1 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether NEA has conducted any studies or assessments to estimate the potential increase in makeshift smoking corners due to the phase-out of designated smoking areas; and (b) whether there will be any collaborative efforts by NEA with coffee shop owners and other stakeholders to move these makeshift smoking corners away from public areas with high footfalls.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Mr Baey Yam Keng) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Sir, to limit the exposure of second-hand tobacco smoke to non-smokers, the National Environment Agency (NEA) has stopped accepting applications for new smoking corners in coffee shops since June 2017. The number of smoking corners in coffee shops has been gradually decreasing over time.
As mentioned previously in the House, makeshift smoking points are not prohibited unless they are located in places specified in the Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Regulations 2018. Nevertheless, premises owners are urged to be considerate and ensure that makeshift smoking points in areas they manage, do not cause disamenities to the public.
While NEA does not have plans to conduct any studies or assessments, we will look into feedback on any disamenities caused by makeshift smoking points and, where substantiated, we will engage the relevant stakeholders on possible mitigating measures, including removing or relocating the smoking points.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. I have several makeshift smoking corners or hotspots in my Yio Chu Kang estates. These are just made up of a few chairs and usually, situated close to coffee shops, along main thoroughfares. Given that they are situated along areas with high footfall, residents walking by often complain about the smoke and also about the noise. Every time, when there is feedback, the Town Council will go in, take action by removing the chairs, but the individuals do come back after a week or two and the problem remains.
I wish to ask the Ministry whether NEA has concerns about the potential health and safety risks associated with these makeshift smoking corners, especially when the numbers may be going up and how does the Ministry intend to address the issue of these smoking corners situated directly below Housing and Development Board (HDB) blocks, especially the dwelling units, and ensure that it is not a cat-and-mouse situation where the smokers disband when NEA and Town Council officers come by, and then, the smokers congregate back again when enforcement officers leave the place?
\tMr Baey Yam Keng: Sir, as explained, if the makeshift smoking point is located in a smoking prohibited area, then smoking there is illegal. Enforcement will be taken and the smokers will be subjected to fines.
If the area is not under the prohibition list, technically, it is not illegal to smoke there. That is where we would need to work with the premises owners to remove or relocate chairs, seating or receptacles that encourage or make it convenient for smokers to congregate in those areas.
NEA will also work with the premises owners to try to identify a potential designated smoking area, which is somewhere where smokers would find convenient or would want to congregate, and at the same time, reduce disamenities to the public. On this, we seek the community's understanding and also the cooperation of premises owners to try to resolve this problem.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Non-emergency and Non-critical Admissions to Public Hospitals and Hospitalisation Insurance Claims Made","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Health for each year over the past 10 years (a) how many cases of non-emergency and non-critical admissions to public hospitals took place; (b) how many of such cases claimed hospital stays from their MediSave or MediShield Life insurance policies; (c) how many of such patients are deemed to have \"overstayed\"; and (d) whether the Ministry has plans to discourage unnecessary hospitalisations by offering cash incentives for those who do not make hospitalisation insurance claims for the entire year.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, hospital admissions are based on clinical necessity. Some patients have medical conditions that are non-urgent and yet inpatient care is medically necessary. They account for about 20% of all public hospital admissions, which has been a stable percentage over the past 10 years. As these admissions are medically necessary, they can tap on MediSave and/or MediShield Life.
Some patients stay longer in our hospitals as their homes are not ready to receive them. To minimise such over-staying in hospitals, we try our best to right price and right site patients. This includes improving and expanding our Transitional Care Facilities and home care services to provide post-discharge care.
We need to be very careful about offering incentives to reward non-claims. It can discourage some, especially the lower-income, from seeking medically necessary care.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the response. My question builds a little bit on the discussion in the last Sitting by Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary about transition care. Hence, I am wondering to what extent the Ministry has an intent to ramp up transition care and hence, this notion of discouraging excessive hospitalisation by shifting those who would otherwise be staying in hospitals because there is not sufficient Transitional Care Facilities. I am wondering to what extent some kind of incentives, like I suggested in the Parliamentary Question, are being considered by the Ministry of Health (MOH)?
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: Firstly, I would like to thank the Member for recognising the need to prioritise beds in the public hospitals for those who really them. Indeed, this is something that we need to grapple with. The concern, though, in respect of the suggestion of incentives, is that we put incentives in place to nudge the right behaviours. We are really concerned if we put the wrong incentives, because then, there may be a perverse reaction of people not getting the treatment they need if they are actually being rewarded for not making a claim.
Having said that, I think the larger part of the question is an important one, in relation to transitional care. Indeed, it is something that we have been looking into, as mentioned in my reply. I had said that we are already ramping up and looking into our Transitional Care Facilities – which are already in place, but we are ramping up and expanding.
We are also making sure that there is a suite of homecare services that will help address some of the needs, post-discharge. This is something we would continually have to look at, as you can see there is a larger shift towards preventive care, towards Healthier SG. This is something we want to encourage – for more residents to look at the larger picture. We really want to shift care within the community, get people to stay healthy within the community so that we can shift a lot more of these concerns away from the hospitals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Appeals by Younger Singaporeans Married to Non-Long-Term Visit Pass Holders to Buy HDB Flats or to Rent Flats under Public Rental Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development in each of the last five years (a) how many Singaporeans aged below 35 who are married to foreigners who are not Long-Term Visit Pass holders made appeals to buy HDB flats or rent flats under the Public Rental Scheme; (b) how many appeals were approved; and (c) what were the main reasons for approval or denial.
\tThe Minister of State for National Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Singapore Citizens (SCs) married to non-resident spouses, or SC-NR couples for short, have similar access to public housing as other Singaporean families, if they have a child who is an SC or Singapore Permanent Resident, or SPR.
SC-NR couples without an SC or SPR child can buy a Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat under the Non-Citizen Spouse Scheme.
If the SC is aged between 21 and 34, and the NR spouse has a Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) or a Work Pass with at least six months validity at the time of flat application, the couple can buy any resale HDB flat on the open market, except for 3Gen flats and flats launched under the Prime Location Public Housing model.
If the SC is a First-Timer aged 35 and above, the couple can also buy a new 2-room Flexi flat in the non-mature estates from HDB, in addition to the resale options I explained earlier.
For public rental housing, SC-NR couples who do not have an SC or SPR child, do not meet the citizenship eligibility criterion. That notwithstanding, HDB assesses all requests holistically and exercises flexibility for those in exceptional circumstances with no other housing options or family support.
From 2019 to 2023, HDB received an average of about 160 appeals per year to buy an HDB flat or access public rental housing from SC-NR couples who did not meet the citizenship eligibility criterion and where the Singaporean spouse was aged below 35. This number includes couples where the foreign spouse had a LTVP, as HDB does not track the number of such couples with or without LTVP.
HDB carefully assesses each appeal based on the household's unique circumstances, taking into account factors such as housing needs, financial conditions, family circumstances and medical conditions. Over the last five years, HDB acceded to an average of 13 appeals per year.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I just want to understand why is it that the Family Scheme under HDB does not include spouses with LTVP who are LTVP holders. Because LTVP is similar to SPR in many ways – as far as healthcare is concerned, they get similar kinds of benefits. So, why do they not get the same kind of housing benefits that SPRs get?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, we look after the Singaporean families first, as the resources are finite. As such, we want to support and prioritise Singaporean families. However, as I shared earlier, those with a valid LTVP, even though they may not come under the Family Scheme, they have the option to purchase resale flats, excluding the 3Gen flats and flats under the Prime Location Public Housing model. So, basically, it is about how we prioritise resources.
At the same time, we look at the circumstances of the family. So, I want to assure the Member that HDB has allowed appeals in various instances; it is something we look at, on a case-by-case basis. We also work with the residents to see how they can have that housing option.
While we move forward, I hope that Members would also understand the situation that we are facing, where we want to balance the needs of our citizens and at the same time, we also want to make sure that there are opportunities for parenthood and provide housing options for Singaporeans, whatever circumstances they are in, and also provide help for those who are in dire need.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Inmates Enrolled in Employment Preparation Scheme, Granted Leave and Secured Employment upon Release","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) to date, how many inmates have been enrolled in the Employment Preparation Scheme; and (b) of which, what is the number of such inmates who were granted (i) weekend home leave and (ii) long home leave and (iii) secured permanent employment upon release from detention.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, 339 inmates have been emplaced on the Employment Preparation Scheme since it was introduced in September 2022.
Inmates emplaced on the scheme are required to serve the tail-end of their sentence in a work release centre administered by Singapore Prison Service. Those who are doing well and have support from their family, may be allowed to go on weekend home leave or long home leave. As at 31 January 2024, 71 of the 339 inmates had gone or are currently allowed to go on weekend home leave. Another 35 had gone through or are currently on long home leave. And 204 of the 339 inmates have been released. Among them, 196 had secured employment at the point of release.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Razwana, any supplementary questions?
\tAssoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): I would like to thank the Minister of State for highlighting this. Basically, I wanted to check if we can do more to increase the numbers and whether there is any form of case management given, in view of the recent data that was released to highlight that recidivism rate has gone up for certain population of inmates.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the questions. In fact, what we have seen, has been encouraging, where not only the inmates are having the opportunity, but the employers are coming, quite strongly, to support this scheme.
And we are also very happy that the social service agencies (SSAs) are also coming on board, working together with our specialists, to make sure that not only do we provide that employment, training opportunity, but looking at a throughcare rehabilitation and re-integration process.
So, I want to assure the Member, wherever possible, we will do more. We are also looking at how we want not only to support the inmates, but also their families. So, this would involve much coordinated work with SSAs, economic agencies as well as companies, to see how we can support the inmates and their families holistically.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Vetting Process for Potential Grassroots Leaders, Key Appointment Holders and Patrons for Susceptibility to Foreign Influence","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) how are potential grassroots leaders, key appointment holders and patrons vetted to ensure they are not susceptible to foreign influence; (b) whether there are regular review processes in place after appointment to identify and address potential vulnerabilities; (c) whether citizens born or educated outside Singapore are subject to more stringent vetting criteria; and (d) how are grassroots members empowered to critically evaluate information and resist undue foreign influence, especially from social media.
\tThe Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Speaker, Sir, an important part of the People's Association (PA)'s mission is to foster social cohesion and racial harmony and build a strong and resilient community. To achieve this, grassroots leaders, or GRLs, volunteer with PA, to help PA with its mission. GRLs come from all walks of life, representing a diverse cross section of our society. They volunteer their time, effort and resources to serve Singaporeans and make Singapore a better home for all.
GRLs also help the Government communicate policies to residents and receive feedback. This helps Singapore's interests. To fulfil this role, it is important that GRLs can discern information from misinformation and are able to critically evaluate information that they receive, including from social media sources. PA supports GRLs in this role by regularly sharing key information on Government policies, with regular dialogues, both formal as well as informal, held with GRLs on national and local issues. This also includes open discussions at regular Grassroots Organisations (GRO) meetings so that GRLs better understand the intent of various Government initiatives. In addition, the National Community Leadership Institute, or NACLI, conducts workshops to equip GRLs with the knowledge and skills to identify and manage misinformation.
As leaders in the community, GRLs are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that befits their standing and role in the community, and also to act in Singapore's interests.
There are sound processes and due diligence in place when appointing and re-appointing GRLs, regardless of their background, to ensure that they are able to carry out the above duties. We constantly review the appointment system to ensure that there is sufficient rigour.
For instance, before GRLs join GROs and are appointed to leadership positions, they first serve as observers for a period of time. This is an opportunity for them to be given direct and hands-on exposure to grassroots work, but also an opportunity for PA to observe them and assess their suitability for appointment into GROs as full-fledged GRLs.
Sir, we endeavour to make the best judgment of a person before deciding to appoint him or her as a GRL, with the appointment and vetting processes in place. But even the most rigorous checks cannot preclude the possibility of the person subsequently behaving in an unbefitting manner or discovering a hitherto unknown fact or circumstance. Where such facts are brought to PA's attention, we will take immediate action to reassess the person's suitability to continue as a GRL and revoke the GRL appointment if necessary.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his reply. Indeed, our GRLs in the community, play critical roles in community engagement and facilitating better Government to citizen communications.
I just have two short supplementary questions. How often are the regular review processes conducted after GRLs are appointed and does this review include an assessment of the susceptibility to foreign influence?
Second, I want to check whether there are avenues or agencies that GRLs can seek advice, in the event that they are approached by individuals or organisations or encounter situations where there may be attempts at influence.
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sir, on the first question, we review the process regularly. We look at it periodically to assess whether or not the system that we have in place remains rigorous, given the evolving circumstances on the ground. For example, with the proliferation of social media a few years ago, we looked at that as an additional factor. We also look at the local ground conditions. What are some of the organisations that the GROs partner with, in fulfilling their mission or conducting their events. So, it is on a regular basis.
The point, really, also is to not just focus on the systemic reviews and the processes that we look at regularly, but also to apply a common sense approach. When you assess an individual, when you get wind of, perhaps, a person becoming too close or unnaturally closer to one or more organisations, then, I think that you can surface it.
Which segues into the second question on what are the avenues. Bring it up to senior GRLs. There are now grassroots' mentors that we appoint. These are senior, more experienced GRLs who have since retired from their position. They are deployed in various constituencies and serve the constituency as a resource person and more from a mentor perspective, to cast a broader view with their experience. And of course, there are also the grassroots' advisor and other organisations to whom you can raise any particular observations or concerns.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
\tMr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, I have one question for the Minister. Do Permanent Residents (PRs) and foreigners participate in our grassroot activities and are any of them in leadership positions?
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sir, I think this is the subject of a question that has been answered in writing, so I refer Mr Leong to it. The short answer is PRs and non-citizens, they are welcome to take part in events. They make up a part of the Singaporean society, so they are present in the events. A proportion of the PRs do take up leadership positions as GRLs, but not foreigners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Guidance to Listed Firms on Fair Contracting of Freelancers Outlined in Tripartite Standard","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider partnering with profession-based associations of freelancers to provide guidance to listed firms on fair contracting of freelancers as outlined by the Tripartite Standard on Contracting with Self-Employed Persons.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Manpower): Sir, the Tripartite Standard on Contracting with Self-Employed Persons was introduced in March 2018, and specifies a set of fair and progressive employment practices for service contracts that all service buyers should implement. Today, more than 2,600 companies have adopted this Tripartite Standard.
The Tripartite Alliance For Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) will continue to work with the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC)'s Freelancers and Self-Employed Unit and explore partnerships with relevant associations to strengthen outreach to companies, including listed companies, on the Tripartite Standard and its practices.
Mr Speaker: Ms Jean See.
\tMs See Jinli Jean (Nominated Member): I thank the Senior Minister of State. I have two supplementary questions. The first is shall the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and TAFEP have a growth target for the adoption of the Tripartite Standard on Contracting and Self-Employed Persons, given that the Tripartite Standard provides a baseline protection for freelancers, which is a segment that has little or no protection under employment related laws?
The second question, is what would be the steps taken, to ensure that the adopters follow through to implement the guidance in a Tripartite Standard?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. On the first, whether we should be setting growth targets for adoption of the standards, it is quite difficult a priori to decide what is the target number. Ideally, of course, you want as many companies as possible. The challenge is that, in this particular landscape of service buying from freelancers, it is a very diverse landscape, because freelancers comprise of professionals and individuals in many different types of service provision. And it is quite hard, then, to specify that each of these interact with the service buyers in exactly the same way.
What we are trying to do with this set of standards is to encourage service buyers to distinguish themselves as fair buyers of services and, therefore, make themselves worthy partners of many of these freelancers as well.
We must also not forget that freelancers have agency, because as a self-employed person, they are technically their own bosses, so they have their own strategy and their own business strategy to decide how best they can engage with service buyers. And I think, in this space where it is competitive, we should allow competitive dynamics to take place, while allowing the standards to be adopted by both buyers and users of services to distinguish themselves as better partners, so that freelancers will work more preferentially with these companies.
For the second supplementary question on steps to ensure follow-through, I think that it is important that we continue to reach out to companies that are adopting these standards to help them understand what these standards are trying to achieve, what the standards entail, so that they understand the reasons behind adopting these practices and hope that both parties will abide by the contracts that they have signed, and ensure that if there are any disputes to the contract terms that have been signed, they can surface to TAFEP or Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM), whichever the agency would be. And we can take actions against companies who may have violated their contracts.
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng: I thank the Minister for his reply. I should declare that I have Clementi residents who are freelancers as well. Can I raise two supplementary questions to the Minister? The first question is, does the Ministry agree that the Public Service plays an important role in setting labour market norms and, in particular, aspirational norms and best practices?
And the second question is, does MOM have a sense of whether, at a whole-of-Government level, our agencies, our Ministries, our Statutory Boards, abide by the Tripartite Standard on Contracting with Self-Employed Persons?
And lastly, in terms of approaching tenders and contracts with listed firms, would the Ministries consider this as another best practice in looking at the awarding of contracts as well?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, the short answer to the Member's question is that, yes, the Public Service will lean forward, as far as possible, to ensure that we contract fairly with freelancers.
But I must say that through the years, since the introduction of the standards, there has been an increase in adoption across the board by many companies. For example, in 2018, when we first rolled out this standard, there were nearly about 470 companies that came on board these standards. In the year 2020, it increased to about 1,800 companies. And then, in the year 2023, it further increased to 2,600 companies.
So, I think, beyond the Public Service taking the lead, companies are indeed coming on board and adopting these standards to be better buyers of services. What we will need to do is to continue to engage with companies, continue to do outreach and especially, partner the NTUC as the ground unit that reach out to these freelancers and the companies, to help buyers and sellers of services to, in that sense, adopt these standards as a standard.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number and Profile of Cases Handled by Family Service Centres and Number of Social Workers Employed at These Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development for FY2021 and FY2022 respectively (a) what is the total number of (i) group 2 cases, (ii) group 3 cases and (iii) group 4 cases that are handled by the Family Service Centres (FSCs); and (b) what is the total number of social workers employed by the FSCs.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Sir, cases with higher risk and complexity under the Family Service Centre Code of Social Work Practice (FSC-CSWP) are assigned higher CSWP groupings.
