found within a child's access in the home. CNB will carry out due investigations to establish the ownership of the drugs found in the household.
Any adult who is in possession of the illicit drugs and knowingly or recklessly leaves the drug exposed, knowing that the child is likely to have access, may be prosecuted for this offence.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked why we have decided to take this strong stance, given the alternatives and tradeoffs. In the cases that Mr Christopher de Souza has cited, this is what our officers see on the ground – young children found in drug dens. They were put in danger, some by their own parents. Others were passed around among caregivers who were either drug abusers or traffickers.
Paraphrasing what Dr Intan Mokhtar said, as adults, we cannot ignore our responsibility towards our children. This is regardless of means or wealth. There is a basic baseline safety that must be upheld and children from all backgrounds are deserving of that same protection.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked why we decided to create this specific provision in the MDA rather than rely on other Acts. This is because of the specific trends and issues we have observed in the course of drug enforcement.
The provisions in the CYPA, for instance, require that the offender has a custodial relationship with the child. Whereas in the cases we see, there are scenarios, such as a parent leaving his child at a friend's house. The friend then abuses drugs, and the child is exposed to the drugs left openly around. Under CYPA, the friend may not be liable, having no relationship with the child, even though his behaviour has put the child in danger. The MDA, hence, provides specifically for such permutations of scenarios on the ground and the punishments correspondingly reflect the great capacity for harm that drugs can have, especially on children.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira has valid concerns about how this ultimately works towards the welfare of the child. The purpose of section 11B is, first and foremost, for deterrence, as we do not wish to see innocent children harmed because of the bad choices others make. Nevertheless, please rest assured that our enforcement agencies will also work together with the AGC, MSF and other relevant authorities to assess how to best safeguard the family's welfare.
To answer Mr Melvin Yong's and Ms Anthea Ong's question on the age cutoff of 16, section 11B(1) is intended to protect younger children who may not understand the dangers of drugs and are at higher risk of accidental ingestion. That said, we are concerned about older youths as well and, as Mr Melvin Yong observed, more liberal attitudes, combined with easy access to drugs, mean that they may be more likely to give in. Hence, there is also a section 11(B)(2), which makes it an offence for an adult who permits, or does not take reasonable steps to prevent, a young person under 21 from consuming illicit drugs in the adult's possession.
As Mr Faisal Manap has mentioned, education about these offences is important and raising general awareness will help deter such irresponsible actions. We will continue to educate all members of the public through our various preventive drug education platforms.
Next, to support youth drug abusers and get them to turn over a new leaf, the support of their parents and guardians is critical. On the topic of compulsory counselling for parents/guardians of youth drug abusers who are under CNB's supervision order, Ms Anthea Ong and Dr Intan Mokhtar have asked for further details.
CNB has worked with social service providers to structure the counselling programme. It consists of a minimum of 25 sessions and lasts up to a year. It will differ for each abuser and this is calibrated to the abuser's and his family's specific needs. Some sessions will involve only the youth abuser, some only the parents, and others are joint sessions. Each family is different. Hence, the rehabilitation process must have the flexibility to cater to the unique circumstances and needs of these different families.
Sometimes, the counsellors need to counsel the parents privately, to address complex issues affecting their child. As the Minister mentioned earlier, parents/guardians today are already required to attend the counselling sessions, just that some persistently absent themselves. Hence, we have now made clear in the MDA that they have a legal responsibility to attend counselling, which is key to supporting their child's or ward's rehabilitation. Failure to do so will be an offence and we intend for this to come into force by the first half of this year.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Mr Desmond Choo had asked whether the focus on rehabilitation and the perceived lack of penalties may encourage more young abusers to experiment.
Mr Deputy Speaker, our criminal justice system places a lot of focus on youth rehabilitation because, as far as possible, we want to give them a chance to turn over a new leaf, so that they do not ruin the rest of their lives. We want to intervene early and effectively, to allow them to continue to study and be with their families where possible.
I would like to assure Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Mr Desmond Choo that, currently, youth abusers already undergo specialised risk-based interventions and this does not change under the amendments.
For youth abusers under 21, we have the Youth Enhanced Supervision for low-risk abusers. We have the Community Rehabilitation Centre for moderate-risk abusers and we have the DRC for high-risk abusers. So, it is not that experimentation with drugs is cost-free for the young.
I also want to emphasise that we are not becoming more permissive about drugs. Drugs come at a high cost to society, and suffering behind every abuser is a family. We have no reason to go soft, and we must not. What we are doing is keeping abreast of new research and developments, to inform and refine our approach, to help us better achieve our aim of reducing overall drug abuse.
Even as we undertake these new initiatives to better protect our children and youths, we must guard against individuals who undertake contaminated practices to spread the use of drugs and cause others to abuse drugs. They can harm not only our young but also others.
On the introduction of contamination offences, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked whether someone replying to another person's question about manufacturing drugs constitutes a contamination offence.
This will depend on the context in which the question is asked, and also the answer given. The proposed section 11(D)(1) requires that the person who provides the information knows, or has reason to believe, that the recipient intends to carry out the manufacturing. It is also not intended to target the provision of information for legitimate purposes or licensed activities, for example, staff in a pharmaceutical company licensed to manufacture medication, providing information to one another as part of the manufacturing process.
The Minister has explained earlier that we have provided for defences in the Act, and the subsidiary legislation will set out the scope of authorised activities.
There is also a lot of information on the Internet on carrying out drug activities. While we cannot police the whole Internet, if a person in Singapore disseminates or publishes such information online, without any legitimate purpose, he can be investigated for an offence under section 11(D)(2).
We are now building upon the success of past efforts in addressing reoffending. The Taskforce on Drugs was formed in October 2011. Chaired by then-Minister of State for Home Affairs and Foreign Affairs Mr Masagos Zulkifli, one of the key recommendations was the implementation of a structured aftercare regime with more scaffolding for offenders, tighter supervision and enhanced community support.
The Mandatory Aftercare Scheme (MAS) was piloted in 2012 and operationalised in July 2014. Under MAS, higher-risk offenders, including LT inmates, go through structured stepdown interventions like compulsory counselling, case management and supervision. It has only been a few years since MAS was implemented but the results are encouraging. The two-year recidivism rates for LT offenders have come down from 38% for the 2012 release cohort to 27% for the 2015 one.
Ex-inmates have also provided feedback that having counsellors and officers walk with them in their reintegration journey has helped them stay accountable and provided them with a source of support when they struggle with life outside.
Given how instrumental post-release support is in helping repeat offenders turn over a new leaf, we are doing more on this front, including increasing post-release supervision for abusers to a maximum of five years.
Mr Desmond Choo asked whether the DRC length is too short and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah also asked how we determine when a person no longer requires supervision. CNB and SPS track the person throughout his detention and the CBP phase as well as the supervision phase.
What Mr Desmond Choo mentioned are rough indicative ranges. But each individual is different, so their own risk and progress will determine the length of each phase. If the person shows very poor progress, he may be detained for up to four years in DRC for rehabilitation, coupled with five years of supervision. Regular reviews are done to assess rehabilitation progress. It is a step-down approach. As he shows improvement and stays clean, he can be considered for progressively lower frequencies of urine/hair testing until he is assessed suitable for release from his supervision.
The journey is difficult and, ultimately, the ability of the person to stay clean depends on his own resolve. But we are doing more to provide support where we can. In that respect, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Murali Pillai, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Ms Joan Pereira have asked whether there are adequate support and training for counsellors.
All of SPS' correctional rehabilitation specialists possess qualifications in relevant disciplines, and SPS also provides on-the-job training. It is a very meaningful, rewarding but challenging calling. Thus, there are also senior staff there to provide guidance and help them avoid burnout. SPS also has an inhouse team of psychologists that they can turn to for mental or emotional support. SPS also collaborated with the Social Service Institute to introduce training modules last year that will help build up the capabilities of case managers and counsellors.
As several Members have noted, all these rehabilitation initiatives can be resource-intensive. But we use digital technology to help, where possible, and the app and video-conferencing initiatives mentioned by Mr Mohamed Irshad will go a long way to benefiting inmates, including drug offenders.
Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Louis Ng provided other good suggestions for inmates, such as having more open visits, providing them with more workbooks and healthy physical activities, and providing them with more support during the initial incarceration phase. These are some of the good practices SPS has already put in place and they will continue to work on them.
Mr Melvin Yong also spoke about early interventions for abusers’ families. We recognise the importance of families to the rehabilitation process. Hence, SPS will be restructuring family programmes in the prisons and working with MSF to identify inmates’ family needs early, provide intervention and increase family involvement in inmate rehabilitation.
We will also continue working with community partners to ensure that abusers’ children who are at-risk are referred to the proper channels for assistance and counselling where required. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, the amendments to the MDA are significant. There is a sizeable section in the amendments that is devoted to protecting our children and our youths from drug abuse. The examples Mr Christopher de Souza brought up earlier in his speech are shocking, sad and true. The new amendments to the MDA will thus make it an offence for an adult who possesses illicit drug to knowingly or recklessly leave it within the access of a child. It will also be an offence for an adult who does not take reasonable steps to prevent a young person from consuming illicit drugs in the adult's possession.
Our children are innocent. We cannot allow them to have their lives ruined just because of the bad choices adults make with regard to drugs, or their irresponsible behaviour, for example, leaving their children in the care of caregivers who are drug abusers or drug traffickers. The new punitive measures will prevent these tragedies from further happening.
We are also ensuring better support for young drug abusers and helping them turn over a new leaf by making it compulsory for parents/guardians of youth drug abusers who are under CNB's supervision order to attend counselling. Family support is important in our rehabilitation efforts for drug abusers. For inmates, SPS will continue to work with families and also MSF to identify the needs of their families, provide intervention and increase family involvement in inmate rehabilitation.
