1 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Law (a) for each year from 2019 to 2024, how many cases has the Ministry received from creators seeking help about the plagiarising of their artworks; (b) how many cases have been satisfactorily resolved and what are the remedies; (c) what steps are taken to ensure that businesses know of the need to engage the creators on using their intellectual property (IP); and (d) what avenues are available to creators to get affordable help to enforce their IP rights.
\tThe Minister of State for Law (Mr Murali Pillai) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) runs weekly IP legal clinics where creators can receive complimentary legal advice from practising lawyers about enforcement and infringement of IP rights. This includes understanding available options if they find that their rights have potentially been infringed. About one in four of the sessions touched on copyright infringement. Due to the confidential nature of these sessions, IPOS is not privy to the details of individual cases, including their progress and outcomes.
Besides IPOS’ IP legal clinics, creators can consider alternative dispute resolution (ADR), such as mediation which is often more cost-effective and expeditious, compared to litigation. IPOS runs various mediation support programmes, including collaborating with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Center to promote ADR by offering reduced rates.
IPOS also provides a variety of initiatives to increase public awareness of IP rights and build up IP capabilities. For example, IPOS’ subsidiary IPOS International runs the IP Academy, which conducts courses to raise the understanding of IP amongst businesses.
In addition, IPOS recently signed a three-year memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Visual, Audio, Creative Content Professionals Association (Singapore), or VICPA, of which I believe the hon Member Ms See is part of the leadership team, to provide support to creative freelance professionals and young creators in the areas of IP education and management, capacity building and resource sharing. The MOU builds on collaborations between IPOS and VICPA since 2021. Working with VICPA and other partners continues to be an important approach to supporting creators across the multi-faceted issues that they face.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Jean See.
\tMs See Jinli Jean (Nominated Member): I thank the Minister of State for the response. I just wanted to understand better. For creators with less means, in terms of financial means, what is the assistance that they can look towards the Ministry or IPOS to provide. Secondly, there are businesses, increasingly, using ChatGPT or different means of ChatGPT to procure or devise artworks through what I would call plagiarism, but the businesses might not know. When this happens, what are the steps the Ministry can take to assist local creators to enforce such rights?
\tMr Murali Pillai: Sir, I am obliged to Ms See for her supplementary question. In relation to supporting creators who come from less means and how do they enforce their rights, one thing to note is that, like for all fellow Singaporeans, they are entitled to legal aid as long as the means test and the merits test are satisfied. That is something that is also available to those who own creative rights.
In addition, as I mentioned in my answer to the hon Member Ms See, we have been running legal clinics for quite some time and the businesses may wish to avail themselves of these legal clinics which are run on a complimentary basis. In addition, IPOS has already commenced some of the capacity-building initiatives, for example, the MOU with VICPA and hopefully, this may be a suitable avenue as well for these creators.
\tMr Speaker: Ms See.
\tMs See Jinli Jean: I would just like to put across a point that while the creators can get some level of assistance and education, then I think the request to the Ministry is whether it can consider also mounting similar education for businesses, especially as such artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled tools become more popular and to educate businesses on how to seek IP rights from creators.
\tMr Murali Pillai: We note the hon Member's suggestion. Perhaps this is an area that we can work on with VICPA and other businesses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protocols and Enforcement Measures for Oversight of Retrenchments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Manpower in respect of a recent retrenchment exercise by a multinational technology company with a global headquarters in Singapore (a) whether the Ministry will look into how the relevant union was informed only a day in advance; (b) when was the Ministry notified of the retrenchment; (c) whether the retrenched workers' incomes are within the broad middle-income range in Singapore; and (d) how can Singapore continue to be pro-enterprise and attract investment while maintaining tripartite best practices.
3 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower in light of the recent retrenchment exercise by a multinational technology company with its headquarters in Singapore (a) whether the Ministry will review and strengthen current protocols to better manage future retrenchments, including ensuring that unions are given more timely notice beyond just one day; and (b) what steps is the Ministry taking to enhance pro-worker guidelines that can simultaneously encourage multinational companies to maintain their presence in Singapore while safeguarding the welfare of workers.
4 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower in light of recent retrenchments by MNCs which involve professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) being laid off (a) whether the Ministry can take tougher enforcement action against companies that fail to comply with the tripartite advisories and guidelines on retrenchment of workers including PMEs; and (b) whether the Ministry can look into ensuring that companies notify the unions early in advance of impending retrenchments to allow for discussions, negotiations and pre-emptive assistance for affected workers and members.
5 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) for each year from 2019 to date in 2024, what is the number of companies that failed to file a mandatory retrenchment notification (MRN) within the requisite period; (b) whether the Ministry will consider reviewing the existing exemptions from MRN; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider reviewing the MRN period to require MRNs to be submitted prior to retrenchment instead of post-retrenchment.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to address Question Nos 2 to 5 for this Sitting, 15 October 2024. This reply also addresses another Parliamentary Question (PQ) scheduled for a subsequent Sitting on 17 October.
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: Members have filed these PQs likely in response to Dyson’s recent retrenchment exercise and I am taking these PQs together to provide a more holistic response.
To recap, Dyson conducted a retrenchment exercise earlier this month. Subsequently, the United Workers of Electronics and Electrical Industries (UWEEI) expressed their concern that they were only notified a day before Dyson informed the affected employees. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has been actively involved in this issue and has engaged both parties, who have agreed to work together in the spirit of tripartism.
Members have raised questions on five key issues. First, early notification to the union; two, retrenchment benefits; three, mandatory retrenchment notifications; four, action that can be taken against non-compliant companies; and five, how Singapore balances being both pro-business and pro-worker. I will address each of these issues in the rest of my reply.
First, Members asked whether the one-day notice in Dyson’s case was sufficient. Based on the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower or TAMEM, if the company is unionised, it should provide advance notice to the unions. Where it is provided in the collective agreement, the norm is to notify the union a month before notifying the employees. We understand that all the retrenched employees from Dyson are professionals, managers or executives (PMEs) who are not unionised. Thus, they are not within the scope of the union’s collective representation and the period of notice is therefore negotiable. Hence, Dyson handled the recent retrenchment exercise in accordance with our laws and tripartite advisories, as the PMEs are not under the collective agreement.
At the same time, the spirit of tripartite engagements is built on trust and a shared understanding between the employer and the union. It is good practice for companies to do so, as this builds trust between the employer and the union. Dyson has explained to UWEEI the reasons for not being able to give more advance notice to the union. Communications are key to managing the concerns of the affected employees, while also being cognisant of the constraints of businesses. In this respect, both parties have committed to continue working together in the tripartite spirit to support both the needs of workers and businesses.
To work together effectively, trust between the union and employer is key. This trust cannot be taken for granted and it needs to be built up over time. Companies should value Singapore’s tripartite culture and work closely with the unions. At the same time, the unions also need to do their part to manage the concerns of employees, while recognising business needs. This is the delicate balance that has made our model of tripartism work well over the years. Ultimately, it is also important that all tripartite partners focus on the welfare of the affected workers, so that we can work together to help them during this difficult period of disruption.
Second, Members asked about the compensation for the retrenched workers. Retrenchment benefits are payments made by a company to provide some financial support to help the affected workers through the period of disruption. Based on the Tripartite Advisory, the amount of retrenchment benefits depends on what is provided in the collective agreement, otherwise it will be negotiated. The prevailing norm is between two weeks to one month salary per year of service, and the retrenchment payments depend on the financial position of the company and industry norms. Based on our tripartite guidelines, the retrenchment benefits for PMEs can be calculated differently from that for a rank-and-file employee.
While there is no requirement to do so and the affected workers are not covered by collective agreement, Dyson provided a retrenchment benefit quantum for its PMEs that is in line with our Tripartite Advisory. In addition, only employees that have served the company for at least two years are eligible for retrenchment benefits, but Dyson provided affected employees who have served for less than two years a payment as well. So, that goes beyond what they are obliged to do. In addition, Dyson will also provide after-care support, outplacement assistance and access to career coaching and counselling to the affected employees.
Separately, Members have asked about the salaries of the affected employees. As a policy, we do not disclose salary details as these remain confidential to the employee and company.
Third, Members asked about Dyson’s submission of the mandatory retrenchment notification (MRN). Dyson submitted its MRN to MOM on time, within five working days of notifying the affected employees. This has enabled the Taskforce for Responsible Retrenchment and Employment Facilitation (RTF) to work with Dyson to provide career facilitation services and information kits to the affected employees.
Members also had questions about the MRN requirement more generally. In response to the question from a Member on the MRNs submitted from 2019 to March 2024, about 30% of MRNs were submitted late, after five working days of notifying the affected employees. Among the late submissions, around half were submitted before the retrenchment date of the affected employees. This means that the RTF is still able to offer employment assistance to affected employees in a timely manner.
Currently, employers with less than 10 employees are exempted from submitting MRNs. This is an agreed tripartite position, given that it may place too much administrative burden to make smaller companies submit MRNs. Nonetheless, we encourage all employers to notify MOM of any retrenchment exercise early, so that we can extend support to the affected employees.
On whether MRNs should be submitted earlier, we need to strike a balance between allowing employers sufficient time to finalise their decisions, while enabling the prompt provision of career facilitation services and programmes to affected employees. Employers may need more time to decide on how they want to restructure and transform their business and at the same time, collate details required on the affected workers for MRN submission.
Nonetheless, employers can provide early notification to MOM, if they are considering an upcoming retrenchment exercise and rest assured, we will treat the information that we receive sensitively. Employers can access this early notification channel on the MOM website, to obtain more assistance on how to conduct a responsible retrenchment exercise and provide earlier employment assistance to the affected workers.
Fourth, Members asked about the action that can be taken towards non-compliant companies. Today, Mr Speaker, most employers follow our retrenchment regulations. If an employer does not follow the tripartite advisory, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices, or TAFEP, will engage the employer to adhere to it.
Workers, including PMEs, who are not covered by a collective agreement with the union, can still seek the union’s assistance to be represented individually. They may also approach the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) who can assist if there are contractual or salary disputes, TAFEP if unfair or discriminatory practices were conducted, as well as Workforce Singapore and the National Trades Union Congress's (NTUC's) Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) for employment assistance.
MOM will also investigate unfair employment practices and take enforcement action as needed. Most employers are cooperative when approached by TAFEP or MOM. This shows that our tripartite guidelines and advisories are working well without the need for additional penalties, which may negatively affect the wider business environment in Singapore.
Fifth, Members have asked how Singapore can continue to be pro-business, while safeguarding the welfare of workers. Businesses need flexibility to make decisions, which will allow them to adapt to market conditions and transform their business models. Singapore is currently ranked first in the 2024 IMD World Competitiveness Ranking. We need to constantly maintain a fine and delicate balance in preserving our economic competitiveness, which in turn results in more job opportunities and good wages for our workers. This is how we keep our long-term unemployment rate low. Real wages have also consistently improved over the past decade.
\tThere are other countries where the labour market is more rigid or where there is a more confrontational relationship between the unions and the employers. This makes a country less attractive for companies to invest in. So, we have to strike a balance between protecting workers and providing flexibility for businesses. If we do not get this balance right, we may think that we are protecting our workers in the short term. But in the longer term, the good jobs for our workers may be reduced as we become a less attractive place for companies to invest in and firms may choose to site their operations or even outsource jobs elsewhere.
At the same time, what I can assure Members is this: we do not wait for retrenchments to happen before we help workers. The Government has worked closely with our tripartite partners, the unions, the employers, to develop an ecosystem that supports workers on every step of their career journey, even during disruptions. Together with our tripartite partners, we work upstream to help companies and their workforce upskill, transform and even redesign jobs to improve talent retention, workforce productivity and wages.
We will continue to help workers to build career resilience through picking up industry-relevant skillsets. This enables our workers to find new and better opportunities, even in the event of a retrenchment. Workers affected by retrenchment are assisted through employment facilitation and career coaching. In the second quarter of 2024, more than half of all retrenched residents were able to find and secure jobs within six months of being retrenched. From 2025, the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme will further help involuntarily unemployed persons to bounce back.
Mr Speaker and Members, to conclude, it is not easy to manage retrenchment issues. We need to continue achieving the right balance between the interests of the businesses while ensuring that our workers remain protected and well supported during this difficult period of disruption.
Trust and a shared understanding among our tripartite partners is key for Singapore to manage this balance well, so that Singapore remains pro-worker and pro-business at the same time. Our strong tripartite spirit will enable Singapore to remain exceptional and achieve continued economic success. This will in turn ensure that our workers get good jobs and wages for many decades to come.
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. Can I declare that I have Clementi residents, some of whom are NTUC brothers and sisters, who feel disquiet at how some recent retrenchments have been conducted. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State two sets of supplementary questions?
Firstly, the Senior Minister of State would be aware that Dyson's new global headquarters was opened in Singapore two years ago. It was a high signature opening, with the then-Prime Minister of Singapore Mr Lee Hsien Loong in attendance. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State, firstly, given that it was a high-profile company accorded highest recognition, should there be some consideration as to whether such a firm should be benchmarked against the minimum legal standard of what is acceptable? Or whether such firms can have a higher level of ambition in a situation of retrenchments, so as to better support workers to notify the union earlier and thereby, strengthen tripartism and strengthen the firm's reputation as well as a good employer?
Secondly, does MOM also agree that our tripartism and labour relations in Singapore, which many brothers and sisters over generations spent their whole lives building up, over 60 years, that such tripartism and labour relations, that spirit of mutual respect and collaboration between Government, unions and employers – does MOM agree that this is precious and underpinned by norms of behaviour and practices as well? And, if so, has MOM considered how such norms might be eroded when companies do not fully respect tripartite best practices during a retrenchment? And would MOM agree that the next company with retrenchment plans will be watching how this is conducted and that there is a potential risk that such norms can be eroded gradually and then suddenly, and we have to reinforce tripartism at every step?
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank the Member for his supplementary question and certainly, as I have shared in my speech earlier tripartism is the cornerstone for how we keep Singapore special, to balance the needs of the businesses so that they continue to invest here, and at the same time we will protect our workers. We see that the unions are at the forefront in negotiating collective agreements and ensuring that our workers are protected.
We also have existing regulations, laws, rules and advisories of which there are multiple layers. As I have shared, on the Dyson case, for example, they have provided retrenchment benefits to all affected workers, even though they are not covered by collective agreement. They have also covered workers with less than two years' experience, even though the advisories do not require it. They have also provided counselling as well as outplacement assistance. And these are, I think, areas in which good employers also try to help those affected.
But certainly, I know the unions want to do more for their workers. They want to ensure that all workers are protected, they want to ensure that the PMEs are also protected and therefore, the alarms were raised.
Therein lies tripartism here in Singapore. Because here, we are fortunate. MOM stepped in, had the two parties discuss and at the end of the day, tripartism prevailed. And that is why, we are unlike other countries where you have lawsuits, you have strikes and you erode the confidence of the business community. In terms of how we handle things here in Singapore, I think that is the difference between our approach and that of most parts of the world. I think there are very few countries that you find the government stepping in, and unions and employers coming to a consensus. Certainly, I have to thank UWEEI for also holding that ground and Dyson for stepping forward and doing more for workers too. So, I think what we want is a win-win outcome on both sides.
But there are areas that we can improve. If there is one thing, we also find that the norm is for many companies to work with the unions and inform them a month early, hence, for example, this is potentially one area. The union raised concerns that they were only given a one-day notice, although Dyson has also informed them why this particular situation had certain considerations.
We understand that businesses in general have other considerations, especially listed companies. In giving too early a notice, they have to tell the shareholders, to give market notice and it is very odd that one already informed the unions before informing the market. So, there are different considerations. I am not saying that these are specific to Dyson, but generally, there are different considerations on why companies do that.
Therefore, in my reply, trust between employers, unions and the Government is ultimately very important. That we will be able to support them despite their commercial or business constraints or considerations while at the same time still maintaining tripartism at its best. I think this is one area in which I agree with the Member that certainly, we have to preserve this spirit of tripartism to make Singapore work.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Given the recent retrenchment exercise, how does the Ministry measure the effectiveness of current protocols in terms of protecting workers interests? And beyond just the timing of notifications, how does the Ministry encourage companies to communicate more transparently with employees and unions during retrenchment processes? And could more structured dialogues between companies, employees and unions be considered part of the tripartite guidelines and best practices?
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: Certainly, we try to do our best in terms of managing the business constraints and business needs, as I have shared. And I think today, we are fortunate enough that the economy is doing okay, in the sense that when you look at the unemployment rates, they are low. If you look at the retrenchment numbers, they are not far off, they are about the same as non-recession cycles. So, we are in a good space at this moment in time. Therefore, you find that most of the workers who have been retrenched do find job opportunities within six months. I think that is one way in which we look at the macro picture.
But, of course, on the ground, that is where the rubber hits the road, and where you find many of our schemes and layers of protections that we have for our workers. One of the reasons why we hope to have early notification is so that we can mobilise the retrenchment task force, get the NTUC moving, get the Workforce Singapore teams moving to facilitate that.
Having said that, as I have shared in my earlier reply, you also have TAFEP. Should workers feel that there are discriminatory practices, you can come to us and we will look into these cases. There is TADM, if there are contractual disputes, including on retrenchment benefits, we will deal with them through TADM. And of course, upstream, we focus on career facilitation, in terms of job matching and career counselling.
And let us not forget, we can work with employers better too, in terms of some of the restructuring and job redesign efforts, in which there are programmes such as Career Conversion Programmes, through which we can help employers place workers and help redesign jobs so that they do not get retrenched, they can get redeployed into other roles. And you can also try out workers in various new functions too and all are subsidised and supported by the Government and the unions through the company training committees.
So, we do have multiple means of support for workers, both downstream and upstream, to ensure that our workers are not just protected, but also supported. We hope that we maintain the economy in a good space, on an even keel, so that we can always ensure that workers have good opportunities and good jobs.
Mr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Sir, I would like to declare my conflict of interest as Executive Secretary of UWEEI and Dyson is one of our unionised companies. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Just one supplementary question and a point of clarification.
My supplementary question is, in light of these latest development of retrenchments in Singapore, which will impact workers including PMEs, can MOM work with tripartite partners to seriously review the various Tripartite Advisories, guidelines, regulations, employment and industrial relations laws, so that some of these ambiguities and lacunae can be addressed well before the next major retrenchment happens in Singapore?
And just a point clarification on his earlier comment that sometimes this is market-sensitive information, but in my many years with the Labour Movement and handling numerous retrenchments, there are many listed companies that, because of the very strong labour management relationship, do keep unions informed, sometimes even three months or six months in advance, although they are listed companies, whether locally or globally.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: Mr Speaker, the Member is right that the tripartite partners regularly discuss issues like these to ensure that our laws and guidelines are updated based on the prevailing environment. I think it is important that we continuously look at our practices and guidelines to make sure that they are relevant and, from time to time, issues like this crop up. For example, what is an appropriate notification period and businesses will say that they have commercial sensitivities. And yes, there are some who will give early notice and some less so.
But ultimately, the Member is right. It is down to trust that you have to build and manage over time. Some of these are new firms that have just invested into Singapore and therefore need time versus others who have been here for much longer.
So, we have the perspectives from MOM, from the Labour Movement and employers. We need to balance both sides. But in this case, I do agree that there is always room for improvement and tripartism has to be built based on trust and confidence; and certainly, both the workers and the employers want win-win outcomes. This is something that we both want.
Whether it is the laws, regulations or advisories, I think we are certainly open to have those conversations. And as tripartite partners, we need to also open up constant communications between all parties, where both may find certain parts of our regulations or advisories to be outdated over time and need to be updated to deal with new or current issues. I think we need to just continue those conversations and dialogues. So, we are certainly open.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Students from Lower-income Households Who Have Secured School Places through DSA and Assessment of Policy Impact","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Education (a) of the current students who have secured places through the Direct School Admission for Secondary Schools, what percentage of them come from lower-income households and are on financial assistance schemes; (b) whether the policy outcome has shifted from its intent of identifying talents to favouring students who can afford enrichment and preparatory programmes; (c) whether the policy now benefits those with access to costly training, such as interview coaching; and (d) how can more opportunities be given to students from lower-income households.
\tThe Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, Sir, Direct School Admission (DSA) provides students with an alternative pathway to progress to their preferred schools, including through non-academic talents, such as sports and arts. While some families are better able to support their children in developing their strengths and talents, the Ministry of Education (MOE) and our schools have taken active steps to support students from disadvantaged backgrounds to participate in DSA.
For example, our primary schools help these students uncover their strengths and interests, and support them through their DSA application. MOE also runs the Junior Sports Academy (JSA) for primary school students who show sporting potential. Selection is based on general motor ability, with no prior sports training needed. A good number of JSA participants go on to apply for DSA.
Our secondary schools take a holistic approach to DSA selection. In addition to demonstrated achievement, schools consider a student's interests, potential and personal qualities, including their drive and resilience.
For the last five years, about 6% of Singaporean students admitted via DSA to a secondary school were recipients of MOE's Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) or the Full Independent School Bursary.
These are students whose monthly gross household income is $3,000 or less, or whose monthly per capita income is $750 or less. There are other lower-income students admitted via DSA who are recipients of school-based financial support, such as school-based FAS and the UPLIFT Scholarship.
MOE is reviewing the DSA scheme across three aspects: development, selection and accessibility.
Development: to ensure that schools focus on providing opportunities that add value to both their DSA and non-DSA students' development, whether in their school programmes, co-curricular activities (CCAs) or academic pursuits.
For selection: notwithstanding the need for schools to weigh different considerations when assessing DSA applicants, we want to strengthen the DSA selection process so that it continues to be undergirded by the principles of transparency, objectivity, inclusiveness and student centricity.
And accessibility: to ensure that DSA remains accessible and students from all backgrounds are recognised not just for their performance, but also their potential in specific talent areas.
MOE will share more details in due course.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
\tMr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for his clarification. It is very much heartening to know that our students from lower-income families have the opportunity to also apply for DSA. In fact, 6% of the students come from FAS. But that being said, a few supplementary questions.
The students from the more affluent families have better access to resources and have been taking up extracurricular activities like private coaching or even training for DSA interviews, while our students from the lower-income families do not have access to such coaching to enhance their capabilities through this expensive training. So, can the Ministry consider providing places in DSA for students from specifically lower-income families so that they have the opportunity to also take part in DSA and also expand their horizon in this space?
In my second supplementary question, some school teams have a significant number of players from DSA, which then limits the opportunities for the late bloomers to come into the team and be part of the sports or the cultural activity. Can the Ministry consider, as the Minister mentioned about providing accessibility, limiting the percentage of team members in the sport or cultural activity taken in via DSA to a certain percentage so that the late bloomers have an opportunity to be part of it also?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, to answer the first supplementary question, we are keenly aware that better-resourced families will certainly have more opportunities to provide for their children. This is why, in our selection process, we will take into account the opportunities that the students have and the opportunities that the students from less well-endowed families may not have. When we look at the potential of the students, we will have to take into account not just their current performance, but their future potential. That is something we must carefully do.
So, we agree with the Member that we should take into account the background of the students in assessing their performance and potential at a point in time. But I would be careful not to go into a system of setting quotas one way or the other, because that might defeat the purpose of DSA and selection based on merit in terms of potential and performance.
On the second supplementary question that the Member asked, indeed, that is what I said in respect of refining the DSA to focus on development. I have personally given guidance to the MOE staff and schools and they are aware of my views, that when a school wants to build up a team and wants to perform well, they must make sure that they value-add to the development of the children and not just rely on pure selection for the performance of the team.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Retain and Improve Salaries for Pharmacy Technicians","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Health what can be done to support public hospitals to attract and retain pharmacy technicians.
8 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Health what financial support can be given to public hospitals to allow them to offer competitive salaries to pharmacy technicians.
\tThe Minister of State for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, may I, with your permission, address Question Nos 7 and 8 together?
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: The Ministry of Health (MOH) will work with our public healthcare institutions to ensure that there are good career prospects and development opportunities for pharmacy technicians.
The Public Sector Pharmacy Technicians Career Development Pathway (PharmTech CDP) maps out the career progression pathway for pharmacy technicians where they will have the opportunity to take on expanded responsibilities across key areas, such as patient care, procurement, logistics management and medication safety. We will review the PharmTech CDP regularly and raise public awareness of the career and professional development opportunities for pharmacy technicians.
The starting salaries of pharmacy technicians in the public healthcare clusters will increase by 9% in 2023 with additional funding support from MOH. Salaries are reviewed regularly to ensure that they remain competitive.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applicants with More Than One HDB Invitation to Book BTO Flats in Different Projects","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the last 12 months, how many applicants for Build-To-Order or Sale of Balance flats have received more than one HDB invitation to book flats in different projects; and (b) why does HDB disallow the applicants from selecting a flat in a project with a later booking date in such situations.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for National Development): Sir, this question has been addressed in the written reply to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) on multiple flat applications which was issued on 7 August this year.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
\tMs Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Speaker, I have two supplementary questions, also taking reference to the answer that the Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How referred to.
In the earlier response to the Leader of the Opposition's question in August, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has explained that it needs to manage supply and demand. I think that was the gist of it. And it wanted to also disincentivise applicants who behave irresponsibly by not taking up the bookings that they were offered.
I would like to ask whether HDB has actually considered the effect of this policy on the applicants themselves and, if I may explain, the scenario we are talking about is where the applicant has applied in a Build-To-Order (BTO) exercise, received a queue number that is beyond the supply of the first project. Then, they are permitted to apply for a second project because they were exceeding the supply of the first and they were fortunate in the second application to receive a queue number within the supply given.
This expectation of them being able to select a flat in the second project is left undisturbed for months until HDB comes back to them to inform them that the first project is actually undersubscribed and now they have to stick to the first project, otherwise they would risk being counted as a non-selection and so on.
So, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether he recognises that this has resulted in frustration and great disappointment in these applicants, because a legitimate expectation was given based on this second letter of offer and, only months later, to be sort of pulled from under the applicant's feet because the first project has turned out to be undersubscribed. Does the Senior Minister of State recognise that there is frustration and disappointment?
Secondly, I understood from the earlier response to the Leader of the Opposition that the number of applicants in this situation is very small. It is only 2% of the total number of applicants, 116 people since October. That was what was mentioned. I am just wondering, since the number is small, could HDB give some special consideration to these people and perhaps let them choose which project they want, maybe on the same day, to recognise the fact that it is not their fault and they have been given these two letters of offer by HDB?
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, I thank Ms Sylvia Lim for the two supplementary questions, which are in a way related. Allow me to set the context of the reply to Mr Pritam Singh's earlier PQ. The context of why we imposed some of these requirements is that, in the past years, about 40% of our BTO applicants who were invited to book a flat did not do so.
There are many reasons why applicants who were invited to book a flat did not choose to do so, but the effect of it would be that it crowded out those who are still waiting to get a flat. Because of this, we decided to impose certain requirements to allow those who have genuine needs to get their flats quickly.
As part of that, we have tightened the rules for non-selection of flats. Since October last year, applicants in BTO and Sale of Balance Flats exercises who received a queue number within 100% of the flat supply at an earlier exercise are not eligible to apply for a flat in subsequent sale exercises. So, that is to be fair to those who are not yet able to get a chance to book their flats.
But HDB gives queue numbers up to 300% of the flat supply. This gives more people a chance to be able to choose a flat, even though the queue number is slightly more than 100% of the flat supply. Those applicants who receive a larger queue number and hence, have a lower chance of securing a flat may be anxious to apply in another sales exercise as soon as possible.
That is very understandable. So, you get a queue number that is in excess of 100% of the flat supply, you are anxious to get a flat. So, we allow those applicants who receive a queue number outside 100% of the flat supply to proceed to apply in a second sales exercise, even before their first flat booking appointment.
So, what Ms Sylvia Lim described earlier were applicants who got a queue number in excess of 100% of the flat supply in the first exercise and we allowed them to book for a second flat exercise where their queue number could well be within the flat supply allocation. That is why they are in a situation where they could be invited to apply for a first flat but they prefer to choose from the second flat selection because they have gotten a queue number that is very favourable to them.
These are the groups of people that Ms Sylvia Lim pointed out. There were about 116 applicants, about 2% of the total applicants. That is the first point of clarification to set in context why we have this group of people.
The second clarification I will make is that Ms Lim talked about expectations, that they can choose both flats. Actually, when they apply for the flats in the first exercise, we do set expectations with them as part of the application that, if they are invited to choose a flat within the first exercise, they would have to give up the queue number in the second exercise. Those expectations are set upfront. But we understand that some of the applicants in the first flat exercises may have very limited choices to choose from, for example, a limited number of flats, say, a small number of remaining flats available. We do not count the non-selection against\tthem if they do not choose. So, it is not a non-selection count. They can then continue to choose in the second flat exercise.
That is how we set expectations upfront and we have given flexibility to those applicants who may not have many flat options to choose from in the first place.
The third related point to Ms Lim's question is whether we understand their frustration. I empathise and acknowledge that. And I have come across, like Ms Lim, residents who have come to see me saying, \"Is it fair? I have got a chance to choose a second flat and I prefer that location. But can I give up my first one and choose the second one?\"
\t
And I always explain to the residents that we want to be fair to all applicants. Firstly, by allowing those applicants to put in a second application, even while the first application still in process, we are already providing flexibility. And if you allow them to choose between first one or second one, it might be unfair to those who may be waiting in a queue. It may be crowding out others who are waiting for a flat; and that is the rationale.
But if Ms Sylvia Lim, or Members in the Chamber, come across residents who really feel that, on a case-by-case basis, on compassionate ground, that there are strong reasons for the appeal, please let us know. We will look at them. But really, it is on the basis of fairness and consistent application of the rules across all applicants, whether they are in the first exercise but rather choose from the second one, or those who are still waiting in a queue for their flats.
Mr Speaker: Ms Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Speaker. As I mentioned earlier, I do acknowledge the rationale for HDB's policy, but since the Senior Minister of State has asked, we have come across constituents, our appeals have failed and so, we have to bring it up in Parliament to try to understand the issue further.
I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether, in the fact that the numbers are very small and the fact that these are not the irresponsible applicants that HDB is concerned about. In fact, these are people who legitimately received two letters of offer and the second one that resurrected the first project came months after the second offer. So, I would like to ask HDB to please be open-minded about this issue, because there is a legitimate expectation set there and it would be good if HDB can cater to do that.
\t
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, I thank the Member for the further clarification. Just a couple of data points to set in context the Member's question.
First, in terms of timeline, applicants will receive their ballot results about two months after the flat application period closes. The booking exercise commences from about four weeks after release of the ballot results. So, it is quite fast. The exercise will take several months to complete because it depends on the flat supply and the take-up rate of other applicants. Applicants would be invited to book a flat based on their balloted queue number and will receive HDB's invitation about two weeks before their booking appointment. So, from HDB's point of view, we do want to facilitate the applicant in booking the flat as soon as possible.
The second data point that may be of interest to Ms Lim will be that of the 116 applicants who had been invited to book a flat in two sales exercises, 14 applicants appealed to HDB for a non-selection count waiver, so that they can proceed to select a flat at their second flat booking appointment. HDB took a look at the cases and we tried to understand where they were coming from and we tried to provide flexibility. HDB acceded to five of these appeals, as they were at the tail-end of their selection process and had limited flats to choose from. And as I explained earlier in my reply, we exempt such applicants from incurring a non-selection count. The remaining nine applicants who appealed were rejected. Of these, eight of them proceeded to book a flat at the first flat booking appointment and only one eventually incurred a non-selection count.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Campus Transport and Food Court Services in Local Universities are Sufficient for Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider implementing guidelines for local universities to ensure that campus transport and food court services are sufficient for students’ needs and well-being, in view of the recent overcrowding issues.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, to care for the needs and well-being of students and staff, the autonomous universities (AUs) have implemented various measures to manage visitor numbers and access. These include prioritising campus transport and food court access for students and staff during peak hours and requiring advance registration before allowing tour groups on campus. AUs will continue to monitor the situation and adjust their measures accordingly.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his answer. I just have three supplementary questions, Mr Speaker. I have received feedback from some university students and there have been recent reports of daily campus bus problems, issues of maintenance of toilets and other services, and also overcrowding of canteens and food courts in the AUs. I am aware that the National University of Singapore (NUS) and Nanyang Technological University (NTU) have taken measures to address those issues. But I have three supplementary questions to follow up from that.
First, whether the Ministry of Education (MOE), on a regular basis, do look carefully at the local tertiary students' basic welfare, safety and day-to-day logistics, even as there are autonomous entities involved here. Second, whether MOE thinks that the AUs' measures are adequate and should MOE set guidelines to ensure AUs are able to handle the overcrowding issues that we are facing over the past few months; or even if they have improved, whether it can be sustained. And lastly, with regard to some of the measures, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share how some of these tour operators who are visiting the AUs can be better managed, going forward?
\t
\tMr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong: I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. With regard to his first question, MOE meets regularly with the AUs at various platforms, including at the Ministerial level. MOE also expects these AUs as publicly funded institutions to provide a conducive learning environment for students as part of their mission to provide quality education. AUs are given the space and autonomy to manage the day-to-day logistics and welfare of the students. But in this case, MOE will intervene as necessary.
With regard to the Member's second question, the AUs do have different campus contexts and also very different visitor profiles and are thus best placed to determine the right visitor management policies on their own needs, on their own ground. NTU and NUS have taken appropriate measures to address these issues when they arise.
For example, responding to an increase in tourists, NUS has introduced enhanced measures in August and more recently, in September and October as well, during key periods. For NTU, they have enforced designated paths and schedules for tourists in order to prioritise the needs and well-being of students and staff.
With regard to tour operators, currently the AUs are working closely with the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) to communicate any new policy and measures that are being implemented in schools. And these are communicated to the travel agents and operators.
Just a reminder that all operators are to respect the universities as places of teaching and learning, and to ensure that they do not disrupt students' learning and welfare and campus operations as a whole.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat. A quick one.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, again, whether he can assure the university students about the bus overcrowding situation, because for the feeder bus services, when there is heavy rain, there is a bit of concern about the overcrowding issues, not just from the tours that are visiting the universities, but also in terms of the frequency of the bus services. Whether that can be improved, going forward, for both AUs and other AUs in Singapore as well.
\t
\tMr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong: I thank the Member for the follow-up supplementary question. Yes, we are monitoring the situation and working closely with the AUs. In fact, the AUs are working closely with and getting feedback from the student leaders on the ground as well, and will put in measures as needed.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tracking and Increasing Public Awareness for Food Allergies in Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry tracks the rates of food allergies in children; (b) if so, what is the current percentage of children who are estimated to have food allergies; (c) what are the trends observed over the last 10 years; and (d) whether the Ministry is undertaking any studies to determine what is causing it.
12 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health how is the Ministry working with other agencies such as schools and those in the food preparation industry to increase public awareness of the potentially lethal nature of severe food allergy reactions.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 11 and 12 on the Order Paper today, together, please?
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, the Growing Up in Singapore Towards healthy Outcomes (GUSTO) in 2017, showed that the overall prevalence of childhood food allergy in Singapore was low, between 1% and 3% in children aged 18 months to four years in age. This is generally lower than the prevalence reported in other jurisdictions. The National University Hospital (NUH) and KK Women's and Children's Hospital (KKH) plan to carry out another study to determine the current prevalence of food allergies in children.
There are also a number of inter-agency efforts in place to increase awareness on how to better prevent and manage food allergies. For the food industry, KKH is working with the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) to raise awareness among food handlers on food allergen risks by enhancing the content covered in the Workforce Skills Qualification (WSQ) Food Safety Course. In schools, our public healthcare institutions have been working with the Ministry of Education (MOE) and Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) to train primary and preschool teachers on emergency treatment of children with severe allergic reactions.
To better educate the public on food allergies and preventive measures, KKH and the Health Promotion Board (HPB) are developing more resources on managing and living with food allergies to complement existing materials available on Parent Hub. NUH has also been educating and supporting patients and caregivers on food allergies, in partnership with polyclinics, patient support groups and non-profit organisations.
\tMr Speaker: Ms He.
\tMs He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I would like to declare that I have a family member who is affected by severe food allergies.
The thrust of my question is to understand whether, for example – I understand that in the last five years, there has been found to be a worldwide increase in prevalence of food allergies, especially in children. So, I am just wondering whether we have similar data in Singapore, because I note that a Straits Times article that was published recently, also stated that, for example, in 2014, I think there were 300 cases seen by one of the hospitals, and by 2020, it has gone up to 10,000.
So, again, trying to understand how much of that is due to, I guess, actual increase or how much of it is just increased public awareness? It will be helpful for us to know.
The second question really relates to the food handling industry and people who handle food in general. It has just been my experience that sometimes, even when we make it known in advance that we do have food allergies among one of the diners, there are times when, on occasion, we have actually been served with the allergen in question, when we specifically said that one of us is severely allergic to it. That is obviously far from ideal when it was a very near miss on one occasion when the food was literally almost put into the mouth. So, I hope that more awareness can be raised around this issue.
On other occasions, we have also been met with incomprehension from either from food waitresses or food handlers who literally do not understand what we are trying to tell them. So, I think that more work needs to be done from this perspective.
Other countries have taken the route of, such as food labelling where common allergens are displayed. And I think you do actually find it in some restaurants and some chains – they do have common allergens clearly labelled on menus. So, I think that is something that we could also look at.
And again, the Senior Minister of State earlier mentioned MOE and ECDA. I think if I am not wrong, ECDA has training for preschool teachers, where they train the use of the EpiPen. That is great because that by extension, that means that early childhood educators are aware of how to spot food allergies and how to handle that.
But I think, again, from my understanding of the situation, certain schools are probably a bit more advanced in terms of the public education and the initiatives that they have taken, especially in the primary school level, to educate, both students and teachers, and also the food handlers within the canteens, about their importance; because even though the numbers might be small, each one incident can be potentially life threatening.
So, I hope that the Senior Minister of State can also let us know about when they are expecting to roll out more of these national initiatives.
\t
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Ms He Ting Ru for her questions and the points that she has made. I think we would all agree, and I certainly do, that we should continue to educate and raise awareness on matters such as this. Indeed, the various agencies and training providers for the workers, whether they are food handlers or early childhood educators, people in a position of responsibility around food and vulnerable people – this is an issue and it is something that we will have to continue to do and to continue to improve on, and learn from the lessons. So, for the second part of her question, there is no disagreement. Indeed, the work is ongoing.
With respect to the first part of her question about the prevalence, it is not so straightforward to draw an inference or a clear conclusion on the basis of the numbers, partly because awareness, as she has pointed out, is rising, and so, what we may be seeing is an increased detection of cases that were already present. Secondly, our population continues to grow slowly. You have to normalise for that. So, the absolute numbers may not necessarily be the correct reflection.
More importantly, our dietary patterns and the practices around how we raise our children have changed quite significantly over the last two generations. In two of these factors, one, for example, is the issue of when to introduce allergens into the diet. So, do you start feeding at the age of six months, one year or late? And the current guidelines are such as between the ages of four and six months, children should be introduced to normal food and potential allergens so that they can adapt to them. It was not always so that that was the guidance and so the people who are my age and, perhaps, a little bit younger, were brought up under a slightly different approach. So, that will lead to a change in our prevalence.
Similarly, how we deal with hygiene in the environment. We have now come to the realisation that there is some benefit for young children to be exposed to, for example, outdoor environments and unstructured play, and places which, perhaps, my generation were used to, and which the generation in between would have seen as inappropriately dirty and not adequately sanitised. We now know that there is some benefit for children to play in the outdoors, with some degree of dirt – this is known as the hygiene hypothesis.