In Financial Years (FYs) 2021 and 2022, the total number of cases across all groups handled by the FSCs were about 20,500 and 18,900 respectively. Similar to previous years, about 73% of the cases in FY2022 were group 2, 22% were group 3 and about 5% were group 4 cases.
There were about 1,000 social workers managing cases in FSCs in FY2021 and FY2022.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir, and I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I think that looking at the data that was presented, it looks like there is an increasing number of caseloads, but a similar number of social workers.
Could I ask the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) whether they feel that there are sufficient social workers at this point, and if there is a shortfall, what are the plans to increase the number of social workers?
\tMr Eric Chua: Mr Speaker, I think that the Member might have misheard me, because I mentioned that from FY2021, it was an aggregate total number of 20,500 cases and for FY2022, it was 18,900. If you compare these two years, actually, there was a decrease.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act to Prohibit Greenwashing by Businesses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Ministry is considering a review of the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act to explicitly prohibit greenwashing by businesses operating in Singapore; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider funding community education programmes to raise awareness among consumers about greenwashing.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): The Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act, or CPFTA, already protects consumers against businesses that make false or misleading claims about their products or services, including around greenwashing.
In November 2023, the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) and the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) jointly developed a set of tips to help consumers better understand environmental claims made by suppliers or businesses. These can be found on both the CCCS website as well as the CASE website. The CCCS is also developing a set of guidelines to help businesses make more accurate environmental claims about their products and services.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.
\tAssoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): I thank the Minister of State for the response. I just have two supplementary questions.
My question really is on, how do we align this with our Singapore Green Plan? In terms of legislation, we are looking at businesses being a bit more ethical in their practices and being aligned with our Green Plan as well, but at the same time, they are also trying to make a living. So, that is one question – how are we going to get the legislation to move into being aligned the Green Plan?
The next question is, when we are advising our consumers, are they aware of the implication of this? Because a lot of the terms that are being used is very vague. So, I think in trying to get our population to be aligned with some of the initiatives that we are trying to do in terms of sustainability, it is important that we consider how we educate our consumers.
\t
\tMr Alvin Tan: I thank Assoc Prof Razwana for her supplementary questions. In fact, indeed, these are all part of an overarching move for us within the Singapore Green Plan, to make both consumers as well as businesses understand. And as both consumers demand more of green supply chains and value chains, upstream as well as downstream, so too businesses have that understanding of consumer preferences as well. So, it is very much aligned.
If I can also supplement the answer to the Member's question, about both what we are trying to do upstream, in terms of consumer education, which the Assoc Prof had mentioned earlier on, as well as downstream. If you are a consumer, or if you are a business, how can you take concrete action? On the upstream, we have these consumer education tips that I mentioned, both by CCCS as well as CASE. Those are on the websites. I have just checked it out this morning. I think we can do a lot better. So, if Assoc Prof Razwana, other Members of this House and other members in the community can give us even more tips to enhance that, we would welcome those suggestions. These are more upstream.
The second upstream measure is also to develop these guidelines to better guide on the supplier side, to better guide suppliers on environmental claims that could amount to unfair practices, which are covered under the Act, the CCCS will seek public feedback on this in due course. So, we welcome the Member and also other Members to provide their feedback and suggestions on this. But, in general, we do advise suppliers to be very specific and accurate in their environmental claims and to ensure that all of these claims can be substantiated with credible evidence. So, that is on the upstream.
On the downstream, it is also important. So, if you were a consumer and you encounter what you think would be greenwashing claims made by businesses on your purchases, please do approach CASE for assistance. If there are egregious cases, where the business persistently engages in these unfair practices, CASE then can refer these to CCCS for further investigation.
On the other hand also, you might encounter some advertising which would be concerning. So, consumers may also report suppliers' advertisements which contain these potentially misleading or false environmental claims to the Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore (ASAS). ASAS administers the Singapore Code of Advertising Practice (SCAP), and if the advertisement is objectionable under SCAP, ASAS may ask the advertiser to either men or to withdraw the advertisement altogether.
Finally, since my last oral Parliamentary Question reply in 21 March 2023 to the then Member Leon Perera, there have been four total complaints relating to greenwashing that have been presented to CCCS and CASE.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Treatment of Offences by Vape Users who Have Participated in I Quit Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Health for vape users who participate in the I Quit programme (a) whether these participants have been offered immunity from criminal prosecution; (b) how many have benefited from this programme to date; and (c) what happens if the users are subsequently caught using vapes again.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, the team that runs the I Quit programme does not presume that participants currently possess or use vaping products. So, participants need not worry that they will be fined or prosecuted, just for joining the I Quit programme or for turning up for the sessions. That said, I Quit participants are not immune from criminal prosecution with regard to the illegal possession or use of vaping products. If caught, they are subject to the same enforcement actions as other offenders.
A total of 112,000 participants have joined the I Quit programme since May 2014. The number is correct as of December 2023. The programme does not keep track of which participants are smokers or vapers.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you to Senior Minister of State for his response.
If I may build on his response. He mentioned that there is no presumption of guilt in terms of the usage of vaping products, but, surely he can see as well, that if an individual is currently using vaping products, the absence of some kind of immunity would potentially undermine the incentives for seeking to participate in the programme. But, by the same token, the other question that was asked was about penalties and here, I am concerned that if the penalties, were they to be caught after availing themselves to the programme, are too large. That in turn, will also discourage presumably the behaviour that the Ministry wishes – which is to encourage further cessation of usage of vapes.
Just to be clear, the question is whether there are publicity efforts to try to help those who want to give up, understand that potentially there will be no prosecution, if they were to surrender themselves? And what kind of penalties would be applied on them, were they to be subsequently identified as vapers?
\t
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, for clarity, participation in the I Quit programme does not change the likelihood of prosecution or the penalties. I think Assoc Prof Lim understands that it is the current status quo. I think he is making a suggestion – that perhaps that should change, that either participation in the programme should change the likelihood of prosecution if someone confesses or comes clean, or he is suggesting that the penalties for such participants should be different as a result of their participation.
That is not the current situation, as I have explained in my answer. I thank him for his suggestion. And certainly, we want to continue to study ways to make the I Quit programme successful and improve the likelihood of people ceasing from smoking or vaping.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Ensure Passengers Do Not Overstay in Transit Area of Changi Airport","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how long are passengers allowed to stay within the transit area of Changi Airport; (b) how are security checks performed to ensure passengers do not stay beyond the allotted duration within the transit area; and (c) whether the Ministry has stepped up its measures to prevent long-stay passengers at the transit area of Changi Airport, such as the incident in 2019 where two YouTubers had stayed for four days at the transit area of Changi Airport.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Passengers are allowed to stay within the transit area of the airport only if it is a temporary layover prior to a planned departure. Our security agencies conduct regular patrols and look out for people who may not have a valid reason to be in the transit area.
The Airport Police also engages the airport community, including through training, to get them to keep a lookout for suspicious behaviours and unattended items.
For example, transit lounge operators will report to the Airport Police when travellers entering the lounge do not have a valid air ticket for a departing flight. Airline staff will likewise alert the Airport Police when passengers do not turn up for their flight.
Lastly, the Airport Police works with the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) to identify, through ICA's records, persons who may have been in the transit area without a valid reason.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Sir, just a quick clarification, that there is currently no stipulated time limit associated with staying in the area? The reason why I asked is because, naturally, if there is no fixed time that individuals are allowed to stay in the area, then it raises concerns about security, which is ultimately what inspired this question.
\t
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the question. Indeed, the transit passengers are allowed to stay in the transit area up to 72 hours to wait for their connecting flights. So, passengers departing from Singapore will be allowed entry into the transit area if their flight is departing within the next 24 hours.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: If for instance, there is a further delay in the flight for whatever unforeseen reason, there are some mechanisms to encourage these passengers to subsequently exit the transit area and enter into Singapore?
\t
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the question. These are things that depending on the scenario, we will engage the passengers accordingly and we will inform them. The airlines as well as the Airport Police and ICA will know the situation and will address it accordingly.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a quick clarification with the Minister of State. So, does the ICA or the Airport Police track passengers who were, for example, scheduled to take a flight within the next 24 hours, and for some unforeseeable reasons, their flight was cancelled or postponed, and it goes beyond the 72 hours, is there a special mechanism to track such passengers?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the question. Yes, indeed. We work very closely with the airline, the Airport Police and the community within the airport. So, I want to assure Members that we are aware of such situations if they arise and we will also work with the passengers to assure them that they can go to various places and not to worry about it.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulation for Use of Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy in Therapeutic Settings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has approved Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy (VRET) for use in public and private therapeutic settings; (b) how is the use of VRET being regulated and monitored currently; and (c) whether the Ministry intends to evaluate the effectiveness of VRET and, if so, when.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy (VRET) is a nascent form of psychological therapy that is not yet approved currently for the treatment of disorders in Singapore. Research is still being conducted to evaluate its effectiveness.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Determining Whether Conviction Records under Repealed Section 377a of Penal Code Should be Rendered Spent","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether there are other factors that the Commissioner of Police will take into consideration when determining whether conviction records under the repealed section 377A of the Penal Code should be rendered spent, in addition to whether it was a private activity and whether it was between consenting adults.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) previously informed the House that those whose records under section 377A have not been automatically rendered spent, may apply to the Commissioner of Police to have their records treated as spent.
Apart from whether the case was a private activity and whether it was between consenting adults, the other factors that the Commissioner of Police will consider will not be different from how he would have to assess other applications to render criminal records spent. These factors include the severity of the offence and the applicant's conduct subsequent to the conviction.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, could I ask exactly how many individuals have criminal records of conviction under section 377A that have not been considered spent? Second, if these people do apply for these records to be considered spent and are rejected, can I confirm whether the Police will provide reasons for the rejection?
\t
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for the question. In total, there have been 302 individuals convicted under section 377A. It is important to note that the large majority of these cases involved acts committed in public, committed against non-consenting victims or committed against a minor. Such conduct remains criminalised today through other offences.
We have not prosecuted anyone for private, consensual homosexual conduct between adults since 2007. We have also previously stated in response to media queries that based on our records, there are 17 persons who were convicted between 1988 and 2007 for consensual, private homosexual acts between adults who are still alive today, and five of these 17 individuals have already had their conviction records automatically spent after the five-year crime-free period.
The Police have not received any application from the public to have their section 377A record rendered spent, but the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) will consider how the records of these persons can be rendered spent proactively.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Sorry, Sir. I have a second question on whether \tMHA will provide reasons for rejection as well if these applications are rejected.
\t
\tMs Sun Xueling: I would have to check on the specificity of this. But based on my recollection, MHA does not provide the reasons. But I will check and come back later on this.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Profile of Patients Diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Financial Support Available","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health (a) how many people in Singapore are currently diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD); (b) what is the median age of persons diagnosed with ADHD; and (c) what financial support is available for persons living with ADHD who are (i) under 21 years old, (ii) between 21 years and 65 years old and (iii) older than 65 years.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, Sir, academic research has estimated the prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) among children and adolescents to range between 5% and 8%, and among adults to range between 2% and 7%.
Children aged six years and below are eligible to receive subsidised consultations and therapy of up to 70% for ADHD under the Child Development Programme (CDP) at the KK Women's and Children's Hospital and National University Hospital (NUH), if referred to the programme from polyclinics or from Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) general practitioner (GP) clinics. For school-going students aged seven years and above, school counsellors and special educational needs officers provide school-based interventions at no charge, in consultation with the Response, Early Intervention and Assessment in Community Mental Health (REACH) teams when necessary. Cases requiring further medical attention will be referred by REACH to the Child Guidance Clinic (CGC), which offers subsidised consultations and therapy of up to 70%.
Eligible patients referred from polyclinics and CHAS GP clinics to public Specialist Outpatient Clinics (SOCs) for the management of ADHD can also receive means-tested subsidies of up to 70%. Singaporeans who face difficulties with their remaining bills can approach medical social workers for financial assistance, such as MediFund.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. Given that an estimated 5% to 8% of children have ADHD of varying degrees in Singapore, this would be equivalent to about 38,000 to 60,800 children aged 14 and under. So, what proportion of these children have been treated for ADHD or currently undergoing treatment?
Second, ADHD symptoms typically appear between the ages of three and six years. Does the Ministry of Health (MOH) provide or fund training to parents or preschool teachers on how to identify symptoms of ADHD in children and provide guidance to their parents on how to seek professional help and financial support to get it diagnosed and treated early?
Lastly, what forms of psychoeducation are available in Singapore to help people with ADHD and their families learn about their condition, the treatment options and coping strategies, and are there any subsidies available to lower-income households for these interventions?
\t
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Mr Giam for the questions. I will note that his five questions are related to the treatment of ADHD, and his original question was to do with some data statistics. So, I will try to answer the questions he has asked, partly on the basis of my prior professional experience rather than the data that I have been able to gather in advance of his Parliamentary Question.
We do not require the reporting of a diagnosis, such as ADHD. So, his first question on what proportion has been treated, we do not have the data because practitioners and parents are not required to report the suspicion of a diagnosis or the confirmation of a diagnosis. And so, we are unable to confirm a global national number on what proportions are treated. Individual clinics perhaps and, especially those clinics which are operating as part of an academic medical institution, will have institution-based or demographic-based data, but that does not represent the national database.
ADHD is one of a number of neurodevelopmental conditions that may manifest as an educational challenge or a neurodevelopmental challenge. So, parents certainly are supported in this as part of the consultations and the contact that they will have with healthcare workers and teachers around the neurodevelopmental progress and educational progress of their child. So, ADHD is not the only thing that is looked out for when a GP or community health professional looks at, for example, whether the child is reaching appropriate developmental milestones. But it is certainly one of the possible differential diagnoses in addressing whether a child is reaching the developmental milestones within an acceptably normal range. It is something that GPs, paediatricians and community health workers are trained for.
So, for parents, they are not explicitly taught the symptoms and signs of ADHD, just as they are not expected to know about pathologies and diseases. But when they engage in looking at their child, reading about developmental milestones, understanding whether their child is within that range of normality, this is actually one of the things that they are doing: is my child progressing through the normal neurodevelopmental stages? And so, if they have concerns and they approach the professionals that deal with these issues, ADHD is one of the differential diagnoses that they will be considering at the time. The financial support, as I have explained in my original reply, is available as part of the subsidy process that we have within our healthcare framework.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Can I just quickly clarify with the Senior Minister of State if the statistics that he offered for the prevalence apply to Singapore, because he referred to academic studies. So, it is not clear to me whether those were academic studies for just Singapore in particular or countries in general. And I ask this in part because my understanding is that diagnosis of not so much ADHD, but autism spectrum disorder (ASD) appear to be relatively higher in prevalence for advanced economies in general, including perhaps Singapore. So, I am just wondering whether there is this sense of comparing to other benchmark countries.
\t
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, the studies that I quoted and looked at were international studies, not confined to the Singaporean population. But we have no reason to believe that they do not apply to our population base.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if MOH would consider working closely with some very good non-profit organisations that are experts in ADHD, for example, such as SPARK and Unlocking ADHD. And I believe that the Ministry of Education and MOH are already in touch with them, and I wonder if the Government can work closer with them to study further how public education and strategies regarding ADHD can be promoted and, therefore, many more can be helped.
\t
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Ms Denise Phua for those suggestions. Indeed, the answer is yes, we have met with them. I have met with them as well and we will continue to explore how we can raise the awareness of not just ADHD, but a wide range of neurodevelopmental conditions, so that we can detect them earlier but also provide the right type of support to the families that are dealing with these challenges.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mechanism to Allow Employees to Provide Anonymous Reports on Workplace Discrimination","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the reporting mechanisms under the new workplace discrimination laws will allow employees to provide anonymous reports to the Ministry or the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices against errant employers; and (b) if not, whether the Ministry has undertaken a study of such a reporting mechanism.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Manpower): Sir, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) will follow up on anonymous reports under the planned Workplace Fairness Legislation on a best-efforts basis, similar to all other complaints of workplace discrimination today. TAFEP does not disclose the employee's identity to the employer. And to further reassure employees, the proposed legislation will require employers to implement processes to handle grievances by employees and protect the employees' identity. It will also prohibit employers from retaliating against employees.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Quantitative Criteria and Considerations in Cost-Benefit Analysis for Rationalisation of Bus Routes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport on the rationalisation of bus routes (a) whether LTA applies quantitative criteria and conducts quantitative cost-benefit analyses; (b) if yes, what quantitative criteria are applied and what are the factors taken into account in the cost-benefit analysis; and (c) how are intangible factors, such as certain buses providing a less crowded alternative to trains, taken into consideration.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Mr Speaker, our public transport services are heavily subsidised by the Government, at more than $2 billion per year. This includes a subsidy of around $1 billion for trains and another $1 billion for buses. To keep our public transport system sustainable for all stakeholders, we had previously explained in this House that it is important to strike a balance between providing convenience for commuters and keeping the overall costs affordable for commuters and taxpayers.
This includes making changes to some of the existing bus services which run parallel to new Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) lines and have experienced significant reductions in their ridership levels when more commuters switch to taking the MRT. These assessments are done on a case-by-case basis, taking into account commuter travel patterns and the overall connectivity and resilience of our public transport network.
Sir, like Mr Giam, I also have residents who are affected when we make changes to existing bus services. It is certainly the more popular thing to do if we just keep all bus services intact, even if their ridership levels have fallen significantly, while adding new MRT lines and introducing new bus services and routes to serve residents from new estates.