Members Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Pritam Singh have highlighted the importance of ensuring adequate resources for the counsellors and also their psychological well-being. These are the important points which I have highlighted. But we must also guard against the external influences which propagate the use of drugs and help those who have been negatively influenced to prevent more people from taking drugs.
The introduction of contamination offences moves to stem this. We share Member Er Dr Lee Bee Wah's concerns about the availability of information on drugs online. And that is why Singapore has a comprehensive harm prevention strategy against drugs where preventive drug education is our first line of defence, then coupled with tough laws and vigorous enforcement against drug traffickers, and structured rehabilitation and supervision to help abusers kick the drug habit.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, my colleague, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin Amin, will now be addressing some of the other issues that Members have raised.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin Amin.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Home Affairs (Mr Amrin Amin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now address the following questions raised by Members. The first, the mandatory minimum sentence for drug consumption; second, hair analysis; third, international cooperation in cross-border drug enforcement; and fourth, cannabis and our preventive drug education.
Drug addiction is a complex issue, as what Ms Anthea Ong has noted. It is a confluence of biological, psychological and social factors, and we adopt a multi-pronged approach to tackling drug addiction. Robust laws, a fair criminal justice system, evidence-based rehabilitation framework, community and family support, all play an important part.
Mr Pritam Singh asked about how many of the DRC inmates are first-timers. Based on the end-2017 DRC inmate population, around 55% or 750 are first-timers.
Mr Pritam Singh has also asked for family and income profile of DRC inmates. We do not have the information currently, and may I invite the Member to file a separate Parliamentary Question on this?
The key challenge is to ensure that our people do not even start on drugs and get entangled in this complex issue.
Mr Murali Pillai, Mr Louis Ng and Ms Anthea Ong have asked what the policy consideration to impose the mandatory minimum sentence for drug consumption was. The primary intent of the mandatory minimum sentence is to reflect the strong deterrent stance against drugs. This is a deliberate policy decision by the Government.
The Courts still retain discretion in the following ways: sentencing above the prescribed one year, that is, the Court can impose a sentence from one to a maximum of 10 years; and when a person is also charged with other criminal charges, the Court retains the discretion to order the drug consumption sentence to run concurrently or consecutively with that of the other charges.
The mandatory minimum sentence has to be seen against the larger context of the rehabilitative framework for drug abusers. We have introduced various calibrated rehabilitative programmes for both youth and adult drug abusers. These programmes cater to the different circumstances and risk levels of the individual abuser.
So, the reality today is that not all offences of consumption are treated the same. There is no rigid, immutable starting point as an offender can be directed to the newly introduced EDSO or DRC, and, for youths, Youth Enhanced Supervision, Community Rehabilitation Centre (DRC) and, as the Minister earlier said, we are also introducing a surrender regime. So, the programmes are varied and tailored to the need of the offenders.
Given the many varied and expanded options, the mandatory minimum sentence for drug consumption is important in maintaining the Government’s firm stance against drugs.
On hair analysis, Mr Christopher de Souza has asked how often a person needs to report for hair testing. Hair testing will complement urine testing and, generally, the abuser will need to report to CNB once every month.
Mr Mohamed Irshad and Mr Faisal Manap have also provided some feedback on the supervision process. We are aware of this and are monitoring closely. We will see how we can leverage technology, like hair analysis, which could reduce the frequency of reporting.
Mr Deputy Speaker, many drug trafficking operations are transnational, so cross-border collaboration is crucial.
Ms Joan Pereira asked about border security and how we work with other organisations to keep drugs out of Singapore. In particular, she has asked about checks at our checkpoints. The reality is that there is a very high volume of people and goods that cross our border, and so, it is not feasible for us to check or to subject each and every person, and each and every vehicle to extensive checks.
But that said, CNB works closely with the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) on joint operations and conduct intel-led checks. CNB also shares information on latest regional drug trends and modus operandi of trafficking syndicates. CNB also collaborates with partners across the world, including the Narcotics Crime Investigation Department of the Royal Malaysian Police and the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) to investigate and dismantle cross-border drug trafficking syndicates.
Last year, CNB took part in a number of operations with foreign agencies, including Operation Lionfish, an INTERPOL-coordinated operation across 93 countries, which led to a combined seizure of more than 55 tonnes of illicit drugs and the arrest of 1,300 suspects.
Members have also spoken about how the Internet facilitates cross-border drug trafficking. We will continue to maintain the tough laws against trafficking across all mediums, whether the offence is facilitated via physical meetups or the Internet.
Ms Joan Pereira asked whether our intelligence teams are empowered to access encrypted messages. Authorities are empowered under the Criminal Procedure Code to access computers and encrypted information as part of investigations. CNB uses its forensic capabilities to extract and access encrypted information in suspects' phones and computers.
On the issue of cannabis, when dealing with the international drug situation, enforcement is only part of the story. The battle for the hearts and minds is equally tough, and thus, we have been stepping up on our Preventive Drug Education (PDE).
As Mr Christopher de Souza and Ms Irene Quay observed, other countries have softened their approach towards cannabis. This is accompanied by misleading media messages. Our children can be misled into thinking that cannabis is harmless.
CNB works closely with the Institutes of Higher Learning to conduct regular pre-trip briefings for students who are going abroad. This is to remind them of the harms of drugs, and also that Singaporeans and Permanent Residents who consume illicit drugs overseas can be dealt with as if they have consumed them in Singapore.
We make sure we provide such timely reminders. But it actually starts much earlier. In December last year, I launched a storybook with an anti-drug message for lower primary school children. The books are available at public libraries and primary schools.
CNB works closely with MOE to provide PDE throughout primary, secondary and tertiary education. As Er Dr Lee Bee Wah observed, fundamentally, our children need perceptiveness and resilience against drug misinformation.
We also know how important peer influence is, and so, CNB has set up an Anti-drug Abuse Advocacy Network comprising more than 500 youth leaders, educators, influencers and other members of the community, who use their voices to help encourage others to lead drug-free lives.
As Mr Mohamed Irshad mentioned, NS is another important touchpoint. Besides educating servicemen in both Home Team and SAF through mandatory talks, commanders are also equipped with PDE toolkits that they can use to educate servicemen on drug abuse.
We encourage good ground efforts. The National Council Against Drug Abuse has a DrugFreeSG Fund that organisations can tap on for funding support of anti-drug initiatives, including awareness campaigns and ad hoc activities. By continuously engaging youths at various stages of their development, we want them to internalise the facts about the harms of drugs, so that they will be smart and resist bad influence and reject misinformation.
We will also continue to study others' best practices to see what we can improve, for example, the Icelandic Model, which promotes dialogue among those in research, policy and practice. The National Committee on Prevention, Rehabilitation and Recidivism set up in April 2018 is one such avenue to bring together policymakers, practitioners and researchers to co-create solutions to prevent offending, reoffending and enhance rehabilitation.
With the inclusion of cannabis in many non-medicinal products sold overseas like cigarettes and oils, Ms Irene Quay also asked about how we can ensure the general public are well-informed of risks when they travel overseas. CNB issues public advisories to remind the public of these risks and not to bring in cannabis products. We will continue to do so via traditional and social media platforms. CNB also closely monitors the importation and sale of cannabis products in Singapore and will take tough actions against those who engage in these activities.
Ms Irene Quay asked how we handle travellers who are legitimately prescribed with scheduled drugs if they intend to enter Singapore. Travellers visiting Singapore are allowed to bring in or import their prescribed medications, but depending on the specific type, an approval to import is required before the person arrives in Singapore. Detailed information and application procedures can be found on HSA's website. Specific to travellers who request to bring in cannabinoid medications, these applications are considered on a case-by-case basis, and they must be pharmaceutical cannabinoids which are prescribed by qualified medical practitioners.
As Mr Pritam Singh has said, it is important that the general population, and even foreigners, are aware of our laws, including new ones, and we will continue to expand our outreach efforts.
On New Psychoactive Substances (NPS), this is another global challenge with the rapid emergence of NPS, and this is what Mr Christopher de Souza had spoken about. Syndicates and rogue chemists quickly churn modified products, marketing them as a safe and legal high, profiting off others' misery. MHA has been proactive in listing NPS as controlled drugs under the MDA.
CNB is also working closely with partner agencies, such as HSA, to expand the range of NPS that can be tested and shorten the time taken to develop these testing capabilities. This has led to a significant increase in NPS abusers and traffickers arrested in 2018, and we are monitoring the situation very closely.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now address the other issues Members have raised. Mr Christopher de Souza and Ms Anthea Ong asked about the medical observation period of up to seven days. Such medical observation is for the purpose of determining whether a person has consumed drugs and is meant to provide legal clarity for existing practices. This period is for doctors to observe the person, like his withdrawal symptoms. As to how fast this appears is dependent on the type of drug and how heavily addicted the suspected abuser is, and when he last consumed the drugs.
Ms Irene Quay also asked if there are plans to consider dispensing separation for controlled drugs and other drugs like hypnotics and codeine-containing preparations. MOH currently manages the risk of errant prescription by practitioners through legislative controls, guidelines in supply, prescription and dispensing of drugs. This is coupled with random ad hoc audits of the records of the dispensing of drugs in licensed healthcare institutions. We will study the suggestion.
Dr Intan Mokhtar asked how the SAF deals with drug abuse. MINDEF and the SAF take a zero-tolerance approach towards drug abuse and work closely with CNB to deal with drug abuse in the SAF. In line with this zero-tolerance approach, SAF servicemen who are caught abusing drugs will be charged in the Military Court and receive custodial sentences, the duration of which would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked about appeal processes for those charged with drug offences. The processes are no different from other appeal processes and an application can be filed with the Courts. Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me to speak in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This is an important amendment that will help to enhance our whole strategy in the fight against drugs. We are grateful for the support from Members of Parliament on our tough stance towards drugs.
I would like to highlight three things. First, a more calibrated approach towards offenders. Those who only take drugs and admit to taking drugs, can be placed under the rehabilitation regime.