Why am I highlighting these two things? Well, we do need to pay attention to this issue of allergies in general and we do not want our population to be inappropriately exposed to some of the risks. We are taking appropriate steps and the most important thing that we can do is provide the right kind of guidance.
Having said all that, we do have some numbers suggesting that while the incidence of positive skin prick tests – so, trying to confirm the number of people with positive allergies – has increased, those with serious allergies requiring admission, potentially treatment, appears to be a stable incidence as a proportion of the population, ranging from 6.1 per 100,000 children in 2014, to about 8.5 in 2023. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Health\", Official Report, 15 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 143, Clarification section.]
And so, it is not necessarily rising in an alarming fashion, something to pay attention to.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Study on Profile of Individuals Providing Informal and Unpaid Caregiving ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower in view of the estimated cost of informal caregiving in Singapore valued at $1.28 billion, whether the Government has studied or will the Government be studying the number of people who (i) are carrying out unpaid caregiving and their age range; (ii) quit their full-time jobs to conduct unpaid caregiving and their age range and (iii) may not have the means to support themselves when they themselves become seniors.
\tThe Minister of State for Manpower (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, as a rough approximation based on available data in 2023, there were around 89,000 residents outside the labour force due to caregiving responsibilities. Of these, around 3,000 were aged 15 to 29; 17,000 were aged 30 to 39; 22,000 were aged 40 to 49; and 47,000 were aged 50 and above.
We do not have specific data on the number of residents who are carrying out unpaid caregiving and how many do not have the means to support themselves when they become seniors. We recognise the importance of supporting caregivers in terms of their employment and retirement adequacy. There are various job placement and skills upgrading measures for those who wish to return to work, as well as Central Provident Fund support schemes to boost their retirement adequacy. We will continue to review our efforts, so that there will be adequate support for caregivers who are vulnerable.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): I thank the Minister of State for the reply. Has the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) conducted any studies regarding the impact on the productivity and long-term competitiveness of our workforce, when an increasing number of residents need to quit full-time work or reduce working hours in order to perform unpaid caregiving for their loved ones? What measures have been considered to mitigate these effects on workers and the economy, including allocating more resources to paid caregiving?
And on that note, will the Ministry consider establishing a paid family care leave scheme, modelled after the childcare leave scheme, to provide caregiving leave to employees who are the primary caregivers for elderly parents or family members with disabilities? For example, the first three days could be paid for by employers and the remaining three days paid for by the Government. This will go some way to help improve the quality of life, economic security and productivity of working caregivers.
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: I thank the Member for the two supplementary questions. We are mindful that caregiving will be an increased trend amongst our adult population, especially since by 2030, one in four local residents would be above 65 years old.
So, they are many measures that the Government is taking to make the caregiving responsibility more manageable for families. On one hand, we are looking at daycare centres, institutions, home care and caregiver respite programmes to make the caregiving a shared responsibility, something for which there are external groups that families can turn to.
On the work front, it would certainly be a strain on people who are working and who also have to take care of either seniors, or young children, or vulnerable families at the same time. That is why we have been working very hard to encourage workplaces to have flexible work arrangements, so that there will be better feasibility for caregivers to still be able to continue to work.
On whether there has been a study on the impact on productivity and the employment rate for adults as a result of growing caregiving demand, we have not taken on such a study yet, but we have been monitoring very closely the employment rate as well as unemployment rate for Singaporeans. And thus far, the trend has been quite stable and healthy. In fact, for women, I am very happy to say that the employment rate has actually grown, despite the increase in caregiving responsibilities.
On the second supplementary question about family care leave, I suppose that the Member is referring to leave given to employees who have to take care of children or senior family members. We have actually enhanced the leave for parents to take care of infants. Next year onwards, shared parental leave as well as paternity leave will be enhanced. I think that is good news and we seek not just employers', but co-workers' and also the community's support for parents with young children.
As for employees who have to take care of seniors, we recognise that caregiving for parents is an important responsibility and even without any legislated mandatory requirement or financial incentives to do so, many progressive employers here have stepped up to introduce caregiving-related leave provisions beyond what is currently mandated, as part of the human resources' strategy to attract and retain talent.
In 2022, about 58% of employers voluntarily provided additional paid caregiving leave, such as family care leave for their employees, and more than 4,000 employers have also adopted the tripartite standard on unpaid leave for unexpected care needs.
Going forward, we will certainly want to work more closely with the industry, as well as with employers, to look at other ways that we can support employees who have caregiving needs for the elderly.
Mr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.
\tMs Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Thank you, Speaker. I appreciate the Minister of State's response and also the whole myriad of flexible work arrangements and improvements that we are forging in society. But I think there is a significant subset of caregivers who are in situations where both their parents are down with very difficult health conditions, where there is absolutely no option for them to just take on the part-time caregiver role. This number, we do not know how big it is, but for the families and the caregivers who are in that situation, they really suffer significant financial impact for the number of years lost that they are not able to work.
I have residents who are in their 40s who are in this predicament, so I have actually been championing for Carefare for the past four years in Parliament. So, I would like to ask for an update – whether MOM would consider studying what this number of highly impacted families are, maybe by way of additional questions in the national census, to find out and identify these group of families who are very vulnerable because of intense care needs and where no extent of flexible work arrangements is feasible for them.
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: I thank the Member, Ms Carrie Tan, for re-raising the idea of Carefare. The Ministry of Health (MOH) has also enhanced the Home Caregiving Grant, in recognition that some financial support would be helpful for families of certain household income categories. And I think there is more that ought to be done, if the Home Caregiving Grant, by itself, is not sufficient.
On the MOH front, I understand there are also schemes to make caregiving more affordable, alternative caregiving support, instead of just relying on family members quitting their jobs to support the elderly family members.
On the data portion, I think we will work closely with MOH to monitor as well as to analyse the trend of the profile of caregivers, understanding that there are many archetypes out there and that we do want to provide more targeted support for each archetype of caregiver.
Mr Speaker: Last supplementary question, Mr Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, I thank the Minister of State for her reply to my supplementary question. I have two more questions. The Minister of State said that many progressive employers have implemented caregiving leave. So, why not legislate it, so that all employers, whether progressive or less progressive, will provide caregiving leave for their employees? In the meantime, can the Government provide more financial and non-financial incentives to employers who provide caregiving leave for their employees?
And secondly, can the Minister of State provide any details on any plans or initiatives by MOM to assist individuals who have taken on unpaid caregiving responsibilities and now ready to reintegrate into the workforce once their caregiving responsibilities are over?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: First, on the support for caregivers who might want to return to work, there are career conversion programmes, upskilling resources, career trials and a whole string of career support measures that are available. We certainly welcome caregivers who want to return to work to tap on all this support that is available.
On working with employers to mandate caregiving leave, as suggested by Mr Gerald Giam, there are many types of leave provisions that we are working with the industry on, to support the various needs of employees. As I mentioned earlier on, we have just enhanced the paternity leave as well as the shared parental leave and that is to cater to parents with young children.
We have been working closely with the Singapore National Employers Federation, as well as with the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC). And the feedback that we get, especially from NTUC, the workers, is that the mandatory leave is, if it is just a few days, it may not be sufficient, because if you are taking care of an elderly parent, it is actually a daily need; it is not just one or two days per year. Instead, building flexibility into work arrangements, whether it is part-time work, staggered working hours or even hybrid work, working from home on some days every week, these are better appreciated and more sustainable for employees who have to take care of their elderly family members, on a prolonged period, every day.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Health","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Janil.
The Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Janil Puthucheary): Thank you, Sir. I just wanted to offer a clarification to the data provided to Ms He. This referred to the number of unique patients, aged zero to 18, who experienced anaphylactic shock due to food.
I believe I may have misspoken and referred to \"admissions\" during my answer to her initially. [Please refer to \"Tracking and Increasing Public Awareness for Food Allergies in Children\", Official Report, 15 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 143, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Temporary Transferability of Season Parking between Car Parks with EV Chargers and Those Without","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB can review the current policy on the transfer of season parking transfers for electric vehicle (EV) owners to allow such owners to temporarily have season parking at two multi-storey carparks (MSCP), one where they reside and another where the EV charging facility is available, until EV chargers are installed at their primary MSCP.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for National Development): Sir, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and Housing and Development Board (HDB) are deploying electric vehicle (EV) charging points to nearly 2,000 HDB car parks by 2025. This will increase the accessibility of charging facilities for EV owners.
To support the charging needs of residents with EVs, HDB allows residents to temporarily transfer their existing season parking to another car park with EV chargers at the same season parking rate.
Currently, there are no plans to allow EV owners to hold one season parking ticket that allows season parking at two different car parks. While we support the charging needs of residents with EVs, we also have to be fair to other season parking holders who are not EV owners.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.
\tMr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Speaker, I would just like to ask the Senior Minister of State, I note the point about fairness. But I think that LTA also provides incentives, such as Additional Registration Fee rebates to encourage early adoption of EVs. Can I just suggest that the Government take a whole-of-Government perspective and allow this temporary provision of two-season parking option as an overall suite to encourage EV adoption?
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, to recap my earlier reply, I appreciate where Mr Chia is coming from. For residents who write in to their Members of Parliament about having access to EV charging at a different car park, we will offer to provide season parking at the other car park at the same season parking rate.
Firstly, we have to recognise that the car parks are meant for residents who are living in the area and we have to be fair to those residents who are not EV owners. That is the first point.
The second point is about looking at incentives. This is something that Members will have to also help to explain to our residents. While we support the adoption of EVs and incentives are there to support EV owners, we also want to make sure that it is fair and consistent to those who are not having EVs.
This is something we will continue to review with our colleagues at the Ministry of Transport (MOT), but I want to just reiterate that the intent is to ensure that HDB car parks serve the residents who live in the area and to be fair to them.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Sir, can I ask the Senior Minister of State if there are car parks where the occupancy is not as high, where the take-up rate of the season parking is not as high, would the Ministry of National Development and HDB be prepared to consider to allow some of these dual use, of having two season parkings?
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, maybe allow me to set the context in terms of accessibility options for EV owners in terms of charging their EVs.
Firstly, as I explained earlier, we are working very closely with our MOT colleagues to make sure that every HDB town is an EV-ready town by 2025. That means that almost 2,000 HDB car parks – that is about nine in 10 HDB car parks – will have EV charging facilities by end of 2025. That is significant.
Beyond HDB estates, EV charging operators also deploy charging points at various locations, including offices, shopping malls and petrol stations. Fast chargers will be installed at 38 car parks located within a town and neighbourhood centres. This provides EV drivers with more options for publicly accessible charging points.
This is really the context, which I hope Members can appreciate. We are doing as much as we can to provide charging facilities to all EV owners living in HDB estates. We will continue to work closely with our MOT colleagues to see how we can better support our EV owners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inspections on Licensed Caterers Providing Food for Migrant Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) has carried out inspections on licensed caterers providing food for migrant workers to ensure that food is prepared within four hours of the workers' lunch and dinner times; (b) if not, whether SFA will consider carrying out such inspections; and (c) if yes, how many inspections are carried out in 2023 and 2024.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Sir, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) conducts inspections on all licensed food caterers to ensure adherence to food safety requirements. As part of inspections, SFA will ensure that all catered food bear a timestamp that indicates the date and time by which the food should be consumed. From January 2023 to September 2024, SFA has conducted around 3,600 inspections on licensed food caterers.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I just want to ask this. I think we know that many of the workers have their lunch at about noon. That means the food can be prepared, the earliest time is 8.00 am. But we also know that by 8.00 am, many of these workers are already at the worksite or on the way to the worksite. This is not even counting the time it takes to deliver the food. By working backwards, we will know that the reality on the ground is that many workers are every day eating food beyond this four-hour rule that we have. Could I ask whether SFA can look into this and address this problem on the ground?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Thank you, Sir. I understand the Member's concern. But I think what he is describing is a problem more of logistics and arrangements between perhaps the company and the deployment of workers. It is not really an issue of when the food is prepared or when the caterer delivers the food. But it is the coordination between the timing of when the food needs to be consumed, which is between the operator on the ground and the workers or the company. So, it is something that the company needs to communicate to the caterer about, on when they want the food delivered. Otherwise, the kitchen would not know when the worker is going to consume the food. They will just deliver the food as ordered.
So, it is more of a coordination issue, not something that can be easily solved with a particular policy per se, because there are different archetypes of worksites, different company lunch timings and different staggered shifts for workers to eat. There are so many combinations. It is important that companies on the ground, for the welfare of the workers, communicate with the caterer on when they want the food delivered so that it will be consumed in a timely manner.
But if there are specific instances of worksites or workers who feel that the arrangement has been inadequate, they could approach our Assurance, Care and Engagement, or ACE, officers so that we can perhaps facilitate the conversation, and more coordination can be done between the provider and the consumer.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng. Last supplementary question.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Just one last point. This is a rule from SFA that the food should be consumed within four hours. In fact, I know that many of the food is actually prepared at about 4.00 am. So, by the time it is delivered and when the workers are on the lorry, actually the food has already passed the four-hour mark. So, it is our rule and I am just wondering whether SFA can now work with MOM to make sure that this rule is actually enforced.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I think it will be far better if there are specific examples of such occurrences to raise to our attention so that we can take a more targeted approach, because I cannot imagine that this is pervasive across all worksites. To minimise the effort that is needed and to be more targeted, it will be better if non-government organisations or perhaps particular worker groups that have such concerns, raise it so that we can take up the conversations with the particular stakeholders and coordinate the actions better.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Training and Strategies for Handling Prison Inmates with Intellectual Disability","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what training and assistance are provided to prison officers to equip them to handle prison inmates who have intellectual disability; and (b) what measures are put in place for such prison inmates to seek help in the event of any abuse or mistreatment by others around them.
17 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Home Affairs what are the specific support programmes available for prison inmates with intellectual disability during their incarceration, especially when they have difficulties being separated from their caregivers.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take together Question Nos 16 and 17, please?
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, training is provided to prison officers to manage and support inmates with special needs. New officers undergo training as part of the Prison Officer Course to develop understanding of their needs. The training also familiarises the officers with the support structures available for such inmates within the prison system. But we have to be realistic. Prison officers cannot be and are not trained to the level of qualified counsellors. Special needs will have to be dealt with by accessing specialist expertise.
Since 2022, the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) has also worked with the Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore to provide training for officers in areas like communication and behavioural management. For inmates with intellectual disabilities, SPS modifies the content and delivery of rehabilitation services and programmes.
For example, correctional rehabilitation specialists and psychologists who conduct the psychological-based correctional programmes would deliver the content to such inmates using bite-sized information, supplementary visual aids and simplified language, or they would slow down the sessions to make it easier for the inmates to understand the content.
For those who are assessed to have adjustment issues, such as difficulties with being separated from their caregivers, SPS officers will engage them more frequently in order to better understand their needs and support them.
For inmates with more complex needs, SPS adopts a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach. MDT comprises professionals and specialists like psychiatrists, prison psychologists, prison correctional rehabilitation specialists and prison officers. MDT decides on the behavioural management plans for inmates with mental and intellectual disabilities.
Inmates can report abuse through various channels, such as to the prison officers on duty at their Correctional Unit or during their regular engagements with their respective Correctional Unit Officers. Inmates may also raise requests or complaints with the Superintendent of their Institutions or with the Visiting Justices during their regular visits. In addition, inmates' cells are equipped with distress intercoms which inmates can activate if they require immediate assistance.
At the same time, SPS officers are trained to spot signs of inmate abuse when conducting their regular patrols and body searches. Any inmate who commits offences against other inmates would be subjected to investigation and, if found guilty, punished.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): I thank the Minister of State for his answers. Just one supplementary question.
I would like to ask whether SPS has a separate regime or protocol on a day-to-day basis where officers actually keep watch over the prisoners with such disabilities due to the likelihood that these prisoners may not be so upfront in voicing out any complaints of mistreatment or maladjustment. So, on a day-to-day basis, watching out for these, which is separate and distinct from the way that the officers would watch over the other prisoners.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I would like to assure the Member that we not only look at inmates with intellectual disability, we have this holistic approach which we call the Risk-Need-Responsivity approach, whereby we look at the different profile of the inmates. If there are certain needs that need to be provided or we be mindful of, we will certainly do so.
On a day-to-day basis, you will realise that even though our ex-offenders have made mistakes in their life, there is a lot of element of care within the Correctional Unit. I feel very touched sometimes when I visit the prison. Fellow inmates, they share with me, they care for one another and they look out for one another. What they want is to go through a holistic process or throughcare process of rehabilitation and reintegration for each and every one of them, including those with intellectual disability.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Potential Sectors for Collaboration and Singapore Firms' Operational Concerns in Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"18 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) which are some of the potential business sectors in Johor that Malaysia businesses are keen to collaborate with Singapore businesses under the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone (JS-SEZ); and (b) what are some of the infrastructural and operational areas in the JSEZ that continue to be of concern to Singapore businesses.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Sir, the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone (JS-SEZ) seeks to strengthen economic connectivity between Singapore and Johor by improving the flow of goods and people and the business environment in Johor. It will enable both Johor and Singapore to build on each other's complementary strengths to better compete for global investments together. These could come from a range of sectors, including manufacturing, transport and logistics, digital economy and energy.
In a report released by the Singapore Business Federation in July 2024, businesses surveyed on the JS-SEZ said they wished to see operational and infrastructural improvements that would enhance investment facilitation, labour availability and the cross-border movement of goods and people. We have prioritised these issues in our discussions with the Malaysian government.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Neil Parekh.
\tMr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant (Nominated Member): I thank the Minister of State. If I may ask a supplementary question. In the Minister of State's view, how will the JS-SEZ help small and medium enterprises (SMEs) as well as other businesses in Singapore?
\tMr Speaker: Minister of State Tan. A short answer, please.
\tMr Alvin Tan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just three quick points.
First, the JS-SEZ offers twinning opportunities for businesses to establish complementary operations in Johor. So, businesses can tap on to Singapore's offerings as a tech, business and financial hub while also using Johor's land and resource advantages. That is one. Second, the JS-SEZ can serve as a gateway for Singapore businesses to better serve their clients in Malaysia. And third, businesses can look forward to moving both goods and talent across the border in a shorter time and this will enhance operational efficiency.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Ministerial Statement. Minister for Transport.
[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":"A Safe, Reliable, and Resilient Rail System","subTitle":"Statement by Minister for Transport","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for Transport (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Mr Speaker, Members have filed a total of 31 Parliamentary Questions (PQs) on the East-West Line disruption that occurred from 25 to 30 September. My Ministerial Statement will address Question Nos 1 to 19 for Oral Answer and Question Nos 45 to 48 for Written Answer at yesterday's Sitting, Question Nos 40 to 42 for Oral Answer and Question No 28 for Written Answer in today's Order Paper, as well as related questions that have been filed for subsequent Sittings.
Sir, I would like to begin by extending my sincere apologies once again to all affected commuters. The severe disruption to the East-West Line on 25 September affected about 500,000 passenger journeys each day, out of 2.8 million daily train-based journeys, causing significant inconvenience to commuters. It also resulted in severe damage to rail infrastructure which required extensive repairs over more than five days.
I will cover the sequence of events that took place on 25 September and the responses from the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the public transport operators in the subsequent days. I will do my best to address the questions from Members. However, I seek Members' understanding that as investigations into the incident are still ongoing, some of the details can be determined only after investigations have been completed.
Let me first recap the events leading up to the disruption, including how the incident happened and our responses, based on the information we have gathered.
On the morning of 25 September 2024, at around 9.00 am, SMRT reported a possible fault on train T33, a first-generation KHI train that was travelling eastbound on the East-West Line near Clementi station. There was smoke detected from the train. SMRT stopped the train at Clementi station, alighted the passengers there for their safety and proceeded to withdraw the train to Ulu Pandan Depot so that train services would not be affected. To return to the nearest depot at Ulu Pandan from Clementi station, the train had to travel further east to the nearest turnaround track located at Queenstown station, so that it could change onto the westbound track and head back towards the depot. As the train was travelling west between Dover and Clementi stations, an axle box dislodged from the bogie of one of its cars.
A bogie is the wheel assembly of a train. The KHI train is a six-car train and each train car has two bogies. Each bogie has four wheels on two axles and each axle has an axle box on each end. When one of the axle boxes dislodged from the incident train, it caused the wheels of one bogie to shift to the side of the rail. As the other 11 bogies of the incident train remained on the rails, the train was able to continue travelling for a few minutes on the rails westbound past Clementi. Based on our preliminary assessments, the incident train caused damage to 2.55 kilometres of the track, as well as trackside equipment, including point machines, power cables, running rail fasteners and third rails.
At around 9.25 am, when the train reached the reception track leading to the Ulu Pandan Depot, the significant damage to the trackside equipment caused a power trip along parts of the East-West Line. As a result, the incident train stalled between the reception track and the main line. Four other trains between Clementi and Buona Vista stations also stalled due to the power trip. Three of these were at stations, where commuters could alight at the platforms. One of the trains stalled about 40 metres before the platform at Clementi station. Passengers on this train had to be detrained onto the tracks, guided by SMRT staff, who ensured that all commuters reached the platform safely.
At this point, LTA's crisis management group was activated. To ensure that commuters could continue their journey, SMRT activated free regular buses within five minutes at around 9.30 am, and bridging buses between Boon Lay and Queenstown stations by 9.50 am. The bridging buses arrived from 9.58 am onwards.
When SMRT staff attempted to restore train service, they realised that extensive damage had been caused to the track and trackside equipment between Dover station and the reception track leading to Ulu Pandan Depot, and it would take time to remove the incident train from the tracks and to carry out the repairs. It would not be possible for trains to pass through this section of the East-West Line before the repairs were completed.
To continue service on the rest of the line, westbound trains coming from the city had to be turned around at Queenstown, where a turnaround track is located. Similarly, eastbound trains coming from Tuas Link had to be turned around at Boon Lay, where there is a turnaround track. To preserve service along as much of the East-West Line as possible, SMRT decided to run shuttle services, which are trains that travel back and forth along the same track. After confirming that the tracks between these segments were safe, SMRT commenced shuttle services between Queenstown and Buona Vista stations, and between Boon Lay and Jurong East stations, at 3.56 pm and 4.11 pm respectively, ahead of the evening peak on 25 September. The shuttle service continued to be supported by bridging bus services that connected commuters between Queenstown and Boon Lay.
Later in the day, when heavier crowds were observed at Buona Vista station, SMRT adjusted bridging bus operations to focus on the critical stretch between Buona Vista and Jurong East stations that was without train or shuttle services. By the evening peak, the number of bridging buses had also progressively increased from 39 before the peak period to 70, with an average interval of three to eight minutes, quicker than the stipulated service standards of 12 to 15 minutes for bridging bus services. To support these services, additional spare buses were deployed and some bus captains on rest days were recalled.
Mr Don Wee and Mr Leong Mun Wai asked whether other bus services were affected. Due to the scale of bridging bus operations, some buses and bus captains had to be redeployed from other lower-demand services. Bus operators determined these redeployments based on ridership and frequencies of their other services, in order to maintain service standards and minimise inconvenience to commuters. In total, about 620 ground staff were deployed at the affected stations on the first day of service disruption, to assist commuters. These included SMRT and LTA staff who provided directions and assisted commuters, traffic marshals who facilitated traffic flow, and Police Officers who helped with crowd management. Caring Commuter Champions – these are commuters who volunteer to help fellow commuters – also assisted by providing directions at some of the bus stops. Priority was given to seniors, people with difficulty walking and students who were sitting for examinations to board the buses and shuttle trains.
Given the scale of the disruption, there was some initial confusion on the ground when the incident first occurred, and shuttle train services and bridging buses had to be activated. Operators and workers quickly adapted and stepped up to respond to the situation to mitigate the impact on commuters. As the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) was due to commence the next day, LTA and the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) discussed and put in place contingency arrangements. There are existing arrangements which students have been briefed on. In addition, SEAB publicly reassured students that they would not be penalised if they were late due to the disruption and would be given the full allotted time to complete their exams.
Meanwhile, LTA and SMRT engineers were assessing the damage and conducting repair works on the track. The engineers determined that some pieces of trackside signalling and power equipment had to be replaced. In addition, 33 severely damaged rail segments, each weighing more than one tonne, had to be replaced. Given the extent of the damage and with heavy rain preventing works at times, LTA and SMRT assessed that more time would be needed to safely complete the repair works. We informed the public at around 9.50 pm on 25 September that train services between Jurong East and Buona Vista would not resume the next day. As a safety precaution, LTA and SMRT checked all the axle boxes of the first-generation KHI trains overnight and ensured that they passed the inspection checks before they were put into service the next day.
On the second day of the disruption, 26 September, free regular buses and bridging buses resumed at the start of revenue services at 5.00 am, with 80 bridging buses deployed during the morning peak. Overnight, SMRT, LTA and other bus operators had set up queue poles, signages and other equipment to better direct commuters to the bridging buses. SMRT and LTA also arranged for chartered taxis to provide free rides for students and teachers travelling to PSLE examination venues from Jurong East, Clementi, Dover and Buona Vista stations. This service was similarly provided for those travelling to their PSLE or GCE \"N\" level examination venues on 27 and 30 September.
By the evening of Thursday, 26 September, given the extensive damage to the tracks and trackside equipment, LTA and SMRT determined that the repairs could be completed only over the weekend. We informed the public at around 10.00 pm that we aimed to restore services on Monday, 30 September.
For the next two days, Friday and Saturday, the workers continued to carry out the repair works day and night. On Mr Edward Chia's question about safety for workers, the works were paused during inclement weather. All workers were also equipped with personal protection equipment, provided food and drinks, and followed a shift system to ensure that they received adequate rest.
Repair works were completed on Saturday, 28 September. Stress and loading tests were then carried out in the evening of 28 September to ensure the tracks were functioning safely before resumption of train services. However, 12 new cracks, previously not visible to the naked eye, were detected on 10 unreplaced segments of running rail after these tests. These cracks could be due to the rail segments being weakened earlier by the incident train when it was being moved back to Ulu Pandan Depot. If I may use a Chinese Kungfu analogy, it is like sustaining internal injuries that are not immediately visible from the outside and showing symptoms a while later. The 10 rail segments with these new cracks needed to be replaced before service could safely resume, which meant that an additional day of works was required, including for the thorough testing and inspection after repairs had been completed.
The engineers and technicians from LTA and SMRT continued to work through Sunday, 29 September, to replace the affected rail segments. Comprehensive testing of the rail and track equipment then followed that same night and continued on Monday, 30 September, to ensure the integrity of the repaired systems. Throughout the entire recovery process, safety for our commuters and workers was the team's top priority and thorough testing and checks were conducted to ensure all safety requirements were met before resuming train services.
Regular train services between Jurong East and Buona Vista stations resumed on the morning of Tuesday, 1 October. For the first few days of operations, SMRT imposed temporary speed restrictions and operated westbound trains at a slower speed of 40 kilometres per hour, rather than the usual speed of up to 80 kilometres per hour, along the stretch of replaced rail segments. This is part of the standard process following rail replacements, to ensure safety for commuters.
Dr Syed Harun asked whether there are concerns about further rail fractures. We have done a comprehensive series of tests, including endurance tests, before resuming train services. After the resumption of service, SMRT stepped up its checks as a precautionary measure. There is also a regular inspection regime in place for other rail segments, including for other Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) lines operated by SMRT and SBS Transit.
Sir, let me now turn to the topic of investigations. Several Members have asked about the root cause of the incident. We know what caused the lengthy disruption. The severity of this disruption was due to the extensive damage to the track and trackside equipment by the incident train. As to the root cause, including why the axle box dropped, as well as learning points to improve our responses and prevent future incidents, these are issues which the investigations will cover.
Mr Leong Mun Wai asked if the Government would convene a Committee of Inquiry for this incident.
Sir, I have stated at the outset of the disruption that LTA will do a thorough investigation to ascertain what happened and identify areas of improvement. As rail regulator, LTA has the necessary regulatory powers and technical knowledge to investigate serious rail incidents. LTA will conduct a thorough investigation to ascertain the root cause of the axle box failure. It will also examine the fault detection and incident handling procedures to determine if appropriate actions were taken.
To supplement its investigations, LTA will be supported by an Expert Advisory Panel (EAP), chaired by Mr Malcolm Dobell, former Head of Train Systems for the London Underground, and comprising five other local and overseas experts. The Ministry of Transport's (MOT's) Transport Safety Investigation Bureau (TSIB) will also be conducting an independent safety investigation. I seek Members' understanding that more details will be shared when the investigations are completed.
We expect the investigations to be completed in the next few months and the findings will be released publicly. LTA will mete out penalties if the investigations reveal lapses.
There are a few clarifications which I would like to make in response to Members' questions.
Let me start with the first-generation KHI trains. Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Dennis Tan asked about their operations and maintenance. The structural integrity of the trains was assessed by an independent assessor in 2012, who concluded that the trains have a total service life of 38 years.
The reliability of a train depends on several factors and not only on its age alone. Trains that remain reliable can continue to be used, if they have not exceeded their service life.
Prior to 2016, all the trains were owned and operated by the rail operators. In 2016, LTA began taking ownership of rail operating assets as part of the transition to the New Rail Financing Framework (NRFF). Under the NRFF, LTA is responsible for procuring and building up assets, such as the train fleet, while rail operators are responsible for maintaining, deploying and operating the assets.
In 2018 and 2020, after discussions with SMRT, LTA purchased a total of 106 new R151 trains to replace the North-South and East-West Lines' earliest generations of trains, including the KHI fleet. The delivery of these trains, however, was delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic. These trains have been arriving in batches, after rigorous testing.
The first batch of three trains was handed over to SMRT and put into service in June 2023. Since then, LTA has been progressively handing over new R151 trains to SMRT, at a rate of about two trains per month. Thirty-four R151 trains have been handed over to SMRT so far. The plan is to replace all KHI trains with the new R151 trains by end-2026, before they reach their 38-year service mark.
Next, I want to address the questions from Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Ms Hazel Poa about compensation for affected commuters.
Train commuters exiting at stations between Boon Lay and Queenstown stations were not charged for their rail journeys. Bridging bus services and regular bus services along this stretch were also provided at no cost to commuters. SimplyGo has been processing refunds in cases where commuters were charged for two journeys instead of one, due to them exceeding 45 minutes for transfers between train and bus services, or between different bus services. Commuters may approach SimplyGo for assistance if they have specific queries about their fares.
Third, while I will separately reply to questions on the Fare Review Exercise filed by Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Neil Parekh and Ms Poh Li San, I would like to address Mr Gerald Giam's question about whether this incident and service levels can be taken into consideration in the Fare Review Exercise by the Public Transport Council (PTC). Sir, I understand why Mr Giam and some members of the public have made this suggestion. Please allow me to explain why we should separate service levels and disruptions from how we set public transport fares.
PTC had previously studied whether fare reviews should be linked to service levels and disruptions and decided not to adopt this approach, as there are other measures in place to ensure service standards are met. For service disruptions, LTA would establish the cause and accountability and mete out penalties where necessary. In addition, when operators do not meet reliability targets, they will also not receive payments under our incentive schemes.
The purpose of the annual Fare Review Exercise is to ensure that fares keep pace with changes in operating costs, so that the public transport system remains financially sustainable. PTC would consider changes in cost drivers over the previous year, based on the fare formula. Given the maximum allowable quantum of increase at 18.9% for this year's Exercise, due to the 15.6% balance carried over from last year, PTC decided to defer most of the maximum allowable fare quantum for this Exercise and raise fares by 6%, or less than one-third of the maximum quantum, to ensure that fares remain affordable for commuters.
Fares are collected for the entire public transport system, including buses and trains, to ensure that the public transport system remains financially sustainable. If our fares are not adjusted to reflect rising operating costs, the persistent shortfall would have a chronic impact on service quality and reliability over time. Or if we want to continue topping-up the shortfall via Government subsidies, it means that taxpayers would have to foot a higher bill.
Finally, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Ms Poh Li San and Mr Sharael Taha asked how the costs of the disruption will be covered.
Sir, regardless of the investigation outcome, SMRT will bear the costs of providing the free bridging buses and regular bus services, the foregone fare revenue during the disruption and the repair works. This requirement applies to both rail operators should they encounter a disruption along their respective lines.
As for Mr Edward Chia's question about compensation for workers, LTA and SMRT staff that worked overtime will be given overtime payment accordingly.
Mr Speaker, the disruption brought about much inconvenience for many commuters and Singaporeans are understandably concerned about what this incident means for the safety, reliability and resilience of our MRT system. These are also our priorities.
Safety is critical for our MRT systems. We will not compromise safety. There are multiple layers of safety controls.
First, as regulator, LTA imposes stringent safety standards, aligned to international best practices that operators must comply with. Operators who do not meet these standards will be subject to penalties and, where necessary, they will face additional regulatory conditions and monitoring.
Second, to ensure that equipment and systems remain safe and reliable over time, LTA imposes Maintenance Performance Standards (MPS) under the operator's licence, which set out the requirements that the operator must fulfil in relation to maintenance. There are maintenance audits by independent external assessors to ensure operators' compliance with their maintenance regime.
Members, including Mr Ong Hua Han and Mr Dennis Tan, have asked about the maintenance regime for trains. In general, regular maintenance activities are both time-bound and dependent on mileage. These can range from regular visual inspections to more elaborate component replacement activities. Ad hoc maintenance activities are also carried out if there are abnormal indicators being picked up in between maintenance cycles.
Mr Louis Chua and Mr Saktiandi asked about predictive maintenance capabilities. Where feasible, operators have installed condition-monitoring systems on the trackside and on trains to detect potential defects. Special vehicles are also used to scan the tracks to pick up issues. These defects are then prioritised for rectification. On Mr Saktiandi's question of whether these systems could have detected risks leading up to this incident, these are part of the ongoing investigations and I will not comment further at this point.
Third, redundancies are built into systems, where feasible, to ensure safety even during incidents. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about redundancy in our power supply system. The trains are powered by the third rail. There are back-up power sources to supply power to the third rail. If the third rail is damaged and the train cannot move, the on-board battery system will maintain emergency lighting, ventilation fans and public address systems.
Fourth, we have processes in place to respond to incidents. During a breakdown, if the fault cannot be immediately or easily resolved, the top priority is to detrain commuters to ensure their safety. As far as possible, the operator will try to let commuters safely alight at the platform. Where this is not possible, there are procedures in place for detrainment onto the tracks.
Staff onboard the train will deploy the detrainment door and guide all passengers to proceed safely to the nearest station platform. These procedures are consistently applied across all our rail lines. Staff undergo regular hands-on training and exercises so that they are familiar with the procedures and well-prepared to handle emergencies.
Mr Speaker, safety and reliability go hand in hand. In 2012, the mean kilometres between failure (MKBF) for the MRT network, which is a reliability benchmark used by cities globally, was 67,000 train-kilometres. This was in 2012. This increased steadily over the decade as LTA worked with rail operators to enhance their maintenance regimes.
Through the combined efforts of LTA and the operators and supported by our unions and workers, we achieved our MKBF target of at least one million train-kilometres in 2019 and have maintained that since for all MRT lines, including the East-West Line. This is comparable to the most reliable overseas metros.
Mr Dennis Tan asked if we could publish the MKBF figures for our MRT network. Sir, MKBF statistics are tabulated regularly and publicly reported on LTA's website, on a per-line basis. The MKBF figures up to end-September 2024 have yet to be published, but the estimates show that all the MRT lines have achieved our target of at least one million train-kilometres: the East-West Line, 2.03 million; North-South Line, 1.42 million; North-East Line, 2.05 million; Circle Line, 1.04 million; and Downtown Line, 8.11 million.
Mr Dennis Tan also asked if we utilise MKBF statistics to determine how we exercise oversight over individual lines. While all our MRT lines have met the one million MKBF target, each MRT line has its own characteristics, such as their age and whether they are under- or over-ground. Their systems would also have been commissioned or renewed at different times. Hence, different lines have different MKBF outcomes. But the key is that all the lines have met our target of at least one million MKBF and we are subjecting them to stringent maintenance and operational standards.
These reliability standards are the result of the hard work by our operators and workers over more than a decade. Since 2011, LTA has been working with rail operators to enhance their maintenance regime. LTA has also upgraded signalling and power systems and invested in infrastructure, such as signalling simulation centres, to improve our operators' ability to diagnose and remedy different faults. The renewal of the six core systems of the North-South and East-West lines is another major project which has helped to improve our reliability standards.
LTA's monitoring of MKBF and licensing conditions also continue to ensure that operators invest sufficiently in maintenance to minimise disruptions. LTA conducts regular training and information exchange sessions with overseas railway operators and technical experts to ensure that in-house engineering and technical capabilities are aligned with the latest standards and best practices.
LTA and our operators take reliability seriously. While we have made significant progress over the last decade, it continues to be a work-in-progress and where we can do better, we will work together with our tripartite partners to implement the improvements.
Third, on resilience. During service disruptions, we seek commuters' understanding that travel times will be longer. But we will do our best to keep disruptions to a minimum and offer alternative travel options, where possible. Today, our public transport network, with six MRT lines together with a sizeable fleet of buses, is more resilient and better able to cope with disruptions.
On the whole, the mitigation measures across the six days enabled most commuters to continue with their journeys, albeit with additional travelling time. The system was also able to cope throughout the disruption, thanks to the strong efforts by our bus operators and staff on the ground supporting crowd and queue management.
LTA will press on with the planned expansions in our rail network over the next decade. This will increase our capacity to meet daily commuter travel demand, provide more transport options and further improve our rail resilience. In 2026, when we \"close the circle\" with Stage 6 of the Circle Line, commuters in parts of the West will have another route to travel to the downtown area. The Jurong Region Line, which will open in three stages from 2027 to 2029, will also improve connectivity in the West and offer more alternative interchanges with the North-South and East-West lines at Chua Chu Kang, Boon Lay and Jurong East stations.
By the early 2030s, the Cross Island Line will significantly improve connectivity among the West, East and North-East regions in Singapore. With almost half of its stations as interchanges, commuters island-wide will have more alternative travel routes. This includes commuters in the West, who will be able to access the Cross Island Line via the Jurong Lake District, West Coast and Clementi stations and connect to every other radial line in our MRT network.
In the mid-2030s, the new Sungai Kadut interchange station between the North-South Line and the Downtown Line will provide commuters in the North-West a more direct transfer to the Downtown Line. These additions to our network will enhance rail connectivity and resilience, especially in the West, and better connect the Western Region to other parts of Singapore.
Members have suggested that buses could be used to improve resilience. Our public bus network plays a key role in complementing our rail network, providing first-mile and last-mile connectivity within towns and bringing commuters to key transport nodes. They provide some resilience and alternative routes during rail disruptions. That is why, even when we need to rationalise bus services, we retain at least one trunk route that runs parallel to MRT lines. We also have the Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme, which will further improve bus services, especially to new estates and those located further away from major transport nodes and town centres.
That said, buses cannot fully replace rail capacity in the event of a rail disruption, even with the injection of bridging buses. Rail is still the most efficient mode of public transport. A six-car train on the East-West Line can carry more than 1,000 commuters and runs at a two-to-three minute intervals during peak hours and at speeds of up to 80 kilometres per hour. In contrast, a double-deck bus carries up to 120 passengers and typically runs at much lower speeds, based on traffic conditions.
Hence, even with up to 80 double-deck bridging buses deployed per day, these were unable to match the full capacity of the East-West Line. During the disruption from 25 to 30 September, alternative routes using other MRT lines and regular bus services were necessary too.