Mr Speaker, I would like to ask Mr Giam if he accepts that taking the above approach means the total costs of our public transport system will shoot up. And the cost increase will then result in higher fares for commuters and larger subsidies paid by taxpayers. This is the trade-off that we face, between providing convenience for commuters and keeping the overall costs affordable for commuters and taxpayers.
So, when we argue against changing existing bus services which run parallel to new MRT lines and have experienced significant reductions in ridership levels, we must also be honest in acknowledging that such proposals will come with a price tag. It is not correct to only focus on the convenience for some commuters without recognising that such an approach will end up with higher fares for all our commuters and higher subsidies that all taxpayers have to bear.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, I have some supplementary questions for the Minister, and I will address his question after that.
Firstly, has the Land Transport Authority (LTA) conducted surveys of commuters, particularly elderly commuters, to gauge whether they prefer taking buses or the MRT for routes where both options are available, perhaps because it is less crowded and there is less walking required? And if so, what were the results and what were the reasons why one mode was preferred over another?
Secondly, does LTA factor these survey results in deciding whether to withdraw bus services that run parallel to new MRT lines?
In response to the Minister's question, I would also offer the point whether the Ministry of Transport (MOT) has considered the cost to the economy, to our environment, if people avoid taking public transport and they choose to continue driving cars or taking other forms of private transport? That entails a cost as well and has MOT calculated the cost of that if, let us say, public transport is not as convenient or is perceived to be not as convenient as it was before?
\t
\t
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I think Mr Giam has not answered my question. I will still put it to him one more time because I do want to know what his position is – which is that, if we just do what is popular, we keep all the existing bus services intact, even when the ridership levels have fallen significantly, when they run parallel to new MRT lines and we keep introducing new bus services to serve new routes, to serve new residents from new estates, would that not then lead to overall cost for the public transport system increasing? And if so, then, that means that it would translate into higher fares for commuters and higher subsidies that all taxpayers have to pay. So, I would like to get a reply from Mr Giam on what his position is on my question.
Sir, in response to Mr Giam's questions, LTA would look at the bus changes very carefully. I think I have explained this to Mr Giam previously in this House. These are not decisions that we take automatically; just because there is a new MRT line that comes up, automatically or immediately you would remove some of these existing bus services. Because we understand that there is an impact on commuters.
So, therefore, we would have to look at whether there are other bus services that are serving these routes that run parallel to the MRT. So, we do not take away all existing bus services that run parallel to the new MRT lines. We do preserve some of the services. But in deciding which ones to retain and which ones to change, shorten or remove, these decisions would then have to be also based on the changes in commuter travel patterns. Because I think that is one of the most objective ways of assessing whether commuters still prefer to take this bus service or are commuters then switching to other bus services or are commuters switching to taking MRT.
So, for cases where the bus service has experienced a significant drop in ridership level because commuters are now shifting to other modes of public transport – not in the way that Mr Giam has described, in that they avoid taking public transport, I do not think that is the case because the overall public transport ridership level has not dropped. But what we see is people now switching to taking other bus services or they switch to taking MRT. And in some cases, when you switch to taking the MRT, it is actually faster for the commuter because the travelling time is more direct. And this includes walking, taking the bus and taking MRT. It is still faster than taking a direct, long trunk bus route.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, I sense the Minister is trying to paint me as being a populist by calling for all buses to run parallel to the MRT lines. I never called for that. In fact, if the Minister has tracked the arguments I have made about this issue in the past two years, in my area in Bedok Reservoir, several buses were removed. I do not recall calling for the buses to be restored. But my focus was always on increasing the frequency of the remaining bus, which is Bus 228, which is still a live issue with my constituents because whenever I go down to the constituency, it is a very common feedback I get that the frequency of the bus is not enough and, because of that, they call for the bringing back of the other buses that were taken away.
But my argument to the Government has always been to increase the frequency of Bus 228. In contrast, Bus 167 was removed and now it has been brought back, possibly because of public pressure.
What was the second point that the Minister was asking me about? Does that answer the question that the Minister was asking me?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Giam, first of all, for acknowledging that – although not the most popular thing to do – it is necessary for us to make some changes to existing bus services which run parallel to new MRT lines so that we can reallocate the resources – the buses and the bus captains – to serve other areas, for example, new estates and new residents. They will need new feeder services. There will be new routes that will be required.
I just want to say that I did not call Mr Giam a populist. I thank him for acknowledging that point and for supporting the important principle of why we are facing this trade-off and why we need to make some of these changes.
Sir, in response to Mr Giam's point about Bus 228, indeed, we recognise that the changes do affect the commuters in the Bedok area, because when we shortened Service 22 and Service 66, which used to ply Bedok Reservoir Road, we retained Service 65 and, then, we also increased the frequency of Service 228 during the morning peak. And this is to serve commuters who travel between Bedok Reservoir Road and Bedok interchange, where there are other bus options.
Sir, I have previously mentioned to Mr Giam that if there are some specific local issues that his residents are facing with regard to how we can better improve bus connectivity and bus services, we will be happy to get his feedback and the LTA team can then assess how we can make some adjustments to better serve the commuters. So, that offer still remains.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, I would like to address another point that the Minister made. He said that when there is a choice between taking MRT and a bus on a parallel route, it is faster to take the MRT in many cases. The lived reality for a lot of residents, especially the elderly, is that speed is not the highest priority. Very often, it is if they can walk less and there is a sheltered way all the way that they can take without having to get wet, they would prefer to take the bus rather than MRT. I am not saying that we do not get rid of the buses which have low ridership. But I think the fact is that we cannot just look in terms of efficiency, in terms of the speed of the trip, because different commuters have different priorities.
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I think Mr Giam and I may not differ so much on that point. First, I did not say that we only look at efficiency and just because the MRT is a more direct and faster route, therefore, we remove all buses. I did not say that.
In fact, we deliberately, as I have explained, maintain and keep some of the bus routes that run parallel to MRT lines precisely because they are different commuters who require different options. But at the same time, we need to make some adjustments because the resources are finite and we do not want to have a situation where we just keep adding new bus services and new bus routes without actually reallocating some of the existing ones which have seen a drop in ridership levels. So, on that front, I do not think Mr Giam and I differ that much in terms of the approach that we want to take.
\t
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Minister of State for Home Affairs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Minister of State Sun, you wanted to clarify something?
The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling): Yes, thank you, Sir. Earlier, in response to Member Mr Louis Ng's Parliamentary Question, I had said that based on my recollection, for applications to render conviction records spent – where they were unsuccessful whether reasons will be given – I have since confirmed that what I said earlier is correct.
That is, we do not provide detailed reasons to the applicant and this stance is taken not just for applications to render 377A convictions spent, but for all types of applications to render records spent. [Please refer to \"Determining Whether Conviction Records under Repealed Section 377A of Penal Code Should be Rendered Spent\", Official Report, 16 February 2024, Vol 95, Issue 123, 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":"Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Finance (Mr Chee Hong Tat) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Sir, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) was incorporated by the IRAS Act in 1992, which set out IRAS' functions in tax administration. Over the last decade, IRAS has also taken on the complementary function of disbursing broad-based grants to businesses. These refer to grants where Government administrative data is used to determine firm eligibility and grant quantum, and payouts are automatically disbursed without a need for businesses to apply.
Examples of such broad-based grants include the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme and the Uplifting Employment Credit, which encourage firms to adopt progressive hiring practices. During the COVID-19 pandemic, IRAS also played a pivotal role disbursing the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS), the Rental Support Scheme and the Small Business Recovery Grant to support our businesses to tide over the challenging economic conditions.
Sir, to give Members a sense of the magnitude of payouts that IRAS disburses annually, last year, it disbursed $4.6 billion of grants to more than 120,000 businesses. At the height of COVID-19 in 2020, IRAS disbursed six-times that amount to more than 150,000 businesses. Given the continued importance of this function, both in steady state and in crisis, the proposed amendments to the IRAS Act aim to formalise IRAS' role as a grant disbursement agency, alongside its role as tax administrator. It will grant IRAS new powers to investigate fraud and abuse and also to seek recovery of monies when there are erroneous disbursements.
Let me take Members through the key amendments.
The first key amendment grants IRAS the function of administering scheduled public schemes for and on behalf of the Government or any other statutory body. In the past, the power to disburse grants was granted to IRAS through subsidiary legislation. As disbursing grants becomes a larger part of IRAS' mandate, it is appropriate to include it as a key function in the IRAS Act.
The second key amendment enables IRAS to effectively audit and investigate cases of fraud and abuse of enterprise grants. With the increase in the number of grants disbursed, there has been a corresponding rise in the number of fraud cases. For instance, in 2022, the director and operations manager of a spa were convicted in Court for attempting to cheat IRAS into disbursing a JSS payout of approximately $50,000 during the pandemic in 2020. The duo had submitted false declarations and fake employment contracts for 28 individuals who did not perform work or receive salaries. Thanks to the vigilance of our IRAS colleagues, no disbursement was made as inconsistencies were detected in the documents provided.
As IRAS continues to enhance its capabilities to detect fraud, it currently lacks the legislative levers to investigate fraud and abuse pertaining to grants. Such cases have to be referred to the Police for investigation. To enable IRAS to be more effective in this role, we propose to amend the IRAS Act to provide IRAS with enforcement powers to investigate serious grant offences, including the power to access premises, conduct inspections, seize documents and make arrests. These enforcement powers are similar to existing powers under the Income Tax and GST Acts, where IRAS investigators are empowered to investigate tax offences.
We will also make it an offence to interfere with or refuse to comply with IRAS' investigation of serious grant offences. Those who are found guilty of the offence will be liable to a fine not exceeding $10,000 and/or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months. The amendments also set out the specific offences and punishments for obtaining or assisting another person to obtain a grant under the scheduled public schemes.
Depending on the severity of the offence, those convicted will be liable to a penalty equal to one, two or three times the amount of payout overpaid or would have been overpaid; and a monetary fine and/or imprisonment. These penalties are aligned with the penalties for similar offences under the Income Tax and GST Acts.
The third key amendment provides IRAS with the powers to recover overpaid grants as a debt due to the Government, and to impose interest on outstanding amounts beyond the prescribed payment period. These debts owed to the Government could arise from either fraud or abuse, or further data updates or data errors.
So, as I have shared earlier, most of the grants are disbursed automatically by IRAS, where Government administrative data is used to determine firm eligibility and grant quantum. This allows disbursements to be made promptly and businesses, especially our small and medium enterprises (SMEs), do not need to expend additional effort to make applications.
However, there could be errors discovered or further updates to the data after the monies have been disbursed, for instance, when a firm makes a genuine retrospective adjustment to its CPF contributions. As the eligibility assessment and grant quantum were computed based on outdated data, certain recipients might already have received more grants than they are entitled to.
When this happens, we propose that IRAS should have the power to recover the excess amounts from these recipients. As these are public funds, even if the error was no fault of the recipients, they have a responsibility to return the overpaid amounts. This can be done without penalties for recipients who are cooperative. The proposed legal powers, including the imposition of interest for late repayment, signal the serious nature of the issue and encourage firms to return any overpaid monies in a timely manner.
The remaining amendments to the Bill are operational and administrative in nature. They are to protect the identity of informers; allow IRAS to compound offences; allow service of documents by personal delivery or ordinary post; and allow a person to provide the documents and information required by IRAS for the investigation of an arrestable offence via electronic service.
Together, these powers allow IRAS to more effectively disburse the various grant schemes and mitigate the risk of fraud and abuse.
Sir, IRAS has and will continue to play an important role in the disbursement of grants and support to our enterprises. The proposed legislative amendments are necessary to empower IRAS to do so effectively. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill will allow the recovery of monies where grants are wrongly given, create offences for giving false or misleading information and allow the IRAS to exercise investigation and enforcement powers.
I have three sets of clarifications to raise.
My first clarification is on the recovery of wrongly given grant monies.
The Bill introduces offences for obtaining grants or assisting another person to obtain grants by giving false or misleading information. The Bill also allows IRAS to impose a penalty equivalent to or three times of the amount that would have been given under the grant. Can Minister clarify that if multiple individuals are prosecuted in relation to a single grant, is it possible for IRAS to impose penalties on each offender? In other words, even though only a single grant is or would have been wrongly disbursed, is IRAS entitled to recover a penalty from each and every individual prosecuted?
My second clarification is on the new offences for providing false or misleading information.
Different offences are set out under section 17F(1), section 17F(3) and section 17F(5) depending on the state of the mind of the offender, for instance, whether the offending is carried out negligently or willfully with intent to obtain the grant. The penalties and punishment that can be imposed is of varying severity depending on the section the prosecution is brought under. To provide guidance on how prosecutorial discretion will be exercised, can Minister provide illustrations on when the different provisions will apply?
The imprisonment term is three years for offences under section 17F(3) for negligently providing false information and section 17F(5) for providing false information willfully with intent. Can Minister clarify how the imprisonment term for section 17F(3) and section 17F(5) should be calibrated since the maximum imprisonment term is the same, but the culpability for offending under section 17F(5) is higher?
Lastly, on the new investigation and enforcement powers given to IRAS. With the new powers, can I check what steps will be taken to ensure that IRAS is prepared for the extended scope of powers.
Notwithstanding these clarifications, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, IRAS is the Government agency responsible for the administration of taxes and enterprise disbursement schemes. IRAS has been an efficient tax authority and has a consistently low cost of tax collection at less than one cent per dollar of tax collected over the past decade or so.
In recent years, this has come off quite significantly, to around 0.63 cents per for every dollar collected in FY2022, from 0.82 cents just two years ago. This perhaps is also reflective of the significant increases in IRAS' tax collections over the last two years, a jump of around 38% to $68.2 billion in FY2022, with FY2023 set to be another record year of tax collections, as we could soon find out in the upcoming Budget debate.
In my speech today, I will first touch on the broader picture in IRAS' role surrounding the administration of grants, before following up on specific provisions of the Bill.
IRAS today is already responsible for administering enterprise disbursement schemes and is, in fact, also designated as the Centre of Excellence for disbursing broad-based grants to enterprises. These include the administration of enterprise schemes, such as the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme, Senior Employment Credit and CPF Transition Offset. During COVID-19, IRAS also supported the administration of the Jobs Support Scheme, Jobs Growth Incentive, Rental Cash Grant and the Rental Support Scheme.
As described in the explanatory statement of the Bill, the amendments aim to provide for the recovery of any money, credit, rebate or other grant under schemes introduced by the Government or a statutory body that are specified in the new Second Schedule of the Act from recipients that are not entitled to such monies. In other words, wrongly given grants.
To me, this begs the broader question, that had such recipients not cooperated with the Government in the past, were they legally entitled to retain these grants, given that these were given to them not as a result of deceit or fraud on the part of the recipients, but some form of administrative oversight or mistake on the part of the authorities?
There was the recent case of overpayments in the Jobs Support Scheme, where the wage support grants were erroneously paid to about 5,400 companies in October 2020 due to mistakes in computing the disbursements. These amounted to about S$370 million. Subsequently, it was reported that the Government has recovered over 99% of the S$370 million wrongly paid to companies, with the bulk of it recovered through offsets against firms' subsequent Jobs Support Scheme payouts, where applicable, as well as returns in cash by large enterprises.
The issue of overpayments was also an area that was highlighted in the thematic audit by the Auditor-General in its latest report, which looked at key COVID-19 grant schemes, the Jobs Support Scheme, the Rental Cash Grant and the Rental Support Scheme. This issue was also part of the discussions by the Public Accounts Committee which I am a member of.
In any case, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) had updated the Committee that MOF and IRAS have taken steps to investigate and recover the overpayments, which made up less than 0.5% of total payouts across three schemes. Overpayments in relation to Government-funded entities were fully recovered.
On the other hand, in cases of abuse of such Government grant schemes or grants which were fraudulently obtained, it is important that IRAS be empowered with investigative and enforcement powers to deal with such offences to safeguard public monies.
In response to a Parliamentary Question on cases involving the abuse, misuse or fraudulent application of COVID-19 Government grants and payouts, it was shared by the Minister for Home Affairs that from March 2020 to December 2021, the Police received 57 reports involving the abuse or fraudulent application of COVID-19 Government grants and payouts, involving approximately S$1.7 million. Following the various reviews conducted by IRAS and the MOF in recent years and after internal processes highlighted in the Auditor-General's report are refined, does the Minister have further information to update on the cases of abuse uncovered and the monies subsequently recovered?
Moving on to specific provisions of the Bill, section 17D of the proposed Bill provides for IRAS to charge interest on the overpayments that it seeks to recover from recipients. Given the overpayments were not the fault of recipients, what is IRAS' approach in the recovery process and how much leeway do companies have before interest in being levied on them?
Moreover, given that interest is to be calculated on a daily basis, from the end of the payment period to the date the claim amount is paid in full, this could rack up to a substantial interest charge. What are the indicative interest rates under consideration, how much interest was charged for COVID-19 grant recoveries and whether such interest payments can be waived should there be a good faith attempt to make the repayments?
This is especially considering section 17C, where a payment period of 30 days is proposed after the date of service of a written notice to the recipient is served. While the Bill did state that \"there can be a later time that the Authority may allow in a particular case\", the tight timelines can be particularly onerous on companies which may be facing severe cash flow difficulties or SMEs which may not have as established administrative and finance processes in place, particularly if the amounts in question may be quite substantial relative to the recipient's financial position.
All that being said, notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, this Bill provides for the recovery of any money, credit, rebate or other grant schemes introduced by the Government or a statutory body from persons that are not entitled to or who were wrongly given the grants.
I am in support of the Bill. However, I have a few points of clarification.
Firstly, the Second Schedule lists many schemes, such as the Wage Credit Scheme, Senior Employment Credit, Jobs Support Scheme but does not specifically identify COVID Support Grant (CSG) and Self-Employed Person Income Relief (SIRS). Will these two schemes and other schemes not listed be included in the Bill too?