They will undergo intensive rehabilitation at the DRC and a longer supervision period of up to five years. This allows them to be supervised but also gives them an opportunity to get a stable job and improve relations with their families and society.
Second, we will target acts of contamination to strongly deter behaviour that can propagate drug abuse and harm others. For example, it is an offence to teach others how to take part in drug activities like taking drugs, making drugs and distributing drugs, with the knowledge that the person intends to carry out those activities.
Third, we will double our efforts to protect our children. It will be an offence for adults who possess drugs to, either on purpose or otherwise, allow the drugs to come within reach of children. It will be an offence for adults who allow young persons under 21 to consume drugs owned by that adult. We will also require parents and guardians of youths who abuse drugs to attend counselling.
I agree with the suggestions from Dr Intan Mokhtar, Ms Rahayu Mahzam and Mr Faisal Manap about the dangers of drugs. Drug abuse can destroy families and have a significant impact on the children. Tough and appropriate action must be taken.
Together with our community partners, we will work towards freeing Singapore from the drug scourge.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of a Sitting","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Pursuant to Standing Order No 2(5)(d), I propose to extend the timing of today’s Sitting beyond the moment of interruption for a period of up to 30 minutes. Minister for Home Affairs, please.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank all the Members for their support. Everyone who spoke welcomed the Bill and it was across party lines. I will just deal with a couple of points which are slightly more philosophical or, perhaps, a matter of principle.
First, is Mr Pritam Singh's point going back to the speech when the LT regime was introduced in 1998. I thank him for the support of the Bill. The LT regime – LT1/LT2 – was introduced at a point when the situation was quite dire. We had about, I think, between 7,000 and 8,000 in DRC. Three quarters of them were hardcore opiate users. They repeatedly went back to heroin, morphine, opium and many were using crime to feed their habit.
I can talk about a few other factors but, essentially, we were facing a very difficult situation. And if we did not deal with it decisively, the sense was that it could have gotten much worse. In the context of the very serious concerns that the Ministry then had, the LT regime was conceptualised.
The proposals received very strong support from Members and the larger community, and also the people who worked with the addicts. They were very concerned because they could see that many of the addicts they were working with did not change their attitudes. So, decisive action had to be taken, it was taken, and what the LT regime did was to keep away from society many of the hardcore users who could have infected many others, who could have induced many others to come into the drug trade and drug abuse situation.
So, together with strong enforcement, more preventive education, improvements in rehabilitation and the LT regime, I think we dealt effectively with the situation. As I said earlier, from nearly about just under 6,000 people being arrested in 1996, we are now down to just about 3,000. So, you can say, roughly, it has fallen by half. So, we are in a much better situation, but we are in this situation because of the actions that had been taken in the past. At least that is my conclusion.
Mr Pritam Singh is right in asking the question. The profile of the abusers over the 20 years has changed with the profile change of the general population as a whole, though I do not have the figures right here to give. The other point is that the drugs of choice have changed as well, from the very hardcore heroin to more NPS and so on.
Today, nearly two-thirds of the new abusers are under 30. Again, a different situation, compared with what we had 20 years ago; many with higher educational qualifications, professionals, and many of them use drugs like \"Ice\" and NPS.
Also, over a period of time, we have built a substantive body of evidence-based work on rehabilitation based both on international experience and local research, counselling techniques, psychological interventions, evidence-based programming and technology, and the importance of family involvement, stable employment and the crucial nature of extended post-release support.
So, today, we decided that we will make this move. As Mr Pritam Singh and other Members have said, it is not without risks. One of the risks is, of course, how people might characterise it. But people must be slow to characterise the Singapore Government as being weak or soft on drugs. Some people might take that view, but I think we have to do the right thing.
The knowledge and experience built up over the last 20 years enable us to take a risk-based approach which, as far as possible, take into consideration an individual's risk and protective factors, so that the intervention is most effective and appropriate.
Fundamentally, our philosophy of a drug-free Singapore has not changed. But we will continue to take an evidence-based approach. We will see what is it that we can improve, and we will have no hesitation in refining or even changing our policies based on evidence.
If I may deal now with the points – again, slightly more philosophical in nature – raised by Nominated Member of Parliament Ms Anthea Ong. She suggested that it is a habit to do with brain structure and could be beyond people's control. I think it will be wrong of the Government to say we will not consider certain things or we will not accept certain things. It is not a hard line which precludes consideration of evidence. We have to, when we deal with public policy, deal with evidence and base our policies on evidence and science.
But I will caution against taking approaches which are fashionable – I am not suggesting the approaches the Member suggests are fashionable – and which have been thoroughly discredited if you have looked at the evidence from the countries which have taken that approach. I think their experience shows these approaches to be thoroughly discredited. We will be quite stupid if we blindly follow because the arguments are attractive but not backed by evidence.
So, I think there is scope for saying that we will look at research, we will look at evidence, and we will manage our policies accordingly. At the same time, we also have to believe in individual responsibility until evidence shows us otherwise.
The suggestion that we have to put human beings in the centre of our policies, I do not think we can agree more. Though, if I could decode what Ms Anthea Ong was saying, I think, in context, she was talking about the drug abuser and putting that human being at the centre of our policies, which is usually how debates in this field are often structured. When I say I agree completely, I would add this caveat that I will put also the victims of the drugs at the heart of our policies. And, usually, the victims far outnumber the drug. Let me put it slightly differently. There are victims on both sides. The drug abusers are victims, the drug traffickers, in some way, are the people who are benefiting from it. But there are a lot of people who are innocent bystanders who suffer as a result of other people's drug habits.
Let me give an example. These people do not find mention in many of these debates which centre on drugs. A few years ago, there was a little girl – I think she must have been four or five – called Noi Noi, charming, a life full of hope and expectation. Her adult relative, a drug abuser, killed her. She is a victim of drug abuse. She does not enter the statistics in the context of debates on drug abuse.
We could well put the drug abuser who killed her in the heart of our policies, but I think we should also spare a thought for the Noi Nois of this world.
It is often pointed out by the Singapore Government, in the context of the death penalty, the 15 grammes of diamorphine or pure heroin that a trafficker brings in is enough to feed around 180 drug abusers for one week. Those are all victims, too. The reason why – and I have said this many times, for those of us who have children – you will let your 10-year-old child go on public transport in Singapore but you will not let that child take public transport in many other first-world cities is because we are safe, and we are safe because of our drug policies. Let us not forget that. Let us not be seduced by the liberal arguments. Liberalism is not an unfair word. Where it makes good sense, we will take it, as Members can see from major aspects of this policy. But where it makes sense, we must be ready to stand our ground.
So, we want to achieve the core goal of reducing drug abuse in Singapore. As Mr Desmond Choo, Mr Pritam Singh and other Members pointed out, there is a risk of these changes being characterised as we are going soft. We will distinguish between abusers who only consume drugs from those who also face charges for other offences and we will point out that the approach we are taking is based on evidence. It is not going hard or going soft. There is no particular merit in being hard for the sake of being hard or soft for the sake of being soft, or attaching labels like right-wing, left-wing, liberal. Actually, all of that is irrelevant. What is relevant is the evidence, how we deal with it, what is in the interest of our society. And we deal with it openly and debate it openly. We set out the facts and we try and come to an agreement. That is the preferred approach, not ideology.
Those who face additional charges for other offences will continue to be charged for their drug consumption offences as well as their other offences. For those who only consume drugs and admit to their drug abuse, rather than staying in LT, as we said, they will undergo a shorter but a more intensive rehabilitation in a DRC which could be up to four years and then be placed on CBPs and then a longer supervision period.
To make sure we are able to intervene as soon as possible if they do relapse, even after they are released from supervision, the Director of CNB can require abusers who have completed their rehabilitation supervision or imprisonment to still report to CNB for urine or hair tests, when required. We will do this in a measured, targeted fashion.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we have introduced offences to protect children and young persons from the reckless acts of older people. We have to give the next generation the best chance of leading a drug-free life. Young people who are already on drugs, we must provide them with the support to get out of that cycle as quickly as possible. Hence, the change to mandate parents and guardians of young drug abusers to attend counselling.
Sir, we thank Members for the many useful suggestions, especially during last year's Parliamentary Motion on drugs, and today. Together, we will continue to work towards maintaining a drug-free Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr K Shanmugam.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed.\" – [Mr Desmond Lee.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Putting Commuters First in Public Transport","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a good public transportation system is critical to our city, people and economy. With 13 straight years of ridership expansion, Singaporeans are highly dependent on this public good. The Government's drive towards a car-lite society creates a stronger imperative for a seamlessly working public transport system. The feedback from the ground on the most recent Fare Review Exercise has presented us in this House with a timely opportunity to look critically at our public transportation system. Our starting point must be to put our commuters first over other stakeholders and be world-class leaders in areas, such as reliability, affordability and quality.
On the issue of rail reliability, not too long ago, Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) breakdowns became a familiar, yet unwelcome part of our news cycle. Our bus services were inadequate to fully run parallel to our train systems, and private bus operators had to be called in to help with some of the major breakdowns in the past few years.
The Government has more recently injected public funds to nationalise our public transportation assets and infrastructure. Various schemes were rolled out, aimed at expanding and upgrading its public transportation infrastructure. One can only imagine what would have happened if the Government had not chosen to invest and kept to its previous stance of leaving entirely to market forces.
With these investments, we have seen Mean Kilometres Between Failures (MKBF) improve from 180,000 train/kilometres (km) to 661,000 train/km between 2017 and the first three quarters of 2018. With a new reliability target of one million train/km by 2020, it may appear that our train reliability is on the up.
But train delays are not really a thing of the past, as can be seen in the recent train delays late last year and early this year. Let us also not forget that the latest MKBF statistics did not include delays caused by the signalling works which the Singapore MRT (SMRT) and Land Transport Authority (LTA) have reportedly agreed to exclude, nor did it include delays of not more than five minutes.