Sir, I thank Ms Hazel Poa for her suggestion for the Government to issue advisories to companies during train disruptions, on allowing employees to work from home. Indeed, there was a recent Business Times commentary on how flexible work arrangements can be helpful during major transport disruptions. We will discuss the idea further with employers.
Members would recall that a decade or so ago, we faced significant challenges in the quality and reliability of our MRT service. The entire public transport sector and all stakeholders, including our unions, workers, operators and Government, then came together and worked very hard to significantly improve our MRT connectivity and reliability over the past decade. Sir, we are determined to maintain a high level of reliability, safety and service quality.
While we do our best to avoid disruptions, incidents may still happen from time to time. What is important is how we respond to the incidents and how we learn from them to strengthen our resilience against future disruptions.
Once the scale of the disruption on 25 September was assessed, response plans from LTA and public transport operators were activated quickly, including the deployment of 80 bridging buses and hundreds of additional staff. The safety of commuters was paramount, which was why we took the necessary time to complete the repairs and conduct rigorous testing before safely resuming services.
LTA and the TSIB will conduct thorough investigations. They have the technical expertise to do so and LTA will be further supported by the experience of the EAP. The investigation findings will be shared publicly. We will learn from this episode, remain vigilant and work closely with our tripartite partners to continually improve our public transport system.
Mr Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt appreciation to a few groups of stakeholders.
First, I would like to say a big thank you to our public transport workers and caring commuter volunteers for their hard work and dedication to safely restore full train services, to provide bridging bus services to ferry commuters and to assist commuters on the ground. We greatly appreciate your commitment and professionalism and how many of you went beyond the call of duty and worked together as a cohesive team to overcome the challenges and help commuters with their journeys.
Next, I wish to thank our commuters and the public for their patience and their understanding and for showing care and concern to our staff. It was heartening to know that some of our commuters penned words of encouragement for our workers and brought them food and drinks, which boosted their morale and lifted their spirits. Your acts of kindness were very much appreciated by our workers and our volunteers.
Mr Speaker, please allow me to say a few words in Mandarin before I conclude.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] After the MRT disruption, Shin Min Daily News published a letter describing the spirit demonstrated by Singaporeans during this incident. The letter said: \"This MRT disruption was a test for us. But it also gave us the opportunity to recognise the most valuable resource in our city – our people. It is our people, with their grit and dedication, who have made our city what it is today. The next time we are enjoying a convenient ride on the MRT, let us not forget the workers who are toiling silently in the background – it was through their hard work that we built up a strong and resilient nation.”
Mr Speaker, through the close cooperation of the tripartite partners, our public transport system has seen significant improvements over the past decade. However, we know there is still room for improvement. Our team will continue to focus on ensuring that our MRT system remains safe, reliable and resilient.
We will thoroughly investigate the disruption that occurred on the East-West Line on 25 September, ascertain the root cause of the incident, review the incident handling procedures, examine the service recovery efforts and identify areas for improvement. We will work together with our tripartite partners to do our utmost to make our public transport system safer, more reliable and more resilient.
(In English): Mr Speaker, the true resilience goes beyond the number of MRT lines or bus services that we operate; it rests in the strength and resolve of our people.
In the midst of this difficult period, it was heartening to see many Singaporeans stepping forward to encourage our workers and to support one another. In my Mandarin speech earlier, I quoted from a letter published by Shin Min Daily News on 1 October. The unofficial translation reads: “This MRT disruption was a test for us. But it also gave us the opportunity to recognise the most valuable resource in our city – our people. It is our people, with their grit and dedication, who have made our city what it is today. The next time we are enjoying a convenient ride on the MRT, let us not forget the workers who are toiling silently in the background – it was through their hard work that we built up a strong and resilient nation.”
Sir, this is a beautiful tribute to the dedication of our workers and the resilience of our nation. Just as Singaporeans rallied together during previous challenges, once again, as a community and a society, we came together to overcome this challenge.
The public transport community has come a long way in our journey to developing a safe, reliable and resilient rail system. We will not stop here – improving safety, reliability and resilience is a key focus and an ongoing mission for us.
This incident was a setback, Sir, but it will not shake our determination to do better and to make our MRT a safe, reliable and resilient rail system that Singaporeans can be proud of. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Order. We will now have clarifications on the Ministerial Statement. Before I call on Members, I would like to take this opportunity to remind Members that pursuant to Standing Order 23, Members may seek clarification on the Ministerial Statement, but there is no debate that should be allowed. So, Members can seek clarification by way of asking questions. I seek Members' understanding to keep your clarifications clear and concise. Please, no mini speeches. Likewise, I also ask the Minister to also keep his answers clear and concise.
There are a total of 21 Members who had filed Parliamentary Questions (PQs) for oral or written answer on this matter. I will give priority to these Members first. Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will not give a speech, Mr Speaker, but allow me this opportunity to join in to thank the \"One Transport Family\", they have worked together as one transport family, volunteers and staff, as the Minister has mentioned, Singaporeans coming in to join in to help out, over the six days. So, really, thanks to all of them for making sure that it was solved within six days.
I have one supplementary question, Mr Speaker. It is in regard to rail reliability and trying to find the right balance between rail reliability and the cost of maintaining service levels. It is something that I have asked in my PQ slated for tomorrow. I have noticed that there have been comments on social media that the East-West Line disruption occurred because the Chairman of SMRT had claimed in June 2023 that they did not want over-maintenance.
Can I seek the Minister's views on this and if the Minister can also share about our relations, in terms of the One Transport Family with our rail operators? And in summary, how is the balance struck between the cost of over-maintenance and the prevention of avoidable disruption incidents?
Lastly, before I end, I would like to thank the Minister for answering my preventive maintenance question.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I want to thank Mr Saktiandi for his words of encouragement to our operators, to our workers. I think they would appreciate it very much.
Sir, after the remarks made by Mr Seah Moon Ming, SMRT Chairman, in June 2023, Mr Seah clarified with LTA that SMRT did not reduce spending on maintenance over the past few years. His main point was about striking a balance between achieving high reliability standards and incurring high maintenance costs, to achieve what he described as \"optimal maintenance\".
LTA colleagues and I understand where Mr Seah is coming from and we agree with his sensible and balanced approach. There are indeed important trade-offs that we need to look at between achieving high reliability standards while keeping the overall maintenance costs sustainable.
The MKBF for the MRT network was 67,000 train-kilometres in 2012 – I shared this earlier in my Statement. And we achieved our MKBF target of one million train-kilometres in 2019 and we have maintained that since for all the MRT lines. If we look at the East-West Line, its MKBF was 60,000 train-kilometres in 2012. It achieved the one million MKBF target in 2019 and it has maintained this even after accounting for the serious disruption in late September this year.
Sir, with the one million MKBF target in place, SMRT's spending on maintenance for the North-South and East-West Lines has remained steady over the last few years. SMRT has also invested in building up its engineering and technical capabilities under Mr Seah's chairmanship and it has embarked on initiatives using its own resources to further improve rail reliability.
Mr Speaker, I have seen some of these social media posts that Mr Saktiandi mentioned. Allow me to say that these can be rather misleading, because they selectively quoted certain comments rather than reflect the full context and the full story.
In fact, Mr Seah had said, and this was reported by the mainstream media in 2023, that SMRT would, in his words, \"never want to under-maintain\" because he wanted to avoid the reliability issues of the past.
So, Sir, this is an example to remind ourselves of the importance of understanding the full context, what happened, so that we do not get misled by certain social media posts or comments and then we arrive at the wrong conclusions.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister for his reply to my question. I have two supplementary questions. Firstly, can the Minister explain what the difference is between the approach to investigation that LTA has chosen versus that via a Committee of Inquiry? And secondly, with respect to the damage caused by the fallen axle, such a degree of damage could not have been done silently. There must have been quite a bit of noise. So, can the Minister shed light on why it was not discovered earlier but instead allowed to drag on for over two kilometres of the track?
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I would like to answer the second question that Ms Hazel Poa raised. I covered it briefly in my Statement earlier, that this was one of the bogies of one of the cars. There are six cars. Each car has two sets of these bogies.
As to exactly why the falling of the axle box and then the bogie shifting off the rails did not result in the discovery earlier, I think that is a subject of the investigations and we will await the investigation findings to ascertain what happened.
Ms Poa also asked about the difference between the different approaches. Sir, of course, there are differences in the way that different investigations are being conducted. For example, the one that is done by TSIB, which focuses on safety investigations, would be different from the one that LTA is doing, because LTA, as regulator, would also have to look at whether there are any lapses and to decide whether any penalties need to be mete out.
So, there are differences in different types of investigations, but what is common across all the different approaches is that they will be thorough, they will be evidence-based and they will focus on finding out what happened, ascertaining what are the root causes and then identifying where are the areas for improvement.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you, Speaker. My clarification surrounds the issue of how we can minimise the inconvenience caused to our commuters. Firstly, whether the Ministry has studied the feedback from affected commuters to improve its response. In this regard, can the Ministry share what are the key feedback received thus far?
The second clarification pertains to, first of all, I think we should applaud those who stepped forward, based on what the Minister has shared about how the crisis management team has come forward to render assistance to our children who are studying for exams, as well as seniors and those with mobility issues. But apart from this category of commuters, whether the Ministry or the LTA's crisis management response teams have also looked into how we should also reach out as soon as possible to mommies who are expecting and those that are accompanied by young children as well, to prioritise reaching out to them and render the necessary assistance at the earliest opportunity?
Finally, this is pertaining to my parliamentary question that I had filed on the same note, which is about whether we should also mobilise our Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) team. In my humble opinion, it is not common for our train system to break down to such a substantive extent, in which it has affected millions of commuters. In fact, it seems to me as a form of national crisis and as what the Minister has said, it has involved multiple stakeholders to come together, united as one Singapore, to reach out and resolve these issues.
So, in this regard, is this an appropriate situation where we should activate and test out the efforts that we have harnessed through our Total Defence and also our SGSecure activities, where communities have previously experienced crisis management exercises, for these stakeholders to also be activated?
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank Ms Hany Soh for her three questions. Let me start with her first question on the feedback from commuters. I think certainly this is something that we do regularly, to gather feedback and identify areas for improvement after every incident, whether big or small.
The response to this very serious disruption has incorporated some of the learning points from previous episodes in terms of communications, the announcements, the bridging bus services, the signages.
As I mentioned in my statement earlier, because of the scale of the disruption, on the first day, I think there was some confusion on the ground. But to give credit to the response teams and to the ground officers and volunteers, they saw where these gaps are and then they adapted quickly to improve the arrangements. And on the first day, towards the later part, and the second day onwards, the processes and arrangements got better. So, they incorporated what they learnt from previous incidents and they also adapted to what is happening on the ground during this incident. And I am glad Ms Soh also acknowledged the hard work that our staff have put in and I thank Ms Soh for that.
Ms Soh's second question about different groups of commuters, certainly, that is an area that we will continually finetune and improve. The operating principle that we will render more assistance to commuters who need more help, either because they are more vulnerable like seniors or people with disabilities, who need more help, or like in the case of what Ms Soh mentioned, mummies who are expecting or with young children, who may need more assistance. Certainly, we will look out for this group of commuters to see how we can extend a helping hand.
The third question, I have no doubt that our Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) colleagues are ready and willing to help. That is what they are trained for, to respond to crises. But I am also mindful that unless it is really necessary, we should not take them away from their primary responsibilities of defending the country. And if it is something that we are still able to cope within the transport ecosystem, we should try and do that first. Also because, our officers and our volunteers have gone through regular rehearsals and exercises to train for this type of scenario.
So, when it happens, they are also more familiar with the operating environment. They are also more able to see what the best way is to respond to help commuters. But if we have to activate SAF – touch wood – I do not want that to happen too, I am sure the SAF will be there to support the other Government agencies for the benefit of Singapore and Singaporeans. But this is something that we assess for this particular incident, and I think it was the correct judgement call that we did not have to activate SAF for this. We were still able to assist commuters to complete their journeys.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ong Hua Han.
Mr Ong Hua Han (Nominated Member): I thank Minister Chee Hong Tat for the Ministerial Statement. I have two supplementary questions and the Minister has touched on the first one in his response to Ms Hany Soh.
First, train disruptions are often a chaotic and confusing experience for commuters. I had first-hand experiences in the past. Persons with disabilities (PWDs) and the elderly are particularly vulnerable and in need of help, as they may not know who to turn to in unfamiliar situations. Given this, may I ask the Minister to consider additional training for ground staff to better equip themselves to identify and proactively offer support to our more vulnerable commuters?
Second, some commuters were unaware of the train faults until they arrived at the MRT stations. For PWDs and seniors who meticulously plan their commute, this can be quite disruptive. In line of this, will the Government consider expanding the suite of communication channels available to ensure that as many vulnerable persons and their caregivers as possible are promptly notified when train breakdowns occur?
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Ong Hua Han for those two very good suggestions. Certainly, I will take both suggestions back to discuss with LTA and the operators to see how we can do better.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker, there are two supplementary questions for Minister.
The first is, can the Minister share details on SMRT's performance against the new maintenance performance standards set up by LTA as part of the new NRFF, which the Minister also mentioned, what these key performance indicators (KPIs) are and whether SMRT has been able to meet all of them? Because I also noticed that if we look at MKBF statistics, it has been consistently lower than that of SBS Transit. Even so, if we consider that the North-East Line, for example, is older than the Circle Line.
The second question is that, can the Minister share the dollar amounts for maintenance-related expenditures for SMRT in the last three years and also as a percentage of its rail fare revenues and how has this trended since the NRFF, especially after comments by its Chairman in June that it does not want both under- and over-maintenance, which Minister also referenced, just so that we can set out the full numbers and context here?
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I will address the two questions from Mr Louis Chua together.
The maintenance and the overall reliability outcomes as shown by MKBF, I have explained earlier as well that different lines have different ages, different operating environments, run different systems. So, while there is indeed a difference in the MKBF numbers across different lines, including between the different lines operated by the same company – SBS Transit, the two lines that they operate; SMRT, the lines that they operate – I would say the more important thing is this and that was what Mr Louis Chua was trying to drive at: where do we strike that balance between reliability and maintenance? High standards, versus the costs that we need to incur to sustain those high standards?
We have, after doing the international benchmarking comparisons, decided that the target that we want to set is one million train-kilometres MKBF. That will put us in the league of the best-performing metros around the world. You can say, why not two million; why not four or five million? Nothing to stop you from setting that target. But I hope Mr Chua will agree with me that we also have to ask that question: if you were to set that target, instead of setting a target of one million, we raise it to, say, four million, five million, we also got to ask, what is the cost incurred by the system as a whole, which will then translate into cost for commuters, cost for taxpayers, to achieve those standards.
So, that is where the balance needs to be struck. One million, which is our current target and, as I mentioned earlier, even though there are some differences between the different lines, all the lines have thus far maintained above one million since 2019.
It does not mean that we should take that for granted or become complacent. That is not what I meant. We should continue to work hard and if we see that Circle Line, for example, is not doing as well. In fact, among all the lines at the moment, that is the one with the lowest MKBF. There is ongoing work being done to try and improve the systems, to upgrade for the Circle Line, including closing the circle. So, we believe once those works are completed over the next couple of years, it will help to improve the overall reliability for Circle Line as well.
I do not have the numbers with me in terms of the spending. But what I can assure Mr Chua and the House is that if we look at the spending over the past few years by the two operators, both of them have not cut back on maintenance. When we look at the amount that they are spending, they have both continued to focus on maintenance and on building up the engineering and technical expertise, which is equally important. The talent pool. That is something which will remain a priority for LTA and the operators.
Mr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Thank you, Speaker. Sir, I join the Minister to thank LTA staff, SMRT staff, the bus drivers and taxi drivers who have been involved in helping our commuters deal with the unprecedented disruption to the MRT line.
Sir, I am surprised that the axle can be dislodged from a bogie if it has been maintained regularly. I am also surprised to hear that there are 12 new cracks found on unreplaced tracks. Sir, I understand an EAP will be putting up its report. May I ask the Minister how long before this EAP puts up the report?
Secondly, to prevent future recurrence of such disruption, will LTA conduct a special audit of the maintenance performance standards to check whether the external assessors have been thorough in their work? This is to prevent a recurrence before the EAP puts up its report.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: I do not want to give a deadline for the EAP or for the investigations, because I think we should let the process look through the necessary findings and evidence and for the experts to come to a decision on what they would then put forth to LTA for the investigations. But we have said that the target is to complete the investigations, which will include the views put forth by the EAP, in a few months and that the findings will be released publicly.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan's second point, I just want to highlight that it is not only after an incident that LTA will conduct audits and checks. This is something that is ongoing and for all the lines and for both operators.
But what we did, together with the operator, after this incident was to step up additional checks because when you have a big disruption and you replace the rail, you do need to do some additional checks to ensure safety. Putting aside the additional checks for the affected segments of the rail, the ongoing work to conduct regular checks, that is something that takes place regularly.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would also like to thank all the workers and volunteers and all the ancillary personnel, like drivers, bus drivers, taxi drivers, who have helped with the service recovery in the six days during the disruption. I thank the Minister for the answers that he has given to my questions. I just have two clarifications.
I had Question No 17 from yesterday's Order paper. I am not sure whether the Minister has answered that question or is this subject to the outcome of the investigation by the various bodies. Perhaps, the Minister can clarify.
My second clarification, pending the outcome of the investigation by the various committees' personnel, whether any additional interim maintenance measures have been put in place or will be put in place so as to prevent similar incidents from happening in the meantime.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I am sorry, I do not have the Parliamentary Question No 17 in front of me. But if I recall correctly, it has to do with the causes of the accident. Perhaps, Mr Dennis Tan could clarify.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan, you may want to clarify.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Yes, Mr Speaker, I think it is quicker if I were to just read out the question: To ask the Minister for Transport whether LTA will conduct a review of the existing requirement on the maintenance regime and practices of all MRT trains, including but not limited to the old trains, such as the first-generation KHI trains. I am not asking any follow-up questions on my Parliamentary Questions relating to the cause and the faults, pending the outcome of the investigation.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Dennis Tan for his clarification. He filed a number of questions and as he pointed out, some relating to the investigations. I thank Mr Dennis Tan for his understanding that I would not be able to comment on that for now.
On maintenance on the old trains, I did highlight earlier as well, that because the investigations will cover the maintenance regime for KHI trains and see whether that is something that is a possible reason for the incident. Pending the investigation outcomes, I also, likewise, seek Mr Tan's understanding that I would not be able to comment on that.
But the important point is this: we do not wait for an incident to happen, before we do the necessary checks on the systems and the processes together with the operators. So, LTA looks at both what are the outcomes and also whether the systems and processes are in place. These checks are being done regularly for all the lines and it is ongoing work. As I explained earlier in response to Mr Lim Biow Chuan's question, after an incident were to happen, of course, there is heightened alert during that period; you do want to put in some extra checks because you do want to take some additional precautionary measures. But it does not mean that, therefore, we do not do these regular checks on the other lines and on a regular basis.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I also would like to join the Minister and other colleagues to thank all the workers and volunteers and also the public for putting in effort to help solve these problems.
My question is, I understand that LTA has mentioned before that it has spent $2.6 billion on the renewal of the North-South and East-West Lines. In fact, I read from the social media that some people have asked why there were still the axle box failures, despite the spending on the renewal the North-South and East-West lines. I also want to ask the Minister, does he expect this amount to be increased further after this incident?
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, the improvements that were made under the LTA's renewal of the North-South and East-West Lines' systems are not related to the incident that happened on 25 September. Please allow me to explain. The renewal of the North-South and East-West Lines' systems started in 2012 and it was substantially completed by October 2023.
Under this programme, we renewed and enhanced six core systems of the North-South and East-West Lines: the rail sleepers, the third rail, signalling, power supply, track circuit and also the purchase of new trains to replace the older trains. So, this renewal programme was needed to ensure that the services on these older lines can continue to operate reliably for years to come.
The 25 September East-West Line incident was caused by the train's axle box falling and then the wheels of one of the bogies shifted to the side of the rail; and this resulting in the incident train causing extensive damage to the tracks and the trackside equipment. So, this was due to a fault that was found on the train itself which is now the subject of investigation. It was not caused by a failure of the core systems which were upgraded under the North-South and East-West Lines' renewal programme. So, I hope that addresses the point that Mr Gan raised.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Minister, first of all, for his comprehensive replies. I would also like to thank all the engineers and technicians who had worked day and night and sometimes under extremely bad weather to get the East-West Line, west of Jurong East Station operational again. And the bus drivers, public transport workers and volunteers who responded to the call for help.
In order not to subject them to another such incident, it is important that we investigate this incident thoroughly. As a result, I have two supplementary questions for the Minister regarding the COI.
First of all, I think many Singaporeans would like the Minister to explain the difference between this breakdown and the 2011 breakdown when a COI was called, and what made the Minister conclude that these two breakdowns are different, and a COI is not required this time. My second supplementary question: does the Minister think that a new COI for this breakdown as well would be useful for us to confirm that all the findings and the remedial actions recommended by the 2011 COI has been implemented till today, and whether there are any other new factors other than technical and engineering factors, like organisation factors, that we should take into account for the breakdown this time.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I have explained earlier that the investigations that will be done by LTA with inputs from the EAP and also the investigations that will be done by TSIB will both be done thoroughly. So, that is the commitment that we have made to the public, that the investigations will be done thoroughly and the findings will be released publicly, and we will identify what are the root causes to the incident and what are the areas for improvement.
Mr Leong asked what is the difference between this incident and 2011 is. Sir, I explained in my Statement earlier that if you look at the operating situation in 2011 versus today, in 2011, the MKBF for our MRT system was 60,000-plus train-kilometres. Today, as I shared earlier, all the lines are above our target of at least one million MKBF.
In 2011, the incident that happened, the context and the situation were not the same. Mr Leong may remember in between 2011 and now, we also had other serious MRT-related incidents: there was a flooding at Bishan; there was an incident at Joo Koon. And for those incidents, we did not convene a COI, but LTA conducted a thorough investigation for each of them and then learned from what happened to see how we can improve.
Mr Leong asked whether the findings from the earlier COI have been put into practice. I would explain to Mr Leong that if we did not implement the recommendations for improvements since that COI due to the incident in 2011, I do not think our overall reliability could have improved from 60,000-plus MKBF in those days to more than one million MKBF for all lines today.
As I mentioned earlier, this does not mean that we think we have arrived and therefore become complacent. Certainly not. There is always room for improvement. This is still a work in progress. We still want to do better. So, this is what we will do. But based on our assessment, LTA has, as regulator, the necessary expertise and powers to conduct a thorough investigation.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Wing.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you Mr Speaker. I declare I work in a global investment firm that owns one of our rail operators. I have two clarifications. First is, I am glad to hear that the Ministry has outlined the steps taken to address the recent disruptions. But given these disruptions, can the Ministry share whether a comprehensive review of the entire MRT network is deemed necessary at this point in time? And second, how would these breakdowns in services impact on the Government's effort to promote a car-lite society and encourage reliance on rail transport?
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I think I have explained this in my earlier responses, that the review of all the lines in our network for both operators, that is an ongoing process that we will continue to do. As to whether there are specific areas for further improvements that we need to make in response to this incident, I think let us wait for the conclusion of the investigations to see what the findings and recommendations are.
I also want to reassure Mr Yip that the emphasis on walk, cycle, ride and public transport being the main mode of transport for Singapore and for Singaporeans, that vision, that target remains unchanged. And I shared in my Statement earlier that we are continuing to invest heavily in building up new MRT infrastructure, new lines – the Cross Island Line, the Jurong Region Line – upgrading existing lines, not just the North-South, East-West Lines, but also Circle Line, completing the circle. We still have an ongoing project with Thomson-East Coast Line. We have opened up phase four to Marine Parade area, but there is still some more to go. Eventually, it will connect to the airport, Terminal Five, and to the north, it will link up to the Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link when it is completed.
So, the vision of a car-lite society, walk, cycle, ride, public transport being the main mode of transport, that remains unchanged. And our commitment to providing a safe, reliable and resilient MRT system, that also remains unchanged.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I too would like to express my deep appreciation to the rail workers who put in many days, nights and weekends and over time to restore train services for commuters.
Sir, given the higher maintenance costs and failure rates of the first-generation trains, can the Minister explain why they were not replaced earlier and what factors delayed the replacement process? For example, were any of the new trains delivered but not immediately put into service?
Secondly, the Minister has declined my suggestion to link fare adjustments to service reliability. How then will commuters be assured that fare increases will lead to tangible improvements in service reliability? For example, how much of the fare revenue increased is allocated specifically towards improving service reliability?
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I have explained in my Ministerial Statement earlier that the new trains, the schedule was delayed due to COVID-19, but I also provided the assurance that all of the first-generation, the older trains, will be replaced before they reach the 38-year service mark. So, this is still within their service life, and they will be replaced before that 38-year service mark is reached.
Can we speed up on the new trains to try and catch up on the delays due to COVID-19 earlier? This is certainly something that we will do our best to meet, but I also hope Mr Giam agrees we need to do so without compromising safety. So, the trains that come will have to be tested thoroughly before they are put into service. I do not think there is any disagreement on can we speed up and whether we are able to do so, to do some catching up due to the delays caused by COVID-19, but to do so in a manner which is safe.
The second question from Mr Giam, I think I have explained my reasons. I accept that Mr Giam may have a different view, and I respect that, but I hope Mr Giam understands that we use different tools to achieve different objectives. So, for service reliability, we will keep track of the performance and if the operator were to miss their service quality benchmarks, their reliability benchmarks, they could miss out on receiving certain incentive payments or if there are lapses and investigations are conducted and there are lapses, they could also face penalties.
So, there are incentives for the operator to improve their reliability and to maintain a high level of service quality. If we were to incorporate this element into fares, and as I said, I understand where Mr Giam and some members of the public are coming from. I understand and I respect your point of view, Mr Giam, but there are some downsides to doing that as well. Because if you hold back on the fare increases which are supposed to reflect the overall operating costs facing the public transport system and there is a chronic shortfall over time, that could then further erode service quality and reliability, which I am sure we do not want to see happen.
If you say, \"No, let us not do that, let us ask Government to provide a top-up\", then effectively we are asking taxpayers to fund the shortfall. So, there are some trade-offs and the PTC, after considering the different perspectives, decided that we will separate the two things, but to hold the operators accountable and to incentivise them to achieve high reliability standards through other ways.
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for Transport for his detailed Ministerial Statement and updates.
I want to declare that many Clementi residents living around Clementi MRT station and the affected segment were badly affected. Some were, themselves, transport workers and later on were working late through the night, together with colleagues across Singapore, to restore service. If you looked down from some of the high-rise blocks in Clementi, you could see the workers working through the night. Residents were circulating videos as a message of encouragement to one another to pull together.
I have got two clarifications for the Minister.
The first is, I note that the Ministerial Statement starts out with a very important operative word: safe. A safe, reliable and resilient rail system. Can the Minister continue to assure us that as we review our transport system, safety will continue to be the first priority – safety for passengers, safety for workers, safety for the public?
Secondly, in line with this, can the Minister also reassure us that however the after-action review is conducted, however the investigations are approached, that there will continue to be an environment where every worker feels able to speak up on safety-related issues so that we can keep everyone safe in our transport system?
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I want to thank Dr Tan Wu Meng for highlighting the importance of safety. Indeed, that is a top priority for all of us in the transport family. When we were doing the repair works, of course, everyone wanted to complete the repair works as quickly as possible. But from the Government agencies to the operators to the unions, I think we are all on the same page, that we should do so safely, ensuring safety for our workers and ensuring safety for commuters and the public. So, if we need to take more time to do thorough testing, to carry out the repair works properly, we will explain to the public why more time is needed, but never compromise on safety.
We are also grateful to the public, to our commuters, for their kind understanding and their patience. Even though we took more time, originally, we were aiming for opening on Monday, 30 September; but in the end, we needed one more day. The public was very understanding. I think people agreed with the point that Dr Tan Wu Meng was making, that safety must come first. Safety for our workers, safety for commuters and the public.
We will ensure that regardless of the outcomes of the investigations, we want to continue to maintain this environment whereby safety is a top priority. We also want to continue to have an environment, together with our tripartite partners, to encourage our workers, as Dr Tan suggested, to speak up when they see that something is not safe, something needs to be changed and improved. We also want to make sure that we involve our workers in making those process improvements and changes.
This entire ecosystem approach, backed by strong tripartite trust and partnership, is something that has enabled our system to improve from the old days where MKBF was over 60,000 more than a decade ago to where we are today; and to go forward if we want to continue to maintain a safe, reliable and resilient public transport system. Those elements are crucial.
Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Minister for his Ministerial Statement. I have two clarifications.
The first relates to a part of the PQ that I filed for yesterday, where I asked, what was the total capacity of bridging bus services put into effect, compared to the average ridership of the stations that were closed as part of this disruption. The Minister mentioned that bridging bus services cannot match the train in terms of speed and capacity, even with 80 buses deployed. We all agree with that. But I am wondering whether he has figures on what was the capacity of the actual bridging bus services that were deployed? That is my first clarification.
The second one relates to safety, which we just talked about. As with other Members of the House, I would like to extend my gratitude to the workers and everyone on the ground who worked hard to get our rail system up and running again. But I wanted to come back to this and ask the Minister, what specific measures were taken during this incident to ensure that the workers working around the clock to effect repairs, including those workers who were working for contractors, were working safely, including not working double or additional shifts beyond what is safe?
Were there, for example, advisories or directives that the Ministry or LTA actually issued to the workers and contractors to tell them what the avenues and measures that are available to them? For example, if they felt that there were some concerns around the working environment for their safety, whether there were any spot checks undertaken to ensure that all rules and safety guidelines were adhered to during the repair process?
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I want to refer Ms He Ting Ru to what I said earlier in my Ministerial Statement. I do not have a combined number for her, but each double-deck bus can carry up to 120 passengers. We have 80. You can do a simple multiplication and you can compare that with the train capacity during normal operations.
The conclusion is quite clear. Bridging buses alone, even including regular buses, can help to mitigate but not fully absorb the disruption caused by a rail system. This is why the game plan that we have to improve resilience includes an expansion of our rail network so that if there is going to be a disruption on one line, commuters can then switch to a different train line. That will help to absorb a large proportion of the affected load due to the disruption. Then, buses will come in to supplement this, to provide additional capacity.
Buses have their roles because they are more nimble, they are more flexible. But buses alone would not be enough. That is why we need to continue to invest in expanding our rail network, including in the western part of Singapore where there are ongoing projects.
On Ms He's second question, I covered it earlier as well in my Statement. Safety for workers is a key priority and we wanted to make sure that when they work day and night, it is not the same person working day and night, that there are different teams that can take shifts and that they are given rest in between, they are given food and drinks, they are given the proper safety equipment to enable them to work safely.
This is not something that we need to impose because there are already ongoing efforts by the operator, by the unions to, during normal times, emphasise the importance of safety and letting this become part of the culture of the organisation. So, when a crisis happens, those instincts, those muscles kick in very naturally and the support systems are there, the measures are there, to take care of the workers and ensure their safety while they work.
But what was a bonus for our workers was that – we did not plan for this, but it came as a positive, pleasant surprise to our workers – it was the very encouraging support from commuters and members of the public. This was spontaneous, ground-up acts of kindness shown by our commuters and the public to encourage our workers. That really lifted their morale and boosted their spirits.
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Sir, in addition to joining the expression of thanks to the staff, the workers, the volunteers, I would also like to thank the Minister for helming this very challenging portfolio and having to manage each of these crises and situations. Having said that, I do have something to ask the Minister.
We know that it will cost more to have a more reliable, resilient and more connected public transport system. The Minister mentioned having more buses that will complement the MRT lines. So, there is a significant role for buses as well, given their agility and reliability. But we also know that there are also competing demands for limited budget resources.
In this regard, can I ask the Minister, who is also the Second Minister for Finance, if the Government would also review the overall Government funding and subsidies for public transport so that we can have a more reliable, more resilient as well as more connected public transport system.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, certainly, investing in public transport has been and will continue to be a key priority item for the Government. We are not done upgrading and expanding our public transport system.
On rail, I described earlier in my speech some of the ongoing projects – building of new lines, further expansion of existing lines, upgrading of existing lines. These are a big commitment from a Budget point of view, but we are prepared to make these investments because we can see the benefits that these long-term infrastructural investments can bring in improving connectivity, benefiting commuters from different parts of Singapore.
Buses too. We had explained previously in this House that, where there are buses that experienced a significant drop in ridership because they run parallel to MRT lines and these are usually the long trunk routes, we would have to rationalise some of them. But as I explained earlier, we do not rationalise all because we do want to keep some for redundancy. But we do need to adjust and optimise the usage of our scarce resources so that we can redeploy to support the need for new bus services in other areas, including new towns, including new estates in existing towns.
As I explained in this House previously, doing this alone will not be adequate because we have a programme to build more houses in different parts of Singapore, including in some of the new estates, but also in existing estates but further away from town centres and key transport nodes. So, if we only rely on the resources that are re-allocated from bus rationalisation alone, that would not be enough to meet the demand.
That is why the Government, earlier this year, announced that we are introducing the Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme, where we will inject up to $900 million over the next eight years. We have already started with some of the initial new bus services to serve different parts of Singapore.
I just want to end off my reply to Mr Liang to reassure Mr Liang and the House that we will continue our investments in our public transport system, both rail and bus. Today, we spend every year, more than $1 billion on buses in terms of subsidies for commuters and more than $1 billion on rail in terms of subsidies for commuters. Every trip that is taken by a commuter carries with it a subsidy from the Government, more than $1.
Why do we do this? Because we believe that public transport, given our very compact city layout, is the preferred mode of transport for the majority of Singaporeans and it is the preferred mode of transport even for people who own cars. You do not have to use your car all the time. For certain journeys, you can actually take public transport.
We want to encourage an increase in the modal share through public transport. That is why we are investing in both rail and bus.
Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong, I know you have raised your hand for the last 20 minutes, but I had to give priority to all Members who had filed PQs on this first. The floor is yours.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I first declare my interest as the Executive Secretary of the National Transport Workers' Union (NTWU). I therefore thank the Minister and many Members who have stood up to express their recognition and appreciation for our public transport workers, who have worked very hard following the incident.
I would also like to take this opportunity to assure Members that the union takes the safety and welfare of our public transport workers very seriously. We work very closely with the LTA, the Ministry and the public transport operators, to ensure that their safety and their welfare were never compromised.
As the Executive Secretary of NTWU, I can also vouch for the SMRT Chairman, Mr Seah Moon Ming, when he said that there had been no under-investment in maintenance. In fact, our SMRT workers have been working hard, if not harder than ever before, in ensuring that our rail system functions smoothly every day. The MKBF statistics that the Minister has highlighted can testify to the improvements in rail reliability over the years.
So, my question relates to maintenance, in addition to the hefty investments in rail replacement projects, part of the success in maintaining this high MKBF threshold can be attributed to investments in predictive maintenance tools and systems.
During the disruption, some online commentators were understandably concerned that we have swung too far in relying on such predictive tools. So, I would like to ask the Minister if the EAP will review whether our current predictive maintenance systems are performing optimally, especially why it was not able to predict the occurrence of an axle box failure.
And beyond systems, how have LTA and SMRT invested in developing our engineering and technical talent to ensure that our MRT remains safe and reliable for all of us?
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, predictive maintenance, whether that has helped or was that something that was not adequate in this particular incident, I think that it is better that we wait for the investigation to be completed because this is part of the investigations.
But if I may comment, generally, on the approach taken by both operators, not just SMRT, but also SBS Transit, on using predictive maintenance, condition monitoring. The idea there is this: you want to use sensors and analytics to pick up faults that are going to occur, but have yet to occur. In other words, picking them up before they may become problems that will cause disruptions, and then you can intervene early – prevention is better than cure – and then to either replace that part or to carry out some additional servicing.
So, the idea of condition monitoring or predictive maintenance is a correct one. And it will help to improve overall service quality and reliability. But as to whether that was adequate, or that was effectively carried out in this particular incident, as I have explained earlier, we await the findings of the investigation.
Mr Melvin Yong also asked about engineering talent and, Sir, that is crucial. If we do not build up the engineering and technical expertise, you can have good hardware, good systems, whether predictive maintenance or otherwise, you will not be able to make good use of them and you would not be able to keep on improving the processes, and to improve safety, reliability and resilience. So, talent development is a key part of our overall strategy. It is a key priority for LTA and our operators, especially when we need to operate and maintain an expanding and increasingly complex rail system.
So, we adopt a multi-pronged approach towards building up the talent pool and capabilities of our rail sector. SMRT, for example, would train its engineering staff through courses conducted by the original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs. And also they have a SMRT Institute that is set up to conduct the training for their staff.
The training syllabus is constantly reviewed and updated, based on lessons learned and experiences gained during actual operations. The LTA, too, has established the Singapore Rail Academy in 2017. The Academy works together with the Institutes of Higher Learning and they provide relevant training for engineers within the sector in key knowledge areas, such as rail engineering, operations and maintenance.
And in terms of incentives that can help to augment the existing programmes, LTA, together with the rail operators, and also with the unions, NTWU, introduced the Rail Manpower Development Package in 2019, which has three components.
First, incentives that encourage the operators to further expand and accelerate their training programmes in areas, such as data analytics, robotics and automation, and condition-based monitoring. More than 3,000 workers have been trained so far and another 700 workers will undergo similar training this year.
Second, we have scholarships and sponsorships to attract, retain and groom engineering talent within the industry. So far, we have awarded 25 undergraduate and polytechnic scholarships, and more than 100 in-service sponsorships.
And third, there are grants to support investments in training hardware, such as equipment and simulators. These were provided to enhance the training for our workers, make it more realistic, make it more productive for our workers to undergo training.
The staff from LTA and the two rail operators also participate in regular exchanges with overseas operators, including the Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway and the Taipei Rapid Transit Corporation, to learn from international best practices. And this is an area, as I mentioned earlier, that LTA will continue to work closely with our tripartite partners to equip our workers, including our engineering and technical workers, with the necessary skills to stay relevant and to stay productive as we expand our rail network.
Mr Speaker: Miss Rachel Ong.
Miss Rachel Ong (West Coast): I just have one question here. Beyond already announced rail projects, when will LTA implement the previously announced West Coast extension, to create more rail resiliency in the West region, where there are fewer rail alternatives compared to the other regions of Singapore?
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I thank Miss Ong for her question. We are pressing on with plan expansions in our rail network over the next decade. I mentioned some of this in my Statement earlier: Jurong Region Line and the Cross-Island Line. And these will help to enhance rail connectivity and resilience, especially in the West, and it will help to better connect the western region to other parts of Singapore.
Beyond these expansions to the Jurong Region Line and the Cross-Island Line, LTA will continue to plan for the future and to ensure that our rail network is well connected and resilient. One of the projects which LTA has been studying is the implementation of the West Coast Extension. This involves extending the Jurong Region Line to connect to the Circle Line. LTA's studies include working with the relevant planning agencies to assess the demand and implementation timeline of the project, to support further developments in the West. And should the study show that it is feasible to proceed with this extension, it will help to further improve rail connectivity between the western parts of Singapore and the city centre. It will also help to support further developments in the West, and importantly, it will help to enhance the overall resilience of our rail network.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa: Thank you, Mr Speaker, this is a follow-up on my earlier supplementary question on COI. I was given to understand that under a COI, it allows for the public hearing of inputs from experts, rather than reading about it in a summarised version in a report. So, would the Minister consider allowing such public hearings, because the transparency will be helpful towards building and maintaining public trust and confidence.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I have explained repeatedly why I believe that LTA and TSIB are able to conduct the investigations thoroughly and that we will publish the findings publicly. And in the case of LTA, there will also be an EAP, comprising both international and local experts, and they will provide their inputs to LTA for the investigations.