The reason I ask is because I have met elderly and unemployed residents who have approached me for assistance as they have been requested to return the SIRS that they have received previously. Some shared that they did not apply personally for the grant and were assisted by their family members or friends. Hence, they cannot recall details of their application. They also mentioned that they have already spent the SIRS money and do not have any money to pay back and are not working. How will these cases be treated?
Secondly, I noticed that almost all the schemes mentioned in the Second Schedule are for schemes that were introduced between the COVID-19 period from 2020 and 2023. From these schemes, what is the total amount of money, credit, rebate or other grants recovered so far from falsely or wrongly given claims?
Does the Ministry have any indication if there was an increased amount of false claims during this period and hence, this Bill allows the smoother recovery from false or wrongly given claims?
Thirdly, for Skillfuture Enterprise Credit, how do we ensure the grants that are provided are effectively disbursed?
We know of the syndicate that defrauded Skillsfuture of about $40 million and last year, in January, Parliament passed the amended SkillsFuture Singapore Agency and Skills Development Levy Act so prevent the abuse of Skillsfuture funding. How will the amendments in this Bill enhance the enforcement and prevent the fraudulent claims and provide more effectiveness to recover money that were disbursed based on false information?
A quick check on SkillsFuture website also shows that there are over 29,000 courses available. Most courses have multiple vendors or course providers. However, the course fees and hence, SkillsFuture grant varies.
Take Lean Sigma Green Belt Certification as an example. The course leads to an industry accepted certification but one provider charges five times more per course and gets three times more the funding received by the other provider, for the same outcome for the participant. I am not referring to this specific example. But how do we ensure course fees are not inflated and do not become an opportunity for companies to claim higher subsidies?
Lastly, the penalty proposed can be equal to three times the amount received or an imprisonment for a jail term not exceeding three years. If there are excessive checks, will this deter those who truly are in need from seeking the support that they require?
Mr Speaker, looking at the Second Schedule, I am grateful to see the long list of money, credit, rebate and other grant schemes introduced by the Government, especially over the past three to four years to provide support for all segments of our society facing many different challenges.
Schemes like COVID Support Grant and SIRS supported those who lost their jobs or had a pay reduction during COVID-19. Jobs Support Scheme made sure workers remain employed during challenging times. I, for one, as one of the over 25,000 aerospace workers in the industry, saw first-hand how the Jobs Support Scheme managed to keep many Singaporeans employed when our borders were shut; the Small Business Recovery Grant assisted SMEs to stay afloat; SkillsFuture provided support for our workforce to upskill and upgrade to meet the needs of the future economy; and the Senior Employment Credit ensured seniors get an opportunity for employment.
Hence, before I end my speech, I would just like to say a huge \"thank you\" to the Minister and all those working in the Ministries for working very hard to design and administer the grants and schemes for everyone who needs it, especially during the last few years. Clarification notwithstanding, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government's assistance for businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic kept many businesses afloat and Singaporean workers employed. Through support schemes such as those for the self-employed and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) owners, livelihoods were sustained and as a result, Singapore averted a serious economic crisis.
Just between February and May 2020, the Government rolled out four Budgets to provide social support for the vulnerable and increase cashflow to businesses to protect livelihoods. The Government introduced the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) and SkillsFuture Enterprise Credits that helped employers to pay a portion of their workers' salaries and training course fees quickly. The initial roll-out was broad-based to avoid a deeper economic crisis, preserve jobs and maintain key corporate capabilities. Speed was crucial to prevent interruption of cashflow for businesses and incomes for workers.
Civil servants from Statutory Boards like IRAS, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) and Enterprise Singapore worked long hours for a long period of time so that assistance was rendered to the deserving applicants during the COVID-19 period. These civil servants received many calls and chasers to approve and disburse the assistance. However, when they were flagged for overpayments due to calculation errors committed under time pressure, the remarks were not kind towards them. Neither did I observe many beneficiaries who stood up for these civil servants.
I support the Bill. However, I would like to seek clarifications on the following. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Can IRAS also administer schemes like the Enterprise Sustainability Programme and Enterprise Financing Scheme? How will the proposed administrative amendments enhance the efficacy of whole-of-Government's grant administration? The information submitted by the SMEs when they apply for other schemes can be relevant to the schemes which are managed by Enterprise Singapore currently. I understand that the Government cannot give subsidies to SMEs in an unabated manner, but SMEs will appreciate that the application processes of various schemes be synergised and simplified. Time saved is as good as revenue earned.
What recourse does a business have if they disagree with IRAS' assessment that funds have been wrongly disbursed to them? Can they raise it to an independent assessment panel?
The Bill also empowers IRAS officers to perform the investigative, audit and enforcement actions. Officers can even arrest without warrant for arrestable offences and perform body searches. Why is there a need to grant such strong enforcement powers to IRAS to audit and investigate cases of fraud and abuse? What are they experiencing currently? How will IRAS ensure that the investigative powers granted under this Bill will be used appropriately and in the public interest?
(In English): How much additional resources will be given to IRAS for the additional caseload as it will include investigation of fraud and abuse as well as recovery of wrongful disbursement?
Does IRAS require additional budget to develop capabilities in-house to investigate and enforce penalties against cases of scheme abuse? How does IRAS plan to develop these in-house capabilities? Can they tap on Commercial Affairs Department for a start so as to minimise additional expenditure?
The amendments mention protecting the identity of informants. How does the legislation ensure this protection, and what penalties are in place for any breaches?
How does allowing IRAS to compound offenses contribute to greater flexibility in dealing with grant non-compliances or scheme abuses that do not meet the threshold of criminal prosecution?
Mr Speaker: Minister Chee.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Let me start by reiterating that IRAS is taking on the disbursement of broad-based grants to businesses. These refer to grants where Government administrative data is used to determine firm eligibility and grant quantum, and the payouts are disbursed without a need for the businesses to apply.
So, the examples that Mr Sharael Taha mentioned – SIRS, COVID Relief Grant – these were not administered by IRAS. SIRS was administered by the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and the COVID Relief Grant was administered by the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF).
IRAS is able to play this role well as it has built up the IT systems and data linkages, payment mechanisms, and audit and fraud detection capabilities over the past decade. Hence, other Government agencies can tap on IRAS' capabilities for such broad-based enterprise disbursements.
Mr Don Wee asked if IRAS can disburse application-based grants for businesses. Unlike broad-based grants which are disbursed automatically based on pre-determined criteria, application-based grants require officers to assess the merit of each application in accordance with the intent of the grant. Administering such application-based grants require specific industry or domain expertise which reside in Government agencies overseeing the respective industry sectors, and not with IRAS. Entities that administer schemes for businesses do tap on data from other agencies including IRAS, to streamline the application process for enterprises and their processing of the grants.
The new Second Schedule lists the enterprise schemes which IRAS is administering, including schemes that it is winding down the disbursements and audits for. The Minister for Finance will update the Second Schedule as and when necessary to include new schemes for which IRAS' enterprise disbursement functions can serve.
Let me now address clarifications raised by Members relating to the proposed investigative and enforcement powers, which broadly fall into three categories: one, the rationale for centralising investigation and enforcement powers under IRAS and what are the appropriate safeguards; two, the process for recovering wrongful payments and recourse available in the event of a disagreement; and three, clarifications on penalties and offences.
Sir, let me explain the rationale for conferring IRAS with investigation and enforcement powers. IRAS currently refers serious cases of fraud and scheme abuse to the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) under the Singapore Police Force. However, CAD only investigates fraud cases that are criminal in nature and offences under the Penal Code.
Before referring to CAD, IRAS would conduct its own investigation whenever there are cases of suspected abuse or fraud. IRAS currently does this by triangulating data and intelligence from various sources and looking for inconsistencies in submitted documentation. However, IRAS does not have the legal powers at the moment to compel the provision of information or to conduct on-site inspections and checks. This limits the reach and effectiveness of their investigation. And that is why we are tabling this Bill in this House.
As the volume and total value of grants disbursed by IRAS increases, IRAS will need to have the necessary powers to conduct investigations more effectively, recover public funds and safeguard public interest. These powers are no different from what IRAS does for taxes today. Likewise, there will be similar safeguards in place, where the investigative powers will be restricted to trained officers authorised by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue.
IRAS has developed its IT and data systems, disbursement mechanisms and fraud detection capabilities over the years. We will provide IRAS with sufficient resources to take on the enterprise disbursement role.
Let me now move on to the second category of clarifications on the recovery of wrongly paid grants. Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Louis Chua asked for updates on the fraud and abuse cases involving COVID-19 grants and the amount of money recovered so far.
From August 2020 to December 2023, IRAS reported 25 cases of suspected abuse or fraud to CAD. Thus far, investigations into four cases that involve Jobs Support Scheme payouts, amounting to approximately $120,000 had concluded. Three cases were successfully charged and convicted in Court, while one case was given a conditional warning.
None of the $120,000 was disbursed as IRAS had detected the fraud early. The remaining 21 cases reported by IRAS are currently being investigated by CAD.
As for wrongly paid grants, these are a small minority of the total amount of grants disbursed. IRAS paid out $31.5 billion for the Jobs Support Scheme, Rental Cash Grant and Rental Support Scheme during the COVID-19 pandemic. Of these, the Auditor-General's Office (AGO) found errors affecting less than 0.5% of total payouts, as Mr Louis Chua mentioned earlier.
We have since recovered 99.7% of these wrong payments. And in response to Member's question, we did not charge interest.
With the amendments in this Bill, the process of recovering wrongly paid grants will remain largely unchanged and it is not expected to impact the large majority of grant recipients. The amendments address the minority of cases – I would say the small minority of cases – allowing IRAS to impose interest only if the outstanding amount is not paid within the prescribed repayment period, which is usually within 30 days. This is to encourage timely repayment of public funds.
If the repayment is made within the prescribed period, there is no interest imposed. For late repayments, the interest rate will be based on the Government interest rate on instalment payments, with a spread of three percentage points.
A business which disagrees with IRAS' assessment of wrongful disbursement can appeal to IRAS with relevant information to substantiate its case. If the appeal is rejected and the recipient does not want to return the overpayment, IRAS may pursue legal action through the Courts – and then, it is for the Courts to decide the outcome.
The wrongly disbursed funds are public monies from our taxpayers. The overpayment may not be due to the fault of the recipients, but as I explained in my main speech, it is fair that they should return the overpaid amounts. If they face genuine difficulties and need more time to make the repayment, they can appeal to IRAS and we will assess each case individually.
Sir, let me now turn to the queries from Mr Ng and Mr Sharael on offences. These are introduced to deter and penalise errant entities or persons for committing fraud and abuse. IRAS does not have any legal powers to take action against errant employers for scheme abusers today. IRAS can only refer cases to CAD, as I explained earlier, to investigate and prosecute under the Penal Code.
As a deterrent against scheme abuse, IRAS will need powers to impose penalties for offences alongside its investigative powers. Sections 17F(1),17F(3), 17F(5) set out the specific offences and punishments for obtaining or assisting another person to obtain a grant under the scheduled public schemes.
Those convicted may be liable to a penalty equal to one, two or three times the amount of payout overpaid or would have been overpaid, and a monetary fine and/or imprisonment not exceeding three years with the exact terms decided by the Courts. These limits are determined with reference to the penalties for similar offences in the Income Tax and Goods and Services Tax (GST) Acts.
Although the maximum penalties may be lower than existing offences under the Penal Code, they are tailored to target and deter the specific misconduct associated with the payout schemes.
IRAS will regularly review the effectiveness of these penalties.
The amendments will also grant IRAS the authority to compound offences, so, IRAS can offer composition as an alternative to prosecution. This allows minor infractions to be dealt with quickly and efficiently.
Mr Ng asked whether it is possible for IRAS to impose penalties on each offender if multiple individuals are prosecuted in relation to a single grant. The answer is yes.
For instance, if a director and an accountant of the company were convicted of the most serious grant offence, they will each be liable to a penalty equal to three times of payout overpaid, and a monetary fine and/or imprisonment. So, two individuals, each one can be liable, separately, and individually.
The party that receives the funds will also be required to repay the full amount of grant that he or she had obtained, in addition to the penalties imposed.
These offences are meant to penalise those who had deliberately or assisted another person to provide false or misleading information with the intent to induce IRAS to provide a higher amount of payout.
Finally, to Mr Don Wee's clarification on informer anonymity, the amendments will safeguard informer anonymity by forbidding disclosure that could reveal the identity in civil or criminal Court proceedings.
With those clarifications, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Do Members have any clarifications to seek from Minister? I do not see any.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Chee Hong Tat]. (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":"Enlistment and Other Matters (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Defence (Mr Heng Chee How) (for the Minister for Defence): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Defence, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Enlistment Act passed by Parliament in 1970 was a crucial piece of legislation that enabled Singapore to build up the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and Home Team. The Enlistment Act entrenched National Service (NS), first introduced in 1967. The Requisition of Resources Act passed by Parliament in 1985 provided for the requisition of essential civil resources from individuals, businesses and organisations when it is \"necessary for the securing of the public safety and defence of the country; or for the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community; or for the conduct of exercises for any of the aforesaid purposes\". Both the Enlistment Act and the Requisition of Resources Act have served Singapore well over the past five decades to build up our security forces to protect Singapore's sovereignty and to maintain law and order.
The main provisions of the Enlistment Act and the Requisition of Resources Act continue to be relevant and need no amendments. However, there is a need to amend the Acts to keep pace with a modernised, digitalised Singapore that is quite different from the Singapore 50 years ago. Hence, the amendments proposed formalise present practices as well as remove obsolete clauses. I will now go through the amendments in detail.
First, on the amendments to keep up with developments in digital technology, section 30 of the Enlistment Act – Orders and Notices.
First, the proposed amendments to section 30 of the Enlistment Act concerning orders and notices that are issued under the Enlistment Act. Under section 30 of the current Enlistment Act, orders and notices to NS or SAF personnel are served through various means, such as through telephone calls, radio or television broadcast and registered post.
Over the past two decades, notices and orders have also been served through electronic means. An Operationally Ready National Serviceman, or NSman for short, is now informed of his NS call-up activity via an SMS and in his NS Portal account. He can acknowledge the notice either by replying to the SMS directly, or by logging on to the NS Portal to do so. Should he fail to acknowledge the call-up notice which is sent to him electronically, he will receive another SMS reminder. And if he still fails to respond to that reminder, he is sent a hardcopy version of the notice via registered post.
Around 75% of our servicemen today acknowledge receipt of their notices and orders electronically by the first or second SMS and do not need to receive hardcopy reminders. As the practice of receiving notices and orders by electronic means is now well accepted and entrenched, the proposed amendments to section 30 will formalise this into the amended Enlistment Act.
As with the existing modes of service, such as telephone calls, radio or television broadcast and registered post, these electronic means of service come with the same deeming provisions, which presume Enlistment Act notices and orders are received and read within a fixed timeframe after delivery. Deeming provisions ensure that a recipient cannot feign ignorance of his NS obligations when notices and orders have been duly served.
Members may worry that recipients may receive many digital notifications, such as emails or SMSes, in the course of a normal day and could genuinely miss out on reading some of these electronic notifications from the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF), SAF or the Home Team.
Let me assure the House that we will put in multiple safeguards and be very fair to our NSmen.
First, we will continue today's practice of issuing orders and notices to individuals through various channels. Specifically, should individuals fail to respond to orders or notices issued by electronic means, MINDEF will follow on to serve them with notices or orders using existing modes of service, such as telephone calls or registered post. This ensures that we make every attempt and make every effort to have the orders and notices reach their intended recipient.
Second, MINDEF will also codify in subsidiary legislation the steps which we will take in serving orders and notices on individuals such that people will have the full assurance that their attention will be adequately brought to the obligations they need to fulfil for NS.
Third, as an added safeguard, we have proposed a new provision at section 30(2A), which requires consent to be given before orders and notices sent by electronic means can be presumed and deemed to have been received and read. Those who provide such consent can withdraw that consent at any time, should they choose to do so.
Next, I will move on to speak about section 41 of the Requisition of Resources Act under the section of orders, notices and requisitions.
Similar changes regarding the electronic delivery of orders, notices and requisitions will be made to section 41 of the Requisition of Resources Act. In the same way, NSmen are notified of their call-ups today, civil resource owners are currently also notified of the requisition of their resources via an SMS. Another SMS will be sent if there is no acknowledgement of the first SMS. If these two SMSes – the first one and the reminder – elicit no response, MINDEF will contact the civil resource owners via existing means of service, such as by telephone call or personal delivery of the hardcopy notice. This requisition system has been used during exercises and civil resource owners have responded well. Our amendments to section 41 of the Requisition of Resources Act will, therefore, similarly legislate the inclusion of electronic means of service.
Similar to the Enlistment Act, safeguards will also be in place to ensure that we have made every effort and every attempt to reach the civil resource owners. In this vein, the deeming provisions for electronic means of service are only meant to be applied onto the few civil resource owners who fail to comply with their obligations and remain uncontactable despite multiple attempts to reach them through the whole variety of channels. Consent will also be sought from the civil resource owners before orders and notices sent by electronic means can be presumed and deemed to have been received and read by them. Those who provide such consent can also withdraw their consent at any time, should they choose to do so.
Sir, I move next to the amendments on clarifying existing policies on section 32 of Enlistment Act, which deals with Exit Permits.
Today, pre-enlistees from age 13 years and full-time National Servicemen (or NSFs) are required to possess a valid Exit Permit for any travel overseas that goes beyond three months' duration. For NSmen, the requirement is more relaxed in recognition of their higher likelihood of staying or working overseas for longer durations. NSmen will need to possess a valid Exit Permit for any travel overseas that exceeds a year.