MKBF measures delays of more than five minutes. Notwithstanding their exclusion from the internationally used MKBF benchmark, commuters may still have lingering doubts on the reliability of our MRT system if we completely disregard delays of not more than five minutes.
MKBF is also an operational metric that may not truly measure the convenience to passengers, a point made in a 2013 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) International Transport Forum discussion paper entitled \"Measuring and Valuing Convenience and Service Quality\". The authors also mentioned that measuring delays from a more customer-focused perspective requires appropriate data collected in a sufficient level of detail, such as number of passengers affected and passenger hours delay. Such data do not seem to be within the public sphere currently and will be necessary if we are to move towards a holistic commuter-centric public transport system. In other words, convenience and service quality should be measured and reported.
With such big investments as I have mentioned earlier, the affordability of fares is crucial. Even as we are second among 12 cities in affordability from a recent Nanyang Technological University study, our focus should be on Singaporeans and how they are impacted by fare prices. Indeed, the yearly review of transportation fares by the Public Transport Council (PTC) is always closely watched by the public. The 2018 exercise saw the first use of the revised Fare Review Formula with a new component known as the Network Capacity Factor (NCF), and the first fare hike which hit the cap of 4.3% in over three years drew many negative responses from citizens.
Even as the Government has argued the case for NCF, there are many other views expressed about this new component. One Straits Times' reader expressed that this factor is akin to taxing commuters twice. Current Nominated Member of Parliament, the hon Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, opined that the factor makes a rise in fares more likely, as capacity will rise faster than ridership in the short term. Straits Times' Senior Transport Correspondent Mr Christopher Tan also pointed out the irony that a negative NCF will imply more crowded buses and trains, an outcome that no commuter wants to see.
For now, I note in passing that, even as SMRT and Singapore Bus Services (SBS) Transit are mandated to transfer 5% of the added fare revenue to the Public Transport Fund that funds subsidy vouchers for vulnerable groups, we must maintain a vigilant watch on the impact of such fare hikes on our disadvantaged groups, especially the groups that still prefer cash transactions that saw the highest fare hikes. Perhaps the Minister can share on how the Ministry of Transport (MOT) intends to help such individuals transit to cashless payments.
Our public transportation system needs to deliver on quality, most important of which is the punctuality of services and the minimising of all delays. Beyond that, it will also require timely and accurate information to be delivered by operators on matters of relevance, such as service disruptions, minimising bus bunching, ensuring a comfortable ride and cost-effectively, improving physical comfort, such as improving ventilation on our open-air MRT stations and bus interchanges.
We understand that current service quality lapses are penalised with fines, but have these fines exercised a sufficient deterrent effect thus far, including delays of not more than five minutes?
There may be scope to include service quality in our fare regulation framework to incentivise public transport operators (PTOs) to work actively on service quality and to maintain a higher standard in these areas.
All of the above requires entrenching a service culture among our operators, one that places the commuters at the heart of everything they do. This is, of course, easier said than done. Our public transport personnel need to be understanding when facing problems and take flak from disgruntled commuters with a smile. At this point, I wish to put on record the sincere appreciation we in the Workers' Party have for all public transport workers tirelessly working to ensure that our systems are running smoothly.
Many Singaporeans spend a good part of their lives on public transport. As a public good that is inextricably tied to quality of life and is critical for our economy, we must spare no effort in evaluating all transport policies to ensure that we put our commuters first and be class-leading in reliability, affordability and quality.
Here, I would like to put forth some suggestions for MOT to consider in improving our public transportation system moving forward.
Firstly, we can do more to incentivise better monitoring of reliability and service quality by PTOs. Beyond and alongside the traditional measure of MKBF for more than five minutes only, I would suggest having other categories of MKBF for all incidents, such as less than five minutes, between five and 30 minutes and more than 30 minutes.
Alongside an expansion of MKBF metrics, we can be more holistic in our approach to measure reliability. Seeing that SMRT is part of the Community of Metros (CoMET), we can also get our rail PTOs to work towards a full implementation of the CoMET scorecard, with disclosure of its results on a yearly basis to the public. Covering areas, such as customer, environment, safety and so on, it is a balanced approach to understand the public transport system and align operator incentives to improve our public transport system beyond just the current singular metric that is operationally focused.
LTA and PTC do run surveys to gather feedback. A recent survey for the 2040 Land Transport Master Plan has concluded that commuters prize convenience the most in Singapore’s land transport system, followed by connectivity and fast travel time. However, the survey did not touch on the reliability and affordability of our future public transport.
As for service quality, while LTA and PTC do run surveys of customer satisfaction for public transport, the numbers of satisfied commuters look very high compared to a similar survey run by the Institute of Service Excellence (ISE).
Perhaps third-party evaluators like ISE which run independent surveys can provide a picture less likely to draw accusations of bias. Such independently derived scores can then be directly factored into the Fare Review formula where positive commuter experiences should be rewarded while stagnant or negative commuter experience should be a factor against fare increases.
Next, in November 2016, the Government said that PTC had excluded service quality as a factor from the Fare Review formula as the plan was for the Government to, I quote from Minister Khaw Boon Wan in his answer to a Parliamentary Question on 7 November 2016, \"regulate and work with the operators independently to improve service levels\" and, in doing so, kept the – and I quote from Minister Khaw again – \"fare formula relatively straightforward, without the complication of differentiating fare adjustments on account of service quality\". But has this really worked as intended?
I believe that a direct link between the ability to raise prices and service quality will help to improve the total commuter experience. The inclusion of service quality as perceived by the commuters themselves, realistically measured by an independent body, can help mitigate the risk of operators raising fares as a result of pursuing other goals at the expense of service quality. I should emphasise that service quality should be merely one of the factors and not the only or predominant factor.
Some may argue that with the recent improvements we have seen in MKBF, it is unnecessary to link fare review to service quality. However, if MKBF and overall service quality are both truly improving, that is all the more reason why now is a good time to introduce service quality as a factor in the annual Fare Review exercise to ensure that service quality will keep improving and not go backwards in future.
My second point, also related to the topic of fare review, is that we ought to consider including the profits of PTOs as one factor in the Fare Review formula. The size of operating profits derived from both transport and transport-related lines of business, such as retail operations, should be one of the factors considered in allowing fares to be raised but not the only or predominant factor.
To any who may proffer the superficial view that this would create a perverse incentive for PTOs to run their outfits in such a way as to lower profits, so as to be allowed to raise fares, my reply would be that no reasonable profit maximising company would deliberately lower profitability so as to increase the chances of being allowed to raise fares when the linkage between profitability and fare review is small and indirect.
My proposal is not without precedent. In Hong Kong’s formula for adjusting their Mass Transit Railway (MTR) fares, the Fare Adjustment Mechanism (FAM), the profits of the MTR Corporation are set within the factor of productivity, where \"productivity\" is revenue from the corporation's Hong Kong transport operations divided by its expenses relating to its Hong Kong transport operations. In a public consultation in Hong Kong on FAM in 2016, the Hong Kong government noted that (a) a majority of the public submissions requested that the profitability of the MTR Corporation should be reflected in the FAM, (b) when the profit of the MTR Corporation in a particular year reaches a certain level, the MTR Corporation should not increase fares\", and (c) a new \"profit factor\", which reflects the profit made in a particular year, should be added to the existing FAM formula to reduce fare increases.
Hong Kong's experience can offer insights into how Singapore can go about tweaking our Fare Regulation Framework to account for newly proposed factors.
It is possible for us to factor in profit via the current Productivity Extraction Factor. This would be to redefine or tweak the current definition to account for the PTOs' profitability. Since Productivity as a factor is a minus, any increase in this factor would lead to a lower fare hike for commuters and will be more equitable for commuters. The extent of profits in an oligopolistic, highly regulated industry with huge barriers to entry like public transport cannot and should not be completely irrelevant to the ability to raise fares.
Third, there is room for PTOs to put in more of their profits from their operations into our various funds investing in long-term public transport quality. Currently, 5% of additional fare revenues earned by the PTOs are transferred to the Public Transport Fund to subsidise vulnerable groups. A further step can be taken in this regard. Retail operations in MRT stations will not be profitable without the infrastructure in or around the stations. Mandating a level of profits from retail operations to be added to the Railway Sinking Fund and the Rail Infrastructure Fund will move us towards a more equitable development of our infrastructure. Having benefited from the fleet expansion through the Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP), a similar profit transfer mechanism can also apply to our bus operators leasing and operating the various bus interchanges.
Fourth, timely information is needed about service disruptions and planned early closing announcements. There are still many commuters that are less technologically inclined and may not have the needed apps installed. We can consider a multi-channel, multi-platform and multilingual approach to send out broadcast messages on service disruptions, planned early closings and late openings, for example, via electronic notice boards and radio, not unlike what the Ministry of Home Affairs has done with alerts in times of emergencies.
Information that is being piped out must be both timely and accurate. Complaints of inaccurate estimated waiting time, information about alternative bus arrangements and even lack of reports of delays by PTOs are common over social media. The Government should work to ensure that such complaints will become a thing of the past.
Lastly, while the bulk of the attention is now rightly given to our oldest two lines, we should not forget that our other lines are reaching their age milestones as well. To not repeat past mistakes, the Government must have renewal plans in place. I am, therefore, glad to note that there will be major enhancement and renewal works for the North-East Line starting in 2019. With this in mind, I would like to call on the Government to commit to major renewals for rail assets under the new Rail Financing Framework at every 15-year milestone. Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, a convenient and efficient public transport system is critical to our city, people and economy. To become a car-lite, clean, beautiful and liveable city, public transport must be people's prime mode of transportation. To build a convenient and efficient public transport system, reliability, affordability and quality are three important factors.
Rail reliability is a continuous work in progress. We noticed that the Government has, indeed, increased investment in rail assets and infrastructures, and there was improvement in MKBF in 2018. However, there is a drawback by focusing on MKBF only, because it means that we are only paying attention to delays of more than five minutes and ignoring those delays that are less than five minutes.