There are different ways to conduct an investigation, but if our objective in the end is to find out what happened, to ascertain the root causes and to identify the areas where we can do better, I am confident that what we have set out through the LTA and TSIB investigations can achieve that purpose.
Mr Speaker: It has been a good two hours on the Ministerial Statement. Are there any final clarifications? None. Good.
Order. End of Ministerial Statement. Introduction of Government Bills. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act 1967\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan) on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry; 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":"Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Child Development Co-Savings Act 2001 to provide for a new shared parental leave scheme and other matters, and to make a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act 1947\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Ms Sun Xueling) on behalf of the Minister for Social and Family Development; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.45 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.28 pm until 3.45 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Income Tax (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [14 October 2024], \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\" – [Minister for Finance]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Madam, last November, I spoke about the need for the Government to continuously refine our tax incentive strategies and strengthen non-tax benefits to safeguard Singapore's competitive edge. This need is now more pressing as global tax trends rapidly shift with the implementation of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) 2.0 guidelines.
Singapore's longstanding ability to attract global businesses is grounded in a combination of factors: our stable political climate, robust infrastructure, skilled workforce and competitive fiscal policies. However, we now face a critical moment where Singapore must balance these advantages with evolving international tax obligations to maintain our position as a premier hub for business and investment.
According to a recent The Straits Times article and data released by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), while only 20% of firms in Singapore are foreign-owned, they employ 60% of Singapore residents in high-paying jobs. This highlights the importance of continuing to attract foreign investments and global talent that complement our local workforce and create good jobs for Singaporeans.
Let me first address the Multinational Enterprises (Minimum Tax) Bill 2024, or MMT Bill, which proposes a 15% minimum effective tax rate for large multinational enterprises (MNEs). It is a necessary step to align with international standards while continuing to combat aggressive tax planning practices. However, we must recognise that the impact on our business community will be significant and multi-faceted. While ensuring MNEs contribute fairly to our economy, we must be mindful of the challenges these new rules will bring.
Compliance costs and administrative burdens will likely rise for companies operating across multiple jurisdictions. Both parent entities of MNE groups in Singapore and Singapore subsidiaries of foreign MNEs will be directly impacted, as they will be subject to top-up taxes under the BEPS Pillar Two rules.
As our MNEs face higher compliance and administrative burdens, many jurisdictions, such as Switzerland, Ireland and Thailand, are implementing significant tax reforms in response to the global minimum tax. In light of these global shifts, I would like to ask the Minister how Singapore plans to mitigate any competitiveness concerns. Our competitors' actions may erode Singapore's traditional strengths.
Will the Government consider enhancing non-tax incentives in areas, such as infrastructure, talent development and support for research and development (R&D) and innovation to maintain our attractiveness for foreign investments?
While the BEPS Pillar Two taxation framework is largely standardised across implementing jurisdictions, the implementation and administrative rules are not as strictly defined by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Could the Minister clarify whether Singapore has room for flexibility in these administrative processes? For instance, could Singapore adopt simplified compliance procedures or introduce a more lenient enforcement framework during the initial stages of the Bill's implementation to help businesses ease into the new regime?
Singapore has historically demonstrated an ability to adapt flexibly within global frameworks and we should continue to do so. Our transparent and predictable tax regime is a unique advantage that enhances our appeal as a jurisdiction. For example, companies can be assured of the non-taxation of capital gains on certain equity disposals, provided they meet specific criteria under the law.
The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) has also provided useful guidance via its e-Tax Guide. Such clear guidelines, not easily found in other jurisdictions, offer businesses confidence and certainty in their operations. My recommendation is that we should build on these strengths by expanding and leveraging clear guidelines that offer businesses confidence and certainty, further solidifying Singapore as a business-friendly environment.
Moving on to the operational and compliance challenges posed by the MMT Bill, it is essential to recognise that MNE groups within the scope of Pillar Two will be required to register with the Comptroller within six months after the relevant financial year ends.
These groups will also need to designate local entities for filing GloBE information returns and the domestic top-up tax (DTT) returns. For MNE groups falling within the scope for the financial year ending 31 December 2025, the registration deadline will be 30 June 2026. Failure to meet this deadline could result in a penalty of 10% of the total top-up tax, which could amount to a significant sum for large corporations.
Furthermore, there are other surcharges and penalties which can apply as outlined in the Bill. For example, furnishing an incorrect tax return without reasonable excuse can result in penalties of up to two times the tax undercharged. While these penalties are meant to ensure compliance, their significant financial impact should not be underestimated.
Could the Minister clarify whether additional guidelines will be provided to streamline the registration process and explain when penalty might be waived? Given that this is a significant new requirement, many companies may face difficulties in meeting the deadline, particularly if they are cross-border entities with complex organisational structures.
Would the Minister consider introducing a grace period during the early stages of implementation, whereby penalties and sanctions would not apply if an MNE demonstrates that it made reasonable efforts to comply? This would alleviate concerns within the business community and offer some flexibility as companies adapt to the new requirements.
The Bill also mandates that MNE group entities keep sufficient records to allow the Comptroller to verify the top-up tax payable. However, different entities and periods may be subject to varying record-keeping requirements, potentially increasing the administrative burden on companies.
Could the Minister assure us that these variations in record-keeping periods will be minimised and aligned, as much as possible, with the existing five-year standard for income tax matters? This would help reduce administrative burden on businesses.
Finally, to support business community during this transition phase, I strongly recommend that the Government establish a dedicated helpdesk or advisory service specifically aimed at assisting businesses with their queries and compliance issues under the new tax framework. Additionally, investing in IRAS' capacity to administer and enforce these complex new rules effectively will be crucial to ensuring a smooth and efficient implementation process.
Turning to the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill, the Government's introduction of the Refundable Investment Credit (RIC), under a new section 93B of the Income Tax Act, is a timely and strategic measure. The RIC offers businesses tax credits of up to 50% of qualifying expenditure, which is particularly valuable for small and medium enterprises (SMEs).
SMEs, the backbone of our economy, often face challenges in securing capital for innovation, technology upgrades and productivity improvements. The refundability of the RIC provides much-needed liquidity, allowing them to reinvest in their businesses and address a core issue – cash flow management.
As we refine the RIC, it is crucial that it remains flexible in its design. High-value activities like R&D, digital transformation and sustainability initiatives often take time to yield results. A rigid, outcome-based approach could discourage investment in long-term projects with uncertain short-term returns. The RIC must allow businesses to pursue innovative activities without the fear of disqualification due to delayed results. This is especially critical for SMEs, which face significant upfront costs and may not see immediate success.
I would like to therefore propose that the RIC be based on both qualifying expenditures and economic outcomes, with businesses working with relevant agencies to use appropriate metrics at different stages of a project. This flexibility ensures that businesses can invest confidently in long-term growth without being constrained by rigid criteria.
The RIC should also support Singapore's transition to a sustainable economy. As part of the Singapore Green Plan 2030, the RIC should be expanded to cover green investments, such as energy efficiency projects, carbon reduction technologies and sustainable production practices.
Given our limited space, consideration could be given to overseas or cross border green projects as long as the ideation, key knowledge, project management and talent associated with the project remain in Singapore. Expanding the RIC to incentivise green investments will help align our fiscal policies with Singapore's sustainability goals, positioning us as a global leader in green innovation. By striking the right balance between flexibility and a focus on long-term outcomes and by expanding initiatives like the RIC to incentivise green investments, we can ensure that Singapore remains a leader in both economic, innovation and environmental stewardship.
In conclusion, looking at the broader picture of these amendments, maintaining an open dialogue with the business community will be key. It is important to continuously assess the impact of these changes and be agile in adapting our approach to ensure Singapore remains an attractive and competitive global business hub. Notwithstanding my clarification and recommendations, I support both the Bills.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Neil Parekh.
Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant (Nominated Member): Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join this debate on two important pieces of legislation that will strengthen Singapore's position as a global financial hub and as a responsible international player in tax regulation – the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill and the MMT Bill. I will cover both Bills today.
Both these Bills work hand in hand to ensure Singapore remains competitive in the global marketplace, yet they do so in complementary but contrasting ways – one offering relief, while the other enforces a stricter regime. Both promote fairness and transparency in our tax regime.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill introduces targeted tax reliefs, particularly for sectors like financial services, shipping and real estate investment trusts (REITs). I believe these amendments will encourage foreign investment and help sustain our economic growth by enhancing Singapore's global competitiveness. The Bill also provides enhanced tax deductions for R&D, encouraging companies to invest in high-tech and green technologies. This will bolster Singapore's position as a leader in innovation and future industries, driving sustainable economic growth. Simplified tax administration will also make it easier for businesses to comply with tax regulations.
Moreover, the RIC benefits businesses and encourages investment and capital expenditures, R&D and talent development. The RIC also helps businesses offset the corporate tax liabilities, making it more attractive to establish many factoring facilities and regional headquarters in Singapore. Additionally, the Bill encourages focus on decarbonisation efforts, aligning with our broader sustainability goals. By keeping pace with global competition through these tax credits, Singapore enhances its abilities to attract substantial investments, ensuring long-term economic growth and segmenting its position as a premier business destination.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, the MMT Bill, on the other hand, focuses on enforcing a 15% minimum tax on MNEs with global consolidated revenues exceeding €750 million. This Bill is Singapore's response to the OECD's BEPS framework, particularly Pillar Two, which seeks to address tax avoidance and profit shifting by large corporations.
By adopting this Bill, Singapore aligns itself with global tax transparency efforts, ensuring that large MNEs contribute their fair share to our economy. The revenue generated through this minimum tax will safeguard the Government's financial base, allowing us to invest in infrastructure, social programmes and growth initiatives. These amendments will ensure that Singapore can create a more predictable and consistent tax landscape, a critical factor for MNEs that evaluate where to base their operations.
Additionally, the Bill promotes fairness by addressing the competitive disadvantages faced by local businesses, especially SMEs, when competing against MNEs. By enforcing a minimum tax, we are fostering fair competition and supporting the long-term sustainability of both our local businesses and our tax system. The 15% minimum tax helps Singapore protect its tax base by closing loopholes that allow profit shifting to lower-tax jurisdictions, ensuring that large corporations contribute to our nation's development.
Lastly, by complying with the OECD's global tax framework and aligning our income tax policies with international practices, Singapore strengthens its reputation as a transparent, ethical and business-friendly hub, which will continue to attract foreign investments.
However, despite many positive outcomes for the overall economy, these Bills could lead to certain challenges for businesses especially for SMEs. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I have a few clarifications for the Minister.
One, how will businesses currently benefiting from existing tax incentives be affected by these amendments? Will their exemptions continue under the new framework, or will they be required to re-apply?
Two, how will the minimum tax rate apply to industries with unique tax treatments, such as financial services, energy or digital businesses? Will specific sectors receive special considerations or exemptions?
Three, how do the new regulations align with Singapore's existing international tax treaties and agreements, specifically regarding parenting double taxation and resolving disputes? Will there be any adjustments required to ensure compatibility with the global minimum tax framework?
Four, what penalties will be imposed on businesses that fail to meet the compliance requirements, particularly in sectors like financial services and for Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)?
Five, can SMEs also benefit from the RIC or is it primarily designed for larger corporations? Are there limits or caps on the amount of tax credited can be refunded through the RIC?
In conclusion, both the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill and the MMT Bill represent forward-thinking steps that will secure Singapore's competitive edge in the global economy. By balancing the need for fairness, transparency and innovation, these Bills will help ensure our long-term economic growth while addressing the challenges posed by global tax trends. Mdm Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding my clarifications, this Bill has my full support.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mdm Deputy Speaker, BEPS 2.0 seeks to close gaps in international tax rules, ensuring MNEs pay their fair share, particularly where they generate revenue. Pillar One reallocates taxing rights to market jurisdictions, posing a challenge for Singapore given our small domestic market. Pillar Two establishes a 15% minimum effective tax rate for MNEs.
In my speech, I will address three key points: firstly, the unintended consequences of implementing DTT and income inclusion rule under BEPS 2.0 Pillar Two; secondly, clarifications on the RIC; and thirdly, the timing of this implementation.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, investments are essential to Singapore's economic growth, job creation and long-term stability. Investments inject capital, create jobs and nurture local talent. They foster competitiveness, innovation and technology transfers through global partnerships.
To stay relevant, we must secure the right investments that refresh industries, attract expertise and adopt emerging technologies and shape our future economy. Investments across diverse sectors, such as the digital services and green technologies, strengthens resilience against economic shocks. The investments reinforce our role as a global hub and aligned with environmental plans, preparing Singapore for future challenges.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, today, we are debating two Bills: the MMT Bill, which implements DTT and income inclusion rule under BEPS 2.0 Pillar Two and the Income Tax Bill, which formalises changes to our tax regime, including the new RIC in section 93B.
While we support BEPS 2.0's goal of ensuring MNEs pay their fair share, implementing DTT and income inclusion rule could impact Singapore's attractiveness as an investment destination. Singapore remains a top investment destination, ranked 14th globally in the 2023 Milken Institute Global Opportunity Index, with foreign direct investment inflows rising from S$1.73 trillion in 2018 to S$2.62 trillion in 2022.
However, competition is intensifying. Countries are actively attracting investments: Japan announced a $18 billion package to boost its semiconductor industry; the United States (US) catalysed $450 billion in investments under the CHIPS Act; and Malaysia aims to secure US$107 billion in semiconductor investments.
Singapore's strategic location, skilled workforce and low corporate taxes are all critical to attracting investments. However, the 15% minimum effective tax rate could reduce the effectiveness of our tax incentives, making other jurisdictions more attractive. While the minimum effective tax rate may increase short-term tax revenue, MNEs could adjust strategies by relocating operations or headquarters, limiting sustainable gains. Competing countries may also improve other factors, such as access to land and skilled labour, where Singapore faces inherent constraints.
In the next investment cycle, if businesses scale back their investments into Singapore, or diversify their investments away from Singapore or explore other options, this could negatively affect employment and economic growth in sectors such as finance, technology and manufacturing. Following suit, sectors like logistics, pharmaceuticals and real estate may also feel the pressure.
Hence, we must strike a balance: closing international tax gaps while ensuring that BEPS 2.0 does not inadvertently disadvantage Singapore or limit future opportunities.
This brings me to my second point. As we comply with BEPS 2.0, the RIC strengthens our ability to attract investments. Prime Minister Lawrence Wong confirmed in his 2024 Budget Statement that the RIC qualifies as a qualified refundable tax credit. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) has also clarified that the RIC is treated as a grant under section 93B.
RIC incentivises activities such as new manufacturing plants and low-carbon energy projects, expansion in digital services, supply chain management, headquarters operations, R&D and decarbonisation efforts. More importantly, it also covers critical costs, including capital investments and investments in our workforce.
I have a few questions for the Minister.
Can qualifying activities include finance, insurance, aviation and investment in artificial intelligence (AI), given their importance to Singapore's economy? What criteria will the Economic Development Board (EBD) and EnterpriseSG use to determine the total RIC quantum a company is eligible for? Why is the RIC payout spread over four years? Could an earlier payout support higher investment hurdles? What is the total budget for RIC and how will it be funded?
The evolving global tax landscape requires us to monitor developments closely and adapt our strategies to attract investments vital to our economy's future.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, at this juncture, I would like to touch on some worrying views that has been propagated by some Members in this Chamber and beyond.
Firstly, on not approaching this with caution by downplaying the potential impact and over-estimating the benefits. Some Members shared the view that the implementation of BEPS 2.0 will be a windfall or generate clear net benefit for Singapore as it will have a muted effect on investments, a view by Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. And in some instances, Members go even as far as planning our operating expenditure from this uncertain perceived benefit.
Secondly, the mischaracterisation of investment incentives, propagating the view that we should restrict our investment toolkit so that we do not race to the bottom when it comes to sovereign tax policies and creating the false impression that grants may be another means for tax avoidance, a view shared by Member Mr Louis Chua.
I am glad that Members Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, Mr Louis Chua and Ms Hazel Poa, in their speeches yesterday have acknowledged the various factors that attract investments into Singapore. These include our skilled and educated workforce, robust infrastructure and technological advancements, political stability and a strong legal framework, including citing that Singapore is number one in IMD World Competitiveness Ranking. Their recognition highlights the effectiveness of the sound, long-term policies implemented by our People's Action Party (PAP) Government and our continued investments in our skilled workforce, advanced infrastructure and the importance of our tripartism.
Let me cite a few examples where these worrying views had been shared.
Firstly, in the Hammer newsletter titled \"Why the GST Hike is Not Necessary?\", Issue 22, released on 1 July 2022, which was written by Members of Parliament Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Leon Perera. It cites that the third lever of alternative sources of revenue to the GST hike is the increase in corporate taxation due to BEPS 2.0 and went on to mention \"each of these levers [of which one of which is BEPS 2.0], when pulled, could yield more revenues, equal or more than the GST hike\", implying that the uncertain perceived net outcome of BEPS 2.0 can, on its own, fund the certainty of our increased healthcare cost.
In the second example, Mr Louis Chua, in his Budget speech on 26 February, on the topic of RIC and BEPS 2.0, shared that \"it would be a sad day if countries go against the spirit of the reforms in the first place\" and hopes that \"additional tax revenue from BEPS 2.0 will not simply be in substance returned to the MNEs through other forms\", views which he reiterated against yesterday.
That said, in my professional capacity as someone who is from the industry whose responsibilities is to look at where and how MNEs invest in factories and technology developments globally, I do caution against propagating these two simplistic views.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, the competition to attract investments is indeed intensifying. While various factors contribute to a country's attractiveness, tax remains a factor to consider in building a compelling business case when trying to cut across the investment hurdle, especially when we consider the differential cost of labour, the cost of land, the cost of construction and the increasing grants that are offered in other jurisdiction. And other jurisdictions are not standing still.
And as Members rightfully pointed out, we need to increase spending to strengthen key attraction factors, such as investing more in our workforce and enhancing productivity, objectives that clearly align closely with the intent of the RIC.
Hence, the net effect of BEPS 2.0 remains uncertain at this point, especially when Pillar One has not been considered.
Given the uncertainty surrounding BEPS 2.0, we must avoid equating non-inevitable costs, such as rising healthcare expenses, with the uncertain outcomes of BEPS 2.0 implementation, which is still in its early stages. It is unwise to base essential fiscal policies like healthcare spending on unpredictable future revenues. And worse, double dipping an unpredictable revenue to cover both healthcare costs and grants for investment.
I would also like to caution against the mischaracterisation of investment incentives, such as the Refundable Investment Credit (RIC), as enabling avoidance of the minimum effective tax rate.
While we do our part and comply with the global BEPS 2.0 rollout, we must be cautious not to restrict our investment attraction toolkit. As the Prime Minister highlighted in his Budget speech, the RIC qualifies as a qualified refundable tax credit scheme. It is evident that the design of this initiative is not intended to provide a tax haven but rather to function as a grant aimed at attracting the right investments into Singapore.
This grant focuses on developing new productive capacity, advancing R&D, fostering innovation and supporting decarbonisation efforts. Most importantly, the grant also covers key costs, such as capital expenditure and investment in our workforce, an objective that many Members in this debate have also reiterated.
It is a grant to attract high-value, high-quality investments into Singapore, which are our lifeblood for our survival. In both examples, it is evident that we cannot gamble the future healthcare needs of Singapore with uncertain revenue streams, such as the perceived gains from BEPS 2.0, nor double dip it. Nor should we gamble the future opportunities for our next generation by restricting schemes, such as RIC, which will limit our ability to attract good, high-value investments to provide good jobs for our people, especially in light of increasing competition to attract investments.
On my last point on timing of implementing the MMT Bill, while countries like Hong Kong, Ireland, Switzerland, Malaysia, Vietnam and Australia have begun to move legislation to implement IRR and TTT, there are other countries which have not started implementation, such as the US, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, China and India. Given the competition for investment, is there an opportunity for us to delay the implementation? Would that be useful for Singapore?
Mdm Deputy Speaker, in summary, Singapore is committed to being a responsible global citizen by implementing BEPS 2.0. While some Members may opine that the effects may be muted, the criticality of it means that we must tread carefully to avoid the unintended consequences that could weaken our investment ecosystem and economic resilience. Our future relies on it.
The introduction of RIC is a vital tool in our strategy, helping us comply with global tax rules while attracting the right investments to sustain growth and innovation. It is an investment attraction tool that can help us shape our future economy. We must remain vigilant, adaptive and proactive in adjusting our investment toolkit to maintain Singapore's competitiveness in a rapidly changing global environment.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, we cannot afford to gamble our future on uncertain revenue streams, nor can we limit the tools needed to attract investments critical for job creation, economic sustainability and our survival. Our objective must be clear: close gaps in international tax rules, ensuring multinational enterprises (MNEs) pay their fair share, and safeguard Singapore's future opportunities, all while planning prudently for the long term. Notwithstanding the clarifications above, I stand in support of the Bill, Mdm Deputy Speaker.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Second Minister for Finance.
The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank Members on both sides of the House for their strong support of the Bills as well as for their comments and suggestions. Let me start by addressing the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill.
Most of the Members who had spoken touched on the newly introduced RIC. I am glad that Members agree that this is a timely and important move to ensure that we attract and support businesses that undertake substantive and high-value economic activities in Singapore. Members' questions generally related to: (a) the types of activities supported; (b) the design; (c) the total amount awarded; and (d) the budget. Let me take these in turn.
Mr Mark Lee spoke on the need to keep the RIC flexible such that it would also support high-value activities that can only realise benefits in the long term. Indeed, we recognise that investments in innovation, R&D and sustainability will take time to bear fruit. For these, we require the RIC to be awarded based on expenditure with clear outcomes, within a reasonable timeframe commensurate with the type of activity undertaken. This is to ensure that the RIC supports projects that benefit our economy.
Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Mark Lee also asked whether the RIC scope could be expanded to include activities, such as finance, insurance, aviation and overseas or cross-border green projects. For a start, we have designed the RIC to support the qualifying activities announced at Budget this year. Nevertheless, we thank Mr Lee and Mr Sharael for their suggestions and will continue to monitor industry demand and trends, and assess how the RIC can be updated to remain competitive and relevant.
Mr Sharael Taha asked about the payout schedule of the RIC. Tax credits under the RIC will be offset against corporate income tax payable in the first instance. This means that companies can start to benefit by using the RICs to offset their corporate income tax payable once they are awarded the credits. The refund of unutilised credits within four years from the time the company makes the claim application is consistent with the GLoBE rules for qualified refundable tax credits.
The Bill allows for regulations to enable RIC recipients to choose to receive the RIC in cash instead of being offset in taxes and Mr Louis Chua asked for the rationale for this. We are considering such a feature as some companies have provided feedback that an option for the RIC to be paid in cash over a fixed schedule would provide greater cash flow certainty. As explained in my opening speech, the RIC is an expenditure-based grant delivered through the tax system. The net fiscal impact to the Government is the same, whether the RIC is used to offset taxes or is refunded in cash.
Mr Louis Chua also asked about the rationale for allowing RIC recipients to offset the taxes of related companies in the same group. Sometimes, companies may set up separate legal entities to better reflect the structure of their business and for risk management purposes. By segregating business activities, companies can better limit their liabilities and protect the assets.
So, for instance, a parent Company A that invests in a new manufacturing plant in Singapore may choose to set up a subsidiary Company B to hire workers and hold the plant assets. By allowing the RIC to be offset against taxes of related companies, we provide flexibility for such business structures. For all intents and purposes, the parent company is still making the investment in Singapore, the net fiscal impact remains the same and the underlying principle of supporting qualifying local expenditure incurred also remains unchanged.
Mr Sharael Taha asked how our economic agencies would determine the total RIC quantum that a company would be eligible for and the total budget and funding for the RIC. The RIC support would be commensurate with the size and quality of businesses' economic contributions to Singapore. Companies that invest more in Singapore or commit higher quality investments will receive more support.
The RIC will draw from the same funding sources that support the other schemes in our economic toolkit. These include our economic agencies' annual budgets as well as the National Productivity Fund (NPF). The Member might recall that we had topped up the NPF at Budget 2024 with S$2 billion to support the RIC and other investment promotion efforts. Our economic agencies will be publishing more details of the RIC soon to provide further clarity to businesses.
Next, let me address Members' comments on the MMT Bill. These broadly relate to: (a) the operation of the Pillar Two rules; (b) the consistency of GLoBE implementation across jurisdictions; (c) the compliance burden of the DTT and multinational enterprise top-up tax (MTT); (d) estimated revenue impact and use of revenues; and (e) economic competitiveness.
Several Members have sought clarifications on how the DTT and MTT will operate. Mr Neil Parekh and Mr Louis Chua asked how the DTT and MTT would affect specific groups of businesses, such as existing tax incentive recipients and businesses in certain sectors.
The DTT and MTT will apply to all large MNE groups with a global revenue of at least €750 million in at least two of the four preceding financial years. DTT and MTT apply to such MNE groups in all sectors unless specific exclusions under the GLoBE rules are applicable, such as for international shipping income. DTT and MTT also apply, regardless of whether the large MNE group is a tax incentive recipient. If a large MNE group's effective tax rate on its Singapore profits is below 15%, the DTT will top up its effective tax rate to 15%.
Mr Don Wee asked how double taxation under the MTT would be prevented. The GLoBE rules provide for the order of imposition of top-up taxes. For example, DTT will apply before any MTT imposed by other jurisdictions. This ensures that taxing rights are coordinated and prevents multiple jurisdictions from imposing top-up taxes on the same income.
Mr Don Wee also asked about the exclusion of investment entities from the DTT. The exclusion is allowed under the GLoBE rules. Apart from Singapore, several other jurisdictions have also taken a similar approach. For an entity to qualify as an investment entity, it must meet the requirements specified in the GLoBE rules. The exclusion is to preserve tax neutrality such that the income of the investment entity is only taxed once at the investor level. As with all other rules, MOF and IRAS will monitor and ensure that the rules are applied as intended.
Mr Louis Chua also asked about the implementation of the subject-to-tax rule (STTR). The STTR defines \"developing countries\" for its purposes as those with gross national income per capita below a specified threshold level. Singapore does not qualify under this specific definition. As a member of the Inclusive Framework, Singapore is prepared to implement STTR in our tax treaties with developing Inclusive Framework members when requested by them. This can be done bilaterally or by signing the multilateral instrument. We are studying the best way to implement STTR.
Mr Don Wee asked about the mechanisms to ensure consistency in the implementation of GLoBE rules across jurisdictions. Ms Usha Chandradas also asked about the impact on Singapore's DTT and MTT if China and the US do not implement the GLoBE rules. Mr Sharael Taha shared the same concern and asked if we should delay our implementation of DTT and MTT.
As mentioned in my opening speech, many jurisdictions have either implemented similar rules or intend to do so in 2025. If we do not impose the DTT and MTT, affected MNE groups will have to pay the top-up tax to other jurisdictions instead. Hence, it is in Singapore's interest to push ahead with the implementation of both DTT and MTT so that we do not cede tax revenue to other jurisdictions.
The GLoBE rules have been agreed by more than 140 members of the OECD Inclusive Framework, including China and the US. Inclusive Framework members that implement the GLoBE rules must do so in a way that is consistent with the outcomes provided for under the rules. There will be a peer review process to assess jurisdictions' implementation for consistency with the rules. All Inclusive Framework members, including those that do not implement the GLoBE rules, are required to accept the application of the GLoBE rules by other jurisdictions.
Ms Usha Chandradas and Mr Neil Parekh also asked about the dispute resolution process for the GLoBE rules. There is broad international agreement that a robust dispute resolution mechanism is important for MNEs. However, discussions on the details are still ongoing at the Inclusive Framework. MOF and IRAS are participating in these discussions and will provide guidance when there is greater clarity.
Ms Usha Chandradas and Mr Neil Parekh also asked whether the GLoBE rules would affect Singapore's network of Avoidance of Double Taxation Agreements (DTAs). Based on guidance from the Inclusive Framework, the GLoBE rules are compatible with international taxation agreements like our DTAs. The vast majority of our treaty partners are members of the Inclusive Framework and have agreed to these rules.
Several Members, including Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms Usha Chandradas, Mr Mark Lee and Mr Don Wee, have suggested simplifying the administration of the DTT and MTT to reduce the compliance burden on affected MNE groups. Let me assure Members that this is a priority for the Government. MOF and IRAS have simplified the administrative requirements where possible. For instance, an affected MNE group will only be required to register with IRAS once, for both DTT and MTT. We have also aligned the filing timelines for DTT and MTT returns to simplify compliance.
Like Ms Usha Chandradas and Mr Don Wee, we recognise that the new rules can be complex and MNEs may need time to become familiar with the rules. IRAS has been working closely with businesses and tax professionals over the last two years to prepare MNEs for the changes. This includes consulting businesses on the parameters for DTT and MTT and working with the industry and the Tax Academy to conduct training for tax professionals. This is an ongoing process. IRAS will learn from experience, continue to engage stakeholders and continue to provide guidance on MNEs’ obligations.
Several Members, including Mr Mark Lee and Mr Neil Parekh, had expressed concerns about penalties if businesses fail to comply with the new rules. To allay businesses’ concerns regarding penalties, IRAS will adopt a light-touch approach in the initial years of implementation, if an MNE group can demonstrate that it has taken reasonable measures to ensure the correct application of the GloBE rules. Mr Don Wee also asked if IRAS would be adequately resourced to administer the DTT and MTT. IRAS has set up dedicated teams to develop the necessary tax administration processes and IT systems to ensure smooth implementation of the DTT and MTT.
Next, moving on to comments on the potential revenue impact of the DTT and MTT. As mentioned by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong during the Budget debate this year, any DTT or MTT revenue will only be collected from FY2027. In the short term, the implementation of the DTT and MTT will likely lead to additional revenues. If so, then, as we have indicated, we will invest the revenue wisely to enhance our competitiveness, an approach that is supported by Ms Hazel Poa, Mr Don Wee, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Louis Chua and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
However, what is still not clear is how much additional revenue we will collect and how long it will last. And this was the point that was raised by Mr Sharael Taha. This is because MNEs and other governments are also working out their responses to the GloBE rules. Whether we will have sustained revenue gains from BEPS and what our net position will be after taking into account our economic spending plans remains to be seen and is still uncertain.
Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Louis Chua have suggested that we use the revenue gains to support our healthcare expenditure. We agree that it is important to support our healthcare expenditure. But waiting to see what comes from DTT and MTT would be far too late. This would only be collected from FY2027.
By 2030, one in four Singaporeans will be aged 65 and above, with consequent increases in healthcare expenditure. That is why, rather than waiting for revenues that are uncertain and which would be too late, we have made structural revenue-raising moves, including the GST increase, to fund this expenditure. We have planned ahead for this and supported Singaporeans with a substantial Assurance Package to cushion the impact.
With respect to revenues from DTT and MTT, Members can be assured that the Government will see how to deploy revenues for the benefit of Singaporeans, to continue investing in our people, our economy and our infrastructure.
A few Members, including Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Louis Chua, had suggested that BEPS 2.0 would remove the race to the bottom for corporate tax rates. That is indeed the intent of BEPS 2.0. But we must also look at the reality. Whilst BEPS 2.0 may reduce the room for tax competition among countries, it does not reduce competition for investments.
Ms Hazel Poa was of the view that MNEs are highly unlikely to pack up and leave Singapore just because Singapore is implementing the DTT and MTT. While we certainly hope that that is the case, we would be wise not to take anything for granted or to be complacent. Again, a point that Mr Sharael Taha made. The global economic landscape has become even more competitive in recent years. As mentioned in my opening speech, major economies like the US, Germany and Japan are rolling out generous incentives to attract investments. That alone should tell you that investments are important to countries.
But to be clear, Singapore's competitive advantages have never been on tax factors alone, and this was recognised by Members of the House, including Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, Mr Louis Chua and Mr Mark Lee. For instance, Ms Hazel Poa acknowledged that we have strong advantages compared to other countries in the region, such as a highly educated workforce, a well-developed and globally connected financial system and excellent connectivity. Mr Louis Chua also highlighted other strengths, such as having robust infrastructure and a well-established legal system, and he cited many proof points, including the fact that Singapore was ranked second in the IMD World Talent Ranking, that we were fourth in the World Financial Centre's ranking and, in June 2024, Singapore took top spot in the IMD World Competitive Rankings.
So, I want to thank all Members, including the Opposition Members, for recognising the Government's efforts in establishing these advantages, which took a long time to build over many years and many decades, and these outcomes have been the result of consistent efforts on the part of the Government in order to create a vibrant and competitive economy over the years.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim suggested that we channel DTT and MTT revenues towards developing productivity and innovative capacity, rather than foreign direct investments. I would make two points in response. First, foreign direct investments and productivity and innovation are not mutually exclusive. In fact, encouraging foreign direct investments is one way we can raise productivity and innovative capacity in our economy. Foreign direct investments have a strong value proposition. They bring with them new technologies, market access and business models that are internationally competitive. Second, productivity and innovation have always been mainstays of our economic strategy and take prominence in almost every Budget. So, in short, it is not one or the other, but we must have an array of economic strategies in order to grow our economy.
At the same time, we will continue to invest in our workers and local enterprise ecosystem, which form the backbone of our economy. SMEs and local companies with skilled workers and strong innovation capabilities will enhance Singapore's value proposition as an economic hub and strengthen our position in the global supply chain. We will also need to do more to sustain our other areas of competitive advantages, such as a skilled workforce, a vibrant innovation ecosystem, political stability, a strong legal system, quality infrastructure and connectivity, and also a vibrant arts and culture scene. These are important factors that businesses consider when making an investment.
We will use the additional revenue from the DTT and MTT to invest significantly in many of these areas. Our investments into future infrastructure, for example, put us in good stead for sustainable and resilient future growth. These include the upgrading of our nationwide broadband network and artificial intelligence infrastructure, Changi Airport Terminal 5, Tuas Mega Port, as well as critical infrastructure to facilitate Singapore’s transition to cleaner energy and safeguard our energy security.
Mr Louis Chua said he hoped that the additional tax revenues from DTT and MTT would not be effectively returned to the affected MNEs. Let me reiterate that we intend to fully comply with the GloBE rules and have no intention to collect DTT and MTT only to return it back to affected MNEs. Members should not mistake reinvesting the additional tax revenues from DTT and MTT into our broader economy, with returning DTT and MTT to affected MNEs. They are two separate things. We will reinvest revenues. But we have no intention to round trip anything in derogation of the GloBE rules.
Fundamentally, our economic philosophy has always been to support all companies that can bring value to Singapore, not just MNEs. This has been done through both tax and non-tax measures. Any company that wins in Singapore is a win for Singapore, regardless of whether it is an MNE or SME. These winners will strengthen our ecosystem and create better jobs for Singaporeans. This philosophy will not change with the introduction of the DTT and MTT.
If a company is prepared to make a substantive investment in Singapore, carry out high-value business activities here and provide good jobs for Singaporeans, we stand ready to support them, regardless of whether the company is an SME or MNE. Whatever support we give, we will ensure that it is compliant with the GloBE rules.
Ms Hazel Poa also suggested that MNEs benefit more than SMEs from our corporate tax system. We should look at this not only from the tax perspective, but also consider the amount of support that the Government provides to SMEs through grants and other schemes that we have. We have always supported our SMEs in their growth and productivity journey. Over the years, we have introduced many initiatives targeted at our SMEs, such as the double tax deduction for internationalisation, the SMEs Go Digital programme and the Productivity Solutions Grant. We have also set up SME Centres to support SMEs in exploring solutions to grow their businesses.
We have also introduced newer schemes more recently, for instance, the Singapore Global Enterprises initiative and the Enterprise Innovation Scheme at Budget 2023, and the enhancement of Partnerships for Capability Transformation scheme at Budget 2024. Many of these schemes are available only to SMEs, and, for many schemes, SMEs also receive higher support. This Bill also contains specific support for SMEs. As mentioned in my opening speech, the enhancements to the Renovation and Refurbishment scheme will simplify compliance and give SMEs more flexibility to manage their cash flow needs.
We will continue to do more. In April this year, the Government set up an Inter-Ministerial Committee for Pro-Enterprise Rules Review to oversee Government efforts to improve regulatory efficiency and reduce compliance burden for our SMEs and help them to better navigate Government rules and regulations. Rest assured we will continue to support our workers and SMEs to thrive in a more uncertain and competitive business environment. I encourage all SMEs to take advantage of available Government initiatives to grow, digitalise and internationalise.
To conclude, the two Bills introduce major changes to our corporate tax regime. The provisions seek to anchor high-quality investments in Singapore, ensure that our tax system remains relevant and fair to businesses and individuals, and keep Singapore in step with international tax developments. The Government will continue to work closely with all stakeholders to ensure a smooth transition. The Government will also continue to invest in our economic competitiveness so that Singapore remains one of the best places to do business. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Any clarifications? Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I have two clarifications, first, for Mr Sharael Taha, and then one quick one for Second Minister Indranee Rajah.
For Mr Sharael Taha, I am wondering if he will first acknowledge that BEPS 2.0 will, at the minimum, lead to an increase in net revenue, as has been estimated by several independent studies, such as the OECD or academics like Gabriel Zucman at Berkeley, or perhaps he has his own estimates that would suggest that there would be a net revenue loss, in which case, I hope that he will be able to share this with the House. If so, I wonder if he would not also agree with me that we should at least plan for the possibility that such a revenue stream, however uncertain, should at least be appropriately channeled to specific uses. After all, we would expect our fine professionals at MOF to engage in such a scenario analysis, lest the Ministry ends up inadvertently with higher-than-expected revenues, which would implicitly suggest then that we are overtaxing the people over and above the nation's current expenditure needs and, hence, putting a crimp on private economic activity.
Finally, my question for Second Minister Indranee is that while I do not think for a moment that foreign direct investments and improvements in technology are exclusive – indeed, I had explicitly referred to that complementarity in my speech – I hope she would at least accept my argument that we should not be pursuing capital for its own sake, but rather to focus on the importance of reinvesting not just in building up more physical capital, but importantly also the human capital of our people.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha: Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. Just to answer the query that Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked. If he would have heard my speech, I mentioned that while it may increase short-term revenue, MNEs could adjust strategies by relocating operations of headquarters, limiting the sustainable gains – something which Minister Indranee Rajah has also mentioned.
So, yes, it may increase the short-term revenue. However, because we do not know how MNEs will react to it, there may be a possibility that it is not a sustainable gain.
The point I was truly making was about how we approach this situation when investments are such a critical thing to the survival of Singapore. The point I was making was not to approach this in a simplistic manner and underplay the effect of it and overestimate the benefits of it, to the extent of banking it in such that the increase in corporate taxes alone because of BEPS 2.0 can by itself cover the revenue that is generated by the increase in GST.
So, it is about how do we approach this situation and about us being more cautious about it, and not count the chickens before the eggs hatch.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Minister Indranee Rajah.
Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank Assoc Prof Jamus Lim for his clarification. He asked whether I could agree that we should not invest in capital for the sake of capital and also to acknowledge the importance of human capital.
This Government never does anything just for the sake of a single thing. This Government is driven, first and foremost, by the well-being of Singaporeans, the importance of making sure that Singaporeans have personal growth, good development that will enable them to have good jobs, good incomes and, therefore, to have good standards of living and to be healthy and to do well in life.