There had been past offenders who have claimed that they were not liable for Exit Permit offences just because they had not received a Registration Notice for NS. So, in order to make clear the intent of the law as it stands, section 32 of the amended Enlistment Act will now state explicitly that all NS-liable persons from age 13 onwards must adhere to Exit Permit requirements even if they have not yet registered for NS or have not yet received their Registration Notice. The amendment will clarify our existing policy and legal position which is that Exit Permit offences are strict liability in nature, that is, a person cannot claim to not be liable simply because he claims to be ignorant of the law of his NS obligations.
We will make the relevant consequential amendments to section 52 of the Immigration Act, which empowers an immigration officer to act to prevent an NS-liable person from leaving Singapore, if that immigration officer has reason to believe that the individual does not possess an Exit Permit as required. This is to enable the immigration officer to inquire into this suspicion and require the person to produce for inspection the valid Exit Permit.
Next, I will touch on section 27 of the Enlistment Act which deals with unaccountable periods. The proposed amendment at section 27(2) of the Enlistment Act specifies the types of periods that do not count towards the fulfilment of an NSman's NS liability. The amendment will make clear the periods of time where the serviceman's absence from service will not count towards the fulfilment of his NS liabilities. This will include periods of absence due to disciplinary reasons, for example, local and overseas imprisonment or detention; pre-trial civil custody for offences that the serviceman is subsequently convicted of; and rescinded medical leave, such as when a serviceman is found to have abused his medical leave when he was actually fit for duty.
Finally, I will deal with the administrative amendments.
We will remove and update references within the Enlistment Act and Requisition of Resources Act that are now obsolete. For example, references to \"telex\" as a mode of service of orders or notices will be removed because we no longer use this means to send out notices and orders. We will also add references to the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) where necessary, to account for the fact that our NSmen are also deployed to the SPF and SCDF. We will also update references in the offence provisions of the Requisition of Resources Act to align with other national legislation. These amendments are administrative updates that do not impact existing NS or civil resource requisition policies or obligations.
In conclusion, Sir, the Enlistment Act and Requisition of Resources Act have been in force since 1970 and 1985 respectively, and have served Singapore well. These amendments allow us to modernise and tidy up both the Enlistment Act and the Requisition of Resources Act. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.
Mr Don Wee: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Exercise SG Ready, which began yesterday, commemorates 40 years of Total Defence this year. National Service (NS) plays a critical role in reinforcing the Total Defence concept. Total Defence encourages the active involvement of all citizens in safeguarding the security and well-being of our nation. Enlistment into NS is a crucial aspect of the military component of Total Defence.
Since the National Service (Amendment) Bill was passed in March 1967, more than a million male Singaporeans and permanent residents have served NS. Enlistees can serve in the military, Police and the Singapore Civil Defence Force.
Conscription is an essential component of national security, providing rapid and robust responses to external and internal threats. NS also contributes to the creation of a national identity that cuts across ethnic races, social classes and religions, as well as bolstering social resilience against instabilities.
I support the Bill and I would like to seek clarifications on the following.
The amendments in section 30 on orders, notices, permits and appointments are necessary as communications today are predominantly digitalised via short message service (SMS), emails and electronic service platforms. I would like to ask the Minister for his assurance in securing these modes of communicating with our servicemen and regulars. What safeguards are in place to address concerns related to the acknowledgment or consent requirement for electronic service? How will individuals be informed and given the option to consent? How would the Ministry prevent or minimise the impact of potential digital attacks and fraudulent communications by criminals and hostile agents to undermine our defence forces?
Pertaining section 52 of the Immigration Act, how do the immigration officers determine if a person subject to the Enlistment Act has the required exit permit? Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I support the timely amendments in section 24, which explicitly allows persons who perform the listed services to claim reimbursement for remuneration derived from self-employment. I hope MINDEF and MHA can arrange for consultative sessions with the insurance practitioners, financial planners, property advisers, private hire drivers and platform workers to have a deeper understanding of their remuneration structures.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) welcomes the move by the Government to update the Enlistment Act.
While we have no quarrel with the updates proposed in the Bill, we note that the Bill does not make any amendments to the statutory length of liability to render full-time NS, as provided in section 12 of the Enlistment Act 1970.
Since Independence, our SAF, SPF and SCDF have become world-class institutions, and this success has come on the backs of generations of full-time NSmen (NSFs) who have given two or two-and-a-half years of their lives to serve the nation. This sacrifice in youth comes at significant cost to the individual. Therefore, the duration of full-time NS must be carefully calibrated and reviewed from time to time, based on our nation's defence needs.
Even after amendments made in section 4 of the Bill, the statutory full-time NS liability remains at up to two-and-a-half years for anyone promoted above the rank of Lance Corporal in the SAF or SCDF, or Special Constable 2 in the SPF, which, in practice, covers every enlistee.
The duration of full-time NS was last reduced from two-and-a-half years to two years in June 2004. At the time, Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean, who was then Minister for Defence, explained in a Ministerial Statement that this was possible because of the SAF's technological transformation to the Third Generation SAF and a 15% and 20% increase in the annual intake of NSFs over 10 years starting in 2006. Senior Minister Teo also told the House that MINDEF had concluded that the two years of NS duration will be able to be sustained over the long term even after this 10-year surge.
Thus, I would like to ask the Minister several questions.
One, are the considerations and conclusions made by Senior Minister Teo in June 2004 still valid?
Two, if yes, why has the Bill we are debating today not included an amendment to reduce the statutory length of full-time NS liability from two-and-a-half to two years, even though this has been the practice for 20 years, which is practically one generation?
Three, by retaining this provision in the Enlistment Act, does this mean the Government expects that the duration of full-time NS may be reverted to two-and-a-half years at some point in the future?
PSP calls on the Government to continue reviewing the duration of full-time NS based on operational needs, demographic changes and technological advancements. Where possible, without compromising on operational readiness, training standards and the ability of our uniformed services to achieve their mission, we would support further reductions in our dependence on large numbers of NSFs and further reductions in the duration of full-time National Service.
Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill. For country, for people.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore's NS is a cornerstone of our nation's security and identity. This Bill is a timely amendment of the Enlistment Act. It is to reflect the modern landscape of national service and voluntary service. Notwithstanding, I have several clarifications on the Bill.
First, Mr Speaker, Sir, on liability, ranks and the removal of part-time NS. The proposed changes to section 12 regarding liability to render full-time service, particularly in the SPF and SCDF, raise questions about service extension for specific ranks. We need to understand how these extensions align with the overall manpower needs of both agencies. This clarity is critical in ensuring effective and efficient operations and public service within the SPF and SCDF.
Furthermore, on the deletion of section 14(1)(b)(ii) relating to part-time NS, we require a clear understanding of the rationale behind this decision and its potential consequences. How does this decision align with the current defence strategies? How do we ensure the continued effectiveness of our NS framework?
Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, on the use of technology for the service of notices and orders. The amendments to section 30 allowing for the service of notices and orders through modern technological avenues like SMS, email and dedicated platforms are commendable steps towards modernisation and streamlined communications.
However, I seek further clarification on several aspects. First, how are these changes aligned with emerging advancements in technology to improve efficiency in communication, specifically in the context of NS and enlistment? Given rapid technological advancements, is the Bill sufficiently flexible to accommodate future innovations in communication technology?
Moreover, while embracing technology's benefits, we must remain mindful of potential challenges. Concerns regarding fake notices, potential misuse of artificial intelligence (AI) for manipulation and potential for abuse of these systems deserve careful consideration. We need to ensure that robust safeguards and clear guidelines are in place to prevent such issues and maintain the integrity of the communication process.
Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, as a committed SAF volunteer myself, I take a keen interest in the proposed enhancements to volunteer protection. I note the revisions set out in clause 13 of the Bill regarding references to volunteer service within the SAF's People's Defence Force and the Police Force Act's Special Constabulary. Can the Senior Minister of State explain how these changes translate into concrete safeguards for all SAF volunteers under the relevant sections of the Enlistment Act? Similarly, how does this impact the SPF's Volunteer Special Constabulary programme?
Specifically, can the Ministry provide elaboration on how these amendments ensure the welfare and rights of our diverse volunteer community? By ensuring all volunteers feel protected, valued and supported, we can continue to attract and retain dedicated individuals who bolster our nation's strength.
Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek clarification regarding the Minister's broader powers to make regulations under the Enlistment Act. Flexibility is indeed critical in adapting to a changing environment. However, it is equally important to ensure that such power is not wielded in a vacuum. Robust Parliamentary oversight and public scrutiny are essential safeguards against potential misuse.
Therefore, I urge the Minister to address the proposed amendments to section 37 of the Act pursuant to clause 12 of the Bill and clarify the Minister's regulation-making powers. While increased flexibility must be justified in certain scenarios, we must ensure sufficient clarity and transparency in these regulations. Clear regulatory frameworks are the bedrock of effective implementation.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, recent events like the Ukraine-Russia conflict and the Israel-Hamas war show us that war can erupt even in perceived peace times, fuelled by proxy wars, drone-strewn skies and non-state actors. Furthermore, the nature of warfare is no longer defined by clashing armies. In the silent trenches of the digital battlefield, foreign adversaries weaponise algorithms and misinformation, manipulating public opinion and sowing discord, paving the way for real-world conflict with every unseen click.
Recent self-radicalisation cases are also stark reminders that we must remain vigilant in ensuring security within our borders. We must remember that national security is not solely the responsibility of the military.
We commemorated Total Defence Day yesterday and are reminded that this is a shared endeavour, requiring the collective commitment of every citizen. I have highlighted several clarifications in my speech, namely:
First, aligning manpower needs with the extensions of specific ranks in SPF and SCDF. We also need to understand the rationale behind removing part-time NS and its consequences.
Second, having safeguards with technological advancements – mitigate potential risks like fake notices, AI misuse and abuse. We must ensure robust communication practices and integrity.
Next, enhancing volunteer protection – translate proposed changes into concrete safeguards for all SAF volunteers, ensuring their welfare, rights and continued contribution.
And lastly, having greater transparency in ministerial regulations – balance flexibility with clear frameworks, robust Parliamentary oversight and public scrutiny for effective implementation.
By addressing these concerns, and ensuring clarity and transparency, we can strengthen the Enlistment Act and build a future-proof NS framework. This framework will not only safeguard our nation through military might, but also through the unity and unwavering spirit of every Singaporean.
Therefore, I urge the House to carefully consider these points as we move forward with this important Bill. Let us work together to ensure that our National Service system remains effective, inclusive and responsive to the evolving needs of our nation. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, I support this Bill. Most of the amendments are done to update the Bill and to take into account developments in technology and it is naturally sensible to include these developments.
One area I would like to focus on is clause 9, which amends section 30 of the Enlistment Act to allow service of notices by SMS, email and an electronic service platform, which I understand is the NS Portal. It says these modes of service may only be used with the enlistee's express consent.
I think the set-up of the section is sensible and, in principle, if an enlistee agrees to accept service by any of these methods, it would be efficient for both MINDEF and the enlistee to communicate in this way.
MINDEF's current practice, as confirmed by Senior Minister of State Heng Chee How, already involves the use of these methods, except that if there is no express acknowledgement of receipt by the NSman, MINDEF then follows up with the conventional notice by registered post. This is because under the current legislation, MINDEF cannot assume notice has been received simply by sending an email or SMS.
I think there is some benefit with MINDEF's current method of sending a follow-up in the event the enlistee does not acknowledge an SMS or email and my concern is that with the change in legislation, MINDEF may stop doing this because it can simply assume that enlistees have received notice of the call-up from the deemed notice.
In general, while an enlistee may give consent to receiving notice by SMS or email, sometimes, life events catch up and the SMS numbers or email addresses may change. This is especially so if the person gives his consent, say, at the end of NS, but then goes on to study or work. It is likely that phone numbers and email addresses may change over time and they may overlook updating MINDEF of it. This would mean it is possible for that person to get charged for not attending a call-up because under the amended legislation, he could be deemed to have received notice when the SMS or email is sent to his last contact number even though the person did not, in fact, get the call-up notice.
I acknowledge that it is an individual's responsibility to update MINDEF on his latest contact details and to check these, but any penalty for not updating contact details should not be at the severity of getting charged for failing to attend the call-up.
Additionally, there are increasingly sophisticated spam filters in many email accounts that may block system-generated emails like call-up notices. So, even if the details are up to date, the notices may get accidentally filtered out.
The current practice of following up with the registered post is helpful because MINDEF knows for sure whether or not the person has actually received the notice.
I note that Senior Minister of State Heng Chee How has given significant assurances on this that MINDEF will continue its practice of following up with the conventional notice in the event the electronic call-up notice is not acknowledged for any reason. This is good and, in my view, important. It means that notwithstanding the change in legislation, the useful practice will continue.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Heng Chee How.
Mr Heng Chee How: Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their strong support for the Bill. They recognise the importance of keeping our NS and civil resources requisition systems effective and up-to-date. This is to protect our country.
I will now address their specific points.
First, on amendments to section 30 of the Enlistment Act on orders and notices, which is on the acknowledgement and consent safeguards.
On orders and notices issued as referenced at section 30 of the Enlistment Act, and in reply to Mr Don Wee and Mr Vikram Nair, I state once again very clearly that every effort will be made to ensure that orders and notices issued through electronic means reach their intended recipient. Furthermore, I want to again emphasise that should recipients fail to respond to these electronic orders and notices, then we will use other existing modes of service, such as through telephone calls as well as registered post in order to mail them the hard copy.
Indeed, the whole intent of these amendments is to modernise the Act so that it includes means of communication that is used by everybody every day. It is just keeping up with the times. It is not the intention of this amendment to take away any sense of being properly informed in time. Rather, it is to enhance the convenience accorded to our NSmen, in being properly informed though means that most are very comfortable with. And as I mentioned earlier, 75% of NSmen already are acknowledging these orders and notices by replying to the SMS. These percentages, we think, will go up and this just formalises the lived reality. And as Mr Vikram Nair mentioned, that is the practice now and it will continue.
The proposed legislation also requires consent to be given before orders and notices sent by electronic means can be presumed and deemed to have been received and read. Those who provide such consent can withdraw their consent at any time should they choose to do so.
Individuals will be able to provide or withdraw such consent whenever they transact with MINDEF and SAF, such as through the NS Portal when they register for NS or when applying for an Exit Permit. Individuals will also be given the option to withdraw their consent at any time via the NS Portal.
Next, on securing electronic communications against digital attacks and fraud. With regard to security against digital attacks, scams and fraud, certainly, these efforts and improvements on the part of MINDEF and the SAF, and the Home Team, will be an ongoing affair and it will just keep improving over time as technology improves and as we come to know of different developments on the part of the criminal fraternity and how we can be one step ahead of them.
Sir, as an example, we no longer send clickable links in SMS notifications from MINDEF, because we have come to know that some malicious actors can use these links in order to con people. This is an example where we also have to move with the times. So, it is not just by modernising the channels, but also by keeping in touch very much with how these channels are being used or indeed, being misused to harm and cheat people, and then, we can actually overcome that as time goes on. It will be ceaseless effort and we are committed to doing that.
We will also regularly conduct vulnerability assessments, penetration tests and audits on our IT systems, such as the NS Portal. These systems are also monitored 24/7 to quickly detect and neutralise any malicious activity.
Finally, we urge the public to promptly report any suspicious messages claiming to be from MINDEF or the SAF, or the Home Team. Individuals can also call or email the NS Call Centre to verify the authenticity of any SMS, email or message that they received purporting to be from MINDEF, SAF or the Home Team.
Next, accommodating future innovations in communications technology. Mr Yip Hon Weng also asked if the changes to section 30 of the Enlistment Act are sufficiently flexible to accommodate future innovations in communications technology. The answer is yes.
Should MINDEF begin utilising new technologies to issue orders or notices to individuals, then they would be covered in a newly proposed section 30(2)(n), or they can be prescribed by the Minister for Defence in subsidiary legislation under the new proposed section 30(2)(o).
Next, on amendments to section 32 of the Enlistment Act touching on Exit Permits. Mr Don Wee asked about the consequential amendment to section 52 of the Immigration Act and how immigration officers may determine if a person subject to the Enlistment Act has the required Exit Permit.
Actually, the immigration officer today, if he suspects anybody to not possess the right documents in order to enter or to exit Singapore, has already the powers to inquire. So, the amendment that we are proposing in this Bill is to make it clear because, just as we are making it clear who is liable for NS and to have an Exit Permit before leaving Singapore, we just want to make this consequential amendment in the Immigration Act.
If an immigration officer has reason to believe that the person requires an Exit Permit, for example if the person is a male citizen or Permanent Resident of NS-liable age and indicates that he is going to be overseas for a long time – for example, he is going to be overseas for a year – then the immigration officer may request to sight, to look at the person's Exit Permit or a relevant written exemption, in order to allow him to leave Singapore. This is for verification. It is not a new power, but this is just to make it very clear for all parties involved.
Next, on the administrative amendments, is a clarification on liability to serve full-time NS which is section 12 of the Enlistment Act.
In reply to Mr Yip Hon Weng, the amendments to section 12 do not impact the duration of full-time NS, which is maintained at two years for all NS-liable individuals regardless of rank. The amendments simply update the Enlistment Act to now include references to the SPF and SCDF, because NSFs are also sent over to the SPF and SCDF.
And for completeness in this revision exercise, we included the rank structures across the SPF and SCDF to correspond and commensurate with the equivalent in the SAF, for clarity again.
I note Mr Leong Mun Wai also spoke about this provision for a maximum duration of NS. I would like to address that point.
One of the things we often say about Singapore is that we have no natural resources. All we have is our people. That is always true. And at the same time, precisely because all we have is our people, then how we use their time is important and there must be a good purpose for asking our people to contribute their time to do things under the law as a requirement. And NS is an example of this.