Last year, when we reviewed the Fare Review Formula, a new factor was included as one of the considerations, and that is the network capacity which shows the commuter volume and usage rate. This is to better reflect the changes in operating cost.
We must pay close attention to the impact of fare hikes on the vulnerable groups.
We need to ensure that the public transport system can provide high-quality services, such as physical comfort, timely and accurate information. Here, the Workers’ Party would like to thank all our public transport workers. The public transport system is critical to our economic and social development. We must spare no effort to improve the system. Hence, I would like to put forth five suggestions.
First, engage third-party independent bodies to conduct investigations, and use a scorecard system and service quality as part of the Fare Review formula. This will not only incentivise the operators but also monitor the overall reliability and service quality.
Second, include the profits of PTOs as one factor in the Fare Review formula.
Third, put back a level of profits from retail operations into the Railway Sinking Fund and the Rail Infrastructure Fund.
Fourth, adopt a multi-channel, multi-platform and multilingual approach to send out timely and accurate messages about service disruptions.
Fifth, the Workers' Party urge the Government to commit to major renewals for rail assets every 15 years under the New Rail Financing Framework.
In conclusion, it is still too early to pat ourselves on the back on our current progress in our public transportation system. There is still work to do in improving our public transportation system, particularly in providing better commuter experiences in areas, such as reliability, affordability and quality.
(In English) In closing, we should refrain on patting ourselves on the back on our current progress in our public transportation system. There is still work to do in improving our public transportation system, particularly in putting our commuters first over other stakeholders in areas, such as reliability, affordability and quality.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary.
The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Janil Puthucheary): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Mr Dennis Tan for his speech and for his comments. I was worried as he began that he was about to deliver my Committee of Supply speech on my behalf because I heard that he wanted to put commuters first – so do I; that he wanted to thank public transport workers – so do I; that he believes that reliability, quality and affordability are important components of our public transport system – so do I.
I got a bit more worried because he went on to congratulate us for 13 straight years of public transport ridership growth and we are quite proud of that. Thank you very much. He confirmed that our reliability has improved on a regular basis, in fact, exceeding expectations, to 670,000 MKBF when we have set ourselves a target of 400,000 MKBF for this year. So, I take it the Member agrees that we have a world-class public transport system and it is largely supported by the models and the direction, the efforts that we are making and I thank him for his kind words.
The Member has made some suggestions about how we can improve, and these suggestions are worth examining as we have to consider how we can achieve the aims that we have set out and that he agrees with.
Any suggestions for improving our public transport system, there are a few preconditions that we have to think of first as we assess. The first is: do we have existing mechanisms? In truth, every mechanism has a cost – a cost in time, a cost in compliance burden, a financial cost, and cost effectiveness. So, do we have existing mechanisms? What are these existing mechanisms? How do they work?
Secondly, we have to ask: are our existing mechanisms effective? Are they getting the job done?
Thirdly, we should ask, \"How are Singaporeans responding?\" How is our system responding? Before we get into that, we might also ask, \"Are we actually already doing some of the things that Mr Dennis Tan is suggesting or anybody is suggesting?\" For some of the examples that Mr Dennis Tan is talking about, there is a financial basis to incentivise better operations. You can look at it from the profit point of view, you can look at it from the fare point of view, you can look at penalties, you can look at it as where you redistribute it. But essentially, you are using money to incentivise better behaviour on the part of the operators and taking some of that money and rewarding commuters.
So, there are two arms to it – financial penalties or financial rewards, and then how you return it to the system or the commuters. Frankly, as the Member has described in great detail, we are doing that in a number of ways, across a number of mechanisms, using a variety of models with different operators.
Are we trying to get more information out to commuters that are affected? Certainly, we are. Electronic notice boards, social media, broadcast messages. We are experimenting and trying. Certainly, we can do a lot better and we will continue to experiment and to attempt to service Singaporeans better as they take public transport.
Let me go into some of the discussion about mechanisms and effectiveness. I would start by saying, firstly, MKBF is not the only metric that we use. Mr Dennis Tan suggested that we should broaden our consideration of what counts. MKBF is one. There are a whole bunch of other things that we do in our regulatory framework as we interface with the operators. MKBF is only one of those.
How do we regulate? Well, we have operating licences. We have codes of practice. We have maintenance performance standards, operating performance standards. These are codified, they are written down, they are agreed upon and, as a result of which, LTA and the operators work very closely together. We have engineers who are embedded in the operator teams; reports come up to us on a regular basis. Failure at any one of these points can result in a financial penalty, as the Member has described on my behalf. Thank you very much.
But not only that. These frameworks, we can tighten them on a regular basis. LTA has been tightening them and adjusting them and making them more effective on a regular basis.
Another mechanism is the model that we use. We transitioned to the Bus Contracting Model in 2016, the new Rail Financing Framework in 2018. We have used models, such as the BSEP, to increase the capacity for buses. We have invested in engineering capacity, we have invested in how to develop capability locally. These are all a variety of mechanisms to improve reliability and improve quality as we put commuters at the heart of the experience.
On top of that, we have worked quite hard around inclusion. We have tried to make sure that it is not just about the capacity, not just about what we can do technically, but also how we can reach out to a greater number of Singaporeans. Today, all MRT stations have two access routes which are barrier free, wheelchair-accessible lifts, all trains have wheelchair space, all bus interchanges are barrier-free, we are able to do wheelchair boarding, wheelchair-accessible toilets. This is not to say that we have done everything. We have not completed upgrading all the bus stops. There are bus stops that are not entirely wheelchair-accessible. We are up to 97%. We will slowly close the gap.
We have installed nearly 50 lifts at pedestrian overhead bridges as well as 200 km of covered linkways. We are moving aggressively to make sure that public transport is available and accessible to an increasing number of Singaporeans. We have committed to making sure that eight in 10 households will be living within a 10-minute walk to the MRT station. We have been increasing the number of rail lines, the number of trains as we move along that journey.
We have increased capacity – buses, trains, rail lines – carrying capacity. We have increased inclusivity: more and more Singaporeans are able to access our public transport system and services. Not only that. We have worked on increasing affordability.
Over the last five years, fares have gone down by 1.2%. Mr Dennis Tan is concentrating on the most recent fare review. He is at liberty to do so. But on average, we take a slightly broader view. Over the last five years, fares have gone down by 1.2%. In that time, wages have risen by 17.7%. Inflation has gone up 6.5%. On balance, the amount that people spend on fares out of their household income has gone down. It has gone down for the second quintile, and the second decile. We measure this; we track this. And we know that, on average, expenditure as a proportion of your income has gone down.
Not only that. Less well-known is the fact that 1.8 million commuters are on some form of concession schemes. The biggest single group are seniors, and that will only continue to rise as our population slowly ages. But students, full-time National Servicemen, low-wage workers, a whole lot. Out of our population, 1.8 million of the people who regularly use public transport on a daily basis are already benefiting from the concession schemes that we have. They had an even lower increase in the last fare review that Mr Dennis Tan was talking about, at only one cent.
So, we have worked hard to make these mechanisms work for us. As a result, reliability has improved, affordability has improved, inclusivity has improved. So, we believe the mechanisms are effective.
As Mr Dennis Tan has pointed out, these mechanisms are resulting in an increasing number of Singaporeans choosing to take public transport. Year-on-year growth of ridership, a greater proportion of Singaporeans at peak hours choosing not to use private vehicles as their primary mode of transport and choosing to use shared public transport. Satisfaction levels have risen in tandem as well. That would all suggest that we are moving in the right direction.
Perhaps, we need to consider some mechanisms to make sure we maintain our trajectory. I think that is reasonable. But if we are already doing some or many of these things, we should refine them, get them right, tweak them, make them better. But we have to start on the premise that things are improving, things are going well, the mechanisms are working and we do need to make sure that we hang on to our fundamental principles. My fundamental principles, as it turns out, are very much similar to what Mr Dennis Tan has articulated, that we do this with the view to putting the commuter at the centre of the experience. We focus on reliability, on quality, on affordability. And we make sure that, over time, over the long term, we do this in a fair way.
Everybody needs to participate in it, and the help needs to be distributed to those who need it most. We do this in a sustainable way. We have to have long-term financial viability and competitive participation, and we do this in an effective way around reliability, comfort and to continually increase the participation of Singaporeans in public transport. Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.24 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":"Ban Sharks Fin Dishes at Events Organised by Public Service Agencies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"17 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Prime Minister (a) whether sharks fin is still being served at events organised by or for the Public Service; and (b) whether sharks fin will be served at future events organised by or for the Public Service.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): Public agencies abide by the procurement principles of fairness, transparency and value-for-money. Agencies decide on their respective menus based on what is prudent and appropriate for the occasion. We do not have policies specific to the serving of shark’s fin.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of Recipients under Silver Support Scheme Who are Women","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"18 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the current percentage of recipients under the Silver Support Scheme who are women; and (b) what is the amount of the quarterly payout to women who benefit from the scheme as compared to men.
Mrs Josephine Teo: In 2018, about 148,000 elderly received Silver Support payouts and 65% of them were females. The median quarterly payout was $600 for both female and male recipients. This amount corresponds to the Silver Support payout quantum for eligible elderly living in a 3-room Housing and Development Board flat.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Non-renewal for Employment Pass Holders Whose Employers Do Not Match Mandatory Salary Increase","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"19 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many Employment Pass holders were not renewed in 2018 due to inability of employers to match the increased salary mandated by the Ministry; and (b) what are the criteria to establish the quantum of the increased salary when Employment Pass holders seek new renewal terms.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Employers cancel or do not renew the Employment Passes (EPs) of their staff for various reasons, such as changes in employers' manpower plans or their inability to meet the revised EP salary criteria. Employers are not required to disclose their reasons for not renewing an EP holder. Hence, we do not know how many EP holders were not renewed due to the employer not wishing to match the prevailing salary criteria.