And so, if you look at all that the Government has done, not just in the past years but in the past decades, at the heart of it has been the development of Singaporeans. Nowadays, we call it human capital. When we first started out, we talked about education. If you look at the amount that we put into education, I mean, it is the second highest amount in our Budget. And then, from primary and secondary, which was the initial investments into our human capital, we then went, in the last decade, into SkillsFuture, recognising that as people come out into the workforce, they will need to continue to learn to grow. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Second Minister for Finance\", Official Report, 15 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 143, Correction By Written Statement section.]
And then, in this year's Budget do not forget we had the ITE Progression Award as well as the various SkillsFuture programmes. So, I think where I can wholeheartedly agree with Assoc Prof Jamus Lim is the importance of investment in human capital, which we will do.
But we also obviously have to do investments into hard capital because we have just spent about two hours discussing the MRT. If we want people to have a good quality of life, you must have good quality infrastructure. So, we do need to make sure that we have good capital investments as well. Buildings, making sure we have homes, making sure that the city is a city in nature. All of those things. So, we can certainly agree that we want the best for Singaporeans and will invest in our human resource.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. Just a few related clarifications on RIC.
What is the current fiscal impact of our existing tax incentives and how will this change with the passing of the Bill? Correspondingly, what is the estimated net fiscal impact of the RIC on an annual basis? In other words, is there guidance by MOF to EnterpriseSG or the EDB on the budget for RIC, as this will be directly linked to some of the targets of EDB, such as your fixed asset investment, job creation and so on.
The other question is, in terms of the potential companies that could qualify for the RIC. In terms of the guidance to be published, would the criteria on the assessment be also published? And is there any timeline for this, as it was previously mentioned that it was going to be out by the third quarter?
Ms Indranee Rajah: Let me see if I got his questions correctly. On the RIC, Mr Louis Chua's question was on who would get it and what would be the criterion for getting RIC, is that right?
I had mentioned that in my opening speech. Essentially, the ones that can get the RIC credits would be those who make investments in high-value and substantive economic activities. So, we have kept it broad at the moment, but there is a certain sense to that – the development or expansion of manufacturing facilities, setting up of headquarters and services, pursuit of R&D, innovation activities, commodity trading, decarbonisation. All of these are part of how they can basically add to or grow our economy and support our green transition.
And on the question of guidance and timelines, give IRAS a little time to work on that. We will put it out, but as I mentioned in my speech, we are working and engaging with the stakeholders. But we will make sure that there is appropriate guidance when the time comes for them to implement it.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Usha Chandradas.
Ms Usha Chandradas (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I have one clarification for Minister Indranee. Does the Government have any plans at this point in time to devote more resources to the development of international tax education in Singapore at the tertiary level or beyond?
Ms Indranee Rajah: The short answer is that we would love to, but we are always being called upon to give people education on many things. And every time we are asked, Minister Chan Chun Sing flinches because it always goes back to the Ministry of Education (MOE). So, we have to educate on mental health, we have to educate on being green. We have to educate on many things. We will do our best on this.
It is a technical subject; it can be quite complex. Just on ordinary tax, it is tough enough, let alone international tax rules. But the key thing is to put it out in as ordinary, plain layman language as we can. Where possible, we will work with MOE to see what can be included in the general Economics modules. Obviously, students in the Institutes of Higher Learning will have to deal with it, if they are dealing with tax modules. But other than that, I would say that the IRAS website is a good place to start and so are the BEPS websites.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Any further clarifications? I see none.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (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":"Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
This Bill was debated with the earlier Bill and hence, unless there are any further queries or comments, I would ask that the Bill be moved a Second time.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Any further clarifications? I see none.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (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":"Elections (Integrity of Online Advertising) (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Digital Development and Information (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Madam, 2024 is a bumper year for elections around the world. Almost half of the world's population have gone or will go to the polls this year. Unfortunately, there has been a noticeable increase of deepfake incidents in countries where elections have taken place or are planned.
Research conducted by London-based technology company, SumSub, suggests that the numbers are alarming. In India, compared to a year ago, there are three times as many deepfake incidents. In Indonesia, more than 15 times; and in South Korea, more than 16 times.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
Earlier in January this year, a fake version of the United States (US) President Joe Biden's voice was featured in robocalls that sought to discourage Democrats from participating in the New Hampshire primary. The robocalls reached thousands of people. The US Federal Communications Commission has since declared artificial intelligence (AI)-generated robocalls illegal, noting that they have the potential to confuse consumers with misinformation. The telecommunications company, which transmitted the fake robocalls, has been fined US$1 million and the individual behind it has been fined US$6 million and criminal charges.
During the Slovakian parliamentary elections last year, a deepfake audio of a politician discussing electoral rigging was posted online. Unsurprisingly, the audio went viral. Its impact was amplified by its timing, right before Slovakia's electoral \"silence period\", which is like our cooling-off day. The candidate lost the elections, despite having earlier led in the polls.
Did the deepfake audio contribute to his loss? No one can say with certainty, but surely we prefer not to have elections subject to such incidents.
Why have deepfake content proliferated? The short answer is that they have become very easy and cheap to produce. With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I play a video on the LED screens?
Mr Speaker: Yes, you may.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Thank you. [A video was shown to hon Members.]
Sir, Members will appreciate that artificial intelligence (AI) technology is improving quickly. If the deepfake video you just watched did not convince you of its impersonation of me, more advanced versions soon will. Around the world, countries have recognised the need to mitigate the harms of deepfakes to their elections.
For example, South Korea revised its Public Official Election Act to ban political campaign videos that use AI-generated content 90 days prior to an election. Violations of the revised law, which took effect in January this year, can lead to jail time of up to seven years or a fine of up to 50 million won, which is almost $50,000. To date, 388 deepfakes have been taken down by the National Election Commission of South Korea during its elections.
Another example is Brazil, which has banned synthetic electoral propaganda that will harm or favour any candidate during an election. The sanctions include the revocation of the candidate's registration or their mandate if they had been elected.
Last month, the state of California passed into law the \"Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024\", which requires social media platforms to block materially deceptive deepfakes of candidates from 120 days before the election to the day of the election.
The Australian government is also considering the advice of its Electoral Commission to regulate the use of AI in elections, given the Commission's recent warning that it has limited scope to protect voters from deepfake videos and phone calls imitating politicians in Australia's upcoming elections.
It is not just governments which are concerned. The technology industry has also recognised the dangers of electoral deepfakes and the importance of ensuring voters can exercise their choice, free from AI-based manipulation. Twenty leading tech companies, including Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI and TikTok, signed the Tech Accord at the Munich Security Conference in February, committing to combat the deceptive use of AI in elections this year.
In the face of these developments, Singaporeans are rightly concerned. One study shows that more than six in 10 Singaporeans are worried about the potential impact of deepfakes on the next election.
In a 2021 ruling on a case related to misinformation and online falsehoods, our apex Court had said, \"It is simply incompatible with the core principles of democracy to procure the outcome of an election to public office or a referendum by trading in disinformation and falsehoods.\"
Mr Speaker, I hope Members will agree that AI-generated misinformation can seriously threaten our democratic foundations and demands an equally serious response.
The Elections (Integrity of Online Advertising) (Amendment) Bill, or ELIONA Bill, is our carefully calibrated response to augment our election laws under the Parliamentary Elections Act and the Presidential Elections Act, ensuring that the truthfulness of candidate representation and the integrity of our elections continue to be upheld.
Sir, I will now bring Members through the key aspects of the Bill.
The ELIONA Bill will amend our election laws to prohibit the publication of content that: (a) is or includes Online Election Advertising (OEA); (b) is digitally generated or manipulated; and (c) depicts a candidate saying or doing something that he or she did not, in fact, say or do; (d) but is realistic enough that some members of the public who see or hear the content would reasonably believe that the candidate did, in fact, say or do that thing.
I will go through each of these criteria in detail.
First, OEA under our existing elections laws refers to any information or material published online that can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure or prejudice the electoral success or prospects of a candidate or political party. The existing OEA provisions guide the transparent and responsible use of the Internet during elections, including for campaigning; and ensure that the elections are contested fairly.
The ELIONA Bill strengthens OEA regime by targeting the substantive content of OEA.
Second, the ELIONA Bill is scoped to address content that is digitally generated or manipulated.
This includes content generated or manipulated using AI techniques, such as generative AI. It also includes non-AI techniques, such as Photoshop, dubbing and splicing. These are now seen as more traditional editing methods, but they can still be used to manipulate content depicting candidates, making them as harmful and misleading as AI-generated deepfakes.
Third, the ELIONA Bill is scoped to address the most harmful types of content in the context of elections, which is content that misleads or deceives the public about a candidate through a false representation of his speech or actions that is realistic enough to be reasonably believed by some members of the public.
The condition of being realistic will be objectively assessed. There is no one-size-fits-all set of criteria but some general points can be made.
First, such content should closely match the candidates' known features, expressions and mannerisms. Technically, we would expect a degree of sophistication resulting in minimal inconsistencies in aspects like lighting, body movements or audio distortions.
Second, content may make use of actual persons, events and places so that the false representation appears more believable. For example, a fake rally speech touching on current affairs looks more real when placed against the backdrop of an actual and familiar rally site.
We must also recognise that audiences perceive and process the same content through different lenses shaped by their individual experiences, beliefs and cognitive biases. For example, many of us find it incredible that the Prime Minister would be giving investment advice on social media. But as Members of Parliament, we have all met residents who have fallen prey to such AI-enabled scams. In this regard, the law will apply so long as there are some members of the public who would reasonably believe that the candidate did say or do what was depicted.
Also, in assessing whether content matches a candidate's speech or actions, we will be relying primarily on declarations by the candidate if he or she had said or done that thing. I will elaborate on this later in my speech.
All four legal limbs have to be met for the content to be prohibited. That is, the content: (a) is or includes OEA; (b) is digitally generated or manipulated; and (c) depicts a candidate saying or doing something that he or she did not, in fact, say or do; (d) but is realistic enough that some members of the public who see or hear the content would reasonably believe that the candidate did, in fact, say or do that thing.
Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a handout that will illustrate our thinking on what will be allowed or disallowed under the new provisions?
Mr Speaker: Please go ahead. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]
Mrs Josephine Teo: Sir, Members can also access this handout through the MP@SGPARL App.
Examples of content that would be prohibited include: (a) realistic audiofakes featuring a candidate saying things he did not say; (b) realistic AI-generated images of a candidate participating at events that did not happen, meeting people that he or she did not meet; and (c) realistic manipulated images or videos taken out of context and misrepresenting a candidate's actions.
It does not matter if the content is favourable or unfavourable to any candidate. The publication of such prohibited content during the election period, including by boosting, sharing and reposting existing content, will be an offence.
As we propose this new measure to tackle realistic misrepresentations of candidates online, we are mindful not to disallow reasonable use of AI or technology in electoral campaigning. While each case will be assessed on a case-by-case basis, there are several scenarios that the prohibition will not extend to.
The first is AI-generated or animated characters and cartoons. Most of these animations are not photorealistic replicas of real persons. Audiences will generally be able to tell that the speech or actions depicted are not real.
The second is benign cosmetic alterations, such as the use of beauty filters or colour and lighting adjustments of images and videos. Such alterations typically involve modifications that do not materially affect truthfulness and do not result in a misrepresentation of a candidate's speech or actions.
The third is entertainment content, such as memes. We recognise that such content can arise as part of online discourse during the election period. Memes will not be caught under the law as long as they are assessed to be unrealistic and do not mislead audiences about a candidate's speech or actions.
Some Members may be concerned, will candidates' regular campaign posters, showing individuals against the backdrop of a group representation constituency (GRC) or a single member constituency (SMC), be prohibited if they are put online? Such posters are usually obvious composite images, such as candidates disproportionately superimposed in front of a landmark or backdrop. Members of the public would not reasonably believe such content to be realistic depictions of a candidate's action. Such campaign posters are unlikely to fall within the scope of prohibitions.
Mr Speaker, I would like to make clear that the ban will not apply to certain types of content.
First, the Bill does not extend to private or domestic communications. This refers to content shared between individuals or within a closed group, like group chats with family or a small group of friends, in view of user privacy.
That said, we know that false content can circulate rapidly on open WhatsApp or Telegram channels. If it is reported that prohibited content is being communicated in big group chats that involve many users who are strangers to one another and are freely accessible by the public, such communications will be caught under the Bill and we will assess if action should be taken. The factors that determine whether communications are private or domestic are set out in the respective election Acts.
Second, the prohibition does not apply to news published by authorised news agencies. This is to give space to fair reporting on prohibited content, such that the public can be alerted to the false content about candidates in a timely manner.
Third, we recognise that a layperson may carelessly reshare messages and links without realising that the content has been manipulated. The legislation provides for a defence if a person did not know and had no reason to believe that the candidate did not, in fact, say or do the thing and inadvertently commits the offence.
Sir, the enhanced safeguards will apply during the election period, from the issuance of the Writ of Election to the close of polling on Polling Day.
From the issuance of the Writ to Nomination Day, we will introduce a two-part requirement for individuals who would like to identify themselves as prospective candidates and have the safeguards of the ELIONA Bill apply to them. First, pay the election deposit; and second, consent for their names to be made public by the Elections Department (ELD). The consent form will be made available via the ELD website. The intent is for the website to be updated daily.
Paying the election deposit is a prerequisite for standing in an election and an indicator of an individual's seriousness of intent to be a candidate. It is a step up from simply making a public declaration of one's potential candidacy. Publishing the names of those who placed the deposit will also make clear to the public which individuals are covered by the law. It is the candidate's choice entirely when to inform the public about his or her intention to stand for election before Nomination Day. Candidates can choose to put down the election deposit but withhold consent to make their names public until Nomination Day.
After nomination proceedings are completed and up to the close of polling on Polling Day, the safeguards of the ELIONA Bill will apply to content depicting all successfully nominated candidates. At the same time, individuals themselves should also readily come forward to clarify and debunk content that they believe misrepresents them.
The Government will use a range of detection tools to assess if the content has been generated or manipulated using digital means. We have at our disposal commercial tools and also those developed in-house or in partnership with researchers, such as those at the Centre of Advanced Technologies in Online Safety, or CATOS.
These tools are constantly updated to keep up with technology. Continuing strong investment in research is one way to ensure we stay ahead. We have channelled $50 million in funding over five years to CATOS, which will develop new technological capabilities to detect online harms, including harmful digitally manipulated content.
In reviewing reports of false content flagged under this new prohibition, the Government will prioritise candidates' reports to the Returning Officer. Besides the technical assessment on whether the content has been manipulated, the Returning Officer will also rely on candidates' declarations on whether the content falsely depicts their speech and actions.
We have placed significant weight on candidates' declarations to the Returning Officer under this new prohibition, as the candidate is in the best position to speedily clarify if the content is a truthful and accurate representation of himself or herself. The Government is unlikely to have all the evidence of whether a candidate actually said or did something, especially if it was in a private setting.
The declaration by candidates will be made to the Returning Officer, for candidates to attest to the veracity of his or her claim. This declaration form will be made available to candidates via the Candidates' Portal on ELD's website.
To deter abuse of the law, such as candidates requesting to take down unfavourable content that is, in fact, a factual representation of their speech or action, it will be made an illegal practice for candidates to knowingly make a false or misleading declaration in a request.
The penalties for an illegal practice are set out in the elections Acts. If convicted of an illegal practice, one may face a fine not exceeding $2,000 and become ineligible to be elected as a Member of Parliament (MP) or the President. Further, if already elected, the election of a candidate as a MP or President may also be invalidated.
Currently, the Returning Officer has powers to issue corrective directions to any relevant person, including social media services, to remove or disable access in Singapore to prohibited OEA, or to stop or reduce its electronic communication activity.
The ELIONA Bill extends these powers for the Returning Officer to issue corrective directions against this new category of content and corrective actions must be taken within the specified period of time.
As mentioned earlier, the Government will prioritise candidates' reports and declarations to the Returning Officer. If assessed to be a genuine case, the Returning Officer will issue corrective directions. Only in exceptional cases will directions be considered against false representations without a candidate's declaration. This may arise when the objective facts are widely known or if the Government has access to data that reliably confirms the candidate's actual speech or action.
The public can also report potentially prohibited content of candidates to the authorities for review.
To better equip the public to make informed choices during the elections, the public will be notified about corrective directions that have been issued against offending content.
Non-compliance with a corrective direction issued by the Returning Officer is an offence. Recognising the extensive reach and responsibility that social media services must uphold, we have raised the fine of up to $1 million for a provider of a social media service that fails to comply with a corrective direction. This is a reasonable adjustment. The revised penalty is on par with similar offences under other content regulation tools like the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), the Broadcasting Act (BA) and the Online Criminal Harms Act (OCHA).
For all others, including individuals, there is no change to the financial and custodial penalties for non-compliance with a corrective direction and remains at a fine not exceeding $1,000, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both.
We have engaged major social media services on the requirements under the ELIONA Bill and shared our expectation that such directions are to be promptly complied with to uphold the integrity of our elections.
Mr Speaker, as noted by Dr Carol Soon of the Institute of Policy Studies, the ELIONA Bill is carefully calibrated in its scope of the \"what\", \"when\" and \"whom\" and is a continuation of our principled approach towards the conduct of elections in Singapore.
First, the Bill addresses the most harmful digitally generated and manipulated content, including deepfakes, that can influence electoral outcomes, while recognising the value of novel content creation techniques and the desire of candidates to employ innovative methods to engage voters.
Second, it applies only during the election period, from the issuance of the Writ to the end of polling on Polling Day, to safeguard the integrity of the electoral process and preserve space for fair and legitimate political discourse during the elections.
Third, the safeguards apply to all candidates, regardless of political party and potential impact of the fake content. This recognises that fake content favourable to one candidate must be unfavourable to another and vice versa. Our voters must be able to make informed choices based on factual and truthful representation of our prospective political leaders. Candidates, too, have a responsibility to conduct themselves with integrity during the elections.
The ELIONA Bill updates our suite of measures introduced over the years to address various forms of harmful online content. During and outside the election periods, existing content regulation tools will continue to apply to certain types of AI-generated misinformation and deepfakes.
For example, under POFMA, a Minister, or an appointed Alternate Authority during the election periods, may issue a direction for a recipient to communicate a correction notice. The Minister or Alternate Authority may also direct the removal or disabling of access to deepfakes on the grounds that they contain false statements of fact and it is in the public interest to issue the direction. Under OCHA, directions may be given to deal with online activities that are criminal in nature, such as deepfake-related scams. Under the Protection from Harassment Act, individuals may seek recourse for certain content that have caused personal harassment, alarm or distress to the individual.
Beyond the expectations set out in the ELIONA Bill during the election period, social media services should also bear greater responsibility for digitally generated or manipulated content at all times. Most major social media services are also prescribed Internet intermediaries (PIIs) under POFMA. They will be required to prevent and counter the abuse of digitally generated or manipulated content at all times through an upcoming Code of Practice under POFMA.
This includes an obligation to put in place adequate systems and processes to enhance the transparency of digitally generated or manipulated content, such as through labelling. Like the three other POFMA codes in effect today, the new Code is being formulated in consultation with the PIIs. We intend to finalise the Code for issuance in 2025. Mr Speaker, may I continue in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I believe that many people have experienced friends or family members around us believing in deepfakes online. No matter how we try to explain to them, they still believe in the fake content. Sometimes, even we can be deceived, and the spread of fake content is very difficult to guard against.
With the rapid development of Artificial Intelligence (AI), deepfakes will only become more prevalent and realistic, allowing individuals with ulterior motives to sow seeds of doubt in our society more easily and quickly. If such fake content is widely disseminated during a General Election, the consequences could be too dire to imagine. In fact, this concern is not unfounded. In recent elections held in several countries, we have already witnessed the harm caused by fake content. This new law aims to prohibit the online publication of fake content that distorts a candidate's speech or actions so that we can better protect our democratic process and the fairness of our elections.
However, legislation is not a panacea. Enhancing the public's ability to discern the authenticity of content is the most effective preventive measure. Therefore, let us work together to be more vigilant about online content, and verify them against reliable sources when necessary. Everyone should do their part and be the first line of defence against fake content.
(In English): Sir, the ELIONA Bill will add an additional layer of safeguards to our elections, but everyone – candidates, citizens, tech platforms – has a part to play in protecting our democracy.
We must keep our elections fair and honest, conducted on the basis of fact, not fiction. By and large, Members of this House, regardless of party allegiance, have supported these ideals and I appeal to Members to stand behind this Bill so that we can continue to uphold the integrity of our elections. With that, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill aims to safeguard the integrity of our elections. It is a response to the increasingly sophisticated technological threats we face today. However, I believe that robust legislation requires careful consideration. It also needs clear articulation to avoid unintended consequences. In this spirit, I seek several clarifications on the Bill.
First, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must carefully maintain the balance between two critical elements. These are our citizens' fundamental right to freedom of expression and our collective responsibility to share information responsibly.
The Bill introduces significant penalties for sharing digitally altered content. Under clause 2, section 61a, it states that this offence does not apply to \"private and domestic communications.\"
Yet, many political messages are not created by political parties or candidates themselves. Instead, supporters or proxies, including fake accounts, generate these messages. Deepfake videos and misinformation can circulate not just on social media, but also through messaging channels, such as WhatsApp and Telegram. They are transmitted very quickly and can go viral easily. These channels are, hence, often more damaging than we realise. The harm could be done before anything is reported.
Therefore, can the Minister clarify how the Bill will address fake accounts and deepfakes from these private accounts and messaging channels? Specifically, how will it deal with deepfakes or messages shared through these supposedly private communication channels?
While we acknowledge the need to balance freedom of expression, we must also differentiate between harmless satire and intentional falsehoods. This distinction applies even if the content is shared privately. We must remember – private does not mean harmless.
Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, we need to address concerns regarding political overreach.
The vagueness of certain definitions within the Bill could be concerning. The terms \"realistic but false representations\" and \"manipulated content\" are broad. I understand the need to capture the evolving nature of digital manipulation. Nonetheless, this breadth could lead to confusion or inconsistent application. It could even lead to potential overreach in enforcement.
I urge the Ministry to offer greater clarity on this point. Could the Minister elaborate on the specific types of content that would be considered an offence under this law? Additionally, how does the Ministry intend to differentiate between malicious manipulation and minor alterations? This would include artistic edits or satirical content. Clear definitions and guidelines are important. They ensure that this law meets its purpose while avoiding the stifling of legitimate political expression. Will the Ministry provide examples of content that would fall under this Bill's purview?
Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must confront concerns about potential selective enforcement. The enforcement mechanisms could be seen as vulnerable to bias. This is particularly true for the provision allowing corrective directions by the Returning Officer. Such bias could lead to possible allegations of selective application.
What concrete assurances can the Ministry provide to guarantee transparency and impartiality? How will the enforcement of this Bill remain demonstrably free from any unfair allegations of political bias? This is critical, especially since the Bill empowers candidates to request such corrective directions.
Furthermore, given the extremely short nine-day election campaign, how will the Ministry ensure timely follow-up on such requests? It is essential to balance efficiency and due process. We must ensure that fake accounts and deepfakes are not just detected but swiftly taken down before they poison public opinion.
Additionally, I wonder if we are being harsh enough. Should we, for instance, mandate that perpetrators bear the onus of ensuring complete removal of such content from the Internet rather than simply issuing a correction notice?
Many would simply ignore a correction notice and continue consuming the content. Should we not implement more punitive measures by working with social media companies to take down fake content? What mechanisms are in place for this?
Considering the large amount of resources potentially incurred for rectifying the damage, we should consider holding perpetrators accountable for it.
Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must acknowledge the challenges posed by rapid technological advancements. While this Bill focuses on identifying and mitigating manipulated content, we must recognise that detection technology may lag behind AI-driven content generation. This creates a real risk. Harmful content could spread before effective action can be taken.
Given the fast-evolving nature of AI and digital manipulation, how does the Ministry plan to stay ahead? What systems, partnerships or research initiatives will ensure robust detection capabilities? How will corrective actions be taken swiftly and accurately?
Fifth, Mr Speaker, Sir, legislative measures must be coupled with public awareness and education. Our citizens deserve the power to discern truth from lies. They must protect themselves and our democracy from the invisible hand of manipulation.
It is not enough to penalise the creators of misinformation. We must arm our citizens with the tools to fight it themselves. We need to equip them to critically assess digital media, identify manipulation and avoid falling prey to misinformation.
This cannot be achieved overnight. It requires a sustained, long-term investment in digital literacy programmes. Beyond penalties, is the Ministry planning any public education campaigns? Specifically, are there initiatives addressing AI-generated misinformation and improving digital literacy? How will these efforts be tailored to different demographics?
Sixth, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill needs further clarification regarding its application to foreign influence. While it prohibits election advertising by foreign entities, the borderless nature of online content makes preventing foreign interference a challenge.
How does the Ministry plan to address cases where content from overseas is designed to influence our elections? What protocols are in place to track, identify and block foreign-sourced digital manipulation? How can this be enforced on foreign-based entities, for instance, online media outlets based in foreign jurisdictions?
Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must consider whether the timeframe for this Bill's provisions is sufficient. The Bill's provisions apply only after the Writ of Election is issued. However, misleading or manipulated content could circulate long before the campaign period begins. Given that election advertising can start unofficially well before the writ is issued, why does the Bill only cover the period after the writ is issued? Has the Ministry considered a broader timeframe? Could we establish a \"pre-election period\" with safeguards to address early content?
Moreover, with a condensed nine-day campaign period, what assurances can the Minister provide regarding timely and decisive enforcement? The rapid spread of online content demands an equally rapid response.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Elections (Integrity of Online Advertising) (Amendment) Bill. It is critical for protecting the integrity of our election process. Globally, we have seen the threat that deepfakes pose to elections. For example, in Moldova, a video of the President endorsing a pro-Russian political party caused public discord; in Slovakia, audio clips surfaced of a liberal party leader allegedly discussing vote rigging; and in the US, AI-generated content showed a dystopian future following President Biden's re-election bid.
The threat of deepfakes is not a distant possibility. It is already at our doorstep. Deepfakes of our Senior Minister and Prime Minister have been used to promote fake investment products. We saw just now a deepfake of Minister Josephine Teo. This highlights the potential for misuse, even outside election cycles.
These examples show that the threat is real, immediate and happening globally. Deepfakes can erode trust, destroy reputations and mislead citizens. We cannot allow technology to hijack our democracy. That is why I have raised several key questions today.
Free speech should not be a free pass for spreading falsehoods. The Bill must carefully balance the freedom of speech with measures to counter misinformation. It needs clear definitions and safeguards against biased enforcement. Transparency and democracy must be upheld.
Countering deepfakes demands a multi-faceted strategy. For instance, how will this Bill tackle fake accounts and deepfakes from private messaging channels?
We must invest in sophisticated technology to stay agile in the face of AI advancements. It is equally important to empower citizens with digital literacy skills. Addressing foreign interference and ensuring swift enforcement within the election timeline is critical. Democracy must be defended not just at the ballot box, but in the digital space. Let us create legislation that safeguards our democracy and elections while protecting our citizens. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, deepfakes, particularly malicious ones, pose a serious threat to our democratic processes, particularly during elections. While exciting, technological advances in the field of generative AI bring new challenges in maintaining the integrity of our political and electoral system. The proliferation of highly realistic yet fabricated content, particularly in the digital realm, poses a risk to our electoral system and, if we are not careful, will shake the trust citizens have in the democratic process here in Singapore.
It bears reiterating that deepfakes and digitally altered content are a very real and present danger to democracy. As mentioned by the Minister and also Member Yip Hon Weng earlier, in the 2023 Slovak parliamentary elections, we witnessed the potential impact on elections of the malicious use of deepfakes to sway the results of an election. Just two days before the elections there, during the equivalent of our cooling-off day, a fake audio clip surfaced, which was set to have been a recording of pro-European candidate, Michal Simecka, discussing electoral fraud with a prominent journalist. Both quickly denied its authenticity but the clip went viral.
The impact was also amplified by the deepfake being released during the election's \"silence period\", when media is prohibited from discussing election-related developments. In that election, the pro-Russia candidate Robert Fico ultimately won, which naturally led to speculation about whether the deepfake contributed towards Simecka's loss, given that he was polling stronger than the ultimate victor.
While political scientists on the whole concluded that the deepfake alone did not cost Simecka to lose, the very speculation caused by its going viral laid bare how dangerous it is for a democracy to exist in an environment of low trust in public institutions and a population with a propensity to believe in conspiracy theories.
The Workers' Party (WP) therefore supports the introduction of legislation to combat the threat of digitally manipulated media contained in this amendment Bill, although I wish to raise two main areas of concern and seek further clarifications from the Minister on other further technical points.
First, the new section 42L(4) contains a number of carve-outs from the band of manipulated content during the election period for OEA, including for authorised news agencies. The reason given for this is to allow factual reporting. However, this is not enough reason to exempt these actors as factual reporting should not require reproduction of prohibited material. In fact, we should consider a concerning scenario – authorised news agencies, when reporting on prohibited content, might inadvertently spread misinformation.
In our attention deficit world, many readers skim headlines and images without carefully reading the full article or captions. This creates a risk where such content, even when presented as part of factual reporting, could be mistaken for genuine content and go viral as real news.
Thus, the very act of reporting by reproducing these prohibited materials might unintentionally amplify their reach and impact.
Our disquiet over creating such a two-tier media landscape leads to questions about how we can ensure that media entities exempt from the prohibitions of the Act do not publish such content without consequences. What mechanisms will be in place to hold these outlets accountable if they do publish or propagate prohibited content, intentionally or unintentionally? More specifically, does the Minister believe that the existing codes of practice governing authorised news agencies are sufficient to address the concerns raised above, or would further updates be needed to combat the unique risks associated with digitally manipulated content and deepfakes?
Would there thus also be new codes or updates to the existing codes of practice, such as the promised new code of conduct which the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) states will be published to ensure social media companies do more to moderate content and when is the expected publication date?
Second, the Bill also states that private or domestic communications are exempted. The new section 61M(4) exempts private or domestic electronic communications between two or more individuals from the regulations. While we acknowledge the intent to protect personal privacy, we hope that this exemption does not become a Trojan horse used to overcome the Bill's defences combating disinformation. This is because disinformation often spreads rapidly through private channels. It is also not a secret that modern communication platforms have blurred the lines between private and public spaces. What would be the standing of spaces such as private Facebook groups, private Telegram channels, locked Facebook profiles or messaging group chats? Would whether a channel is private hinge on whether having people in the group not knowing each other, for example?
It is important to have clarity on this as academics have found that there is emerging evidence that propagandists increasingly exploit applications such as WhatsApp and Telegram, preying on their popularity, loose moderation policies and trust within private networks. In Slovakia, the example I raised earlier, Telegram has become a haven for pro-Russian propaganda and a deepfake of Simecka was spread widely on Pro-Fico Telegram channels ahead of the election.
In view of this, can the Minister clarify how the exemption for private messages will address the risks associated with widespread disinformation spreading through these channels? What are the criteria to be used to determine whether or not a specific communication is private and therefore exempt from the prohibitions contained in the Bill?
Aside from these, I have some clarifications around three broad areas: first, the scoping of the prohibitions; second, questions about the reporting and investigation of alleged offences; and third, the potential misuse of the regime.
On the scoping of the prohibitions, I note that the prohibitions and offences only apply during election periods and it is confined to Singapore. While it is necessarily the way it is scoped because the acts being amended are acts governing our two types of elections in Singapore, what is the treatment regulating prohibited content aimed at influencing political sentiment when we are not in an official election period?
Deceptive information may begin swaying public opinion well before an election is formally announced and this is especially the case as the potential window for calling a general election narrows over time. After all, foreign disinformation groups are known to wage persistent year-round disinformation campaigns to influence political outcomes. For example, the government of Canada detected a Chinese spamouflage campaign, where various Canadian members of parliament, including its' prime minister, leader of the opposition and members of the cabinet were targeted. The rapid response mechanism alerted the affected members of parliament who were provided with advice and support on how to protect themselves from the campaign. The aim? To discredit and denigrate targeted members of parliament, by questioning the political and ethical standards, using deepfake videos and fake social media profiles.
While the punishments outlined in this Bill are meant to act as strong deterrence, they do not fully address threats from those operating outside of Singapore's jurisdiction. How then will we effectively combat the risks associated with a foreign coordinated campaign using prohibited content like deepfakes?
Next, moving to an investigation of alleged offences. Given that members of the public can report alleged prohibited content, where and what is the investigative capacity to investigate claims made in this regard? Who undertakes the investigation, and how long would it take for these to be completed, before any further action is taken? What resources, both in terms of manpower and otherwise, would be available to the Returning Officer and ELD to make relevant decisions and take enforcement action?
After all, in Singapore, we are somewhat unique in having a very short campaign period and added together with the quick spread of digital information, it makes it even more imperative that decisions about claims have to be made rapidly.
Also, what happens after an offence is reported and the decision is made to issue a corrective order? Would the Returning Officer then simultaneously ask both the poster and platform to take it down? What then happens if there is a refusal to comply with the order? After all, for platforms, the maximum fine of $1 million dollars might be questioned about whether it was sufficient to compel trillion-dollar companies, such as Meta and TikTok to comply.
Would the Minister also be able to elaborate on any appeals process, if one were to disagree with the corrective order? This is particularly important too, as information has now gotten to the stage where experts sometimes even disagree about whether a piece of content is real or doctored.
Finally, moving to abuse of this process, particularly given the very short nature of our official elections period, and given that members of the public can also make reports. While we often view deepfakes as malignant and harmful, recent elections such as the recently concluded Indian national elections have seen instances where generative AI and deepfake technology has been used to manipulate videos of candidates in a way to benefit them. A classic example would be using deepfake technology to show candidates speaking in languages or dialects that they do not themselves speak, in a misleading effort to endear themselves to certain segments of the electorate. Would these cases of \"positive deepfakes\" fall under the scope of the prohibition?
Also, given that anyone can make a report, what is the penalty if a member of the public makes a false report? And how will this be communicated so that members of the public do not spam reports as an act of mischief during the election campaign?
Finally, while we have focused a lot today about the potential harms and dangers that deepfakes may pose to democratic processes, some researchers have also warned against being overtly alarmist. In a 2020 paper, Orben warns against what he terms as \"technology panics\", arguing that these can sometimes encourage quick fixes that \"centralise control over truth\". I believe that Member Mr Yip also raised similar concerns about overreach earlier.
Instead, I think it would be more helpful to invest in nuanced and effective proactive public education strategies. A technique that appears promising is \"pre-bunking\", the process of debunking lies, tactics or sources before they strike, because prevention is more impactful than cure. It works like inoculation and aims to build mental resilience against misinformation before being exposed to its full force. Much like Ministry of Defence's Exercise SG Ready earlier this year involving a simulated phishing exercise run by organisations. Pre-bunking works by exposing people to weakened forms of misinformation and uses this to teach them to spot manipulative techniques used by fake news peddlers.
This approach seems to work across different cultures and across those with differing political views and should be integrated into our wider strategy tackling the effects of misinformation on our population. Specific proposals could include enhancing media literacy education in schools and other touchpoints, where our citizens hone their critical thinking skills necessary to navigate the increasingly complex information landscape. We can also use short-form content on social media and interactive online experiences to reach a wide audience, teaching them to recognise common manipulation techniques used in deepfakes and other types of misinformation campaigns.
To conclude, we support the addition of measures to tackle the harm that deepfakes and such manipulated content can cause during the especially vulnerable period of an election campaign. However, I believe that there are a number of concerns and clarifications that I hope the Minister can address, as we work together to ensure that our democratic process does not come under threat by sophisticated manipulated media.
Mr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise today to express my support for this timely and necessary Bill, which seeks to address the growing threat posed by deepfake technology, especially in the context of elections. As we stand at the intersection of rapid technological advancements and evolving societal dynamics, it is crucial that our legal framework keeps pace with the changes in the world – in terms of changing technology, information dissemination and diverse electorate.
Countries around the world have begun taking legislative steps to combat the potential misuse of deepfake technology, particularly in electoral context. The US, for example, has seen various states introduce Bills aimed at regulating deepfakes, especially during election periods. Some states have enacted laws that prohibit the use of deepfakes to deceive voters, particularly close to elections. Similarly, the federal government has started considering regulations focused on transparency and accountability in political advertising.
Meanwhile, the United Kingdom (UK) has been exploring the implications of deepfakes on democracy, suggesting that existing laws on misinformation need to be updated to specifically address deepfakes, with a focus on protecting electoral integrity. Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to speak in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Deepfake technology poses a significant threat to our democracy and electoral process by creating realistic but false content that can mislead voters, distort public opinion and undermine confidence in the validity of elections. Through audio and video manipulation, deepfakes can be weaponised to spread misinformation, damage reputations and sow confusion during critical moments in elections. The speed at which manipulated content can spread on social media only increases the risk of potentially influencing a large portion of voters before the information's authenticity can be verified.
This erosion of trust is dangerous as it weakens the foundations of a fair and transparent electoral system. Everyone should be concerned and vigilant about this threat because it has the power to distort truth in ways that are difficult to detect and refute. In an electoral context, this could mean voters making decisions based on falsehoods or maliciously wrong content.
As Singaporeans and concerned members of the public, we must be cautious about the information that we receive and share, especially in the digital space. Critical thinking, media literacy and verifying the authenticity of content before sharing are key responsibilities that we should all shoulder in facing this ever-growing threat.
To protect against the dangers of deepfakes, the Government, technology companies and individuals need to work together. Legislative measures are in place to address false content during elections and ensure that those behind such malicious actions and intentions are held accountable.
Social media platforms must enhance their ability to detect false or misleading content. At the same time, public awareness campaigns can help educate citizens on how to recognise manipulated media content. Through vigilance, legal protections and responsible content sharing, we can safeguard our democratic system from treacherous elements seeking to mislead and divide our people through technologies like deepfakes. This is the purpose of this Bill.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, these developments reflect a growing international recognition of the dangers deepfakes pose to electoral processes. Transparency, accountability and public awareness are the cornerstones of these legislative efforts and our Bill today is part of this global movement to safeguard the integrity of elections.
Nevertheless, I have a few clarifications.
My first, on defining the election period, the Bill targets deepfake deployed during the election period. However, what exactly is the election period is not so clearly stated. I heard Minister Josephine Teo stating in the Second Reading speech earlier, that the election period begins from the issuance of the rate of elections until the close of polling day. This clarification is welcome as I believe that the Bill itself does not define the election period and it is somewhat unclear in the Parliamentary Elections Act which only defines the postal voting period.
I welcome the clear and certain timeline that the Bill seeks to address, which is within the election period only. This prevents overreach beyond the election period. While we must act to prevent malicious use of deepfakes during elections, we have other tools, such as defamation laws, the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act, or POFMA, and the Online Criminal Harms Act, or OCHA, to address such issues and deepfakes in non-election context. We should avoid chilling free expressions of speech outside of election periods. Hence, I thank the hon Minister for her assurance just now during the Second Reading speech.
The second clarification is on the disclaimers for AI-generated content and satire. The Bill rightly offers some defences for those accused of spreading deepfake content. Under clause 2 of the explanatory statement of the Bill, it is a defence for an individual to prove that they did not know and had no reason to believe the representation of a candidate was, in fact, untrue and that the offence does not apply to private and domestic communications, the publication of news by authorised news agencies and other prescribed circumstances.