The intent of that section to have been in the law in the first place is to define a maximum. By defining a maximum, what it does is this. It actually put it onto the Government to make sure that whatever you are doing, in order to require citizens to give off their time to defend this country, you work within this maximum period of up to two-and-a-half years. It does not say that you must use two-and-a-half years. And if through technology, better processes, productivity improvements, you can require less time from the people so that they can pursue other important priorities in their lives, then, you should do so. This was exactly why, as Mr Leong Mun Wai pointed out, in June 2004, the effective NS period was reduced from two-and-a-half years to two years, which is still the case today, notwithstanding that maximum.
The idea is very clear and by that very act of reducing it in 2004, the stance of the Government is also very clear, which is that we honour the sacrifice of our people in providing time to together defend this country. And we will not want to take any more time from them than what is necessary.
Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean at that time, the Defence Minister, had looked at the overall situation, the security situation, and determined that two years was appropriate. Mr Leong Mun Wai also asked whether or not this continual review of requirements will be something quite standard in the way in which MINDEF would look at the requirements of manpower, the answer will be yes.
We stand by this commitment to say that we thank our citizens for contributing their time to serve this country in NS. We commit to using their time the best way possible and not to require of them more than is necessary. And as part of this, we will constantly review requirements, processes, technologies, more productive methods.
Next, I move on to deletion of the Part-Time NS reference in section 14 of the Enlistment Act.
As for deleting the reference to Part-Time NS at section 14(1)(b)(ii) of the Enlistment Act, actually there are no practical consequences because the clause is obsolete. Why? Because Part-Time NS itself ceased in 1972. So, we are just taking out something that is obsolete.
Next, on self-employed NSmen and Make-Up Pay (MUP) under section 24 of the Enlistment Act, let me thank Mr Don Wee for his support for the amendment to section 24 of the Enlistment Act to explicitly allow for self-employed NSmen, just like employed NSmen, to claim remuneration for losses in their civilian income, or Make-Up Pay (MUP), when they attend Operationally Ready National Service (ORNS) activities.
For most self-employed NSmen, with their consent, the income data is retrieved from IRAS and their MUP is automatically re-calculated based on the average monthly trade income in their latest income Notice of Assessment. Self-employed NSmen can also choose to submit supporting documents to appeal for a different MUP amount, because of their individual circumstances, if they believe that the amount automatically calculated for them is incorrect or not fair to them. They can submit their documents and then, each case will be carefully looked into. We want to ensure fairness.
Next, on voluntary service in Part 6 of the Enlistment Act.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the amendments to Part 6 of the Enlistment Act, where references to voluntary service in the People's Defence Force of the SAF and the Special Constabulary of the SPF are being removed. The proposed amendments are administrative. There will be no change to the current statutory protections that are already accorded to these voluntary services under the respective Acts, such as the SAF Act, the Police Force Act and Civil Defence Act.
For SAF volunteers, we are removing mention of the People's Defence Force because it is also obsolete.
For SPF and SCDF volunteer ex-NSmen, section 68A of the Police Force Act and section 9A of the Civil Defence Act already accord them the same protections as Part 6 of the Enlistment Act. So, there is a duplication and, as a result, we are just taking out the duplication and having that deleted.
Once again, at this point, I just want to reiterate on behalf of MINDEF, SAF as well as the Home Team our heartfelt thanks to all our NS officers, NSFs, NSmen, through all these generations, our volunteers, for their selfless contributions, for their devotion to the defence of this country. Their efforts are invaluable in continuing to build a strong SAF, SPF and SCDF so that, together, we can protect Singapore against threats and stand ready in all kinds of crisis scenarios.
Next, on the Minister's regulation-making powers under section 37 of the Enlistment Act.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the amendments to section 37 of the Enlistment Act, as well as to clarify the Minister's powers to make regulations under the Enlistment Act and how we would guard against the potential misuse of such powers. He says not to have the power to regulate in a vacuum. Indeed, it will not be acting in a vacuum. The amendment to section 37 of the Enlistment Act simply clarifies the language that any reference to the term \"prescribe\" in the Act means that it can be prescribed via the Regulations made by the Minister for Defence. This is already the case actually. The Minister for Defence has the power to make the Regulations. So, this clarifies the language of what is the meaning of \"prescribe\".
As Members know, the Regulations are subsidiary legislation and subsidiary legislation must conform to and cannot fall outside of the scope of the overriding primary legislation, and the Enlistment Act is the primary legislation in this case. So, when you make Regulations pursuant to this Act, it must keep within the scope of the mother Act. And all amendments at the Act level will need to go through the relevant parliamentary processes, where they will be subject to parliamentary oversight and public scrutiny. And even when amendments to Regulations are made, then they will also be published in the Government Gazette. Therefore, it is fully transparent to the public. And where there are queries, again, this can be debated.
Mr Speaker, in closing, I would like to conclude by thanking the Members who have spoken and all Members of this House once again for their support of the Bill. The Enlistment Act and the Requisition of Resources Act have served Singapore well. The proposed amendments will ensure that our NS and civil resources requisition systems keep up with the times and remain effective and up-to-date. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Are there any Members who have clarifications for the Minister? I do not see any.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Heng Chee How.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Our Sitting today is very efficient. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance is due to give his Budget Statement at 3.30 pm. So, we do have some time and we will all have a longer break.
Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and I will take the Chair at 3.30 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 1.36 pm until 3.30 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.30 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Budget Statement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Order. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Notice of Motion.
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the Financial Year 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025.\"
Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the Financial Year 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025.\"
The past year has not been easy. The international environment was troubled. The global economy was subdued. Our economy grew by a modest 1.1%, avoiding a recession.
I know that many households are feeling the pressure of higher living costs.
Fortunately, we had some unexpected revenue upside from our strong economic rebound in the preceding two years. And this is why the Government was able to enhance its assistance measures to relieve the burden on households.
For 2024, the outlook is mixed. Growth in the major economies on the whole is expected to remain resilient. But geopolitical risks continue to loom large. Wars are raging in Europe and the Middle East. These conflicts can escalate dangerously, leading to disruptions in global energy markets and supply chains.
Fortunately, there are some upsides. Global inflationary pressures are expected to recede further. This may provide some room for the major central banks to adopt more accommodative stances, which may ease financial conditions and support demand.
The global electronics industry is expected to recover. This will bolster the growth of many regional economies, including our key trading partners.
Meanwhile, Asia continues to be a key driver of global growth, with a wider spread of opportunities across the region – not just in China, but also in India and many parts of Southeast Asia.
On the whole, we are cautiously optimistic that 2024 will be a better year. Besides lower inflation, we expect higher gross domestic product (GDP) growth at 1.0% to 3.0%.
But there is considerable uncertainty in the outlook and the risks are tilted to the downside. The international environment has darkened dramatically.
The post-Cold War era that began in the early 1990s and fostered three decades of peace and stability is over.
We are now in a new era of conflict and confrontation, and there is no turning back.
What can we expect in this new world?
It will be more violent. We already see a growing zone of impunity involving armed conflict and terrorism that cannot be easily resolved by the global community.
It will be more fragmented. Because the major powers are prioritising national security over economic interdependence, and traditional modes of cooperation are breaking down.
It will be messier and more unpredictable. Because there will be diminished willingness and capacity to tackle global issues, be it responding to future pandemics or tackling climate change.
These are the stark realities before us. For some time to come, Singapore will have to operate in an external environment that will be less stable and favourable to our security and prosperity than the preceding three decades.
That is why we embarked on the Forward Singapore exercise – to refresh our social compact to keep our society strong and united, and to set out a roadmap for our way forward in this very troubled world.
Through Forward Singapore, we aim to give more assurance to help Singaporeans navigate the uncertainties in today’s world; strengthen our sense of cohesion and solidarity; and keep our society together.
For as one united people, we can overcome all odds.
We can turn every challenge into opportunity and every vulnerability into strength.
We can build a nation that is vibrant and inclusive, fair and thriving, resilient and united.
We have an ambitious agenda to achieve these shared goals. We have major plans to unfold over the coming years. Some are ready to be implemented now.
Others will require more time to study or to work out the implementation details.
In this Budget, we will roll out the first instalment of our Forward Singapore programmes.
Budget 2024 is therefore about taking concrete steps to build our shared future together. We will:
(a) tackle immediate challenges for households and businesses;
(b) pursue better growth and jobs, and equip our workers for life;
(c) create more paths for equality and mobility;
(d) provide more assurance for families and seniors;
(e) and ultimately, forge a stronger and more united nation.
I will touch on each of these in turn in the rest of my speech.
We have enjoyed low inflation in Singapore for more than a decade. But inflation rose sharply in 2022, following the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, which led to significant increases in global energy and food prices.
Despite the unprecedented surge in prices, we had good economic growth in 2022. So, incomes that year rose faster than inflation and Singaporeans were better off, in real terms.
Unfortunately, this did not happen last year. Inflation had in fact started to moderate. But economic growth also slowed. As a result, real incomes declined.
We had picked up early indicators of this negative trend. And that is why I introduced the Cost-of-Living Support Package in September last year and enhanced the Assurance Package to over $10 billion.
While we expect the situation to improve this year, there are uncertainties in the outlook, as I mentioned just now. So, in this Budget, I will do more to support households and further enhance the Assurance Package.
First, I will provide an additional $600 in Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers for all Singaporean households. The first $300 will be disbursed in end-June this year, and the remaining $300 will be disbursed in January next year.
Second, I will provide a Cost-of-Living Special Payment of between $200 and $400 in cash. This will be extended to adult Singaporeans with Assessable Income of up to $100,000, and who do not own more than one property.
Third, I will provide additional one-off U-Save rebates to help HDB households cope with increases in their utility bills. In total, eligible HDB households can expect to receive two-and-a-half times the amount of regular U-Save rebates, or up to $950, in FY2024. This will cover about four months of utility bills for those living in 3- and 4- room flats.
Fourth, I will provide an additional one-off Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) Rebate for HDB flats. Together with the regular S&CC rebates, eligible Housing and Development Board (HDB) households will receive up to four months of such rebates in FY2024.
Altogether, the additional support under the Assurance Package will cost $1.9 billion. [Please refer to Annex B-1.]
We have designed the Assurance Package so that lower-income families get more support. We have also ensured that larger households, particularly those with seniors and children, get more support.
Let me give some illustrations.
A lower-income household of four, with two young children, will receive about $5,500 in benefits in FY2024. This comprises cash, MediSave top-ups, U-Save and S&CC rebates, and CDC Vouchers.
A middle-income household of four, with two young children, will receive about $3,000 in benefits.
A middle-income household with six persons – a larger family – including two seniors and two young children, will receive about $8,000 in benefits.
Sir, these are concrete ways to help Singaporeans tackle cost of living pressures. Let me assure everyone – we will always have your backs. [Applause.]
Beyond the Assurance Package, I will top up the Good and Services Tax (GST) Voucher Fund by $6 billion. This delivers on our commitment to permanently defray GST expenses for lower- and middle-income households, through the GST Voucher scheme.
Businesses also need help to manage rising costs. Many companies have seen increases in their wage bills, rental, and utilities, amongst others. I will therefore introduce an Enterprise Support Package, which will provide $1.3 billion in support to companies.
First, companies will receive a 50% Corporate Income Tax Rebate, capped at $40,000, in the Year of Assessment 2024. Not all companies are profitable, and some may not benefit from such a rebate. So, I will provide a minimum benefit of $2,000 in cash payouts for companies that employed at least one local employee in 2023.
Second, I will enhance the Enterprise Financing Scheme, which helps Singapore enterprises with their financing needs. The maximum working capital loan quantum will be permanently raised to $500,000. I will also extend until 31 March 2025 the enhanced maximum trade loan quantum, as well as the Government’s risk sharing of project loans to support domestic construction projects.
Third, I will extend the SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit by a year to 30 June 2025. The Credit provides additional support for eligible employers to cover their out-of-pocket expenses when they embark on workforce and business transformation. With this extension, employers will have another year to claim any unused credit.
The measures in this Enterprise Support Package are tilted towards firms that make the effort to restructure and transform. I encourage all firms to make full use of these schemes, so that they can thrive and succeed, amidst a more challenging operating environment. [Please refer to Annex B-2.]
The enhanced Assurance Package and the Enterprise Support Package will provide some near-term relief to Singaporean households and firms. These are needed during this difficult period when inflation, while moderating, remains on the high side. But they are not permanent solutions. In the longer term, the best way to deal with inflation is to ensure that our firms and workers are more productive, and that real incomes continue to rise sustainably.
Our key priority is to ensure a strong, innovative and vibrant economy. This is absolutely essential to secure good jobs and better lives for all Singaporeans, and on a sustained basis.
Since our early days of independence, we have been able to defy the odds and consistently achieve good economic performance. But we cannot afford to be complacent, especially in a more complex and volatile external environment.
In past years, some had suggested that Singapore should slow down, do not have to grow so quickly. Indeed, that happened last year – our economy grew by just about 1%. But if we were to experience similarly slow growth for several years in a row, we will be in trouble. We will have no chance of improving our collective wellbeing. Singaporeans’ living standards will be dented. We will not be able to afford the social services we need. And in the end, lower-income workers and families will be hit the hardest.
We therefore make no apology for pursuing growth. To be clear, we are not going for growth at all costs. There is a limit to how fast we can grow due to the tighter constraints we face in land, labour and carbon. But by focusing on productivity and innovation, we can push the frontier and grow at an average of about 2% to 3% each year over the next decade.
This is an ambitious goal given our stage of economic development. But we must aim high, so that Singapore keeps moving forward, and our people continue to enjoy more opportunities and a better quality of life.
A crucial enabler for growth is our ability to attract high-quality and high-value investments to Singapore. Because such projects bring the latest know-how and capabilities, and create good jobs for Singaporeans.
So far, our investment pipeline has been healthy. Despite a challenging external environment last year, the Economic Development Board (EDB) exceeded its targets, and brought in investments which are expected to create over 20,000 new jobs.
But the competition for investments is getting tougher. Governments around the world are rolling out vast subsidies to attract investments, especially in strategic industries. For example, in November last year, Japan announced that it would allocate ¥2 trillion, or about $18 billion, to support its semiconductor industry.
We cannot afford to engage in a “bidding war” with the major economies. But neither should we stand still and just do nothing.
We will therefore enhance our investment promotion toolkit by introducing a new Refundable Investment Credit. [Please refer to Annex C-1.]
This is a tax credit with a refundable cash feature. It will support high-value and substantive economic activities, including the setting up or expansion of manufacturing facilities; new innovation and R&D activities; as well as activities in support of the green transition.
Essentially, this new tax credit will help us to stay competitive and attract investments from global companies with the right know-how and create good jobs for Singaporeans.
To support this and other investment promotion efforts, I will top up the National Productivity Fund by $2 billion this year.
Besides anchoring new investments, we must build on our existing strengths and upgrade the sectors where we have competitive advantages.
These advantages did not come about by chance. They are the result of many decades of hard work to restructure and upgrade our economy. We did not just keep costs competitive. We also enhanced our capabilities and moved up the value chain, so as to justify the higher premiums for operating out of Singapore. And we are pressing on with these restructuring efforts through the Industry Transformation Maps.
Take semi-conductors as one example. Singapore is not the cheapest location worldwide. But we have many things going for us – our excellent connectivity, our reliability and stable business environment, and also a critical mass of leading companies based here, and they operate across the value chain, from design, to wafer fabrication, to assembly and testing. The companies here do not produce cutting-edge 3 nm chips, which you will read about in the media these days. But they have carved out a niche in other types of chips, like specialty chips and NAND flash memory chips. These are critical enablers of automation, 5G and electric vehicles, and they are in high demand. That is how our little red dot can be a key node in the semi-conductor supply chain – accounting for more than 10% of the global semi-conductor market and 20% of semi-conductor equipment in the world.
Likewise in finance, we are a leading centre in Asia, supporting businesses from all over the world. And during this period of global uncertainty, we have been able to distinguish ourselves as a stable and trusted financial centre. The major financial institutions are keen to do more out of Singapore and we are seeing a continued inflow of investments, capital and talent.
So, whether in advanced manufacturing or high-end services, the strengths we have today are not easily replicated by others. But the global competitive landscape is ever-changing and other countries, you can be sure, are seeking to overtake us. So, in this Budget, I will set aside resources to reinforce our competitive lead.
I will top up the Financial Sector Development Fund by $2 billion. This will give the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) more resources to take full advantage of current opportunities, and extend our lead in the financial services sector – not just to do more in the core areas of banking, capital markets, asset management, and insurance, but also to build capabilities in new areas like fintech, as well as green and transition finance.
I will set aside more funds for research and development (R&D), because this is how we push the frontiers of innovation across the entire economy.
In 2020, we launched the Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2025 (RIE2025) plan, with a commitment of $25 billion.
I will invest a further $3 billion in RIE2025. This will sustain our investments in research, innovation, and enterprise at about 1% of GDP. The additional resources will go towards research and related investments in national priorities such as advanced manufacturing, sustainability, the digital economy and healthcare.
Our investments in R&D will take some time to translate into concrete economic outcomes. But this is precisely why we must take a long-term view. For these investments help to develop a critical mass of capabilities, ideas and talent. They enable us to sharpen our competitive edge globally, as a knowledge-based and innovation-driven economy.
Besides a steady commitment to R&D, we also need to harness the full power of technology across our key sectors.
One critical emerging technology is artificial intelligence (AI). AI is not just about ChatGPT or Large Language Models. It is a general-purpose technology, like electricity, the internal combustion engine, the computer, or the internet. It has the potential to transform a wide range of industries, and to enhance productivity across many existing processes, from drug discovery, to organising warehouses, or driving vehicles.
Singapore is already recognised as a serious player in AI development. We aim to go further – to build new peaks of excellence, and crowd in private sector resources along the way. We have set out the plans to do so in the National AI Strategy 2.0.