The same EP qualifying salary applies to both fresh applications and renewals. We regularly update the EP qualifying salary, taking into account local salary progression. This is to ensure that while businesses have access to skilled foreign manpower to stay competitive and grow, local jobseekers are not excluded from consideration by employers because they earn higher wages.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Identifying and Automatically Blocking Scam Phone Calls","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether the Ministry has studied technological solutions capable of identifying and automatically blocking (i) automated calls pretending to represent the authorities and other fraudulent automated calling schemes and (ii) text messages that solicit illegal lending, online gambling, or other illegal activities; and (b) whether the Ministry will direct telecommunications service providers to develop or deploy such protective technologies.
Mr S Iswaran: The Info-communications Media Development Authority (IMDA) is exploring the feasibility of technological solutions to block automated fraudulent calls and text messages promoting illegal activities. These include solutions adopted or being developed by other jurisdictions, such as verifying legitimate calling numbers. In general, such technologies are still nascent and their effectiveness has yet to be determined.
IMDA is also working with the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Singapore Police Force to tighten the prepaid Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) card regime to prevent criminal syndicates from using prepaid SIM cards to carry out their criminal activities.
Other stakeholders also play an important role in combating these calls and text messages. Our telecommunication service providers are assisting the Police to address scams and text messages that solicit illegal moneylending, online gambling or other illegal activities. The public can also take steps, such as reporting the originating number as spam and blocking it, by using the spam filtering functions on their phones. More importantly, we must help educate our loved ones so that they do not fall prey to the illegal activities being promoted through such calls and text messages.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Flexibility for Bus Captains to Meet Bus Service Reliability Framework Requirements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport (a) how much flexibility is there for bus captains to meet the requirements of the Bus Service Reliability Framework (BSRF) which aims to improve punctuality and reliability of bus services; and (b) what are the common complaints relating to BSRF by bus captains and commuters.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: We introduced the Bus Service Reliability Framework (BSRF) in 2016 to incentivise bus operators to improve the timeliness of bus arrivals. The framework is designed to strike a balance between achieving timely arrivals to minimise waiting times, and higher bus speeds to reduce journey times. The target arrival times are set as a range, to provide bus captains with some flexibility under different traffic conditions. Arrival times are also regularly reviewed, taking into account route length and historical traffic conditions. Bus operators which meet the targets are given incentives, of which a part is shared with the bus captains. I am happy to note that 337 out of 363 bus services assessed under the BSRF outperformed the targets in the second quarter of 2018, resulting in more reliable bus services.
Bus captains have provided feedback that the BSRF requirements cause them stress. To support bus captains in meeting the standards, bus operators provide training and deploy service controllers who remotely provide guidance. As a result of these efforts, the National Transport Workers' Union has observed that there are now fewer of such complaints from bus captains.
Commuters sometimes raise concerns that BSRF has caused buses to travel at slow speeds even when there is no traffic, so as to avoid arriving ahead of schedule. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) works closely with the operators to regularly review and optimise bus schedules. Commuters can also provide their feedback on specific bus services to LTA, which will take them into account during such reviews.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tackling and Punishing Voyeurism Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Home Affairs with regard to voyeurism and revenge pornography (a) whether the Government conducts studies on how other countries deal with the issue; (b) what measures is the Government considering to deal with the issue and to protect victims; and (c) whether there will be specific measures to protect minors.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Penal Code Review Committee (PCRC) had looked into voyeurism and the distribution of intimate images without consent. In coming up with its recommendations, the PCRC studied other countries' approaches, namely, England, Wales, Scotland, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
PCRC has recommended to make it an offence to take, possess, distribute or access voyeuristic images; and to distribute or to threaten to distribute intimate images. PCRC has also recommended enhancing the punishments, particularly when a victim of these offences is below 14 years of age.
The Government has completed its public consultation on the PCRC's recommendations and is studying the feedback. We will announce our response on the various issues within the next couple of months.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Stricter Alcohol Limits for Motorists","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry will consider introducing a stricter prescribed limit of alcohol in a motorist's blood or breath whilst driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle if the motorist is under the age of 21 or is a probationary driver.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Traffic Police (TP) does not rely only on the prescribed alcohol limit to determine whether a motorist has been drink-driving. A motorist will be deemed to have done so, as long as he has consumed alcohol and is unable to exercise control over his vehicle.
TP also does not differentiate its treatment of drink-drivers based on age or driving experience. Young drivers and drivers with probationary licences are not more likely than other drivers to drink-drive.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Steps Taken to Promote Adoption of Children in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) in the past five years, how many applications for adoption of children under the Adoption of Children Act have been granted in favour of singles who are not biological parents of the adoptees; and (b) what further steps have been or will be taken to promote the adoption of Singaporean children.
Mr Desmond Lee: Between 2013 and 2017, there were, on average, about 15 sole applications per year by never-married, divorced or widowed persons to adopt a non-biological child. This amounted to about 5% of all adoption applications in a year. Some of these applicants were stepparents or relatives of the child. Most of these applications were granted by the Courts, based on the welfare of the child.
The number of adoptions involving Singaporean children has dropped over the years. This trend reflects our lower fertility rates. There are fewer Singaporean children available for adoption than there are prospective adopters. Nevertheless, we still encourage prospective adopters to consider adopting, such as children who have been abused or neglected, and whose birth families, despite our best efforts to support them, are assessed to be unsafe or unable to care for the children.
For couples who are able to love and provide for these children, we encourage them to contact any of the four Ministry of Social and Family Development's accredited agencies, including TOUCH Family Services, Lutheran Community Care Services, Fei Yue Community Services and Apkim Centre for Social Services, for an assessment of their suitability to adopt. Ultimately, the underlying principle of adoption is to find a loving family that is able to meet the child’s needs and is committed to parenting responsibility.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore Buildings’ Maximum Tolerance against Wind and Earthquake Tremors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development what is the maximum wind speed and magnitude of earthquake tremors that buildings in Singapore can withstand.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Buildings in Singapore have to be designed according to the relevant building codes. Buildings are generally designed to withstand a maximum wind gust speed of up to 143 kilometres per hour. This is more than sufficient to cater to the wind gust speeds locally.
Singapore is not located in an earthquake zone. The nearest earthquake fault zone is located in Sumatra, more than 400 kilometres away. Over such a long distance, the seismic waves would have dissipated and lost most of their energy. Nevertheless, our buildings are designed to be sufficiently robust to withstand forces generated by distant earthquakes. For example, while tremors from the magnitude 9 earthquake in Aceh in 2004 could be felt in Singapore, there were no reports of structural damage to our buildings.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Episode where Quartz was Used for Columbarium Niches Instead of Marble","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in respect of the supply of 8,600 quartz (instead of marble) niches when the niches were relocated from Mount Vernon Columbarium (a) whether NEA had verified that all contractual requirements have been fulfilled by the contractors during delivery/installation; (b) what punitive action will be taken against the contractors; and (c) whether the contractors are required to provide refunds or compensation where affected families do not accept a marble replacement.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The National Environment Agency (NEA) has relocated about 20,000 niches at Mount Vernon Columbarium Complex (MVC) to make way for the development of Bidadari Estate. As part of the support package for affected families, NEA offered to relocate the urn from MVC to a replacement niche at either Choa Chu Kang or Mandai columbarium, together with a marble plaque. These were offered on a goodwill basis at no cost to the affected families.
NEA's offer was taken up by families for about 14,500 niches. The relocation of the urns was undertaken by the NEA-appointed contractor and witnessed by NEA officers, together with the respective families. The officers had also checked the plaques before installation. Visual inspections had not shown up differences as quartz plaques look similar to marble ones.
When NEA was first alerted to the non-marble plaque material, NEA immediately investigated the matter and sent samples for laboratory tests. NEA found that samples from one batch of plaques were made of quartz, rather than marble. About 8,600 niches were affected.
For these 8,600 niches, the contractor had not delivered the goods in accordance with contractual requirements. NEA takes a serious view of this performance breach and has directed the contractor to replace the quartz with new marble plaques, unless the families choose to retain the existing plaques. The contractor will bear the costs required to make good on what should have been delivered. Pending the completion of the replacement works, NEA has withheld payments to the contractor. NEA will also be claiming against the contractor for any difference in price between the quartz and marble plaques. Learning from this incident, NEA has incorporated the requirement of laboratory verification for materials in future tenders.
The contractor has reached out to the affected families with the offer of a replacement marble plaque and reinstallation at no cost to the family. NEA is closely monitoring the progress of the replacement works and will ensure that the contractor fulfils its contractual obligations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recent Accidents and Enhancing Road Safety on West Coast Road at Section between Penjuru Road and Jurong Town Hall Road","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the number of accidents that have occurred over the past three years on West Coast Road (the section between Penjuru Road and Jurong Town Hall Road); and (b) how can such accidents be avoided with better road safety measures.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Between January 2016 and December 2018, the Traffic Police recorded 12 accidents along West Coast Road (the section between Penjuru Road, Jurong Town Hall Road and Teban Gardens). Existing road safety measures along that stretch of West Coast Road include integrated pedestrian crossings with countdown timers to allow pedestrians to cross safely, and road markings that remind/encourage motorists to slow down. Double white lines with raised reflective pavement markers are drawn along the middle of road sections that are near bus stops to prohibit overtaking. Safety bollards have also been installed at bus stops to protect the safety of waiting commuters. In addition, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) is studying the implementation of additional traffic calming measures, such as centre dividers and bus-friendly humps, to reduce vehicle speeds and improve pedestrian safety.
LTA and the Traffic Police will continue to monitor the situation along West Coast Road. We urge all road users to play their part and exercise caution and consideration when using our roads.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Foreigner on Long Term Visit Pass Applying for Private Hire Car Vocational Licence","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Transport under what circumstances will a foreigner on a Long Term Visit Pass with a Letter of Consent issued by the Ministry of Manpower that allows him to be employed as a driver in a private company be permitted to apply for a Private Hire Car Vocational Licence despite the fact that he will not be able to fulfill LTA's requirement that he must have a work pass issued by the Ministry of Manpower with his vocation stated as \"chauffeur\".