This means that a person forwarding a link by an authorised news agency to his family members in a WhatsApp group chat might not be considered an offence, if that person did not know or had no reason to believe that the representation of the election candidate was false. I thank the hon Minister who clarified that the offence will not cover all private and domestic communications like WhatsApp and closed group chats.
Nevertheless, we should still emphasise for the need for the public to be responsible and, as far as possible, ascertain the truth and veracity of the source of the information before spreading such information. This will be in line with our vision of building a nation of discerning digital natives who are vigilant to guard against online falsehoods and disinformation.
Next, we must also consider content that is obviously labelled as generated by AI or created for satire purposes. Would such labelling be sufficient to avoid any liability on the part of the content creator, even if such content was done by AI or deepfake, and is clearly meant not to be relied upon for the truth of its contents? The downside is that, due to the brief but intense period of election, the harm that such contents would do may outweigh the considerations for artistic licences, as not many people may have the time or context to understand that the content is satire.
A case in point is the Australian case involving the deepfake video of a Queensland premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, in 2020. The post depicted the premier as hosting a press conference claiming that the state was \"in massive debt\" and had \"huge unemployment\". The deepfake video then had her as saying \"I would like your vote on 31 October, but if you want to get rid of us, I completely understand.\" She obviously did not say any of this and this is entirely not true.
The video, though clearly marked as fake, was widely viewed and caused significant damage before it was taken down. This demonstrates that even when deepfakes are labelled as fake or satire, they can still cause harm, particularly in the short timeframe of an election period.
In California, the law on deepfakes makes an exception for satire or parody, provided that such content is labelled as such. For instance, election communications that contain materially deceptive content which constitutes satire or parody and containing such disclosure that the content has been manipulated for the purposes of satire or parody would be allowed.
However, in Singapore, we do not have a full defence for satire and parody. The defamation laws only provide full defences for fair comment, justification and privilege. In Singapore, there are clear elements to establish the tort of defamation. Firstly, the statement or content must bear a defamatory meaning. Secondly, there must be a publication to a third party. And lastly, there must be a reference to the complainant. The Singapore Court of Appeal has held that defamation also includes inferences or implications that the ordinary, reasonable person may draw from those words in the light of general knowledge, commonsense and experience. Hence, if the content is premised on an untruth or deepfake, then they should be caught by this offence even if there is a clear disclaimer because the cost of social media clicks and comedy cannot come at the price of our politics and democracy.
Given the sensitive nature of election periods, content creators should be mindful of their responsibilities to ensure that their work is not based on untruths or deepfake. This would encourage more responsibility content creation and dissemination.
My third and last set of clarifications is on the due process and procedure. An important aspect of this Bill is the due process afforded to individuals or entities accused of distributing deepfake content. The Returning Officer has the power to issue corrective directions and candidates can request such directions under the new section 61MA. However, we must ensure that the process is not open to abuse.
I welcome the hon Minister's clarification that there will be a requisite form for such reporting and penalties for abuse of the same. Given the seriousness and severity of the consequences, perhaps it is important that any such request for a corrective direction be accompanied by a statutory declaration and, if necessary, a Police report, to demonstrate the seriousness of the claim.
There must also be safeguards to prevent the law from being abused as a political tool to take down legitimate election content. This also provides a basis for recourse for a business or someone who is not a candidate but was nevertheless adversely impacted or affected by such false content to possibly seek consequential damages after the election period. We must also ensure that the content in question is truly a deepfake before any corrective action is taken.
Given the rapid advances in technology, it has become increasingly difficult to detect deepfake. While early signs, such as unsynchronised lips or unnatural lighting, could previously indicate a deepfake, generative AI technology has now reached a level that is beyond where these signs are no longer reliable. This underscores the need for the Government to allocate sufficient resources to keep pace with these advancements.
Another critical issue is the potential misuse of deepfake technology to create false endorsements from non-candidates, such as influencers or public figures. Currently, the Bill does not cover such instances. For instance, in the heat of campaigning for the US presidential elections, global superstar Taylor Swift was recently the target of fake images implying her endorsement of a particular political candidate. This prompted her to publicly endorse another candidate to prevent future falsehoods from happening again. Such instances highlight the need to extend protections not only to candidates but also to individuals whose likeness or identity may be misused to manipulate the electorate. What are the safeguards for non-candidates who may be the subject of such deepfake content within the election period? The fall-out from such a deepfake incident may similarly influence, sway or confuse the electorate, no more than if it were done onto political candidates.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill represents a significant step forward in safeguarding the integrity of our electoral process. Deepfakes, if left unchecked, can be weaponised to undermine our democracy, distort the truth and damage the reputation of our elections. It is crucial that we act now to put in place the necessary legal safeguards to protect our democratic values. Quite apart from the political arena, we must remember that candidates have their own lives, their own families, their own children, career, organisations and loved ones, all of whom will be impacted by such false information long after the dust of election has settled and long after the heat of hustings have cooled down. As Victor Hugo wisely wrote in Les Miserables, \"Whether true or false, what is said about men often has as much influence on their lives and particularly on their destinies as what they do\".
Let us ensure that, in Singapore, what is said about our elections and our candidates is rooted in truth, integrity and respect for our democratic process, ensuring that truth, not deception, guides our democratic processes. Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, I support this Bill. This Bill aims to deal with the hazards posed by manipulated content during an election. It is now possible, with the assistance of technology, to recreate not only images, but also videos of people, to have them say or appear to do things they never did. Thanks to machine learning, even voice, mouth movements and speaking style can be replicated to create videos that appear authentic. The video the Minister played in her introductory speech of an AI-generated deepfake video of herself is a chilling example of the power of this technology. Likewise, the example she had shared of President Joe Biden's voice being imitated in robocalls to tell potential Democrat voters not to vote is a recent real-world example of such technology being used in a campaign. It is clear that such technology cannot be left unchecked.
Against this backdrop, this Bill makes it an offence for any person to publish or cause to be published such videos. Notably though, this Bill does not make it an automatic offence to create such a video, but only to publish it. I would like the Minister to clarify the intended scope of the word \"publish\" and whether it is intended to capture, for example, every person that recirculates such a video on social media. Is each share on Facebook, for example, a fresh publication? If so, I think this should be made clear so that people are mindful about what they share, knowing that they may be taken to have published material if they reshare the video on their own platforms. The law of defamation already treats a person who shares a Facebook post as a potential publisher of that content and I think taking a consistent approach with this is fair.
A related matter is whether Facebook page administrators will be held liable for content posted in the comments of their Facebook pages as publishers of that content. In the UK, courts have held that administrators of Facebook pages can be considered publishers in relation to comments posted by third parties on their page. And if the intention in this Bill is to extend this duty to Facebook page administrators, it will be good to clarify this. I think it is principled to do so because Facebook page administrators should take responsibility for contents on their page.
In terms of scope, I note that one of the requirements of limb \"c\" of the operative provisions is that the content must relate to \"election in the electoral division\". I would be grateful if the Minister can clarify that this is not intended to restrict the implementation, only where it can be shown that the video was related to a particular electoral division. A video that, for example, falsely attributes criminal or immoral behaviour to a candidate can damage that candidate, even if no reference is made to the constituency the candidate is in, or that such a video is directly related to the election.
I would also be grateful if the Minister could clarify the intended scope of the defence in subsection 4 of both proposed amendments that state that the offence in subsection 1 does not apply in any communication between two or more individuals that is private in nature. I think domestic communications are clear. But for private communications, is this exception intended to cover any sharing of such messages by private means, such as WhatsApp?
If so, I am concerned this exception may be too broad as, anecdotally, there is already a lot of fake news being circulated through WhatsApp, often forwarded by individuals to others in their group or contacts list. These may all be known contacts, but if a person forwards a video to several hundred people on his contact list, that may be more damaging than the same video on a Facebook account, precisely because the message comes from a trusted source in a private message channel. I think there is scope to say that if a person forwards a message to, say, a hundred contacts, that would be publication.
On the other hand, if this exception is to apply to any communications as long as it goes through a private channel, that means these manipulated videos may continue to be circulated through these means and some of the intended mischief may not be captured.
I also believe there is scope for legislation to go further in eradicating this threat of manipulated content. Some suggestions for future consideration include, first, this Bill only protects election candidates and only covers them from the time they are indicated as such. I think there would be some scope for extending protection to existing Members of the House and the President as well, since a video circulated ahead of the person being named a candidate in the next election may still do significant damage and there is no reason such harm should not attract punishment. This is also a much faster and less burdensome remedy than requiring the person to commence defamation action against any and all those who may have shared a link to such content.
Second, I think there is scope for significantly more serious and even punitive penalties to be imposed against the creators of the contents themselves. I think the current penalties of a fine of $1,000 and imprisonment not exceeding 12 months suggest that this is to be treated as a minor offence, with no distinction made for creators of content and those who may just publish it on their platform by sharing a link.
Third, the offence is currently targeted at a \"person\", which suggests a natural person. I think we may also have to deal with a situation where content may be published and circulated by bot accounts and perhaps even substantially generated by such accounts. Such publications may be outside the scope of this Bill and that would mean taking action against such accounts or even social media platforms more difficult, because the primary offence is not triggered.
Although I know most platforms have internal rules that require natural people to operate the individual accounts, this is not currently a matter that is regulated and there are many reports of a large number of bot accounts that operate on social media platforms.
Overall, though, I think this is an important legislation that takes concrete measures in helping to combat the insidious use of AI to undermine candidates and manipulate elections. I think there is scope for even stronger measures against the threat and would suggest that these measures be continuously evaluated and improved as needed to combat this threat.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. Among other amendments, this Bill introduces section 61MA, which criminalises the publication of OEA that contains realistic representations created using content that was digitally generated or manipulated of a candidate saying or doing something that he or she did not, in fact, say or do. I will refer to this as deepfakes in the following parts of my speech.
With the advent of technology and ubiquity of social media, consumption of digital content is a constant in our daily lives, arguably even a necessity. There are many ways we consume digital content. There are those we search by ourselves in order to keep abreast of current affairs or due to personal interests. Then, there are some that are shared with us by families and friends.
We often also come across digital content as a result of targeted advertisement algorithms. It is, therefore, safe to presume that all of us would have at some point seen deepfakes. The question is, have we been able to spot them? And of the digital content that we have viewed and remember, are there any falsities that are wrongly and inadvertently being perpetuated as truths by our memory?
The opening line of the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore's advisory published on 21 March this year accurately addresses the issue. I quote, \"Artificial Intelligence or AI is being used to produce increasingly convincing deepfakes that are indistinguishable or even to the trained eyes\".
Mr Speaker, according to a CNA article dated 17 January 2024, it states that politicians are prime targets of deepfakes. They are right.
In December last year, then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was portrayed in a deepfake video promoting a cryptocurrency scam. Also in December last year, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong was shown endorsing an investment scam. In April this year, Foreign Affairs Minister Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, along with other Members, Dr Tan Wu Meng, Mr Edward Chia and Mr Yip Hon Weng, each received an extortion letter containing a manipulated photo. The question of \"whether we will be targeted\" is a foregone conclusion.
With our next General Election to be called by November next year, this Bill is a timely defence apparatus against the ever-evolving weaponised deepfakes. This Bill will provide a key line of defence against attacks that would invariably seek to strike at the foundation of our democracy.
While the obvious danger posed by deepfakes would be misleading its audience into believing falsities, viewers could also be confused to the point where one is unable to tell fact from fiction. The public's awareness of deepfakes, which is what we trying to achieve by a whole-of-society effort, could even be manipulated by bad actors for nefarious purposes.
They could, for example, when confronted with matters of record and which are true but adverse to their interests, seek to avoid accountability by falsely claiming that they have been victims of targeted deepfake campaigns. A phenomenon coined by legal scholars Robert Chesney and Danielle Keats Citron as the \"Liar's Dividend\".
Clearly, Mr Speaker, we anticipate that we will soon be confronted with novel and previously unimaginable difficulties presented by deepfakes. We are gearing up for a battle against deepfakes, not fully knowing who our adversaries are and what their strategies will be. Notwithstanding, we have to do our best to be ready and ably protect the sanctimony of our democracy.
To this end, I raise the following clarifications.
Firstly, under this Bill, the Returning Officer's power to issue corrective directions under section 61N(1) will be extended to, among others, online elections advertising that contravenes the new section 61MA. How will the Returning Officer be supported in his or her new responsibilities, which are in addition to his or her already existing heavy and critical duties?
Secondly, in operational terms under section 61N(2A), what would be the expected response time by the Returning Officer, upon receiving a candidate's request in the prescribed form for a direction under subsection (1)?
Thirdly, how will this Bill be operationalised to augment and supplement our current measures against foreign actors and actors who reside outside Singapore, who seek to interfere in our electoral process using deepfakes?
Fourthly, section 61MA(4)(a) excludes any communication of content between two or more individuals that is of a private or domestic nature by electronic means. While this rightly protects freedom of speech and privacy, how can we ensure that the objects of this Bill will not be undermined by the \"dark social\" phenomenon?
Lastly, while corrective directions may be issued under this Bill, there remains a possibility that it may not reach all of us timeously, or at all. Would the Ministry then consider setting up a digital portal containing a repository of corrections and directions issued under this Bill? In Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, elections must be fair and just. When voting, what the voters ought to consider should be the information which the candidates has presented genuinely, not those information which are fabricated or distorted. However, with the advancement of media technology, especially AI, we find that many deceptively realistic videos have spread on social media platforms. Readers who do not verify with various reliable news sources can easily be misled. Therefore, I support this Amendment Bill to ensure that the publication of digitally fabricated and distorted content about the candidates' words and actions will be prohibited during elections.
Here, I would like to pose a few questions. One type of communication not prohibited is messages conveyed privately in family group chats. In this regard, I would like to ask if the Government has considered that this could be exploited as a channel to disseminate fabricated false content during election periods.
Secondly, I agree with what Minister said just now that this piece of legislation is not a panacea. It is far more important that the public is equipped with the ability to discern what is fake from real. Hence, apart from passing this legislation, does the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) plan to launch any educational activities in future to educate the public on how to identify AI-generated fake messages?
(In English): Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill because it is a much-needed step in the right direction, given the pace of developments in GenAI technologies. The proposed changes will help to ensure that our elections will be conducted in a fair and transparent manner.
However, I would like to ask the Minister why do the new measures only apply to digitally generated or manipulated content depicting political candidates? Would the Ministry consider expanding the scope of content to include indirect representations and depictions?
Candidates in an election would be the most vulnerable to direct and malicious acts of misinformation. However, they are just as susceptible to indirect attacks. Perpetrators can be creative with their methods and try to find ways around existing legislation. For example, they could exploit ways to cast doubt on or misrepresent a candidate and what the candidate stands for, without mentioning or depicting the candidates themselves. Would such a potential scenario be covered by any of the existing or proposed pieces of legislation?
Other jurisdictions have similar laws in place, including South Korea. Before its legislative elections in April this year, they implemented a 90-day ban on AI-generated deepfake content of a political nature. Would the Ministry consider doing the same as well?
Next, I would like to ask why forwarding via messaging apps is not included in the proposals. Besides social media platforms, which are under the purview of this Act, we should also consider closing the gap in terms of messaging apps. Messaging apps, such as WhatsApp and Telegram, are widely used by Singaporeans as key sources of information and news.
While I understand the Ministry's intention to maintain the balance between the freedom of expression in private and potential misrepresentation of what a candidate did or said, this is a loophole which may be exploited. Those with ill intent may exploit this gap in order to ensure that their fake content reaches the widest audiences possible to impact the electoral results. Sir, in Mandarin.
\t(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Besides the social media platforms which are under the purview of this Act, we should also consider closing the gaps in terms of messaging apps. Messaging apps, such as WhatsApp and Telegram, are widely used by Singaporeans as key sources of information and news. While I understand the Ministry's intention to maintain the balance between the freedom of expression in private and potential misrepresentation of what a candidate did or said, this is a loophole which may be exploited. Those with ill intent may exploit this gap in order to ensure that their fake content reaches the widest audience possible to impact the electoral results.
(In English): The practicality of enforcement actions may be a factor for consideration, but perhaps the Ministry would consider sending a clear signal that such content is banned and that forwarding them is an offence.
It is stated that the Returning Officer can issue corrective directions to individuals who publish such content, social media services and Internet Access Service Providers, to take down offending content or to disable access by Singapore users to such content during the election period.
The Bill will allow candidates to make a request to the Returning Officer to review content that may breach the prohibition and issue corrective directions. Candidates who have been misrepresented by such content can, in return, make a declaration to attest to the veracity of his/her claim.
May I ask how will the Ministry ensure that the department and personnel in-charge of handling such feedback and requests are adequately resourced and well-trained and if more sophisticated technological tools will be deployed to keep up with the workload? New AI content can be generated very quickly with little expense. How will the teams handle situations where there could be an influx, with some maliciously designed to overwhelm the system?
Mr Speaker, Sir, the integrity of our election environment, system and process depends on our capability to counter rapidly evolving threats and interferences. We must remain vigilant and be prepared to counter and deal with perpetrators severely, to neutralise their attacks and serve as a deterrent effect.
In addition to effective legislation and enforcement, I urge the Ministry to invest in preventive measures as well, such as identifying, training and empowering new talents in this field in our Ministries and agencies, and adopting advanced technological tools to combat misinformation in elections.
Mr Speaker: Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":"Business Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.
Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. It is timely and necessary in an era when technology rapidly transforms how we live, engage with and consume information. Our democracy thrives on citizens' informed choices, which can only be made when voters access accurate, reliable information.
In recent years, we have witnessed how digital platforms have become powerful tools for political engagement. These platforms are integral to modern elections, from campaign advertisements to social media debates. However, with this shift comes the darker side – misinformation, deepfakes and digitally manipulated content designed to deceive and mislead voters.
This Bill is essential to safeguard against such threats by prohibiting the publication of realistic but false representations, particularly those manipulated through GenAI. Voters must cast ballots based on truth, not illusions.
Sir, GenAI is a remarkable technology with transformative potential industries from healthcare and education. But like any powerful tool, it can be misused. This Bill specifically addresses the risk posed by AI-generated deepfakes, audio or visual content that can make it appear that a candidate said or did something they never did.
Imagine the harm caused by a manipulated video showing a candidate making a statement they never uttered, such as endorsing a controversial policy. If not swiftly addressed, such a video could spread like wildfire across social media, reaching thousands within minutes and distorting public perception before the truth has a chance to catch up. In the digital world, the truth often struggles to keep pace with lies and by the time the damage is corrected, the harm is usually irreversible.
In 2020, a manipulated video of then-Belgian Prime Minister Sophie Wilmès, falsely depicted her blaming environmental damage for the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the video was quickly debunked, it spread widely online, illustrating how rapidly deepfakes can mislead the public before the truth emerges.
Similarly, during the 2023 Slovak elections, which the Minister mentioned earlier, AI-generated videos spread across platforms, like Facebook and Telegram, which include falsely depicting a candidate discussing vote buying. Such incidents highlight the urgent need to protect our elections.
Sir, we must also recognise the delicate balance this Bill attempts to strike. As with any legislation that governs speech and expression, there is always the concern that it could be perceived as going too far. We do not want this Bill to be perceived as inadvertently stifling legitimate debates. Therefore, I am pleased that the Bill exempts private communications and news reporting by authorised agencies. I am also glad that candidates have the right to defend themselves against false content. However, we must also be mindful of the potential for abuse.
The corrective request system should not be exploited. Therefore, robust mechanisms must be in place to ensure that only genuine, harmful misinformation is targeted and frivolous complaints are filtered out.
Sir, while I fully support the Bill, I would like to highlight a few areas where further clarity might be necessary.
First, there is the issue of determining what qualifies as a \"realistic enough\" representation to be considered misleading. The subjective nature of this standard could lead to difficulties in enforcement. Sir, I am grateful that the Minister shared some useful examples earlier, but, next is, how do we communicate this clearly to the public? Could the Ministry provide consistent and fair enforcement guidelines?
It is also worth noting that some of the most concerning platforms, such as WhatsApp and Telegram, operate through private, encrypted messaging systems. In fact, in Telegram, they do not even have to share their numbers. These platforms allow information to spread rapidly through group chats, yet they remain largely outside the scope of regulatory control due to their private nature.
At this juncture, we need to clarify that it is okay to chat and discuss about politics but wrong to spread deepfakes and misinformation.
This raises important questions. How can we effectively curtail the spread of misinformation on platforms where content is shielded by encryption? Should these platforms bear the same responsibility as public social media platforms?
Sir, in India, they provide an interesting model with their Deepfakes Analysis Unit, which allows the public to submit questionable content via WhatsApp for rapid verification. Such an initiative could empower Singaporeans to take an active role in reporting misinformation, especially on platforms that are difficult to monitor. By creating a similar content verification channel, we could involve the public more directly in efforts to counter disinformation, ensuring quicker identification and resolution of misleading content circulating on encrypted platforms.
Additionally, I would like to ask how the Government plans to manage the volume of manipulated online content that could be generated during election periods? Will there be dedicated resources or teams to monitor and enforce these regulations in real time and on time? Given that technology moves very rapidly, how are the tools used updated accordingly?
Clearly, a swift response is crucial.
Sir, another important aspect of this Bill that I welcome is social media platforms' increased responsibility. These platforms are not just passive conduits of information. They are potent actors in shaping public opinion. By holding them accountable and imposing penalties up to $1 million for failing to act on corrective directions, we ensure that platforms share in the responsibility for maintaining electoral integrity.
But then again, is $1 million fine truly fair or enough across the board? Platforms vary significantly in size and influence, some wielding far more power than others. Should they all be held to the same standard or should penalties scale according to their reach? What happens if a platform takes too long to respond? What qualifies as \"long enough\" in this context?
These are questions we must carefully consider as we strive for effective and fair enforcement.
Finally, Sir, I hope that the Minister considers a tougher stance against perpetrators beyond the corrective directions, given that misinformation and the loss of reputation would not only affect the candidate but their family, their loved ones and even their jobs. The mental impact can never be underestimated.
Sir, in conclusion, the Bill is a critical step in protecting the integrity of our electoral process in this digital age. It addresses the growing threat of digitally-manipulated content, reinforces accountability for candidates and platforms and ensures that our democracy remains a place of truth and informed choice.
As we look to the future, let us continue to adapt and evolve our laws to meet the challenges of the digital age. What seems like science fiction today could be a reality in the next election. While this Bill tackles AI-generated deepfakes and manipulated content, we must remain vigilant for new technologies that could be used to distort electoral processes.
We must also collectively, as a society, be able to identify and reject misinformation and deepfakes. With this Bill, we reaffirm our commitment to a fair, transparent and trustworthy electoral system for all Singaporeans. Notwithstanding the concerns and clarifications raised, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill seeks to uphold the integrity of Singapore's electoral process by giving the Returning Officer certain powers to combat deepfakes that misrepresent candidates during the General Elections and Presidential Elections. I have three points for clarification to raise.
My first point is on the candidates who have the right to request that corrective directions be issued. Under section 61N(2A) of the Parliamentary Elections Act and section 42LA(4) of the Presidential Elections Act, candidates may request the Returning Officer to take action against manipulated OEA. The wordings of the provisions are broad enough to include both situations where the deepfakes prejudice and advantage candidate. However, MDDI's public statements appear to suggest that only candidates who have been prejudiced by deepfakes can request corrective directions.
For instance, in a press release on 9 September 2024, MDDI stated, \"Candidates who have been misrepresented by such content can make a declaration to attest to the veracity of his/her claim.\" In another media article, a MDDI spokesperson was quoted as saying, \"In the case of deepfakes featuring political candidates, we do need the individual to come forward and say that this is a misrepresentation.\"
What if, conversely, the deepfake is beneficial to its subject? Do other candidates running in the same election have the right to request corrective directions?
This is not a hypothetical scenario. AI was used by the main presidential candidates in Argentina's elections in 2023. In addition to damaging images of the opposing candidate, the candidates also produced favourable deepfake posters of themselves. In Pakistan's 2024 elections, former-Prime Minister Imran Khan's party used AI to create and disseminate speeches based on notes that he passed to his lawyers from prison. Khan even delivered an AI-generated victory speech after wins by independent candidates backed by his party. The deepfake may be made of individuals who are not even alive. In the Indian state of Tamil Nadu, a political party used AI to recreate video speeches by a long-deceased party leader, in which he complimented current party leaders.
A candidate who is benefiting from a deepfake may have no incentive to curb the spread of that deepfake. For the avoidance of any doubt, can the Minister confirm if any candidate can request for corrective directions to be issued, not just candidates who are the subjects of the concerning content?
My second point relates to the level of belief necessary to establish the offence of publishing manipulated OEA. Under section 61MA(1)(e) of the Parliamentary Elections Act and section 42LA(1)(e) of the Presidential Elections Act, the representation must be realistic enough that it is likely that some members of the general public would, if they heard or saw the representation, reasonably believe that the candidate said or did that thing.
Can the Minister clarify how the Returning Officer and the Court should determine whether this standard of realism is met?
The timeframe for a Returning Officer to make a corrective direction is much shorter than Court proceedings prosecuting the offence. It will be more difficult for a requesting candidate to gather evidence within a short timeframe than a prosecution collecting evidence after the fact. What kind of evidence must the candidate requesting for corrective directions submit? Will the requesting candidate or prosecution need to establish actual belief or is potential belief sufficient?
Can the Minister also clarify how the threshold of \"some members of the general public\" compare to thresholds under other laws which deal with misinformation? For instance, under the tort of defamation, a statement that is defamatory \"tends to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally\". Under POFMA, a statement of fact is \"a statement which a reasonable person seeing, hearing or otherwise perceiving it would consider to be a representation of fact\".
By contrast, the offence of publishing manipulated OEA only requires the candidate to show that the deepfake would be regarded as genuine by \"some members of the general public\". Certain segments of the general public, such as the elderly, are less technologically-savvy and they may regard a deepfake to be genuine more readily than other segments of society.
This may lead to a situation where material that is found to be manipulated OEA, may not necessarily meet the threshold for the offence of communicating fake statements or facts under POFMA. A candidate may succeed in obtaining a correction directive for manipulated OEA but may not succeed under the tort of defamation.
Can the Minister explain how the level of belief necessary to establish the offence of publishing manipulated OEA compares to the requisite state of mind under other laws which deal with misinformation? If the differences in thresholds are intended, can the Minister share the rationale for the differentiated thresholds?
My third and final point is on the exceptions to the ban on deepfakes during elections. Under section 61MA(4) of the Parliamentary Elections Act and section 42LA(4) of the Presidential Elections Act, the ban does not apply to communications which are \"of a private or domestic nature\".
As other Members have shared, certain social media or messaging platforms can be used to communicate content to a large number of people, even within private chat groups. WhatsApp allows for groups of up to 1,024 members; Telegram supports groups of up to 200,000 members; and a person can add up to 5,000 friends on Facebook.
Will a message sent to a private group chat with the maximum number of members or a Facebook post, which is set to private but viewable by 5,000 friends, still be considered a private communication? What factors, aside from the number of persons receiving the communication, will the Returning Officer consider when determining whether the communications are \"of a private or domestic nature\"?
Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister Josephine Teo.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their unanimous support of the Bill.
In fact, Members had expressed concerns about deepfakes even before the debate on this Bill. We have heard questions in this House about how we can better tackle impersonation scams. Earlier this year, Members Dr Tan Wu Meng and Ms Mariam Jaafar shared concerns about the impact of deepfakes on democratic processes and elections.
Taken together with today's debate, there is clear consensus on the pressing need to deal with the threat of digitally-manipulated online content because of what is at stake – the integrity of our elections.
Members have also sought clarifications on several issues. I will try my best to address them. Some Members have asked how the ELIONA Bill compares to other governments' attempts to tackle deepfakes.
Sir, we do take reference from other countries, but it is more important to be fit-for-purpose. We have, therefore, scoped the law to be appropriate for Singapore's context. Earlier, I mentioned how South Korea bans all political campaign videos that used AI-generated content 90 days prior to an election. Brazil has also banned synthetic electoral propaganda.
In response to Ms Joan Pereira’s question, we did consider a temporary ban on all deepfake content of a political nature during elections. After careful deliberations, we decided this was not necessary. There is nothing inherently wrong if AI is used, for example, to enhance the background of political communications materials. The key problem is with digitally generated and manipulated content that misrepresents a candidate’s words or actions. The Bill, therefore, targets such content.
Members have also asked for the rationale behind the proposed duration of the ban. Previously, Ms He Ting Ru asked about the recourse for political candidates affected by deepfakes during cooling-off or Polling Day in elections. The ELIONA Bill provides the recourse. But we know that purveyors of deepfakes will not constrain themselves to just the Cooling Off Day or Polling Day. If we are to effectively uphold the integrity of elections, the protections under the Bill must be available when election activities are the most intense and mischief makers most active. This is usually the election period, which is also defined in section 61S of the Parliamentary Elections Act and section 42R of the Presidential Elections Act. It starts from the issuance of the Writ of Election and ends after the close of Polling.
Mr Yip Hon Weng and Ms He suggested that the proposed duration of the ban should be longer. I thank them for their suggestion and agree with both their concerns. Practically speaking, however, even if we wanted ELIONA to take effect x days before an election, we cannot do so until the Writ is issued and Polling Day revealed. This is why we will introduce a Code of Practice to require specified social media services to implement safeguards beyond the election period specified in the Bill. This allows for calibration of the speed of response and the resource requirements outside of election periods.
Let me now deal with the types of content the Bill will and will not cover. Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim and Mr Vikram Nair have asked why the ban was not scoped wider to cover OEA that misrepresents persons other than candidates. For example, deepfakes that falsely show key influencers or artistes endorsing a candidate. We considered this carefully. The question is how influential must these other persons be for the prohibition to apply? Where do we draw the line and who decides? As the political contest develops, the dynamics may also change. How about persons who were previously not influential but suddenly gained prominence?
Similarly, Ms Pereira asked why the new measures only apply to content that explicitly depicts candidates and not content that indirectly misrepresents them. One such example is an AI-generated podcast that discusses their past.
This problem has existed even without AI or digital manipulation, for example, through coffee shop talk of people who claim to know something about the candidate. However, the difference is that deepfake content can be very realistic and, hence, persuasive. When they directly depict candidates doing or saying something, the audience is more likely to accept it as reality. In contrast, hearsay information or third-party accounts like coffee shop chatter tend to be discounted, or at least viewed with some scepticism.
There are also practical difficulties in extending the coverage of the ELIONA Bill outside of content directly depicting candidates' words and actions. For example, how do we ascertain the degree of misrepresentation and whether it warrants prohibition? The better alternative is to encourage a culture of truthfulness, where persons of influence and candidates themselves step forward to clarify to the public if they have been misrepresented through deepfake content. Voters, too, must be vigilant and turn to trusted sources, such as our mainstream media.
Sir, in our review of how manipulated content has affected elections globally, we have seen examples of content being edited using non-AI means to very realistically misrepresent electoral candidates. Furthermore, traditional media editing software are now beginning to adopt AI technologies, such as Photoshop's introduction of GenAI capabilities to add and remove content, with photorealistic results. This further blurs the line between content that has been purely manipulated via AI technology and other traditional means.
This is why ELIONA does not exempt from prohibitions content that has been partially edited by AI or other more traditional technology. For instance, if one manually wrote a speech, but uses AI-generation to produce a video of a candidate reading it, the video will be considered to be AI-manipulated and will be prohibited. This addresses the point raised by Mr Vikram Nair.
Mr Vikram Nair also asked if the Bill covers content about a candidate that does not directly relate to the constituency which the candidate is contesting in. The answer is yes. A piece of content does not have to refer to the specific constituency which a candidate is contesting in for it to be considered OEA. We will make a holistic assessment of what constitutes OEA, and if the online content that misrepresents a candidate has the potential to unduly influence the behaviour of voters in the election.
Members, including Mr Louis Ng, Mr Yip and Mr Zhulkarnain, have asked how we will treat OEA designed to entertain, such as satire or memes. As I mentioned in my opening speech, content that does not mislead and deceive people about a candidate’s actual speech or actions will not be banned. Besides the question of whether it is digitally generated or manipulated, the law requires us to consider these questions. If the public saw or heard the content, would they believe it is the candidate being depicted in the content? Would they also believe that the candidate did or said that thing in real life?
Memes and satire are already part of our online space. Most of such content will show caricatures of individuals, and a reasonable person will be able to distinguish fact from fiction. This also applies to other online content, like online political campaign posters.
Mr Zhulkarnain asked what our approach will be if the offending content was labelled, in other words, declared to have been digitally generated or manipulated. Sir, labelling does not automatically exempt content from being prohibited by the ELIONA Bill. A label may not be noticed by everyone. There are also ways to remove labels from content before recirculation. What matters are the four criteria I have shared previously: (a) the content constitutes OEA; (b) it is digitally generated or manipulated; (c) it is realistic; and (d) it shows the candidate doing what he did not do or saying what he did not say. If these criteria are met, the content will be prohibited, even if labelled.
Some Members asked for confirmation if the proposed ban covers private or domestic communications, such as messages on WhatsApp and Telegram. The election rules are not intended to police private or domestic communications. When deciding whether a communication is of a private or domestic nature, the Returning Officer will consider various factors, such as the number of individuals in Singapore who can access the content, if the group is public or closed and the relationships between the individuals.
As an example, chat groups on WhatsApp and Telegram with very large memberships that anyone can freely join should not be considered private or domestic communication. If prohibited content is circulated in these open groups, the Returning Officer will assess if action should be taken. If the same prohibited content is posted online, on websites or social media platforms, we can issue corrective directions for it under the ELIONA Bill.
Members, such as Mr Louis Ng and Dr Wan Rizal, asked how we will assess if a piece of content is realistic enough to be believed. Clearly, this is not an exact science. But there are some factors that can be considered and I had outlined them in my opening speech. The aim of the ELIONA Bill is to uphold the integrity of our elections. We have seen how disinformation, even if believed by a small segment of society, can lead to drastic and violent consequences. Consider how allegations of election fraud in the US played a role in the deadly Capitol Hill insurrection on 6 January 2021.
So, I hope Members will agree that we should not accept any segment, no matter how small, voting based on a false representation. We have no way of knowing in advance the extent to which it will alter the course of our elections. But why should we subject our elections to such risk at all, if we can prevent it or, at least, minimise it? This is why the ELIONA Bill has been drafted in this manner, to allow for the prohibition of deepfake content as long as some voters reasonably find them believable.
Ms He opposed the proposal to allow mainstream media platforms to reproduce content prohibited under the ELIONA Bill when reporting on news and current affairs during the election period. I am slightly puzzled because in her speech Ms He also advocated educating the public through short-form videos, which will likely have to reproduce such content in some form to show how realistic they are. Our belief is that news agencies can and should play a part in preserving the integrity of our elections. The prohibition does not apply to news published by authorised news agencies because of their duty to report on news fairly and accurately to inform and educate the public. In fact, this is not new.
Today, media outlets report on online scams to educate the public about its dangers and to let citizens know how to identify and avoid scams. This often includes republishing images of online content to alert citizens to the scam.
Mr Yip and other Members sought assurances that the issuance of corrective directions will be impartial and that measures will apply equally, regardless of the party the depicted candidate belongs to. Sir, the Bill itself is designed for impartiality. We apply the same criteria to determine who are considered candidates. They are all provided with the choice of when to inform the public of their candidacy.
The defined election period is also known to all candidates at the same time. The duration and thresholds for content prohibitions are the same for all candidates. We do not even assess whether the prohibited content is favourable or unfavourable to a candidate. This would be highly subjective and open to dispute. Deceptive content will not be allowed, whichever party the candidate belongs to.
To ensure transparency and accountability, the public will be notified about corrective directions that have been issued against offending content, so that they can vote in an informed manner. To Ms Hany Soh's question on how this will be done, ELD will make an assessment and provide an update in due course.
Members including Mr Zhulkarnain and Ms He have also asked – what recourse is there if a piece of content was deemed to be wrongfully taken down?
Recipients of a corrective direction who feel that their content has been wrongfully taken down can contact the Returning Officer to provide supporting evidence of their claims. If the Returning Officer does not accept their appeal, they may apply to the Courts for judicial review of the Returning Officer's decision.
If content was found to have been mistakenly taken down due to a false declaration by a candidate, there will be serious consequences for the candidate, including the loss of his or her seat if elected. If the content does not otherwise meet the criteria for prohibition, it can be reposted.
To Ms He's query, there are also current penalties in place for persons other than candidates who knowingly provide false information to Government agencies.
During this debate and on previous occasions, Members including Ms Sylvia Lim and Ms He have acknowledged the difficulties in determining the authenticity of online media content. This is why candidates will have to make a declaration in addition to their request to Returning Officer to assess content under the ELIONA Bill.
Members will agree that we cannot just take a candidate's word at face value. Ms Soh highlighted what has been described as \"liar's dividend\". This is why, in addition to the candidate's declaration to the Returning Officer, there is an independent technical assessment made by the Returning Officer and his team of public officers and we have instituted severe penalties for a false declaration.
To the question by Mr Louis Ng, candidates will be asked to submit their declarations via an online form during the election period. This form will be available on ELD's candidate services portal. More details on the information requirements will be shared in due course.
Each of the requests and declarations made by candidates to the Returning Officer will be carefully assessed. The Returning Officer will only issue corrective directions for genuine cases that have met the requirements.
Mr Zhulkarnain asked if a candidate should instead affirm a statutory declaration for this purpose. My colleagues and I have studied the options and weighed the trade-offs between the formal process of making a statutory declaration in front of a Commissioner of Oaths and submitting a declaration online. An online declaration is both efficient and effective. The consequence is direct and appropriate. The offence is an election offence and should be punished in accordance with elections legislation, which provides for the loss of seat for egregious offences. The general punishment of making false statutory declarations does not capture the seriousness and context of this offence.
The digital mode of the declaration is also meant to facilitate a speedy and efficient declaration process for candidates during the election period. In the spirit of promoting fair elections, we want to encourage candidates to report content that misrepresents them by removing as many administrative barriers as possible.
Members like Mr Ng have also asked if any candidate can request corrective directions to be issued, not just candidates who are depicted in the impugned content. As I mentioned in my opening speech, we will place significant weight on a depicted candidate's declaration to the Returning Officer as he or she is in the best position to clarify if the content is an accurate representation of himself or herself. Therefore, in most cases, we will rely on candidates making requests and declarations when they are depicted in the impugned content.
Further details of the prescribed modality will be shared in future.
In cases of positive campaigning, where the impugned content actually portrays a candidate favourably, other candidates and even non-candidates can make a request for review. However, we will still ask the depicted candidate for a declaration as the Returning Officer and his team are unlikely to have the full facts.
If the depicted candidate does not make a declaration for whatever reasons, the Government is still empowered to issue directions if we have other objective information that the content is in breach and should be prohibited.
Members including Mr Yip and Ms Soh have asked about the timely issuance of corrective directions and safeguards against foreign-based entities who attempt to influence our elections. We recognise the need to quickly disable such false online content about candidates, but there is also the need to be rigorous and fair. The Returning Officer will have to strike a balance.
Once a corrective direction is issued, the expectation is for individuals, social media services and Internet access service providers to respond within hours. This is to minimise the potential harm that such content could cause during our election period. The proposed ban covers the publication in Singapore of all digitally generated and manipulated OEA depicting candidates, regardless of the nationality of the user who created or published the content. This addresses the question by Ms He.
In addition, we already have rules prohibiting foreigners or foreign entities from knowingly publishing or publicly displaying any election advertising. This is in line with the principle that Singapore's politics are for Singaporeans alone to decide. If we are aware of hostile information campaigns or foreign interference, we will address them under the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, or FICA.