To support this strategy and further catalyse AI activities, I will invest more than $1 billion over the next five years into AI compute, talent and industry development.
Part of the investment will be used to ensure that Singapore can secure access to the advanced chips that are so crucial to AI development and deployment.
We will also work with leading companies in Singapore and around the world to set up their AI Centres of Excellence here. We want these Centres to spur industry collaboration and innovation, and drive greater value creation across the whole economy.
In tandem, I will allocate additional resources to catalyse investments in upgrading our Nationwide Broadband Network. With the additional investments, we aim to enable mass market access to broadband speeds of up to 10 Gigabits per second in the second half of this decade. This is 10 times faster than the broadband speed in most homes today. This also ensures that our connectivity infrastructure will be able to support technologies like AI and immersive media, as they become more pervasive in the future.
We will continue to do more to invest in and strengthen our local enterprises.
We are helping smaller firms harness technology through pre-approved solutions, many tailored for the needs of specific industries. This enables the small and medium enterprise (SMEs) to “plug and play” and quickly achieve greater efficiency and productivity gains.
As companies grow, their needs will become more complex, especially as they go overseas. We are providing more customised support to help these companies scale up, and we will continue with these efforts.
One way for our companies to level up quickly is to partner with the multinational enterprises (MNEs) that are based here in Singapore. The MNEs set high requirements and standards for firms that wish to supply to them. We cannot force MNEs to choose only local suppliers. But we can and we will help Singapore enterprises to meet the high standards, and to form win-win partnerships with the MNEs.
Let me share an example from the aerospace industry. Aerospace parts must meet stringent manufacturing and safety requirements. So, aerospace manufacturers like Rolls-Royce, are highly selective in who they choose as partners.
Zincode, a local company was supported by the Smart Manufacturing Joint Lab – this is a collaboration between A*STAR, Rolls-Royce and Singapore Aero Engine Services Private Limited. The company was supported by this lab to improve its image processing capabilities. As a result, it qualified as one of the approved partners for inspection work at the Rolls-Royce manufacturing facility here in Singapore. Zincode has now successfully captured new opportunities from other companies in the aerospace sector and benefited from an increase in sales.
We want to help more companies like Zincode raise their capabilities and win new opportunities. Today, we have the Partnerships for Capability Transformation (PACT) scheme. This supports collaborations between larger companies and SMEs, in the areas of supplier development and co-innovation.
I will enhance PACT to support partnerships in more areas – including capability training, internationalisation and corporate venturing. With the enhanced PACT, we aim to help more of our firms plug into global supply chains, compete in markets abroad and grow to become industry leaders in their own right.
For firms to be competitive, they also need to embrace sustainability. SMEs today sometimes still treat sustainability as an additional imposition and cost. But going green can be a competitive advantage. Because the MNEs are already looking to reduce their carbon footprint and they expect their suppliers to do the same. In other words, to play in the MNE value chain, our own companies must be “sustainability-ready”.
I will therefore extend the enhanced support for green loans under the Enterprise Financing Scheme, and expand its scope to help more of our SMEs adopt green solutions.
I will also enhance the Energy Efficiency Grant. This was introduced in 2022 for companies in the Food Services, Food Manufacturing and Retail sectors. I will extend the grant to more sectors including Manufacturing, Construction, Maritime and Data Centres and their users. Beyond pre-approved energy-efficient solutions supported under the Grant, we will provide additional support for companies with more ambitious plans to reduce their emissions. [Please refer to Annex C-2.]
The Minister for Trade and Industry will elaborate on this and other sustainability-related measures at the Committee of Supply.
We are taking concrete steps to keep our economy competitive and vibrant, and to help our enterprises seize new opportunities. We will do whatever it takes to secure our place as one of the leading economic hubs in the world, known for our innovation, dynamism and deep capabilities, with good jobs and opportunities for our people.
Sir, people and talent are critical to our economic dynamism. We are investing heavily in our human capital, including in preschool and education. But learning cannot stop when formal schooling ends. And that is why we launched SkillsFuture – to systematically support Singaporeans in reskilling and upskilling, and equip them throughout life.
The Singapore workforce today ranks highly in terms of skills and technical proficiency. Our workers are able to command a premium in the global marketplace because of their expertise. But with rapid technological advances, expertise is in constant flux. Jobs like data entry clerks and door-to-door salesmen have dwindled in numbers. New jobs that did not exist decades ago, like data scientists and digital marketers are now in demand. Expertise keeps on changing.
In other words, robots and machines will not completely replace humans at work. But they will change the way expertise is defined and how value is created. We therefore have to invest even more in our human capital, and help our workers refresh and update their skills, and learn how to harness new technologies more effectively. Indeed, this is something that the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and the Labour Movement have consistently championed, most recently in the Forward Singapore engagements.
We started SkillsFuture nearly 10 years ago. Since then, Government spending on Continuing Education and Training has nearly doubled to $0.9 billion last year.
Today, every Singaporean gets a $500 SkillsFuture Credit, and all employers can get support to train their workers. We have also built up a wide array of training options, which individuals enjoy generous subsidies for.
We have made good progress over the past decade. But there is still much more to be done. Continuous skills upgrading throughout life is now more important than ever. So, we must firmly establish SkillsFuture as a key pillar of our social compact.
Quality learning and skills training is not just about attending a one- or two-day course. Workers may need weeks or months of training to get a proper skills reboot, especially if they are looking to move to a different area of work. Even if they stay in the same industry, they will need a substantial injection of skills from time to time to stay relevant.
But we know that taking time off from work to attend training courses over an extended period is not easy, especially for those in their 40s and 50s with financial and caregiving obligations.
I will therefore introduce a new SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme to better support our mid-career workers. I will share the broad thrusts of this package or programme, and the Minister for Education will provide more details at the Committee of Supply. [Please refer to Annex D-1.]
First, I will give all Singaporeans aged 40 and above a top-up in SkillsFuture Credit of $4,000. All Singaporeans aged 40 and above will get the top-up in May this year. For those who are younger, you do not have to worry. Your turn will come – you will get the top-up, when you turn 40.
We have deliberately allowed the existing basic tier of $500 in SkillsFuture Credit to be used for a wide range of courses, and this was to instil a habit of lifelong learning.
The new $4,000 credit will be more targeted in scope – we will confine its usage to selected training programmes with better employability outcomes. This includes part-time and full-time diploma, post-diploma, and undergraduate programmes, as well as courses for the Progressive Wage Model sectors. We want participants taking up these programmes to be assured of better employment outcomes after they have completed their training.
Second, to provide more reskilling options, I will provide subsidies to all Singaporeans aged 40 and above to pursue another full-time diploma at our polytechnics, the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) and Arts Institutions from Academic Year 2025 onwards.
In other words, we will give every Singaporean another bite of the education subsidy. Even after you have graduated from an Institute of Higher Learning as a younger person, you can come back again after you turn 40 to do a full-time diploma and it will be at subsidised rates.
Third, I will provide a monthly training allowance to Singaporeans aged 40 and above who enrol in selected full-time courses.
The training allowance will be equivalent to 50% of one’s average income over the latest available 12-month period and it will be capped at $3,000 per month. Every individual can receive up to 24 months of such a training allowance throughout their lifetime.
This will support the full duration of a SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme and more than half the duration of most qualifications issued by our Institutes of Higher Learning.
What do these changes mean for our workers?
Take the example of Mr Calvin Li, 40 years old now. He graduated from Singapore Polytechnic with a Diploma in Electronic, Computer and Communication Engineering.
He works today as a Project Director at Khoon Engineering, which is a mechanical and electrical service provider. With the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, Calvin will enjoy a $4,000 top-up in SkillsFuture Credit.
He can use the Credit to pursue a second diploma. This diploma will be offered at subsidised fees and the Credit will cover more than half of the expense after subsidies. Should he intend to do this full-time, he can receive the monthly training allowance of up to 50% of his previous pay for two years.
Sir, we are making a significant enhancement to our SkillsFuture ecosystem. But we will reap the full benefits only if all of us – Government, employers, workers, and unions – lean forward to truly deepen this culture of lifelong learning and skills mastery in Singapore. This must be our shared commitment to one another – to help our fellow Singaporeans develop to their fullest potential and to have productive and meaningful careers.
There is one other move we will make under SkillsFuture. We know that technological changes will bring about more churn in the economy. Even when the economy as a whole is doing well, some businesses or even some industries may be suffering. In fact, it is not possible to have an economy that is dynamic and growing without failures and losses. In some sectors, firms will have to let go of people, while in other sectors, new and better jobs will be created.
We have to accept this reality. But it does not mean we should be indifferent to the suffering caused when firms lay off their workers.
Losing a job is a major setback for workers and their families. Those who become involuntarily unemployed naturally feel the pressure to rush into the first available job they find. But the new job may not always be a good fit. Ideally, they should consider ways to upgrade their skills and to find a job that fits their aptitude and talent. But displaced workers may not have the time to train or search for new jobs, especially when they are already straining to make ends meet.
Therefore, we will do more to support this group of workers. In particular, we will introduce a temporary financial support scheme for the involuntarily unemployed, while they undergo training or look for better-fitting jobs.
We have to design this scheme carefully, including the quantum of support and the conditionalities that come with the support. This is to avoid the pitfalls other countries experienced when they introduced unemployment benefits.
We are working out the parameters for the scheme, and will provide more details later this year.
Ours must always be an economy that provides opportunities for all; an economy that benefits the many rather than the few. That is why we are making significant enhancements to SkillsFuture, and supporting jobseekers while they search for their next opportunity. We believe that every worker matters; that every citizen counts. We will equip every Singaporean to benefit from the fruits of our economic growth. [Applause.]
In many developed countries, rising inequality and slowing social mobility have fractured social cohesion and deeply divided their peoples. These can create similar pressures here.
Indeed, we embarked on the Forward Singapore exercise because we do not want to succumb to the kind of harsh inequality we see in so many parts of the world. By creating more paths towards equality and mobility, we also put ourselves in a better position for continued growth – in other words, a strong economy and a strong society reinforce each other.
But tackling inequality is often easier said than done. Ideas on how to do so are frequently replete with unintended consequences. Simple handouts and blunt measures do not solve poverty. This is why Singapore has continually paved our own way since the beginning. We carefully study the experiences of others, taking note of where they have succeeded and failed. We introduce significant innovations that work for us, for our ethos, for our society. This is the Singapore way.
Over the last decade, we have made progress in uplifting lower-wage workers, and reducing disparities in wages. Our income inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient, has declined to its lowest level over two decades.
Workfare and Progressive Wages are our key strategies to uplift our lower-wage workers. These strategies are working. I will make several adjustments to ensure they continue to deliver results. [Please refer to Annex E-1.]
First, I will enhance the Workfare Income Supplement scheme from next year.
I will raise the qualifying income cap from $2,500 to $3,000. This ensures that we continue to cover lower-wage workers, even as their wages grow.
I will also raise Workfare payouts. Lower-wage senior workers will qualify for a maximum annual payout of $4,900, up from $4,200 today.
Second, I will raise the Local Qualifying Salary (LQS). All local employees at companies that hire foreign workers must be paid the LQS. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance\", Official Report, 16 February 2024, Vol 95, Issue 123, Correction By Written Statement section.]
The LQS for full-time workers will be raised from $1,400 to $1,600 from this year. The minimum hourly rate will be increased from $9 to $10.50 per hour. This increase ensures we keep pace with wage growth.
Third, I will provide more support for employers who raise the wages of their lower-wage workers. In 2022, I introduced the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme (PWCS), where the Government co-funds the wage increases of lower-wage workers with employers.
I know employers are concerned with rising business costs in today’s economy. So, the Government will do its part to help. I will raise the co-funding levels for this year, from a maximum of 30%, to a maximum of 50%.
I will also raise the PWCS wage ceiling from $2,500 to $3,000 in 2025, in tandem with the increase in the qualifying income cap for Workfare.
To provide for these enhancements, I will top up the PWCS Fund by $1 billion.
Besides uplifting lower-wage workers, we also want to improve wages across different professions. There will always be differences in wages in any society. But too large a gap creates unhealthy levels of anxiety and stress. Parents and children may get caught up in an education arms race, or may feel pressured to prioritise careers only in a few traditional fields, instead of focusing on their individual strengths and talents.
In fact, the vast majority of Singaporeans in the Forward Singapore engagements welcome broader definitions of success. We want more diverse pathways so that every individual can strive to be the best possible version of themselves. This also means that we must accord greater value to those who are skilled in technical hands-on abilities, as well as those with the social and empathetic traits to excel in service jobs. In particular, the wages and career prospects of our ITE graduates should not be too far below their polytechnic- and university-going peers.
I recently met some recent ITE graduates. I was inspired by their personal stories, and their enthusiasm to deepen the skills they have acquired at ITE.
One of them, Matthew Francis Thanarajoo, graduated from ITE in 2021 with a Higher Nitec in Mechatronics. He is now pursuing a Diploma in Mechatronics at Temasek Polytechnic and honing his skills in automation and robotics. These experiences have equipped him with confidence to pursue his aspirations in engineering. He will be representing Singapore at the WorldSkills competition later this year in France and we wish him the very best. [Applause.]
We want to encourage and support more young ITE graduates in their upskilling efforts, so they can excel in a profession they have trained in, and get themselves onto a better career and wage trajectory. I will therefore provide more support for ITE graduates aged 30 and below through a new ITE Progression Award.
There are two parts to the Award.
First, I will provide a $5,000 top-up to the Post-Secondary Education Accounts of ITE graduates when they enrol in a diploma programme. This will help to offset the costs of obtaining a diploma.
Second, when these students attain their diplomas, I will provide a further $10,000 top-up to their Central Provident Fund (CPF) Ordinary Accounts. This will give them a head-start in purchasing a home or saving for retirement.
Sir, this new Award is a significant investment in our ITE graduates. It represents our continuing commitment to uplift them, and to better equip them in their journey of lifelong learning.
Besides tackling inequality, we must also uphold social mobility.
Up to now, Singapore has fared better than other advanced economies. But we must continue to pay special attention to children from less well-off families, to ensure they have access to full and fair opportunities early in life.
Many of these families are already taking steps to build better lives for themselves, but they may find it hard to sustain progress. We know that they often face complex challenges, including marital stress, existing debts, or even motivation and self-confidence issues.
Under the enhanced ComLink (ComLink+), we are providing more customised support for these families. We are getting family coaches and volunteer befrienders to work directly with these families. They will jointly develop action plans to improve their life circumstances, and the coaches will provide additional support to the families, so as to encourage and motivate them towards these goals.
The additional support will be rolled out in the form of ComLink+ Progress Packages. This is yet another major innovation in our social policy landscape. [Please refer to Annex E-2.]
For example, adults in the family can each receive payouts of up to $600 every quarter, through a combination of cash and CPF, if they secure a job and stay employed.
Those who make voluntary contributions to their CPF will receive matching grants from the Government to grow their savings faster. This, combined with existing schemes like the Fresh Start Housing Scheme, will help these families buy their own homes.
We will also partner with corporates and community groups to implement the ComLink+ Progress Packages. The donors can provide additional financial support to these families, and contribute in other ways, like befriending and mentoring, to help them get back on their feet again.
Sir, in this Budget, we are taking further steps to ensure that all Singaporeans have opportunities to take on work they find meaningful and fulfilling, build on their talents, give their best, and be rewarded fairly for it. This is how we keep the Singapore Dream alive and well for all our people.
The Government will do our part. But I want to emphasise that this is not just about the Government doing more. We also need our employers, community groups, as well as families and individuals themselves, to step up. Together, we can and we will build – a fairer, a more equal, and a more inclusive Singapore. [Applause.]
Next, let me touch on our plans to build a Singapore made for families – an endearing home for all of us to sink roots, grow up and grow old in.
Families are the bedrock of our society, and we will support their needs at every stage of life.
Let me start with support for our children, to give them a strong foundation in life.
We will continue to take steps to improve preschool affordability. At Government-supported preschools, we extend generous subsidies, so that out-of-pocket expenses are kept affordable.
We will lower the fees further so that full-day preschool expenses for dual-income families will be comparable to those of primary school and after-school student care.
We will do so in two stages. I will reduce monthly childcare fee caps in Government-supported preschools in 2025, to $640 for Anchor Operators and $680 for Partner Operators. This is before the childcare subsidies which all families will benefit from. I will make another move to reduce fee caps in 2026. The details will be announced later.
I will also enhance existing preschool subsidies for lower-income families. Currently, more subsidies are given to children with working mothers. I will extend these higher subsidies to all children from lower-income families, including those with non-working mothers. This will benefit up to 17,000 children. [Applause.]
In schools, we will do more to help our children develop the competencies and values they need to thrive in a more unpredictable future.
The Ministry of Education (MOE) is placing more emphasis on competencies like adaptive and inventive thinking, communication skills and civic literacy.
We want to encourage and recognise students who demonstrate such competencies, including by enhancing the Edusave awards.
I will therefore top up the Edusave Endowment Fund by $2 billion to support these and other education initiatives.
For young couples who are getting ready to settle down and form their own families, timely access to affordable housing is critical.
We are helping first-timer families by ramping up Build-To-Order (BTO) supply and giving these families greater priority.
We are also making flats in choicer locations more affordable, in a way that is fair and inclusive, through the Prime, Plus and Standard framework. This will be implemented later this year for new BTO projects.
Some couples have already booked their BTO flats, but they may like to have a place to stay temporarily, while they wait for the completion of their flats. This is especially the case for those with young children.
Currently, HDB offers subsidised rental housing under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS).
HDB receives many applications for the scheme, and it is ramping up supply to meet the demand. But in the interim, we want to do more to support such young families with urgent housing needs.
I will therefore provide a PPHS (Open Market) Voucher for one year, to support eligible families who rent a HDB flat in the open market.