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Land Transport Authority does not allow Letter of Consent holders to obtain a Private Hire Car Driver's Vocational Licence.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Training and Supervision Standards for Private Security Companies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether there are requirements for private security companies to adequately train, supervise and ensure that private security officers uphold the standards required in the discharge of their duties and responsibilities; (b) what are the penalties for private security companies who fail to adhere to these requirements; and (c) whether penalties should be imposed on private security companies whose private security officers are errant or delinquent in the discharge of their duties.
Mr K Shanmugam: Security agencies are responsible for the training and performance of their security officers.
They must ensure that their security officers are trained in accordance with the requirements under the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) for the security industry. In fact, PWM requirements are part of the licensing conditions for security agencies. Failure to comply would constitute a breach of the licensing conditions, which is an offence punishable with a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both.
Security agencies are also required to undergo the annual Security Agencies Grading Exercise (SAGE). The assessment includes whether their security officers are adequately trained and knowledgeable about relevant security processes. Regulatory offences committed by a security agency will also affect their SAGE score. Those that fare poorly in SAGE will be given a D (unsatisfactory) grade, and if they receive two consecutive D grades, their licences will not be renewed. Security agencies can also be taken to task if they are found to have contributed to their officer's offence or errant behaviour.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Need for White-collar and Cybercrime Investigators in Singapore Police Force","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether there is a need to increase the number of white-collar and cybercrime investigators employed by the Singapore Police Force so that there is a deeper capacity to deal with the heavier workload.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Singapore Police Force (SPF) is monitoring the commercial and cybercrime workload situation closely and will make resourcing adjustments whenever necessary.
SPF has also enhanced its capacity and capabilities to deal with such crimes in other ways.
First, better organisation of resources. In 2016, cybercrime investigation, digital forensics training, liaison and policy matters were integrated under a single Cybercrime Command. This has allowed SPF to achieve greater economies of scale and better coordination among sub-units in fighting cybercrime.
Second, better training of officers. Officers with the aptitude for cybercrime investigations and digital forensics are given specialised training and deployed to the Police Land Divisions. All frontline uniformed Police Officers and investigation officers have also been trained in basic cybercrime investigations.
Third, the use of technology, such as digital forensics, malware analysis and video analytics. This has helped to strengthen the SPF's capabilities and reduce the reliance on manpower.
Fourth, working more closely with the community in crime prevention. In concert with the National Crime Prevention Council, the Police have launched several rounds of cybercrime and scam prevention education campaigns to raise public awareness and vigilance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Electronic Game Loot Boxes as Form of Gambling","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether electronic game loot boxes are being reviewed as being a form of gambling, as seen in some other jurisdictions.
Mr K Shanmugam: Electronic game loot boxes are virtual items that can be bought using real-world money or in-game credits. These loot boxes yield a range of prizes that can be used in the game, for example, weapons. The specific prizes in each loot box are determined by chance.
The Remote Gambling Act (RGA) covers games of chance conducted over remote communications and the Internet which allow players to win money or money’s worth.
Given the randomness of the prizes in loot boxes, they are a game of chance. However, whether the loot boxes are considered a form of gambling under RGA depends on whether there are in-game facilities that allow players to convert game credits or any in-game items, for example, weapons and skills, to real-world money or merchandises.
The Ministry of Home Affairs has been studying different aspects of this matter.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Objections to Performance of RuPauls' Drag Race Show in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether the Ministry has received objections to the performance of the RuPauls' Drag Race show in Singapore; (b) what are the criteria for approving such performances; (c) how does the Ministry deal with approval and censorship of performances dealing with LGBT issues; and (d) how is the age restriction for the audience determined for such shows.
Mr S Iswaran: The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) administers the regulatory regime for Arts Entertainment (AE) which include plays, variety shows and art exhibitions. In assessing and classifying an AE, IMDA is guided by the Arts Entertainment Classification Code (AECC) which sets out the classification system and the principles of classification. The AECC was developed in consultation with the community and aims to reflect prevailing social norms, protect the young from unsuitable content while enabling adults to make informed viewing choices.
There are four classification ratings for AE: (a) General; (b) Advisory; (c) Advisory 16; and (d) Restricted 18 (R18). An AE rated R18 is age restricted and can only be viewed by those aged 18 and above.
In determining an appropriate rating for an AE, IMDA takes into consideration the overall theme, the content elements, message and impact of the work and its suitability for the different age groups. An AE which deals with a more mature theme or content, including LGBT content, would be given a higher classification rating. Content that goes beyond the R18 rating will not be allowed. For an AE rated higher than \"General\", IMDA will issue a consumer advice to highlight content elements within the AE to enable the public to make an informed decision, as well as guide parents on the suitability of the AE for their children. The rating and consumer advice issued by IMDA for an AE must be reflected in all of its publicity materials and at ticketing booths and event venues.
\"RuPaul’s Drag Race\" is a variety show and similar shows have been staged previously in Singapore. Past shows have generally been classified R18 in view of the mature content and have not attracted much feedback. IMDA has received the AE licence application for the RuPaul's Drag Race show to be held in February 2019 and will assess the performance in accordance with the AECC.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Income Tax Rate of Employment Pass Holders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Finance whether the Government will consider raising the income tax rate of Employment Pass holders to provide additional tax revenue to meet the rising social cost.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: We need to raise revenue to finance our rising spending needs. But we have to do so in a way that ensures our tax system remains fair and internationally competitive.
Employment Pass holders make economic contributions to Singapore and pay taxes like Singaporeans. Under our progressive income tax system, those who earn more, including Employment Pass holders, already pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes.
Furthermore, under our tax treaties, we are required to not discriminate on the basis of nationality in our income tax treatment. This is in line with the international norms in both the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the United Nations standards for tax treaty provisions.
While our income tax treatment does not discriminate on the basis of nationality, our tax reliefs do support various social and economic objectives, especially for those who make Singapore their home. For example, all eligible operationally-ready National Servicemen (NSmen) are entitled to NSman tax relief, to recognise their contributions to National Service; and their wives and parents are also granted tax reliefs to recognise the support they give to their husbands and sons.
In addition, the revenues we collect are used to benefit mainly Singaporeans. This is why citizens enjoy a range of subsidies and privileges, in areas like education, healthcare and housing, which are not available to Employment Pass holders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Study of Public Preferences for Government Expenditure","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Finance whether the Ministry will study public preferences for Government expenditure by requesting income tax filers to hypothetically earmark 10% of their income taxes towards the expenditure of a particular Ministry and making public the results of such studies to strengthen Government accountability and responsiveness.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Understanding the public's needs and preferences is a central part of the Ministry of Finance's work so that we can better allocate public spending to serve the nation's needs. We do so through various methods, including surveys, various feedback channels and direct engagements with citizens.
Every year, the Government holds a formal Budget feedback exercise to understand citizens' concerns as part of preparations for the annual Budget. For Budget 2019, the feedback unit REACH had Listening Points across Singapore from 3 December 2018 to 11 January 2019 to provide accessible, open booths for Singaporeans to give their views for Budget 2019. Feedback received during these consultations contribute to the formulation of the Budget and prioritisation of Government expenditures.
For example, the increase in social spending in recent years reflects our collective aspirations to better care for one another and to do more for the vulnerable members of our society. At the same time, the Government must also devote appropriate resources to areas serving the collective good, like defence, law and order, and public infrastructure.
We will continue to explore different ways to understand public preferences and help the public better understand the link between Government revenue and expenditure.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Supplementary Retirement Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Finance with regard to the Supplementary Retirement Scheme (SRS) for each of the last five years (a) what is the number of contributors, by marginal income tax rate of assessable income, that is, pre-SRS contribution; (b) what are the amounts contributed, by marginal income tax rate of assessable income; and (c) whether the Ministry has studied the elasticity and determinants of SRS contribution behaviours and the results of such studies.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The Supplementary Retirement Scheme (SRS) was introduced in 2001 as a tax-incentivised scheme to encourage individuals to save voluntarily for retirement, beyond the basic provisions of the Central Provident Fund (CPF). Taken together, the CPF and SRS comprise our system of mandatory and voluntary contributions to help people save for retirement.
Each year, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) publishes the total number of SRS account holders and total SRS contributions. These statistics, dating back to the scheme's inception in 2001, are available on the MOF website. In a given year, about 60% of the account holders contribute to their account.
Ninety percent of those who made an SRS contribution in the past year have an Assessable Income of more than $80,000, which corresponds to an average marginal tax rate of about 15%. In this group, the average contribution in a year has been around $14,000.
The remaining 10% who contributed in the past year have an Assessable Income of below $80,000. The average contribution in a year has been around $9,000. Their average marginal tax rate is about 3.2%. This contribution pattern has been fairly stable over the past five years.
The details of elasticity and determinants of SRS contribution behaviour are complex. Possible factors include awareness of the scheme, income levels and personal willingness to set aside more for retirement. Nevertheless, the Government will continue to study this matter, together with academics and researchers, to better understand how Singaporeans think about financial planning for retirement.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Nominating Singapore's Hawker Culture for UNESCO's Representative List of Intangible Culture Heritage of Humanity","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked ask the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what is the progress of nominating Singapore's Hawker Culture for UNESCO's Representative List of the Intangible Culture Heritage of Humanity; (b) how many Singaporeans have pledged their support pertaining to the nomination; and (c) what more can Singaporeans do to lend support to the nomination.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced that we will nominate our hawker culture for inscription on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity during his 2018 National Day Rally speech. Our hawker culture is a total cultural experience of the place, food and people that binds us together as Singaporeans. It is an integral part of our daily lives, our collective experience and our national identity.