Ms He asked if the penalties for non-compliance by the social media services are too low to have sufficient impact or deterrence. Dr Wan Rizal asked if the penalties should be scaled according to the platform's reach and impact.
Sir, the financial penalty quantum is comparable with other local legislation that covers social media services, such as POFMA and the Broadcasting Act. Non-compliance with the corrective directions is an offence punishable by a fine of up to $1 million and it will be for the Courts to decide the appropriate level for each offence.
Beyond the exact quantum involved, the imposition of financial penalties on the services for not doing enough to preserve free and fair elections would have reputational implications for the respective platforms, whether from the perspective of Singapore users or globally.
Some Members including Ms Pereira asked about tools that the Government will use to detect deepfakes. The Government will use a mix of commercially available and in-house tools such as AlchemiX, a tool developed by the Home Team Science and Technology Agency which can compare recordings of a suspected deepfake video with a recording of a speaker's actual voice.
Deepfake technology is constantly improving and our capabilities must evolve accordingly. I seek Members' understanding that we will err on the side of caution and not reveal the full extent and capabilities of our detection tools. This is to guard against malicious actors who may seek to exploit this information and use it to game or circumvent our systems.
Some Members like Dr Wan Rizal and Ms He have asked if the Returning Officer or election officials can proactively monitor the Internet to identify prohibited content and how they will be supported in enforcing provisions under the Bill.
During the election, there are processes in place to monitor for and minimise the risk of election interference that can arise from the spread of prohibited OEA. There will be dedicated teams stood up during the election period for this purpose and they will work closely with the social media services to act swiftly on prohibited content.
As candidates will be best placed to determine if there is false OEA being circulated, we will rely primarily on their requests to review problematic content. However, the Returning Officer may still assess and act on problematic content without a candidate's request and declaration if the content is surfaced and deemed likely to threaten electoral integrity.
Mr Speaker, I have discussed how this Bill, along with other legislative levers, deal with various types of harmful deepfakes. The Bill focuses on a specific category of deepfakes during elections while other legislation such as POFMA, OCHA and the Broadcasting Act may be used to tackle other forms of harmful deepfakes. However, beyond outrightly harmful consequences, the proliferation of deepfake content is also concerning. When users can no longer differentiate what is real and what is fake, there is a wider threat to trust in online media.
As I said in my opening speech, the IMDA will introduce a Code of Practice to deal with digitally manipulated content at all times, beyond the election periods. This will mean requiring social media companies to play a larger role in the complex issue of tackling deepfakes, given their extensive influence in shaping our online experiences.
MDDI and the IMDA are in the process of engaging the major social media services in Singapore. The companies have been receptive to our proposals and recognise the need to do more against digitally manipulated content. We aim to introduce the code in 2025.
Mr Yip, Ms He and Ms Soh have asked about our public education efforts to alert our citizens to the dangers of AI-generated misinformation. We agree that a digitally-aware public is the strongest defence we have against misleading and deceptive manipulated online content. Public education plays a critical role in empowering Singaporeans to safeguard themselves against risks in the digital space and be resilient to such threats.
To this end, the Government has put in place public education programmes to equip the public to be discerning producers and consumers of information and protect themselves against online falsehoods.
For example, the National Library's S.U.R.E. programme, which stands for source, understand, research and evaluate, has developed resources and organised activities to educate Singaporeans about the dangers of misinformation. In fact, the National Library Board is currently rolling out its community outreach initiative, Be S.U.R.E. Together: Gen AI and Deepfakes Edition, which provides opportunities for the public to learn about the uses and threats of generative AI.
Mr Speaker, the Bill before us seeks to further protect Singapore's future elections from misinformation caused by deceptive deepfakes. We introduced this Bill after careful study of global trends and a realistic assessment of what could happen in Singapore's elections if this threat was left unchecked.
I urge all Members to support this Bill. Together, we can ensure that deepfakes and other digitally generated and manipulated content do not prejudice the fair and free elections that Singaporeans should be able to experience. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Any clarifications for the Minister? Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just have one clarification on the confusion that the Minister mentioned about my concerns raised about exemption for authorised new agencies and her linking it to one of the suggestions that I made in relation to public education efforts.
In fact, I think I mentioned in my speech when I talked about the use of pre-bunking in a sort of inoculative approach, I talked about exposing people to weakened forms of misinformation, so, not necessarily real deepfakes. Also, I think when I talked about using short-form content, I was actually referring to generic short-form videos, for example, but not during the election period.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I thank Ms He for her clarification. I think it is helpful.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, I think I heard the Minister say that if a candidate writes a speech and uses AI to deliver it, such a practice will be prohibited under the legislation. However, does not this AI still present the candidate communicating the message as they intended? Will it be prohibited if it does not misrepresent a candidate's words or actions?
It could be argued that a television image is also a virtual image and is not a real person yet, no one is suggesting that that should be prohibited. To cite a real example, would the AI-generated video that the Minister played at the start of her speech be prohibited during elections?
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, the short answer is, yes. The video that I played earlier was completely generated by AI, notwithstanding the fact that the script was approved by me and it could have been penned by me, that image itself is problematic. I did not actually stand in front a camera and articulate those words. So, the way the Bill is designed is to not offer any room for misunderstanding. If you did not, in fact, read out a speech, even if you had written it, you used AI to generate that speech, that is prohibited.
Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications? I do not see any.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mrs Josephine Teo]. (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":"Realising the Vision of a 45-Minute City under the Land Transport Master Plan 2040 in the West of Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Leader, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Realising the vision of a 45-minute city in the West of Singapore under the Land Transport Master Plan 2040. Mr Speaker, Sir, the massive breakdown on the East-West Line between Buona Vista and Jurong East Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations between 25 and 30 September reminded Singaporeans living in the West of Singapore of how reliant they are on the East-West Line.
This six-day breakdown also happened to coincide with the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) and the announcement that Singapore's population exceeded six million for the first time.
When it comes to rail connectivity, the East side of Singapore is far better than the West side. There are three rail lines running parallel to each other, connecting the East to the Downtown Core. Namely, the East-West Line, Downtown Line and Thomson-East Coast Line. Had the East-West Line failed in the East instead, residents would have more options compared to those living in the West.
On the other hand, during the six-day disruption, residents in the West who were travelling to and from their workplaces downtown had no alternative option to get them home by MRT. They would either have to use the bus bridging services replacing the MRT or endure long bus rides, such as services 174 or 502. As a result, many residents have complained to me that it took them more than three hours to commute during the initial days of the breakdown.
In 2019, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has set an ambitious goal in the Land Transport Master Plan 2040 to make Singapore a 45-minute city where Singaporeans should spend no more than 45 minutes to complete nine out of 10 peak-period journeys. The six-day disruption prompted us to ask whether the Master Plan 2040 is sufficient to make a 45-minute city a reality for residents of the West, even if everything is operating normally and all the plans in the Master Plan 2040 come into fruition.
The Government will argue that the upcoming Jurong Region Line (JRL) and Cross Island Line (CRL) will improve connectivity in the West. But even after these two lines are built, the East-West Line will still be a major bottleneck for travel between the East and West of Singapore for residents of the West. This is because the JRL connects only to the East-West Line for east-west travel.
The West of Singapore is not some \"ulu\" hinterland. It is home to very dense population centres such as Jurong West, upcoming new towns such as Tengah and major employment hubs in Jurong East and Tuas. Existing towns, such as Queenstown and Bukit Merah, will also soon be redeveloped and densified and many new jobs will be created in the Jurong Lake District. All these residents and jobs need to be better connected to the rest of Singapore.
Currently, for a resident of Choa Chu Kang, Bukit Batok, Pioneer or Jurong West, working somewhere in the Downtown Core, like Raffles Place, a 45-minute commute by public transport to their workplace is still far from reality. This is very different from the East where entire new towns, such as Marine Parade and Bedok and even parts of Tampines, are accessible from the Downtown Core within 45 minutes.
And on top of the Downtown Core, we must also strengthen connections from the West to other parts of Singapore. With decentralisation and greater job mobility, residents of the West could find themselves working in the Punggol Digital District or Changi Business Park. While a 45-minute commute may never be feasible for them because of sheer distance, we can do more to reduce their commuting times as much as possible.
Today, I would like to suggest two approaches to improve rail connectivity and bus services to relieve residents in the West from their dependence on the East-West Line so that we can be closer to realising the vision of a 45-minute city in the West.
The first approach is to improve rail connectivity for the West by connecting the JRL to the Circle Line and CRL. There have been two unconfirmed proposals regarding this.
The first proposal is to extend the JRL from Pandan Reservoir to Haw Par Villa on the Circle Line. This will allow residents in Tengah, Bukit Batok West, Ayer Rajah and West Coast to travel to the Downtown Core by MRT with just one transfer at Haw Par Villa. It could also benefit students travelling to and from the National University of Singapore. This proposal was first announced by then-Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew in 2015. Later, in 2022, then-Transport Minister S Iswaran updated that feasibility studies are still ongoing, even though this potential extension appears to have been dropped out of the Master Plan 2040.
The second proposal is to build an interchange infrastructure to connect Jurong Town Hall station on the JRL with Jurong Lake District station on the CRL. These two stations are within walking distance of each other but are not currently planned to be connected as an interchange. Then-Minister S Iswaran also said, in 2022, that the authorities would study this as, \"We need to create meaningful connections in our MRT stations for convenience and resilience.\"
These two proposals to extend the JRL will greatly increase rail connectivity from the West to the Downtown Core and the rest of Singapore. We are glad that, this morning, Minister Chee Hong Tat has mentioned that the Ministry of Transport will look into these proposals.
The second approach to improve public transport in the West is to introduce a network of inter-town skip-stop bus services. This can be implemented relatively quickly, compared to increasing rail connectivity. These skip-stop services would be different from existing express bus services. They will only stop at a few high demand stops in each town throughout the entire route to allow commuters to connect between towns more quickly. They will also run all-day, in both directions, at good frequency. The existing routes that stop at all stops can be still retained to feed commuters from the lesser-demand stops to the high-demand stops.
Two types of skip-stop bus services should be introduced. The first type is the long-distance skip-stop bus services that connect different towns in Singapore. In the West, we currently have services 30 and 143, which provide important inter-town connections for residents of Teban Gardens, Pandan Gardens and West Coast, which are areas currently not served by MRT to the East and Central Singapore. There are also services, such as 180 and 974, which link Bukit Panjang with Boon Lay and Jurong West.
All these are important long-distance inter-town bus services that complement our MRT network, but they are too slow. Basic bus services travel at about 15 kilometres per hour, about half the speed of the MRT. While we currently have faster express buses like Service 30e, many of them only operate during peak hours. What we need is a network of skip-stop buses to complement the MRT in moving people between towns quickly. This is especially important for areas currently not served by MRT.
The second type of skip-stop services is to connect more far-flung areas to key transport nodes and community hubs faster. These may be similar to the \"express feeder\" bus services that LTA is going to introduce under the Bus Connectivity Enhancement Plan. For example, we should introduce skip-stop service 870E to connect Tengah with Jurong East MRT and a skip-stop service 871E to connect Tengah with Bukit Gombak MRT and Beauty World MRT. These will be much faster than the current services 870 and 871. We can also introduce a bus service linking Tengah and Boon Lay, which is something many Tengah residents have asked for during my engagement with them.
The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) urges LTA to seriously consider using the Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme as an opportunity to boldly reimagine our bus system. This should be done at a national level, but it is especially important in the West, where rail connectivity is not as good as the East, but the commuting population is fast building up. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, last month, an unprecedented six-day massive disruption occurred between Jurong East and Boon Lay stations on the East-West Line. This made Singaporeans living in the western part of Singapore, especially in Jurong West, Jurong East and Clementi, realise how reliant they are on the East-West Line as a critical rail infrastructure.
In the Land Transport Master Plan 2040 released by the Land Transport Authority in 2019, a vision was set that by 2040, Singapore would become a \"45-minute city\", meaning that 90% of public transport journeys during peak hours could be completed within 45 minutes. However, for residents in the west, this vision is far from reality at present.
PSP believes that to achieve this vision for western residents, the Government should implement two proposals currently under study regarding the JRL.
The first is to extend the JRL from Pandan Reservoir station to Haw Par Villa station on the Circle Line. The second is to connect Jurong Town Hall station on the JRL with Jurong Lake District station on the CRL to form an interchange station.
To expedite the extension of the MRT network in the west, we also suggest that the Government include skip-stop services in this year's Bus Connectivity Enhancement Plan, connecting various parts of the island to allow western residents to commute to work and travel more quickly.
We hope that last month's major massive breakdown will make the Government pay more attention to the current inadequacies in public transport in the western region.
Every Singaporean deserves better public transport services.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, last month's massive train breakdown has shown us how dependent the residents of the West are on the East-West Line to get around Singapore. We hope the Government will be in favour of the proposals to link the JRL to the Circle Line and the CRL to reduce that dependency. In addition, for more immediate relief and to complement the less developed MRT network in the West, we have recommended the Government to consider introducing a network of skip-stop bus services. This should be done at a national level, but it will especially benefit residents in the West, who are currently very reliant on the East-West Line.
The PSP hopes that the recent unprecedented disruption will spur the Government to conduct a thorough review of the plans under the Land Transport Master Plan and Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme to improve public transport in the West while striving to level up our public transport for the whole of Singapore. Public transport needs to serve everyone in Singapore. We must work harder to realise the vision of a 45-minute city for all Singaporeans. For country, for people.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Amy Khor.
The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan): Our vision, as articulated in the Land Transport Master Plan 2040 (LTMP 2040), is to create a 45-minute city and 20-minute towns by 2040. The 45-minute city goal goes beyond reducing travel times. It is also about reshaping how we think about urban connectivity, such as creating more employment centres and better linking them with residential areas.
Mr Leong spoke about the transport connectivity in the West. Members such as Mr Don Wee, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Patrick Tay, Miss Rachel Ong and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim had also previously asked Parliamentary Questions about our plans to improve transport connectivity in the West.
Residents from Tengah have also provided LTA and myself with specific feedback on their estate, which we have already been addressing. Let me share about the progress that we have made thus far and our ongoing efforts to improve transport accessibility, connectivity and resilience for residents in the West. I am glad to note that Mr Leong's suggestions, in fact, support the plans we have made for transport connectivity in the West.
Let me begin with our rail network, the backbone of our public transport system.
Today, besides the Bukit Panjang Light Rail Transit, residents in the West are served by the North-South, East-West and Downtown Lines. While Mr Leong has claimed that the East is \"far better\" than the West, with all due respect, I think this is not a fair comparison as there are differences in geographical characteristics, stage of development and travel patterns.
With planned expansions to the rail network, we are on track to having eight in 10 households in the West within a 10-minute walk of a train station by the 2030s, which is aligned with our target for the entire island.
Complementing the rail network are bus services that provide first- and last-mile connectivity to key transport nodes and alternative options for commuters. More than one-third of our bus routes ply in the West, including express bus services that connect residents in the West directly to job centres in the central area.
LTA closely monitors the demand and capacity of bus routes in the West like it does for bus services across Singapore. Where additional capacity is needed, such as in growing towns with more Build-To-Order flats, LTA has worked with operators to improve frequencies and to inject more double-deck buses.
One example of such improvements is in Tengah. LTA has introduced three new bus services in this area since new homeowners started collecting the keys to their flats just about a year ago.
Services 992 and 870 were introduced at the end of last year, connecting residents to MRT stations at Bukit Batok and Jurong East as well as Jurong Town Hall and Tengah Bus Interchanges. Service 871 was introduced in July this year, connecting Tengah residents to Bukit Gombak and Beauty World MRT stations.
As with all new estates, LTA will continue to monitor travel demand and make necessary enhancements to improve transport connectivity in tandem with the development of the town and progressive completion of its road infrastructure.
Looking ahead, a key enabler of our plans to enhance transport connectivity in the West are our two new MRT lines – the JRL and CRL.
The JRL will be a game-changer for the West when it opens in stages between 2027 and 2029. With 24 new stations spanning 24 kilometres, it will serve areas such as Tengah New Town and Jurong Lake District, and also connect residents across the entire Western region to growing employment centres in Jurong. With three interchange stations at Choa Chu Kang, Boon Lay and Jurong East, the JRL will connect to the North-South Line and East-West Line, and enhance resilience across the system.
The JRL will shorten travel times for commuters in the West. For example, residents in Tengah Plantation Grove can reach Tanjong Pagar in 40 minutes via a rail connection to Jurong East interchange, compared to 55 minutes today. Similarly, residents in Boon Lay View will take 40 minutes to travel to Woodlands, down from 55 minutes today.
For the connection between the Jurong Town Hall station on the JRL and the Jurong Lake District station on the CRL, Mr Leong will be pleased to know that there will be good pedestrian connectivity between the two stations.
By the early 2030s, the CRL will further enhance the West's connection to the East and North-East regions. It will serve areas such as West Coast and parts of Clementi that do not currently have direct links to the rail network and connect residents to growing employment centres in Punggol and Changi. Commuters in the West will be able to use the CRL to connect to every radial line in our MRT network.
It will also shorten travel times significantly for some journeys. Currently, a journey from West Coast to Pasir Ris will take 70 minutes and a journey to Ang Mo Kio will take 60 minutes. With the CRL, these journeys will be reduced to 45 minutes to Pasir Ris and 30 minutes to Ang Mo Kio.
In the mid-2030s, the new Sungei Kadut interchange station along the North-South Line will provide commuters in the Northwest a more direct transfer to the Downtown Line. The new Brickland station between Choa Chu Kang and Bukit Gombak stations will also offer residents living in Keat Hong, Bukit Batok West and Tengah faster and more convenient access to the rail network.
Beyond these projects, we are also planning for the next bound. As Minister Chee mentioned earlier, LTA has been studying a West Coast Extension in tandem with further developments in the area, which will connect the JRL to the Circle Line and further improve rail connectivity and resilience for the West.
At the same time, we recognise that buses remain integral as they enable more residents to access the rail network and other amenities. This is especially important as new housing developments are being completed at a faster pace, which means that there are new needs that have to be met. We recognise that as the planned expansion of our rail network will take some time to complete, improving bus connectivity will help meet travel demand in the immediate term.
That is why we have taken further steps through the recently announced Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme. Some measures include introducing more peak-hour express bus services for faster connection to the city as well as new \"express feeder\" services, which will bypass stops to take a more direct route to connect residents in farther away estates to existing transport nodes and town centres.
Mr Leong's suggestion for buses is no different from this. We will also speed up the pace of introducing new trunk and feeder bus services and improving bus frequencies to improve connectivity for the early batches of residents who move into new estates like Tengah. LTA is progressively identifying these enhancements, in consultation with stakeholders.
Beyond improving transport connectivity, we are also bringing jobs closer to residents. With the development of regional centres like the Jurong Lake District and Jurong Innovation District, residents in the West will have even more employment opportunities close to home.
Mr Speaker, while we have made substantial progress, we are not done building a more connected Singapore. Our plans to improve transport infrastructure will take time. So, I seek the patience and support of Singaporeans and our residents in the West as we press on with enhancements to our public transport network in the coming years.
With the support of this House, I am confident that we will realise our vision of a well-connected and vibrant home for all residents. [Applause.]
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 2(3)(a), I wish to inform hon Members that the Sitting tomorrow will commence at 11.00 am.
Adjourned accordingly at 7.45 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":"Tax Treatment for Payouts from Proposed SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"19 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Manpower whether the payouts received by the participants of the proposed SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support scheme will be subject to income tax.
Dr Tan See Leng: \tIn Singapore, income is taxable and payouts from the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support (JS) scheme are considered income. However, we intend to exempt the JS scheme payouts from income tax. This is consistent with the policy objective of the scheme to provide temporary financial support to involuntarily unemployed jobseekers, who face employment setbacks and need greater support.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Gap between Developers’ Expectations of Development Feasibility and URA’s Assessment of Reserve Price","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development with regard to the tender for a 99-year leasehold master developer site at Jurong Lake District (a) what are the reasons for the gap between developers’ expectations of development feasibility and the URA’s assessment of its reserve price; and (b) whether the URA plans to retain the master developer approach when tendering the land sites at Jurong Lake District.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Government is committed to the development of Jurong Lake District (JLD) as a model for sustainable development, integrating business, residential and recreational spaces, outside of the city centre. The Urban Redevelopment Authority will continue to engage with industry stakeholders for feedback on JLD’s plans and review the approach for the Master Developer site.
Meanwhile, the JLD Master Developer site is placed on the Reserve List, to allow interested tenderers to activate the launch of the site under the Concept and Price Revenue Tender approach, subject to a minimum price that is acceptable to the Government.
Land valuation depends on many factors, such as prevailing macroeconomic and property market conditions, proposed land use and site-specific conditions. The bidders would also have their own perspectives of how these factors may impact the development proposals and factor them into their corresponding land valuations. Hence, we are unable to comment on developers’ land valuation approach.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Offering Second or Third Language Subjects to Schools Which Are Not Assessable for Academic Credit","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education whether there are any plans to offer second or third language subjects in primary and secondary schools, which will not be assessable for academic credit, but rather focused on functional literacy.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Primary and secondary schools conduct Conversational Chinese and Malay programmes as enrichment for students. They are non-examinable and focus on language use in everyday situations.
At the secondary level, in addition to third language offerings at the Ministry of Education (MOE) Language Centre, a modular foreign languages programme is being piloted. It allows students to learn French or German at their own pace and up to different proficiency levels. MOE will study the findings from the pilot to see if this programme should be scaled up.
In another pilot, digital resources will be made available progressively next year on the Singapore Student Learning Space for students to learn conversational Vietnamese.
Beyond these provisions, students who are interested to learn other languages as enrichment can access a wide repertoire of resources available online for self-directed learning.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Stateless Children in Singapore and Measures to Help Them","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many children under the age of 12 currently living in Singapore are stateless; (b) how many young people aged between the ages of 12 and 18 currently living in Singapore are stateless; (c) whether any person or entity in Singapore has legal parental responsibility for these children and young people; and (d) if so, who are they.
26 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs in respect of stateless children and young people under 18 years old living in Singapore, how does Singapore meet its obligations under Article 7 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which provides that every child has the right to be registered immediately after birth, to have a name and nationality subject to national law and obligations under the relevant international instruments.
27 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs with regard to stateless children and young people under 18 years old living in Singapore, what services, support or programmes are available to ensure that the child or young person has access to suitable (i) accommodation, (ii) healthcare and (iii) education.
Mr K Shanmugam: Like many other countries, Singapore does not automatically grant citizenship to a child just by virtue of the child being born here.
Our Constitution automatically confers Singapore citizenship on children born in Singapore to married parents, when at least one parent is a Singapore Citizen (SC). If the child is born to foreign parents, we do not automatically confer citizenship and would assess any citizenship application alongside all other applications.
Applications for Singapore citizenship are evaluated on a range of criteria. These include the conduct and contributions of the applicant, links to Singapore, including if they have family members who are Singaporeans, and how long they have been in Singapore. The circumstances under which the person became stateless would also be taken into consideration.
Because of our policy on citizenship, we have made a reservation to Article 7 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the Member asked about.
As of 31 December 2023, there were seven stateless persons under the age of 12, and 13 were between the ages of 12 and 18. This constitutes 2.3% of the total number of stateless persons in Singapore. Their circumstances vary, but one reason is being born in Singapore to foreign parents who did not obtain citizenship of their country for their child. It is the responsibility of the parents or legal guardians to take care of the child’s well-being, including obtaining citizenship for their child.
However, if a child or young person has no parent or caregiver willing or able to provide care or guardianship in Singapore, they may be provided with statutory protection under the Children and Young Persons Act.
In terms of access to healthcare, education and housing, stateless persons who are Permanent Residents (PRs) are treated no differently from other PRs. For stateless persons who are not PRs, they can access the following services.
For healthcare, the MediSave of their SC or PR family members can be used. Stateless children and young persons under the state's care can also access healthcare subsidies through the Medical Fee Exemption Card. They can also approach the healthcare institution’s medical social workers.
For education, stateless students may enrol in our mainstream schools and tertiary institutions, subject to meeting the admission criteria. Stateless students can approach the schools for school-based assistance. They can also approach social service agencies for advice on the financial assistance available to them.
For housing, stateless persons who are not PRs cannot buy or rent a flat from the Housing and Development Board (HDB). However, they can live in an HDB flat as an occupier if they are part of an SC or PR family that is eligible to buy or rent a flat. For those who face genuine housing difficulties and have no other housing options, HDB will work with the relevant agencies like the Ministry of Social and Family Development to assess how best to assist them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extending Definition of Disability for Singapore’s Social Policies to Cover Neurodiverse Conditions and Learning Disabilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry will consider expanding the definition of disability for Singapore’s social policies to cover neurodiverse conditions and learning disabilities, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and dyslexia; and (b) what the reasons are for these conditions not being explicitly classified as disabilities currently.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Our Enabling Masterplans define “persons with disability” as those with substantially reduced prospects of securing, retaining places and advancing in education and training institutions, employment and recreation, due to physical, intellectual and sensory impairments, as well as developmental needs, including autism. This definition was endorsed in 2004 by the first Enabling Masterplan Steering Committee, comprising representatives of the disability, private and public sectors.
Our disability schemes and services are guided by this definition to channel support to those who most need it. The Enabling Masterplan 2030 outlines how children with developmental needs and students with Special Educational Needs which include conditions, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and dyslexia, receive support for their developmental and learning needs in the early and schooling years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Implementation of Shared Responsibility Framework for Phishing Scams","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether there are any updates on when the Shared Responsibility Framework for certain types of phishing scams will come into operation; and (b) whether there are any updates on a compensatory framework for other types of scams, such as those perpetrated by malware fraud.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): As shared previously in this House in April, the Government intends to implement the Shared Responsibility Framework this year. We have received useful feedback during the public consultation and will share our response after we have considered the feedback carefully.
Malware-enabled scams have decreased significantly by the end of last year. This follows enhancements to block access to the banking apps, if the presence of malware is detected on the customer’s mobile device. Banks have in place goodwill frameworks to support victims of different scam typologies. Victims of novel scam typologies, for example, malware-enabled scams when they first emerged, will receive greater support. The Monetary Authority of Singapore expects banks to treat customers fairly and banks must consider if they have fulfilled their obligations and whether the victim had acted responsibly. We will continue our efforts to educate the public on cybersecurity. Consumers also have to play their part to remain vigilant and practise good cyber hygiene.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singaporeans Staying in Conflict Areas in Middle East and Assistance Extended to Them","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) how many Singaporeans are residing in Israel and Lebanon, respectively; and (b) what assistance is the Ministry providing to Singaporeans in the Middle East who are staying near the conflict zones.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: As of 15 October 2024, there are 45 and three Singaporeans registered with the Ministry of \tForeign Affairs (MFA) in Israel and Lebanon, respectively. MFA is in touch with them and have been providing advice on the latest developments in the respective countries and the region.
The safety and well-being of Singaporeans overseas are of utmost importance to MFA. We are monitoring the developments in the Middle East closely and will continue to update our Travel Advisories.
Our Overseas Missions remain in touch with Singaporean communities in the region and stand ready to provide consular assistance. MFA has been working closely with the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore and its Student Liaison Officers in Cairo and Jeddah to maintain contact with Singapore students pursuing religious studies in the region. This enables us to reach out and provide consular assistance to them quickly in an emergency.
Singaporeans in the Middle East should remain vigilant and monitor developments closely. They should heed the Travel Advisories and avoid or leave the conflict areas as advised. They should also take all necessary precautions for their personal safety, purchase comprehensive travel insurance and eRegister with MFA. As Singapore does not have resident diplomatic missions in all countries in the region, Singaporeans should familiarise themselves with the locations of the nearest Singapore Missions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Availability of More Common Pharmaceutical Drugs, such as Febuxostat, to Contain Escalating Healthcare Costs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Health given the relatively easy accessibility of generic medication in neighboring jurisdictions, what is the reason for the non-availability of certain common pharmaceutical drugs, such as Febuxostat, in Singapore, especially in light of efforts to contain escalating healthcare costs.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Our healthcare institutions stock a wide range of generic medications to meet patient needs, to keep costs affordable for patients. However, some generic medications may not be available in Singapore, if the pharmaceutical companies’ choose not to bring them in. For example, they may assess that there is inadequate local demand and market potential.
Currently, the generic version of Febuxostat is registered with the Health Sciences Authority since July 2024, but the product registrant has not started to bring it into Singapore, presumably based on their own commercial considerations. That said, there are good and affordable alternative generic medications to Febuxostat, such as Allopurinol and Probenecid, available in the public hospitals and pharmacies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Number of Leave Days for Resident Workers in Outsourced Sectors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the current average number of annual leave days that resident workers in outsourced sectors, such as cleaning and security services, receive based on their years of service; and (b) for outsourced workers who remain in the same workplace, but whose employers change when service buyers switch service providers, how will the Ministry ensure that they are not left behind in their annual leave accumulation, despite their years of continued service in the same workplace.
Dr Tan See Leng: Based on trends observed from 2018 to 2023, the average number of annual leave days provided to all full-time resident employees aged 25 to 64 in the cleaning, security and landscape sectors is 11 days for those who have worked for less than 10 years and 14 days for those who have worked for 10 years or more. The Ministry of Manpower does not specifically track the number of leave days of outsourced workers who remain in the same workplace, but whose employers change when service buyers switch service providers.
To improve employment conditions for our workers, the tripartite partners introduced the Tripartite Advisory on Best Sourcing Practices in 2008. It encourages service buyers to offer no worse-off remuneration packages and to recognise the length of service of incumbent workers whom they employ under the new contracts.
The Advisory also encourages service buyers to emphasise service quality and outcomes in their contract terms, so that service providers compete on delivering quality services instead of solely trying to offer the lowest price, at the expense of their workers’ employment conditions and well-being.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Mandatory Requirement for Premises to Set Up At Least One Designated Smoking Area in Outdoor Areas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry will consider making it compulsory for premises managers to set up at least one designated smoking area in the outdoor areas of their premises provided these are not places where smoking is prohibited.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: We currently have no plans to mandate that premises managers set up designated smoking areas at the outdoor areas of their premises. The setting up of designated smoking areas should be carefully considered as the proliferation of such smoking facilities needs to be balanced against the risk of inadvertently normalising smoking. We urge smokers to be considerate and socially responsible when smoking at public places.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applications for Enterprise Financing Scheme for Mergers and Acquisitions Loans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how many applications have been received under the Enterprise Financing Scheme \t– Mergers and Acquisitions Loan (EFS–M&A) since its inception; and (b) what measures are being considered to enhance support for SMEs engaging in merger and acquisition activities to help them build economies of scale, particularly in light of utilising the EFS–M&A scheme.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Since the launch of the Enterprise Financing Scheme – Mergers and Acquisitions Loan (EFS-M&A) in October 2019, over 20 local enterprises have taken up close to $190 million in such loans.
Besides EFS-M&A, the Enterprise Development Grant also supports eligible local companies in growing and transforming their businesses, including M&A activities. Companies that meet qualifying conditions may also enjoy an M&A tax allowance based on the acquisition value and a double tax deduction on qualifying transaction costs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Follow-up Measures after Singapore's Support of UN General Assembly Resolution A/ES-10/L.31","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs following Singapore’s vote in favour of UN General Assembly Resolution A/ES-10/L.31, whether Singapore will be (a) enacting a ban on imported products originating from Israeli settlements; (b) halting arms sales to Israel in cases where there are reasonable grounds to suspect they may be used in the Occupied Palestinian Territory; and (c) sanctioning individuals and entities involved in maintaining Israel’s unlawful presence in the Territory and, if not, why not.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Singapore’s vote in favour of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution A/ES-10/L.31 reflects our respect for the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which is the principal judicial organ of the UN. Singapore has long held a consistent view that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. I have restated this view on several past occasions in this House, most recently on 7 August 2024. The presence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank will make it much harder to arrive at a viable two-state solution. Settler violence against Palestinians cannot be condoned.
Singapore’s vote for the UNGA resolution also reflects our longstanding support for the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland and for a negotiated two-state solution consistent with relevant UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be resolved through direct negotiations between both sides for a comprehensive, just and durable solution. Both sides must find the resolve to remove obstacles to peace and work towards a negotiated two-state solution.
Our \"yes\" vote, however, does not mean that we agree with the entirety of the resolution. Singapore has serious reservations about the use of the Court’s advisory jurisdiction to bypass the need for states’ consent in submitting what are essentially political disputes between two parties for adjudication. Singapore has also placed on record our serious reservations on aspects of the resolution, particularly its overreaching scope of the modalities and potential actions prescribed by the resolution for member states. They include measures that go beyond not just the ICJ Advisory Opinion but also our current obligations under international law. We also have concerns over the resolution’s call for measures that have not been negotiated between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Other countries, including Japan and South Korea, have placed on record similar concerns.
Let me now address Mr Leong’s queries. First, on banning imported products from Israeli settlements, we do not have any record of Singapore having imported such products. Second, on the question of arms sales, Singapore complies strictly with our international obligations on international arms sales, as well as UN sanctions and embargoes against any country, including submitting regular reports to the UN Register of Conventional Arms. Apart from this, it is the established policy of the Government not to publicly divulge details of defence sales for national security reasons. Third, on the sanctioning of individuals and entities, Singapore has and will consistently comply with all UNSC sanctions as part of our international legal obligations.
While some countries have imposed sanctions on certain Israeli settler leaders and entities, it is far from clear that such measures have had meaningful impact on the ground. This is not how Singapore should conduct foreign policy and we must weigh all considerations carefully. Any decision to impose unilateral sanctions must be considered carefully and based on our national interests.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cases of Violence and Bullying in Schools, and Measures to Help Victims","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Education (a) in each year of the past five years, how many cases of physical violence which resulted in injuries have been reported in primary and secondary schools respectively; and (b) how many of such cases have corporal punishment meted out on students who are found to be violent against others in schools.
39 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Education (a) whether there are standard operating procedures on how schools should handle bullying complaints expeditiously and appropriately; (b) if not, why not; (c) how does the Ministry ensure that (i) victims are protected, treated fairly and not blamed while investigations are ongoing and (ii) appropriate punishments are meted out; and (d) what avenues for recourse are available for victims, especially if the bullying persists in spite of corrective measures, such as counselling.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: This question has been answered as part of the Minister for Education’s oral reply to Parliamentary Questions raised on on 14 October 2024. The Member may refer to the transcript for the reply. [Please refer to \"Review of Measures and Help Provided in Student Bullying Incidents\", Official Report, 14 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 142, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Oversight of Maintenance Schedules of and Use of Predictive Maintenance Systems by Rail Operators","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Transport with regard to the East-West MRT line disruption in September 2024 (a) whether proper procedures have been followed; (b) whether the rail track damage may well have been safely avoided; (c) what is the total cost of the disruption, including repair works and provision of bus services; and (d) how and who will cover the cost of the disruption.
41 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Transport (a) what plans are in place for the Ministry to guide and monitor the fleet maintenance regime of MRT operators; and (b) how does the Ministry ensure that best practices or digitalisation improvements to augment MRT fleet performance are implemented on a timely basis.
42 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Transport with regard to the train disruption on the East-West MRT Line (a) what measures are in place to ensure the welfare and safety of staff who work overtime during the disruption; (b) how does the Ministry ensure fair compensation for the overtime hours worked; and (c) whether details can be provided on the procurement procedures for engaging third-party services and sourcing of parts in emergencies, such as the recent train disruption.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: This question has been answered in the Ministerial Statement at the Sitting on 15 October 2024. [Please refer to \"A Safe, Reliable, and Resilient Rail System\", Official Report, 15 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 143, Ministerial Statements section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Incorrect Claim in CNA Article on Lease Buyback Scheme Computation","subTitle":"Assessment of Issuance of Correction Direction under POFMA","sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for National Development why the Ministry did not issue a correction direction under the Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act to CNA when it published an article on 27 August 2024 that included an incorrect claim that the Lease Buyback Scheme computes sales proceeds based on a straight-line depreciation.
Mr Desmond Lee: Upon discovering the inaccuracy in CNA’s report on 27 August 2024 about the Lease Buyback Scheme, the Housing and Development Board informed CNA, which promptly corrected it. This is in line with established practice for mainstream media outlets.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Attrition of Early Childhood Educators and Enhancing Respect between These Educators and Parents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the annual attrition rate for early childhood educators over the past five years; and (b) whether the Ministry intends to provide guidance on how parents and early childhood educators can work together positively and respectfully to improve the well-being of early childhood educators.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The annual attrition rate for Early Childhood educators was between 10% and 15% over the past five years.
Having a positive and respectful parent-teacher relationship is very important in supporting the holistic development of the child. Hence, the Early Childhood Development Agency has put in place guidelines to promote preschools’ partnerships with parents, as well as programmes like Start Small Dream Big movement for teachers and parents to work together with their children on community projects.
The Ministry of Social and Family Development had also provided information on ongoing initiatives to improve educators’ well-being in our reply to an earlier Parliamentary question on 2 July 2024. This included how parents should appreciate the work of our Early Childhood educators and have reasonable expectations of them. [Please refer to \"Child Abuse Cases in Preschools and Teacher Support Measures Identified\", Official Report, 02 July 2024, Vol 95, Issue 137, Written Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cause of Accident between Two Hunter Armoured Fighting Vehicles during Exercise Wallaby","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Defence (a) what has been the cause of the accident between two Hunter armoured fighting vehicles during Exercise Wallaby in Australia on 24 September 2024, leading to 12 Servicemen suffering injuries; and (b) whether there are any lessons from this incident which can be applied to improve training and operational safety.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: On the night of 24 September 2024, a Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) Hunter Armoured Fighting Vehicle (AFV) rear-ended another during Exercise Wallaby while the vehicles were moving back to base at Shoalwater Bay Training Area in Queensland, Australia. The 12 Servicemen involved were sent to the nearest medical facility and were assessed to have sustained mild injuries. None required hospitalisation and were well enough to rejoin their units for training the next day.
A safety pause was called immediately following the incident. Preliminary onsite checks found that low visibility due to the dust clouds formed during movement of the Hunter AFVs was the likely contributory factor. It was also ascertained that the soldiers on board the vehicles had adhered to the safety protocols, including the use of seat belts and protective gear and, consequently, only sustained no or mild injuries.
After the safety time-out, all drivers were reminded to maintain the requisite safety distances when driving, especially when visibility was poor. Troops were also reminded to adhere to safety protocols, including the use of safety equipment. The incident and reminders were further shared with participants of subsequent phases of the exercise and other units in Singapore through safety briefs.
In accordance with the SAF’s safety incident protocol, a formal investigation has been convened in the Army. Upon completion of the investigation, further lessons learnt and recommendations made will be implemented as appropriate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Approaches for Management of Hawker Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether there are plans to review the way hawker centres are catered for island-wide; and (b) whether it will be more efficient to have a single agency acquire and manage all hawker centres and HDB coffee shops so that Singapore can take a masterplan approach towards making provision for access to good and affordable meals for all Singaporeans.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency (NEA) works closely with other agencies on the planning of new hawker centres by considering various factors, including residential catchments, availability of comparable food and beverage options and complementary facilities in the vicinity, as well as land availability and compatibility with adjacent land use.
The Government will continue to plan for hawker centres and coffee shops holistically and is committed to ensuring that these places continue to provide affordable cooked food options for Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Legislative Provisions for Funds Collected by Payment Service Providers and E-commerce Platforms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) with regard to funds collected by payment service providers and e-commerce platforms, whether current legislation restricts the settlement period to vendors and customers; and (b) whether current legislation requires customer funds to be separately managed for platforms with stored values.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): The operation of an e-commerce platform is not regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). However, an e-commerce platform that provides payment services covered under the Payment Services Act 2019 (PS Act) must be licensed by MAS. There are requirements under the PS Act on the transmission and safeguarding of monies, which would then apply to licensed payment services activities.
On transmission, licensed payment service providers must send monies from its customers to its intended beneficiaries within: (a) three business days for domestic money transfers; (b) seven business days for cross-border money transfers; or (c) in the case of customers who are merchants, any other period as may be agreed in writing between the payment service provider and its customers. For customers who are merchants, MAS took into account industry feedback and practices and allowed parties the flexibility to mutually agree in writing to a different settlement period.
Payment service providers that are licensed as major payment institutions1 are also required to safeguard monies received. They must do so by depositing the relevant money in a trust account with a safeguarding institution or bank, or obtaining an undertaking or guarantee from the safeguarding institution or bank. The payment service provider must safeguard the monies by the end of the next business day after it receives the monies from a customer or, in the case of e-money, from the time the e-money is received or issued to the customer.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : An entity must be licensed as a major payment institution if ","(a)\tit carries on business in one or more of the following services – account issuance service, domestic money transfer service, cross-border money transfer service, merchant acquisition service, digital payment token service, and the total value of all payment transactions processed in a month (when averaged over a calendar year) exceeds (i) $3 million for any one of the payment services or (ii) $6 million for two or more of the payment services. ","(b)\tit carries on the business of providing an e-money account issuance service or e-money issuance service, and the total value of all e-money issued in one day or stored in any payment account (when averaged over a calendar year) exceeds $5 million."],"footNoteQuestions":["50"],"questionNo":"50"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Students' CCA Participation Hours in Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Levels","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Education (a) whether there is data on the average Co-Curricular Activities (CCA) participation hours for students at (i) primary, (ii) secondary and (iii) tertiary levels from 2021 to date and, if so, what are they; (b) what percentage of students of each level recorded below-average CCA participation hours and whether steps are made to reintegrate them into CCAs; and (c) whether measures will be considered to increase CCA participation hours to strengthen students’ emotional, physical and physiological resilience for improved mental health outcomes.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Schools have the autonomy to vary Co-Curricular Activity (CCA) hours to cater to different CCAs’ learning outcomes and their students’ needs, interests and well-being. For example, a CCA offered at a competitive level will typically have more practice hours than a recreational CCA. The Ministry of Education does not track the CCA participation hours of students, but for the small percentage of students with low attendance rates, our teachers reach out to them to understand their challenges and provide timely support.
CCA is an important part of holistic development that contributes to students’ mental well-being and resilience. However, increasing CCA hours may not be the best way to achieve this as students face many competing demands on their time. Instead, we seek to enhance student mental health and resilience through various measures. These include enhancing students’ mental health literacy through the Character and Citizenship Education curriculum, providing an ecosystem of support for students through peer support and close school-home partnerships, and participating in outdoor adventure learning camps.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Matching of Increases in Per Capita Household Income and Cost of Healthcare Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the increase in the per capita household income (PCHI) has been matched with the increased cost of healthcare services and, if not, how does the Ministry intend to close the gap; and (b) whether the Ministry aims to increase the frequency of reviewing the PCHI, given the rapid increase in healthcare cost.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The per capita household income and property Annual Value thresholds for means-tested healthcare subsidy schemes have just been reviewed to take into account the rise in household incomes and annual values. Where appropriate, we also review and adjust subsidy levels, taking into consideration healthcare cost increases.
For example, we recently enhanced the implant subsidy framework. We have also just announced major enhancements to MediShield Life, to enhance coverage for large healthcare bills.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of Singaporeans amongst Employees in Foreign-owned Firms who Earn Gross Monthly Income of Above $12,500","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Manpower with regard to the employees of foreign-owned firms who earn a gross monthly income of above $12,500, what percentage of these are Singapore residents and non-residents, respectively.
Dr Tan See Leng: \tAmong employees of foreign-owned firms who earn a gross monthly income of above $12,500, two in three are Singapore residents.
55 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider increasing the intake of pharmaceutical students in Institutes of Higher Learning to allow more pharmacy technicians with diplomas in pharmaceutical science to pursue a degree in pharmacy.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Ministry of Education works with Ministry of Health to regularly review the number of degree places in pharmacy, considering factors, such as industry demand, demographic changes and changing models of care.
Thus far, the intake of students to the National University of Singapore’s Bachelor of Pharmacy programme has been sufficient to meet these needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Guidance to Insurance Companies on Quantum and Frequency of Premium Increases Given End of Moratorium on Such Increases for Integrated Shield Plans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health given that the moratorium on Integrated Shield Plan premium increases has ended, whether the Ministry will be providing guidance to insurance companies on (a) the quantum and range of increases in premiums they may make; and (b) set the permissible frequency and quantum of future increases.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: When the Government implemented the Cancer Drug List (CDL) policy from 1 September 2022, the Ministry of Health (MOH) discussed with the insurers, who agreed to implement a two-year moratorium on Integrated Shield Plan (IP) premium increases from 2 September 2022 to 31 August 2024. This was in view of the CDL being a significant policy change to reduce the cost of cancer drugs, and hence claims, and to better support policyholders through the transition period.
MOH currently regulates the key parameters of IPs, such as the co-payment and deductible, to ensure these products can function sustainably as a key part of our healthcare financing system. However, IPs remain private products. Insurance companies compete in a competitive market and the products need to remain commercially viable. Therefore, MOH’s general practice is not to regulate aspects, such as premiums, service quality or underwriting, which are integral to market competition. The quantum and frequency of premium revisions are subject to insurers’ actuarial and commercial considerations.
MOH encourages Singaporeans to make informed decisions about health insurance purchases, taking into consideration their preferred healthcare choices and whether they would be able to continue paying premiums in future. We will continue to publish information on IP premiums and coverage to facilitate consumers in making informed decisions.
Regardless of IP coverage, all Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents are covered by MediShield Life, which will be adequate for subsidised care in public hospitals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Volume of Complaints on Second-hand Smoke from Neighbours Received via NEA's Online Feedback Form","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) for each year in the past three years, what is the (i) number of feedback, (ii) percentage of feedback submitted through National Environment Agency's (NEA)'s online feedback form on second-hand tobacco smoke from neighbours; and (b) whether NEA will consider if feedback on second-hand tobacco smoke from neighbours warrants a specific category in the form.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: There has been a declining trend in feedback on second-hand tobacco smoke from neighbours received by the National Environment Agency (NEA) through its online feedback system. NEA received 900 instances of feedback in 2021, 260 instances in 2022, and 120 instances in 2023. These form 2.6%, 1.2% and 0.6% of annual total feedback received via the platform.
NEA’s online feedback system is intended for the public to provide information on issues regulated by NEA, such as littering, smoking in prohibited places and mosquito breeding. There is a general category for feedback on other environmental issues. There are no plans to create an additional category for second-hand tobacco smoke from neighbours.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Analysing Public Benefits of Each Transport Mode and Applying Findings to Infrastructure Planning","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Government does economic analyses of various modes of transport to determine and track the public benefits of each mode of transport in order to guide related policies, such as infrastructure planning; and (b) if so, how is such input taken into consideration in the policymaking and planning process.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Our plans for transport infrastructures are guided by long-term strategic plans, such as the Concept Plan and Master Plan. This ensures transport planning is closely integrated with overall land-use planning. Relevant Government agencies work closely with one another to ensure that the necessary transport infrastructure is implemented to meet the needs of commuters, while supporting existing and planned developments.
To guide these decisions, the Government conducts economic analyses when planning for transport projects. These analyses weigh the benefits gained by commuters and society, such as the value of time savings brought about by new transport options, against the costs of building and maintaining transport infrastructure.
While such economic analyses help us to assess the economic viability of our transport projects, they are not the only consideration in our decision-making process. Ultimately, transport is also an economic mobiliser and a social equaliser. It enables all Singaporeans, regardless of where we live, to move around for work, school or recreation. Such non-quantifiable benefits are also taken into account when we evaluate our transport plans and projects.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Leave Provisions for Working Caregivers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in the Government’s review to better support working caregivers, whether the provision of mandatory paid parent-care leave by employers was considered; and (b) if so, what were the considerations in determining its feasibility.
Dr Tan See Leng: In reviewing how the Government can better support working caregivers, we recognise that caregiving needs are diverse, and a holistic approach is needed to help caregivers enter or remain in the workforce.
Leave can alleviate the stress of managing work and caregiving needs like accompanying care recipients to medical appointments. However, leave on its own is unlikely to fully support working caregivers throughout their caregiving journey.
Firstly, caregivers of seniors with high care needs may require long-term care support to ensure that the needs of their elderly loved ones are met whilst they are at work. There is a range of home and community care options to meet such needs, and the Ministry of Health is also exploring new care models, such as the Enhanced Home Personal Care service, to better support seniors’ care at home.
Secondly, working caregivers have also highlighted that flexible work arrangements (FWAs), such as part-time and staggered work hours, are important in helping them manage work and caregiving responsibilities more sustainably. To shape stronger norms around flexible workplaces, the Government has worked with the tripartite partners to launch the Tripartite Guidelines on FWA Requests and developed information and training resources to build employers’ capabilities to implement FWAs.
In considering whether to provide mandatory leave for caregivers, we need to balance caregivers’ needs with the potential impact on employers’ business costs and operations, as well as the employability of caregivers in the long term. Any leave enhancements will need to be studied carefully and developed in close consultation with the tripartite partners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ease of Maintenance as Consideration for Designs of Upcoming BTO Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry can provide an update on how ease of maintenance and maintenance costs have been factored into the design of upcoming BTO estates, including those launching in October 2024; (b) whether the Ministry has a forecast of the projected operating expenses for these new estates, including the horticulture and conservancy costs; and (c) whether the projected operating expenses in these new estates are higher or lower, compared to older estates.
Mr Desmond Lee: Maintainability is considered upfront as part of our Housing and Development Board (HDB) Build-To-Order (BTO) designs. This includes requirements for maintenance accessibility, choice of materials and construction detailing. For example, in HDB’s provision of greenery to enhance quality of living, hardy plant species are selected to reduce maintenance costs, and plants are placed in areas with safe and easy maintenance access, such as at entrances, gathering spaces or in planter boxes on the facades of multi-storey car parks.
HDB actively seeks feedback from the Town Councils via regular dialogue sessions and regularly reviews its design guides in response to the Town Councils’ feedback to support and enhance maintainability in HDB estates.
HDB has been responsive to feedback from the Town Councils that plants in shaded courtyards face difficulty thriving and required frequent replacement. In response to such feedback, HDB has begun providing dry landscapes for these areas. Another example is gondola landings, which are provided in all HDB precincts to facilitate gondola operations for facade maintenance and repainting works. Following feedback from the Town Councils on insufficient landing space, HDB enhanced its technical requirements to allow for a wider obstruction-free landing area for gondolas.
The Ministry of National Development does not project the projected operating expenses for new HDB estates. As the common property in HDB estates are managed and maintained by respective Town Councils, they are best placed to estimate and project their own operating expenses. For example, Town Councils might enjoy economies of scale when grouping maintenance contracts within their towns. This notwithstanding, HDB will continue to study and address feedback received from Town Councils in upcoming building projects.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Role for Student Care Centres in Overall Education System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what role does the Ministry envisage for Student Care Centres (SCCs) to play as part of the overall education system in Singapore as an increasing number of students are enrolled in SCCs.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Student Care Centres (SCCs) provide a supervised, safe and conducive environment for children and youths aged seven to 14 as an option for after-school care. There are school-based SCCs and community-based SCCs to meet the different needs of families.
SCCs do not provide formal education. They provide parents with an alternative to home-based care. The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) requires all SCCs, including school-based SCCs, that are registered to have a structured programme with homework supervision and meal provision.
On top of these requirements, SCC operators may choose to provide additional programmes. The Ministry of Education also regularly engages operators of school-based SCCs on their programmes offered to provide weekly outdoor programmes and enrichment activities, such as reading, music and art.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Resolved High-rise Littering Cases in Ang Mo Kio GRC Following Revised Framework","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) to date, how many cases of high-rise littering in Fernvale constituency of Ang Mo Kio GRC have been resolved under the revised framework where presumption of guilt is placed on flat owners or tenants of the HDB flat since its implementation from 1 July 2023; (b) how many waivers based on medical or other compassionate grounds have been granted for such cases; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider acquiring and deploying more surveillance cameras in Fernvale constituency.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The statutory presumption provision for littering from residential flats came into force on 1 July 2023. From 1 July 2023 to 30 September 2024, over 30 acts of high-rise littering from 14 residential flats were recorded by surveillance cameras deployed by the National Environment Agency (NEA) in Fernvale constituency.
Enforcement action has been taken against five offenders while the remaining cases are currently under investigation. Of the five offenders, one individual has been charged under the statutory presumption provision as the individual was unable to provide relevant information to rebut the presumption. However, NEA reduced the charges on compassionate grounds upon appeal by the individual. The remaining four offenders were charged based on their admission to committing the high-rise littering offence.
From January to September 2024, NEA has conducted more than 1,500 camera deployments island-wide. NEA will continue to work with Town Councils to reach out to residents and raise awareness on the environmental and social consequences of high-rise littering. As it will not be sustainable to increase camera deployments indefinitely, NEA will continue to prioritise the deployment of surveillance cameras at blocks with persistent feedback on high-rise littering. Members of the public may also submit video evidence of high-rise littering acts to NEA for investigation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Steps to Assist Singaporeans Registering for Malaysia's Vehicle Entry Permit","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) what steps has LTA taken in response to the difficulties faced by Singaporeans in registering for the Malaysian Vehicle Entry Permit (VEP), especially for those needing to travel to Malaysia for business regularly; (b) whether LTA has engaged with Malaysian authorities to mitigate issues, such as long delays in VEP application approvals, non-responsive customer support and uncertainties on the enforcement of the 1 October 2024 deadline.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Malaysia Vehicle Entry Permit (MVEP) is a requirement from the Malaysian Road Transport Department. The Land Transport Authority has shared with its Malaysian counterparts the feedback received from Singapore motorists on the MVEP.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore's Rising Gini Coefficient and Help for Those Affected","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance with regard to the UBS Global Wealth Report 2024 which reported Singapore’s Gini coefficient index as being up to 70% in 2023 (a) what are the factors that have contributed to the increase despite the Government’s various measures and subsidies, when most other parts of Asia have moderate increases or reductions in their Gini coefficients; and (b) which segments of Singapore’s population have faced wealth stagnation and what more can be done to uplift these affected segments.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: This question has been answered in the reply to the Parliamentary Question filed by Mr Yip Hon Weng for the Sitting on 14 October 2024. [Please refer to \"Additional Measures to Address Rising Wealth Inequality in Singapore\", Official Report, 14 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 142, Written Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Undetected Entry of Japanese Money Laundering Syndicate into Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Home Affairs with regard to the case of some members of a Japanese money laundering syndicate residing in Singapore (a) how did these fugitives enter Singapore without being detected; (b) whether the Ministry has previously received any information about their criminal activities; and (c) whether the Ministry was informed by the Japanese authorities when a wanted notice against these persons was issued in August 2024 and, if so, what action was taken.
Mr K Shanmugam: At the point of their last entry into Singapore, these persons were not known to be wanted by the foreign authorities.
Singapore authorities are in contact with our foreign counterparts, including rendering assistance within the ambit of our laws. We are unable to provide further details at this juncture.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Simplifying Process of Enforcing Awards Ordered by Small Claims and Employment Claims Tribunals on Companies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Law (a) whether the Ministry will consider simplifying the process of enforcing awards ordered by the (i) Small Claims Tribunal and (ii) Employment Claims Tribunal on companies; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider amending the law to impose criminal consequences on companies that fail to comply with the awards ordered by the Small Claims Tribunal and Employment Claims Tribunal.
Mr K Shanmugam: The process and procedure for enforcement of Court judgments, which include orders made by the Small Claims Tribunals (SCT) and Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT), are governed by the Rules of Court.
The Ministry of Law is working with stakeholders on reforms to make the enforcement of civil judgments more effective, efficient and simpler.
Under existing law, any person who intentionally disobeys or breaches an order of Court, including orders by the SCT and ECT, may be subject to committal proceedings under the Rules of Court. If found to have committed contempt of Court, the person is liable to be punished with a fine or imprisonment under the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Accountability of Lawyers in Performing Background Checks on Foreign Clients Setting up Companies in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Law with regard to the case of the members of a Japanese money-laundering syndicate setting up companies in Singapore (a) what is the accountability of the lawyers who acted for such companies as Corporate Service Provider; and (b) whether the current verification process by lawyers to do background checks on clients will be reviewed.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Ministry of Law and the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority are looking into this matter.
There are anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) requirements that apply separately to both lawyers and corporate service providers (CSPs). Lawyers who act as CSPs are expected to fully comply with the AML/CFT requirements applicable to all CSPs. These include requirements to conduct customer due diligence, enhanced customer due diligence for higher-risk customers and to report suspicious transactions.
Singapore’s AML/CFT requirements on verification and background checks are reviewed to be consistent with applicable international standards.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Improve Business Viability of Local Farms in Lim Chu Kang, Neo Tiew and Kranji","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Singapore Food Agency will implement more measures to improve the business viability of our farms in Lim Chu Kang, Neo Tiew and Kranji by working together with other agencies to (i) support more farmers’ markets in the heartlands and (ii) increase visitation and footfall to farms by improving or subsidising transport connectivity.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Since its formation, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) has partnered local farms in various areas to improve their business viability. This includes efforts to increase demand offtake for local produce.
With SFA’s support, the Singapore Agro-Food Enterprises Federation Limited (SAFEF) has been organising “SG Farmers’ Market” (SGFM) three times a year, where local farms showcase their freshly harvested produce at various heartland malls and locations across Singapore. To help farmers expand their distribution channels further, in 2020, SAFEF brought SGFM online by creating a one-stop e-SGFM page on Lazada RedMart. Such efforts seek to bring local produce from our farms directly to consumers in the heartlands. There are currently no plans to provide subsidised transportation for consumers to travel to farms.
SFA will continue to work with SAFEF to explore impactful initiatives to scale demand offtake for local produce.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Operating Surplus Generated by Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry has data on the operating surplus generated by each Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centre (SEHC); and (b) if so, what is the data for each year of the past five years.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Operators of Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres (SEHCs) are required to submit their audited financial statements for the centres under their management to the National Environment Agency (NEA) on an annual basis. Operators may generate operating surpluses in some years and deficits in other years. From 2019 to 2023, the average annual operating surplus was about $100,000.
In accordance with NEA’s agreement with the SEHCs, those with operating surpluses have ploughed back at least 50% of them into programmes that benefit the hawker centres and/or their stallholders. These could include measures to raise footfall and business levels to benefit stallholders. Some operators had also tapped on their operating surplus to help the stallholders reduce their operating costs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Hawker Stalls in NEA-operated Hawker Centres and SEHCs Terminating Rental Contracts Early","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) in each year of the past five years, what percentage of hawker stalls in (i) NEA-operated hawker centres and (ii) Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres have terminated their rental contracts early; and (b) what are the main reasons for the early termination.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: From 2019 to 2023, the average annual early termination rate for cooked food stalls at NEA-managed hawker centres and Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres (SEHCs) were 3% and 8% respectively. The most common reason cited by stallholders for termination is poor business at their stalls.
8 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Education with the announced plans to allow more students to study their mother tongue languages at a higher level (a) whether there will be a change in role of the Ministry of Education Language Centre (MOELC); and (b) whether Higher Mother Tongue will still be taught at MOELC to allow for more interactions and exchange between students of differing abilities, background and schools, leading to a more enriching learning experience of the subject.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Students who are offered Higher Mother Tongue Language (HMTL) attend lessons in their own schools or at designated HMTL centres. With the revised eligibility criteria for offering HMTL at secondary schools, these centres will be prepared to take in more students and offer a rich learning environment for students from different schools to learn together.
In addition to serving as a Higher Malay Language centre, the Ministry of Education Language Centre will continue its role as a third language centre to support the learning of third languages.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increasing Number of Secondary Schools Offering Tamil Language Instruction in Bukit Panjang","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Education in view of the concerns from residents about the limited options for Tamil language instruction, particularly within Bukit Panjang at the secondary school level, whether the Ministry can consider increasing the number of schools offering Tamil language instruction within the constituency.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Ministry of Education (MOE) offers Tamil Language (TL) instruction in as many schools as possible with the limited pool of Tamil Language teachers available. All MOE Kindergarten and Primary TL students now learn TL in their own school. At the secondary level, about 90% of TL students learn TL in their own school.
TL students staying in the Bukit Panjang area have the option of studying at Greenridge Secondary School, which offers in-school TL instruction, or attend TL lessons at Chua Chu Kang Secondary School, one of the 11 school-based TL centres which also takes in students from other schools. These centres offer a rich TL learning environment with a critical mass of learners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reported Instances of Gangsterism and Violence in Schools and Measures to Address Root Causes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Education (a) in the past five years, what are the 25th, 50th and 75th percentiles of reported instances of gangsterism and violence in schools annually; and (b) how are schools with higher incidence of reported gangsterism and violence addressing the root causes of these issues.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: This question has been answered as part of the Minister for Education’s oral reply on 14 October 2024. The Member may refer to the transcript for the reply. [Please refer to \"Review of Measures and Help Provided in Student Bullying Incidents\", Official Report, 14 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 142, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applications Received and Approved for Parents to Home-school Their Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education in the last five years (a) how many applications are received from parents in each year to home-school their children; (b) how many of such applications are approved; and (c) what is the breakdown of the applications received based on age of the children.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Over the last five years, the Ministry of Education (MOE) received around 70 home-schooling applications annually, of which the vast majority were at Primary 1. MOE engages parents who express interest in home-schooling extensively to verify that they are eligible and have the commitment and capabilities to home-school their child before commencing the application process. As such, nearly all applications were approved.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Employment of PwDs in Public Versus Private Sectors and Sharing of Best Practices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the ratio of persons with disabilities hired by the public sector compared with the private sector; (b) among the public agencies, which have the highest proportion of people with disabilities in their workforce; (c) have other public agencies been able to learn from their best practices; and (d) if the private sector has a higher proportion of disabled workers, what lessons can public agencies learn from it.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: As of December 2023, about one in 420 public officers and one in 240 private sector employees are persons with disabilities. It would not be meaningful to compare the proportion of persons with disabilities hired in the public and private sector, and even among agencies within the public sector, as the types of jobs in each sector or agency may differ.
Since 2019, SG Enable has been facilitating the sharing of best practices in inclusive hiring among public agencies through regular Public Sector Networking Sessions. Today, seven Public Service agencies have achieved the Enabling Mark, a national-level accreditation framework by SG Enable, that recognises organisations for their best practices and outcomes in disability-inclusive employment.
As per the recommendations of the Enabling Masterplan 2030 Taskforce on Promoting Inclusive Employment Practices, we will continue to build on this by identifying inclusive hiring champions amongst Public Service agencies to accelerate the adoption of inclusive hiring practices. Champions will share their experience in hiring persons with disabilities and best practices with other Public Service agencies and provide guidance and support for them to do the same.
SG Enable also works closely with employers, in both the public and private sectors, to support the employment and retention of persons with disabilities and build their capabilities to do so. Under the Open Door Programme (ODP), administered by SG Enable, persons with disabilities and employers receive support for job redesign, and up to one year of job matching and customised employment support from trained job coaches. Job coaches will advise employers on how they can create accessible work environments and make reasonable job accommodations to enable employees with disabilities to perform their roles effectively and work well with co-workers.
Grants under the ODP also provide subsidies for employers and their employees without disabilities to attend workshops that equip them with the knowledge and skills to interact with, hire, integrate and retain employees with disabilities in their organisation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria for Issuance of Correction Directions under Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information what criteria are used by the Government to determine whether or not to issue correction directions under Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act when factual errors are published.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Ministers are empowered to issue Correction Directions under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 (POFMA). Two conditions must be satisfied before a Correction Direction can be issued; first, a false statement of fact must be communicated in Singapore, and second, the Minister in question is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to issue the Correction Direction.
Whether a Correction Direction should be issued for a false statement of fact is a fact-specific assessment made by the Minister within whose domain the falsehood falls. The relevant Minister, supported by his or her staff with the requisite domain expertise, will carefully evaluate each case. This includes the nature of the falsehood, its context and the harm to the public, before deciding whether a Correction Direction should be issued.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of Movies and TV Programmes on Free-to-air TV Shown in Chinese Dialects","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what percentage of movies and TV programmes on free-to-air television are shown in Chinese dialects; (b) of these, what is the percentage as further broken down by the type of Chinese dialect; and (c) how has the percentage changed over the last five years.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Dialect content is allowed to a limited extent on free-to-air (FTA) television to support the prevailing language policy of Mandarin as one of the four official languages. This includes a dedicated two-hour belt of full dialect programmes every Friday late morning on Mediacorp’s Channel 8, which comprises over 90 hours, or 1% of Channel 8’s total transmission hours per year. This has remained constant over the years.
The breakdown of dialects used is not tracked as, in most instances, a mix of dialects may be used during a programme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Proceeds Received from HDB Lease Buyback Scheme in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for National Development for the past five years, what is the average proceeds received by each family from the HDB Lease Buyback Scheme for each type of HDB-room flat.
Mr Desmond Lee: Under the Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS), the household will sell part of their remaining flat lease to the Housing and Development Board (HDB), after retaining a lease that is sufficient to cover the owners until at least 95 years old.
The LBS proceeds is computed based on the market value of the flat at the time of application for LBS, less the value of the lease retained by the household and any outstanding monies due to HDB. Hence, the LBS quantum received would vary, depending on the age of the flat, the duration of the lease sold back to HDB, and prevailing market conditions.
The LBS proceeds will be used to top up the owners’ CPF Retirement Accounts, to boost their monthly CPF LIFE payouts. Additionally, the household may receive an LBS bonus of up to $30,000 for 3-room and smaller flats, $15,000 for 4-room flats, or $7,500 for 5-room and bigger flats.
From 2019 to 2023, the average LBS proceeds plus the LBS bonus received per household was about $261,000 for 5-room and bigger flats, $212,000 for 4-room flats, $168,000 for 3-room flats, $153,000 for 2-room flats and $98,000 for 1-room flats.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number and Type of Court Orders on Persons Convicted of Cruelty and Abuse under Animals and Birds Act 1965","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development in each year for the past five years (a) how many animal cruelty and abuse cases involve the Court making an order for the convicted person to pay the costs and expenses for the maintenance and treatment of the animal under the Animals and Birds Act 1965; and (b) what are the average and median amounts ordered in each case.
Mr Desmond Lee: The National Parks Board (NParks) is committed to safeguarding animal welfare. Injured or sick animals involved in investigations for animal cruelty and welfare offences are promptly assessed by veterinarians and sent for necessary treatment.
Under section 44(1)(a) of the Animals and Birds Act (ABA), the Court may order an injured or sick animal to be taken to a veterinary centre or other specific places to be treated upon conviction of the offender. Further to the Court order under section 44(1)(a), a person is liable under section 44(2) to pay for the animal’s maintenance and treatment until it is fit for release. As there is usually a time lapse between the start of investigation and conviction of the offender, no Court order has been made under sections 44(1)(a) and 44(2) of the ABA over the past five years. NParks bears the costs and expenses involved in the treatment of injured or sick animals seized during investigations.
NParks will continue to explore means of recovering costs from offenders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assistance of Specially Trained Staff in Handling Cases Related to Wildlife Act and Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development in each year for the past five years, how many instances of enforcement under the Wildlife Act and Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act, respectively, are conducted with enforcement officers being accompanied or assisted by non-enforcement officers with the necessary training, qualifications or experience to assist in the specialised handling of animal species.
Mr Desmond Lee: The National Parks Board (NParks) requires professionals who handle animals involved in enforcement cases under the Wildlife Act and the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act to be certified through NParks’ Animal Management Certification Programme to ensure that they have the necessary expertise. This includes non-enforcement officers, such as employees of animal management companies, assisting in the specialised handling of animal species. The annual breakdown of the involvement of such non-enforcement officers for the past five years is in Table 1 below.
18 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for National Development (a) what number and percentage of HDB coffee shops in Hong Kah North SMC are currently halal food stalls; (b) over the past five years, what percentage of halal food stalls in Hong Kah North SMC have given up their tenancies; and (c) how does this percentage compare with non-halal food stalls.
Mr Desmond Lee: There are 11 Housing and Development Board (HBD) coffee shops in Hong Kah North Single Member Constituency. Of these, seven are rented out by HDB and four had been sold to private owners. As of 4 October 2024, 22 (or 21%) out of 105 stalls in these coffee shops are halal stalls. HDB does not have data on the number of stalls that have given up their tenancies because such stall tenancies are managed by the coffee shop operators.
Since 2005, HDB rental coffee shop operators are required to provide at least one halal stall under their tenancy agreement with HDB. Should any halal stallholder cease operations, HDB requires the coffee shop operator to find a replacement within the current tenancy period. HDB conducts onsite checks regularly and if the operator fails to find a replacement, HDB may decide not to renew the tenancy or, as a last resort, terminate the tenancy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Feedback from Developers on CBD Incentive Scheme and Strategic Development Incentive Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) what feedback has URA received from developers regarding the CBD Incentive Scheme and Strategic Development Incentive Scheme; (b) whether these schemes will be renewed after they end in November 2024; and (c) if so, what parameters of these schemes will be changed, if any.
Mr Desmond Lee: This question has recently been addressed in the written reply to the Parliamentary Question for the 10 September 2024 Sitting. We are currently reviewing both schemes and will provide updates when ready. [Please refer to \"Effectiveness and Relevance of Central Business District Incentive and Strategic Development Incentive Schemes\", Official Report, 10 September 2024, Vol 95, Issue 141, Written Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Strengthen Enforcement of Practice Guidelines on Ethical Advertising Issued by CEA","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for National Development whether an update can be provided on the specific additional measures, beyond issuing warning letters, financial penalties and suspending or revoking property agents’ registration with the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA), that are being considered to strengthen the enforcement of the practice guidelines on ethical advertising issued by CEA.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Council for Estate Agencies (CEA) has a robust regulatory and enforcement framework in place to ensure that property agents and agencies uphold high professional standards. Property agents who commit disciplinary breaches, including breaches of duties in respect of advertisements, may be subject to the following disciplinary actions.
For serious disciplinary breaches, property agents may be referred to a Disciplinary Committee (DC). The DC can suspend, revoke, attach or vary conditions on a property agent’s registration and impose financial penalties of up to $100,000 per case. For less serious disciplinary breaches, CEA may issue warning letters or Letters of Censure with financial penalties of up to $5,000 per case. In addition to the above penalties, CEA will publish the property agent’s disciplinary records in CEA’s Public Register.
Besides taking enforcement action on property agents for advertisement breaches, CEA also engages the real estate agency industry regularly to remind property agents and agencies of their duties in respect of advertisements and works with the industry to promote best practices, such as through the Alliance for Action, on accurate property listings.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Accessibility of eServices Portal for Workers on Special Pass Who Cannot Hold a Singpass Account","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether workers who are on Special Pass issued for a specific purpose, such as assisting in investigation, attending Court and for stateless persons residing in Singapore can hold a Singpass account; and (b) if not, how can workers who are on Special Pass access the Ministry's eServices portal, to check the status of any ongoing salary or work injury claims.
Dr Tan See Leng: Migrant workers issued with Special Passes by the Ministry of Manpower have access to Singpass accounts. They can track the status of their salary or work injury claims via the Employment Practices and Progressive Workplaces Shared Platform (EmPOWER) online.
Stateless persons issued with Special Passes by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority to reside in Singapore do not have Singpass accounts.
Workers who are on Special Pass and without Singpass accounts can approach their case officers for any assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage and Profile of Residents Employed in Foreign-owned Firms Earning Gross Monthly Income Above $12,500","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Manpower (a) for each year from 2019 to 2024, what is the percentage of residents earning a gross monthly income of above $12,500 that worked in foreign-owned firms; and (b) what is the sectoral breakdown of these residents.
Dr Tan See Leng: From 2019 to 2024, foreign-owned firms hired around 60% of Singapore residents who earned a gross monthly income of above $12,500.
Around 88% of these residents work in the Services sector. Financial and Insurance Services make up around 30 percentage points, Wholesale and Retail Trade make up around 18 percentage points, and Professional Services make up around 17 percentage points. These proportions have remained stable since 2019.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Eligibility of Property Renters for SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Manpower whether the criterion that an applicant to the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support not live in a property with an annual value of more than $25,000 also applies to applicants who are renting the property in which they reside.
Dr Tan See Leng: The annual value criterion is based on the residential address of the applicant. This would include applicants who own the property and also those who are renting the property that they are residing in.
This approach is in line with the intent behind using the annual value criterion as a proxy to determine households’ means or wealth and is also aligned with the approach undertaken by other means-tested schemes like the GST Voucher scheme and the Workfare Income Supplement scheme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Risks for CPF Members If Direct Investments Allowed in US Equity Index Funds Not in Current CPFIS-Approved Products","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what specific risks does the CPF Board believe CPF members will face if allowed to invest directly in US equity index funds that are not already present in the current CPFIS-approved products; (b) how are these perceived risks quantified; and (c) whether these risks outweigh the demonstrated long-term outperformance of US equities.
Dr Tan See Leng: All investments are subject to risk, and investments in foreign products are further subject to regulatory risks of other jurisdictions. To manage these risks for Central Provident Fund (CPF) members, the CPF Board only includes products under the CPF Investment Scheme (CPFIS) after carefully considering factors, such as investment track records and investment-related fees. Additionally, these products must be registered with the local authorities.
CPF members can already invest directly in a number of US equity index funds under the CPFIS today. Product providers, including other US equity index fund managers, can apply for their products to be included under the CPFIS, depending on their commercial considerations, and the CPF Board will assess accordingly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures against False Reports of Misuse of Personal Mobility Devices by Delivery Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Transport what are the measures in place to (i) deter frivolous and bogus reports of errant use of personal mobility devices, power-assisted bicycles and personal mobility aids by delivery workers and (ii) exercise fair fact-finding of the reports lodged without placing the burden of proof on the delivery workers solely.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) takes an impartial and evidence-based approach to ensure reports on errant use of active mobility devices are treated seriously. LTA will review reports thoroughly, taking into account evidence, such as photographs and video recordings, where available.
As part of investigations, LTA will need to collect evidence from relevant parties and establish the facts of the case, before taking the necessary follow-up action. Where reports are assessed to be false, frivolous or unsubstantiated, LTA will not take further action.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Enhance Connectivity of Farms, Businesses and Estates in Lim Chu Kang, Neo Tiew, Kranji, Chua Chu Kang, Limbang and Yew Tee","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Transport what are the plans by the Land Transport Authority to increase connectivity, specifically bus services, between the farms and businesses in the Lim Chu Kang, Neo Tiew and Kranji areas and the estates in Choa Chu Kang, Limbang and Yew Tee, so that more residents and employees of such businesses can benefit from it.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Currently, the agricultural establishments in Lim Chu Kang, Neo Tiew and Kranji are served by Service 975, which connects to Choa Chu Kang and Bukit Panjang Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations daily. During Sundays and public holidays when the demand is higher, there is also Service 925M, which connects to Kranji, Marsiling and Woodlands MRT stations. Residents of Choa Chu Kang, Limbang and Yew Tee can reach these agricultural establishments by transferring to Service 975 or 925M at Choa Chu Kang and Kranji MRT stations. Ridership on both services to the agricultural establishments is generally low, with an average of up to 30 passengers for each service during the one-hour period with the highest demand daily.
In September 2022, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) supported an application by a private bus operator to operate a private shuttle service on weekends and public holidays between Kranji MRT station and the agricultural establishments in Lim Chu Kang, Neo Tiew and Kranji. However, the private shuttle service was eventually ceased in December 2023 as it was not financially viable due to low ridership.
LTA will continue to monitor the travel demand in tandem with new developments in the area and review public transport options as needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expansion of Energy Conservation Initiative for Lighting at Bus Stops and Covered Linkways","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether he can provide an update on the energy conservation initiative where lighting at selected bus stops and covered linkways are switched off between 1.00 am and 5.00 am and whether there are plans to expand this initiative to all constituencies; and (b) if so, what is the envisaged timeline.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Land Transport Authority’s (LTA’s) key consideration is to ensure that bus stops and covered linkways have sufficient lighting for safety, before determining which lights can be switched off between 1.00 am and 5.00 am to conserve energy when footfall and traffic volume are low. We have worked with other Government agencies and the community to determine if there are sufficient lighting from other sources, or whether there might be safety and security concerns, before we proceed to switch off the lights.
As of March 2024, the initiative has been implemented at around 4,400 bus shelters and selected covered linkways. This generates an estimated energy saving of over 45,000 kilowatt-hour monthly, equivalent to the average monthly household electricity consumption of around 130 4-room Housing and Development Board flats. LTA will continue to implement this initiative selectively as we expand the network of covered linkways island-wide.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Root Causes of Recent MRT Disruption and Measures to Prevent Future Occurrence","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the root causes of the recent MRT disruptions; (b) what measures are taken to prevent similar disruptions from occurring and to ensure that maintenance schedules are adhered to; (c) whether affected commuters are eligible for compensation and, if so, what is the process for claiming compensation; (d) what investments will be made in maintenance and upgrading of the MRT network; and (e) what accountability measures will be taken against those responsible for the maintenance and operation of the MRT network.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: This question has been answered in the Ministerial Statement “A Safe, Reliable, and Resilient Rail System” at the Sitting on 15 October 2024. [Please refer to \"A Safe, Reliable, and Resilient Rail System\", Official Report, 15 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 143, Ministerial Statements section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Study on EU's Mandate for Installation of Intelligent Speed Assistance Technology in New Vehicles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry is studying the new European Union mandate for the installation of Intelligent Speed Assistance technology in all new vehicles this year to reduce road accidents and associated injuries and fatalities.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) is aware that the European Union (EU) has required all newly registered vehicles to be equipped with an Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA) system from July 2024. There are a variety of ISA systems, and the EU authorities are studying their effectiveness and reliability as more of such systems are installed in new vehicles in the EU.
LTA will continue to monitor this and other developments internationally on emerging vehicle technologies, as part of the effort to improve road safety.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Selection Criteria for Members of Active Mobility Advisory Panel","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) how are members of the Active Mobility Advisory Panel (AMAP) selected; and (b) whether AMAP members are required to have professional or academic expertise relating to active mobility or transport.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Active Mobility Advisory Panel members are selected to represent the various stakeholders and communities involved in the active mobility landscape, such as youths, seniors, cyclists, motorists and relevant public agencies. Some members have professional or academic expertise relating to active mobility or transport, but this is not a requirement.
All members have an interest in active mobility and have shared valuable perspectives during the discussions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reliability of ERP 2.0 On-Board Units Installed","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Transport (a) for each month in 2024 to date, how many units of ERP 2.0 On-Board Units (OBU) have been installed; (b) how many of these units have been found to be faulty and needed servicing; (c) how many of these units have required replacement; and (d) how many instances have there been where individual parts of the OBU have been replaced.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Since November 2023, about 130,000 vehicles have been fitted with the ERP 2.0 On-Board Units. Fewer than 1% required further servicing or component replacement.
The Land Transport Authority will continue to work with our partners to provide a smooth installation for motorists.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[],"onlinePDFFileName":""}