The National Heritage Board (NHB) is putting together the materials for Singapore's bid, which will be submitted to UNESCO in March 2019. A 14-member nomination committee, with representatives from the public, private and people sectors, was also established in September 2018 to guide our efforts to secure a successful inscription. This committee will continue its work until the result of the nomination is known in late 2020.
Support from the community will be crucial for us to secure a successful inscription. NHB, the National Environment Agency and the Federation of Merchants' Association, Singapore (FMAS) have been raising awareness and gathering support from Singaporeans and the wider society for the nomination.
The nomination has received widespread support from Singaporeans from all walks of life. As of 7 January 2019, there have been almost 220,000 pledges of support for the nomination made online, through our travelling exhibition, and at pledging stations at hawker centres, public events, schools, libraries, museums and other public spaces. In addition, more than 8,000 pledge cards have been collected where Singaporeans expressed why hawker culture is so important to them.
The community, including schools, businesses and other groups and organisations, has also stepped forward to support the nomination. For example, students from the Singapore Management University, Temasek Polytechnic, Republic Polytechnic, Pei Chun Public School and First Toa Payoh Primary School, among others, have submitted letters of support, initiated student projects to increase appreciation of our hawker culture, and volunteered their time to engage Singaporeans at the travelling exhibition. The Singapore Business Federation, Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Community Development Councils and the Eurasian Association have also pledged support for the nomination. Our hawker associations and FMAS have also submitted letters of support.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Culture Pass for Events to Encourage Cultural Discovery","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Terence Ho Wee San asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether the Ministry will consider issuing a \"culture pass\" vis-à-vis a mobile application which offers a credit similar to ActiveSG for students and senior citizens to spend on cultural events and encourage cultural discovery.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth, the National Arts Council (NAC) and National Heritage Board (NHB) recognise that culture adds to Singapore's vibrancy and liveability, helps to connect communities with one another, and roots us as Singaporeans. Our arts and culture play a critical role in fostering caring citizens, a cohesive society and a confident nation.
Since 2013, all Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents have been given free admission to the 10 national museums and heritage institutions.1 More people have visited our institutions, with visitorship numbers reaching an all-time high of 5.1 million in 2016.2
Throughout the year, NAC, NHB, the People's Association (PA) and our cultural institutions, such as the Esplanade, organise free arts and culture events. These include popular events like our annual Singapore Art Week, Singapore Heritage Festival, PAssionArts Festival and Singapore Night Festival. Singaporeans were able to enjoy over 6,000 of such non-ticketed performances in 2016.3 We also partner organisations, such as the National Library Board and PA, to bring quality arts and heritage programmes directly to the neighbourhood libraries, community clubs and other community spaces.
We thank Mr Terence Ho and will consider his suggestion of a \"culture pass\" mobile application as part of our ongoing efforts in our SG Arts and SG Heritage Plans to grow audiences and enhance our outreach efforts by leveraging technology.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : This applies to our museums’ permanent exhibitions. For special exhibitions: students and senior citizens enjoy free admission to NHB’s eight museums and heritage institutions; students enter the National Gallery Singapore for free while senior citizens enjoy concessions; and both students and senior citizens enjoy such concessions at the Singapore Art Museum.","2 : Data from the Singapore Cultural Statistics (SCS) 2017. ","3 : Data is from SCS 2017."],"footNoteQuestions":["10"],"questionNo":"10"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"BTO Flats Sold to Second-timer Buyers in Past Four Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development in the past four years, how many BTO flats have been sold to second-timer buyers and how many of these second-timer buyers will be collecting keys to their BTO flats in each of the next three years.
Mr Lawrence Wong: From January 2015 to December 2018, about 13,000 second-timers have booked a Build-To-Order (BTO) flat.
About 2,600, 2,600 and 3,400 second-timer buyers will be invited to collect keys to their BTO flats in 2019, 2020 and 2021 respectively.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Successful Single Applicants for 2-Room Flexi Flats by Gender and Income Bracket","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development whether he can provide a breakdown of the number of singles who have successfully applied for 2-room flexi flats since they were launched, by (i) gender and (ii) income bracket, specifically those with a monthly income of $1,000 and less, and between $1,001 and $6,000 in multiples of $1,000.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Two-room flexi flats were first offered for sale in November 2015. From 1 November 2015 to 31 December 2018, a total of 18,572 singles had applied and were invited to select a 2-room flexi flat under the Housing and Development Board's Build-To-Order (BTO) and Sale of Balance Flats (SBF) exercises.1 A breakdown of this figure by gender and income is provided in Table 1 below.
13 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education for each cohort of students in each of the last five years respectively, what is the percentage of students from the Normal Technical stream who have transferred to the Express stream by the end of their Secondary school education.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Over the last five years, an average of around 530 students, or close to 10%, transfer from Normal (Technical) to the Normal (Academic) course. Of these, about 10 to 20 each year eventually transferred to the Express course.
In 2018, after Subject-Based Banding was rolled out to all schools, about 60% of Secondary 1 Normal (Technical) students offered selected subjects at Normal (Academic) and Express levels, in line with their strengths.
Beyond mobility among secondary school courses, there are also multiple post-secondary pathways to cater to the diverse strengths and talents of our students.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Integrate Environmental Education into Education System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the current efforts to integrate environmental education into our education system; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider working with environmental groups to create a standardised environmental education package for Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) and Form Teacher Guidance Periods (FTGP).
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Environmental education is integrated into multiple subjects taught at the various levels. For example, at the primary level, students learn about conservation and the negative impact of pollution, global warming and deforestation on the environment and living things in Science. In Social Studies, students learn about Singapore's physical environment and the importance of using resources responsibly. They also apply their knowledge of the 3Rs of Reduce, Reuse and Recycle in their daily lives as \"Environment Champions\".
At the secondary level, the Geography, Science and Social Studies syllabi extend students' learning to deeper issues like natural resource depletion, as well as environmental impact of rising global temperature and waste disposal, for example, sewage and toxic chemicals. Students have opportunities to examine and weigh various solutions to achieve environmental sustainability. They also appreciate the interdependence of different species in biological ecosystems, understand the importance of conservation and examine the roles of different stakeholders, for example, local communities and business operators, in environmental conservation.
Teachers engage students in the learning of these topics through inquiry-based learning and the use of real-world examples and case studies. Students also participate in excursions and conduct fieldwork, such as at parks and nature reserves, to reinforce their learning.
Schools augment the learning in the formal curriculum with a variety of co-curricular activities and learning experiences. For example, many schools have established their own environmental clubs to enable students to do their part for the environment through action. They also participate actively in various environment-themed projects and activities, such as the ABC (Active, Beautiful and Clean) Water Trail organised by the Public Utilities Board, the Greenwave environmental competition organised by SembCorp and the Environment Health Institute's workshops on climate change and dengue. Many schools have also been recognised by the Singapore Environment Council with the School Green Awards for the environmental efforts of their students.
The Ministry of Education welcomes inputs from different stakeholders as part of our continuing efforts to enrich our students’ knowledge and learning experiences and will incorporate these in our ongoing curriculum reviews.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Workplace Injuries and Fatalities and Their Reporting Criteria","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how our rates per 100,000 employed persons in Singapore for (i) minor workplace injury, (ii) major workplace injury and (iii) death, compare with other countries which also base their reporting criteria on that of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA); and (b) what would be the possible factors for the difference if there is a significant discrepancy for those rates.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Both Singapore and the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) require reporting of injuries that result in more than three days of medical leave. In addition, Singapore also requires reporting of injuries that result in at least 24 hours of hospitalisation.
Singapore attained a workplace fatal injury rate of 1.2 per 100,000 employed persons in 2017. This was lower than the average fatal injury rate of 1.7 per 100,000 employed persons among the European Union (EU) countries that use EU-OSHA's reporting criteria.
EU-OSHA does not publish minor or major injury data but does so for non-fatal injuries as a whole. Singapore had a non-fatal injury rate of 368 per 100,000 employed persons in 2017, compared to the EU-OSHA average of 1,586 per 100,000 employed persons.
We should, however, be cautious in comparing our non-fatal injury rate with that of the EU. While Singapore and EU-OSHA apply the same threshold of medical leave duration for reporting purposes, differences in data collection systems may account for some variations. EU countries with higher non-fatal injury rates generally draw injury data from insurance claims, while those with lower rates generally rely on injury reporting by employers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":2626,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190115/vernacular-Lee Bee Wah Drug Misuse 15Jan2019-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Lee Bee Wah Drug Misuse 15Jan2019-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":2627,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Rahayu Mahzam","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190115/vernacular-15 Jan 2019 - Ms Rahayu Mahzam - Misuse of Drugs Bill.pdf","fileName":"15 Jan 2019 - Ms Rahayu Mahzam - Misuse of Drugs Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":2628,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190115/vernacular-15 Jan 2019 - Mr Faisal Manap - Misuse of Drugs Bill.pdf","fileName":"15 Jan 2019 - Mr Faisal Manap - Misuse of Drugs Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":2629,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Mohamed Irshad","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190115/vernacular-Mr Mohamad Irshad15Jan2019 -Tamil.pdf","fileName":"Mr Mohamad Irshad15Jan2019 -Tamil.pdf"},{"vernacularID":2630,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190115/vernacular-15 Jan 2019 - Dr Intan Azura - Misuse of Drugs Bill.pdf","fileName":"15 Jan 2019 - Dr Intan Azura - Misuse of Drugs Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":2631,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Sun Xueling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190115/vernacular-Sun Xueling Misuse of Drugs 15Jan2019 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Sun Xueling Misuse of Drugs 15Jan2019 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":2632,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Amrin Amin","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190115/vernacular-15 Jan 2019 - SPS Amrin Amin - Misuse of Drugs Bill (cleared by MHA).pdf","fileName":"15 Jan 2019 - SPS Amrin Amin - Misuse of Drugs Bill (cleared by MHA).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2633,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190115/vernacular-Dennis Tan Adj Motion 15Jan2019-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Dennis Tan Adj Motion 15Jan2019-Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}