In this Budget, I will do more for families of persons with special needs or disabilities.
We know that families of children with special needs face greater cost pressures due to higher fees for education and care services. Each student at a Special Education (SPED) school already benefits from more subsidies than a primary school student in a mainstream school. But the fees at most SPED schools remain higher than those of mainstream schools due to the higher underlying costs.
We are studying further moves to alleviate the cost pressures on these families. As a first step, I will reduce the maximum monthly fees at SPED schools to $90, down from $150 today. I will also lower the fee caps at all Special Student Care Centres to reduce families’ out-of-pocket expenses.
For adults with disabilities, I will provide more support for their employment and integration into the community. I will expand spaces in Sheltered Workshops and Day Activity Centres where they can undergo skills training and launch more Enabling Services Hubs to provide community support to persons with disabilities and their caregivers.
The respective Ministers will share more on each of these moves at the Committee of Supply.
I will do more to support the retirement needs of our seniors.
Let me start with some adjustments to the CPF system. [Please refer to Annex F-1.]
First, in line with the recommendations of the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers, we will continue with the next step of planned CPF contribution rate increases for senior workers. I will increase the CPF contribution rates for those aged 55 to 65 by a further 1.5 percentage points in 2025.
I will also provide the CPF Transition Offset to employers for another year, to cover half of the increase in employer contributions for 2025. This will help to cushion the impact on business costs.
Second, I will raise the Enhanced Retirement Sum (ERS) from 2025. The ERS is the maximum amount that members can put into their CPF Retirement Accounts to receive CPF payouts.
I will increase the ERS from three times the Basic Retirement Sum, to four times from 2025. This means the ERS next year will be $426,000. This will allow more members aged 55 and above to fully commit their accumulated CPF savings to receive higher CPF payouts, should they wish to do so.
Third, we will take steps to rationalise the CPF system. Today, members aged 55 and above have a Special Account (SA) and a Retirement Account (RA). From next year, we will close the SA for those aged 55 and above. The SA savings will be transferred to the RA up to the Full Retirement Sum, where they will continue to earn the long-term interest rate.
The remaining SA savings will be transferred to the Ordinary Account (OA). But members can voluntarily transfer their OA savings to the RA at any time, up to the ERS, to earn higher interest, and to receive higher retirement payouts.
I will also enhance the retirement support schemes for seniors who need more help.
The Silver Support Scheme provides quarterly payments to seniors who had low incomes during their working years and have less family support. I will raise the qualifying per capita household income threshold for Silver Support from $1,800 to $2,300, and increase the quarterly payments by 20%, to keep pace with inflation.
The Matched Retirement Savings Scheme (MRSS) helps Singaporeans aged 55 to 75 with less CPF savings to save more, by providing dollar-for-dollar matching for cash top-ups to their CPF accounts. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance\", Official Report, 16 February 2024, Vol 95, Issue 123, Correction By Written Statement section.]
I will make several adjustments to the scheme.
I will extend the MRSS to those above the age of 70. This will enable more Singaporeans to meet their retirement needs, with help from their families, employers and the community.
I will increase the annual matching cap from $600 to $2,000, and set a lifetime matching cap of $20,000.
Currently, we provide a tax relief to encourage Singaporeans to top up their CPF. But the matching grant is already a significant benefit extended by the Government. So, we will remove the tax relief for the cash top-ups that attract the matching grant.
These changes to Silver Support and the MRSS will take effect from 2025.
“Young Seniors” who currently in their 50s and early 60s will get an additional boost for their retirement through the Majulah Package. This was announced by Prime Minister Lee at last year’s National Day Rally.
While the package is geared towards supporting Young Seniors, Pioneer and Merdeka Generation seniors will benefit too. In fact, all Singaporeans born in 1973 or earlier will receive at least one component of the Majulah Package. Let me explain. [Please refer to Annex F-2.]
First, I will provide an Earn and Save Bonus, to help seniors earning up to $6,000 per month accumulate more retirement savings. They will receive a yearly bonus of up to $1,000 for as long as they work, with more going to those who earn lower incomes.
Second, I will provide a one-time Retirement Savings Bonus of between $1,000 and $1,500 to seniors with retirement savings below the Basic Retirement Sum.
Both bonuses will be for seniors who live in a property with Annual Value of $25,000 or less, and own no more than one property.
Third, I will provide a one-time MediSave Bonus to all seniors born in 1973 or earlier. Young Seniors with less means will be given the higher tier of $1,500; and all other seniors will receive $750. The Minister for Manpower will share more details at the Committee of Supply.
In all, the Majulah Package will benefit about 1.6 million Singaporeans, at a total lifetime cost of $8.2 billion. To honour this commitment without burdening future generations, I will set aside $7.5 billion in a new Fund – the Majulah Package Fund. This will be sufficient to cover the lifetime cost of the Package, after accounting for investment income of the Fund.
Another significant undertaking is healthcare. Over the years, we have invested heavily to ensure healthcare remains affordable and accessible for all. The Ministry of Health (MOH)’s annual budget has tripled within a decade.
We have put this spending to good use. We are devoting more resources to areas of growing importance, like preventive health, support for our seniors and mental health and well-being, as recently affirmed by this House. We also continue to enjoy improvements in health outcomes, with Singaporeans living longer and healthier lives.
But with a rapidly ageing population, the fiscal pressures of healthcare will only grow. As a responsible Government, we have to plan ahead and set aside sufficient resources to keep healthcare affordable for all.
The GST increase was meant for this purpose. Essentially, we are pre-funding the rising healthcare expenditure by increasing GST now, instead of waiting to do so in the future. Because if we wait, we will end up imposing a heavier burden on our future selves and our children.
Of course, individuals also have a part to play. That is why we launched Healthier SG to empower all Singaporeans to take charge of our own health. While it is still early days, the momentum is encouraging. More than 700,000 Singapore residents have enrolled in Healthier SG.
One of them is Mdm Rubiah, who turns 69 this year. She credits her Healthier SG consultation for timely advice on how best to manage her health. Today, she is monitoring her blood pressure daily, cutting down on ice cream and \"keropok\" in her diet, and staying active through exercise classes and nature walks. And she has also helped to spread the word, by volunteering at a Healthier SG roadshow.
Sir, I urge all seniors to follow in the footsteps of Mdm Rubiah. Heed your doctor’s advice, participate in programmes that help you stay healthy and even pass it on by contributing as a senior volunteer.
Even with healthier lifestyles, all of us will still need some form of medical care as we get older and especially nearer to the end of life. We must expect healthcare costs, including medical insurance premiums, to rise, even after generous Government subsidies.
We want to ensure that all Singaporeans, including the self-employed and those not working, are able to build up their medical savings in anticipation of these rising costs. I will therefore provide all adult Singaporeans aged 21 to 50 a one-time MediSave Bonus of up to $300.
This will benefit about 1.4 million Singaporeans and help them to cover their smaller medical bills and insurance premiums. [Please refer to Annex F-3.]
Coupled with the Majulah Package for older cohorts, we will collectively provide a MediSave Bonus for about three million Singaporeans this year.
To provide more support for healthcare costs, I will also update the per capita household income thresholds for our healthcare and associated social support subsidy schemes. Such schemes include MediShield Life premium subsidies, Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) subsidies for primary care, and subsidies for outpatient and inpatient treatments at our public hospitals.
The changes to the per capita household income thresholds will mean additional Government spending in healthcare and other related areas of around $300 million per year. More than one million Singaporeans can expect to benefit from higher subsidies.
This will provide greater assurance for healthcare costs, which will also reduce the financial pressures on caregivers. [Please refer to Annex F-4.]
Preventive care is especially important for seniors. Loneliness can do great harm to a senior. They need to stay active and socially connected. This is why we have Age Well SG – it is a new national programme to support seniors to age actively, stay socially connected, and be cared for within their own communities.
I will set aside $3.5 billion for Age Well SG initiatives over the next decade. This includes several components.
First, an expanded network of Active Ageing Centres, so that all seniors can look forward to a wider range of programmes at these centres, from physical exercises to volunteering opportunities.
Second, for seniors with care needs, we will develop more assisted living options, such as Community Care Apartments and better home care arrangements, to empower them to age confidently in their homes and community.
Third, “silver upgrades” to our residential estates, to enable seniors to live more independently and safely in the community. This will cover amenities like therapeutic gardens and barrier-free ramps, and senior-friendly home fittings like wider toilet entrances and shower seats.
Fourth, improvements to our commuter infrastructure for seniors’ mobility and safety. This means more sheltered linkways, bus stops with senior-friendly features, as well as safer and more pedestrian-friendly roads.
Sir, when you combine all of these efforts, the suite of investments we are making – in education, housing, retirement and healthcare – they speak to our steadfast commitment to address the needs of our families and seniors, through every stage of life. Through these investments, we will provide more assurance to all Singaporeans – to set minds at ease, improve lives and well-being and ensure Singapore remains home truly for all of us. [Applause.]
Alongside our investments to strengthen our economy and society, we will also make the investments needed to forge a stronger and more united nation. We will safeguard what makes Singapore special and resilient – our commitment to take care of and defend one another, sustain the trust we have in each other and our institutions and build our strong sense of national pride and identity.
Since Independence, we have invested steadily to safeguard our peace and security.
Over the last two decades, we have allocated around 3% to 4% of our GDP annually to the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF)’s budget. At the same time, over the past decade, our spending on domestic security has doubled to more than $8 billion, or about 1.3% of our GDP.
We will continue to build and maintain a strong and effective Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and Home Team. We will invest in them, and upgrade their capabilities year by year, to protect ourselves from potential aggressors and security threats.
The backbone of our defence and security remains National Service (NS). We owe a huge debt to our NSmen, who have served faithfully and made immeasurable sacrifices for our peace and security.
I will therefore provide $200 in the form of LifeSG credits to all past and present national servicemen, including those enlisting this year. [Please refer to Annex G-1.]
It is a small gesture, but when you add it all up, it will cost us $240 million and benefit 1.2 million NSmen. I hope this will go some way in expressing our appreciation and gratitude to our national servicemen as well as their families for all that they have done and continue to do for our country. [Applause.]
In today’s world, defence and security apply not just in the physical environment, but also in the digital domain. Scams, ransomware, data breaches, denial of service and other cyber threats have become increasingly commonplace. The development and adoption of new technologies like AI and quantum computing will also change the threat landscape. Cyber attacks will increase in speed, scale and sophistication.
We have taken steps to strengthen our cyber defence. We established the Digital and Intelligence Service in the SAF. We will establish a new National Cybersecurity Command Centre at the Punggol Digital District to better coordinate cyber defence operations, improve collaboration with industry and academia, and spur innovation in cybersecurity. This will improve our capabilities to monitor, detect, and coordinate our defences against cyber threats.
Besides the conventional areas of security, we need to address an emerging security challenge – and that is energy, but more specifically, the transition to cleaner energy.
In the near to medium term, natural gas, which currently generates almost all of our electricity, will remain critical.
Our natural gas supplies come through pipelines from Indonesia and Malaysia, and in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from a range of sources.
We are now planning to build a second LNG terminal to meet our growing electricity needs.
Natural gas is the cleanest of all fossil fuels. But we will not be able to achieve net zero emissions if we continue to rely solely on natural gas. Unfortunately, we do not have many options for clean energy – we have no tidal power, no wind power and not enough land for the mass deployment of solar. So, what do we do?
One way is to import low-carbon electricity. We are making progress on this front. But there is a limit to importing electricity without compromising security. So, we will need other options to decarbonise the rest of our energy supply. That is why we are actively exploring other options.
Hydrogen has the potential as a clean fuel. For now, it is still technologically nascent, costly, and risky. Nevertheless, we have set out a National Hydrogen Strategy to take purposeful steps forward. We will start by testing and deploying ammonia, which is a hydrogen carrier, for power generation and bunkering on Jurong Island.
We are also exploring other energy sources. We are actively studying the possibilities for geothermal power. After all, we do have a hot spring in Sembawang. But this will require deep drilling to assess the potential, and it really remains to be seen if this will be viable.
Further out in the future, we do not rule out nuclear power. Nuclear technologies are advancing rapidly, with smaller, safer and more fuel-efficient designs. We will build up our capabilities, so that we can critically assess the evolving technologies in this space and decide on the feasibility of nuclear deployment one day in the future.
There is considerable uncertainty as to how all these energy pathways will work out. What is clear, however, is that significant effort and costs will be needed to transit from a system powered almost entirely by natural gas today, to one powered largely by clean energy.
We say this is an “energy transition”. “Transition” sounds like a rather innocuous word. But the scale of this so-called transition is massive, and we will need to get it done over the next two decades or so, which is not a lot of time, when you think about the enormity of the task.
For example, to import low-carbon electricity, we will need to invest in submarine cables and upgrade our existing power grid. Or if we decide to scale up the use of hydrogen, we will need to put in place new infrastructure for generation, storage and delivery. All of these investments are costly. They cannot be done by the private sector alone and will likely need some catalytic funding from the Government.
I will therefore set up a Future Energy Fund with an initial injection of $5 billion. This will give us the confidence to invest in good time, put us in a better position to move quickly on critical infrastructure, and enhance our security in clean energy.
The resilience of our nation is not only measured by what we spend, or by our infrastructure and hardware. Rather, our true resilience lies within – in the strong bonds Singaporeans have forged among ourselves and in our collective willingness to take care of each other. Every Singaporean man, woman, and child knows he or she belongs to this island nation, everyone has a place in our society, and each has a role to play in our unfolding Singapore story. That is the essence of Total Defence, which we commemorated for the 40th time yesterday.
We nurture these bonds between Singaporeans by strengthening our culture of giving.
There are many who have done well in Singapore and want to give back, but may not know how or where to start.
We will do more to help donors better appreciate the needs of our society and advise them on how to more effectively direct their resources – financial or non-financial – to support lower-income families. This effort will be led by the Community Foundation of Singapore, in partnership with the Ministry for Social and Family Development (MSF) and the Community Chest.
In the same spirit, we want to encourage charities to work together to uplift each other and better meet the needs of beneficiaries. I will do so by extending the Charities Capability Fund Collaboration Grant for three years till end-FY2026. This will support collaborative projects among charities to enhance their governance, efficiency and capabilities.
Doing good also extends beyond our shores. Many Singaporeans readily step forward to support those affected by humanitarian crises overseas. We saw this in the relief efforts following the devastating earthquake in Türkiye and Syria last year; and also in the generous donations in response to the human tragedy arising from the Israel-Hamas conflict.
To encourage Singaporeans to support those in need overseas, I will introduce an Overseas Humanitarian Assistance Tax Deduction Scheme. This will provide 100% tax deductions for cash donations made towards overseas emergency humanitarian assistance causes through designated charities. This will run for four years as a pilot scheme. [Please refer to Annex G-2.]
A stronger culture of giving will bind us closer together and make us a more caring and gracious society.
Another way to strengthen our solidarity is through the common experiences that we all partake in. The arts and sports provide us with the platforms to do so.
Let me start with the arts. The arts help to express our unique Singaporean culture, strengthen our shared bonds and make Singapore a distinctive home.
The National Arts Council (NAC) has refreshed Our SG Arts Plan to drive transformation efforts in the arts sector. We will support this plan by investing $100 million over the next four years.
As part of this plan, we aim to make the arts more accessible to all Singaporeans. We will unlock more opportunities and touchpoints for our artists to infuse the arts everywhere in our city and our communities.
The additional investments will also strengthen the foundation for a more vibrant arts industry. NAC will support arts groups to develop and showcase their diverse arts offerings as well as strengthen the talent pool. Self-employed artists will also benefit from more development opportunities to broaden and deepen their skills.
Apart from the arts, there are few endeavours that can rally the country and ignite the Singapore spirit like sports. From the grassroots to the global stage, from community participation to high performance, sports bring Singaporeans from all walks of life together.
At the grassroots level, we will enable more Singaporeans to participate in sports by continuing to support the Sports Facilities Master Plan. With this, Singaporeans can look forward to new and rejuvenated sports centres in Toa Payoh, Punggol and Clementi, as well as more sports and recreational facilities in our neighbourhoods.
Many Singaporeans want to support our national athletes and we will provide them with more platforms for them to do so. We will anchor more major sports events in Singapore, so that our athletes can compete in top-tier competitions against the world’s best on home ground. This will allow more Singaporeans to cheer for Team Singapore.
We also have the One Team Singapore Fund, which provides dollar-for-dollar matching for donations towards Team Singapore athletes. I will provide a $20 million top-up for the One Team Singapore Fund and extend it till end-FY2027.
In addition, I will broaden the scope of donations eligible for matching to cover athletes in emerging sports, like pickleball, tchoukball and powerlifting. I will also include SportCares, which provides opportunities for vulnerable children and youth, persons with disabilities and seniors to participate in sporting programmes.
The Minister for Culture, Community and Youth will share more about our arts and sports initiatives at the Committee of Supply.
Sir, everywhere in the world, we see societies becoming increasingly divided and nations more and more fragile. Economic growth or social transfers alone cannot guarantee that we succeed.
This Budget therefore invests in our national resilience – from ensuring the effectiveness of our military and domestic security, to safeguarding our energy security and building a stronger national identity. These will shield us from external threats and the forces that threaten to pull us apart. Only then can we be confident that Singapore will endure.
Our ability to invest in our economy, our society and our resilience has to be anchored on a strong fiscal position.
Fiscal responsibility has always been a key part of the Singapore DNA. We spend our resources wisely, and we take care to provide for our children and grandchildren. This is why I made major revenue moves in the last two Budgets. These moves have put us on a stronger fiscal footing for the next decade, while ensuring that our overall system of public finances remains fair and progressive.
This year, in light of concerns over cost of living, I will provide a Personal Income Tax Rebate of 50% for the Year of Assessment 2024. This will be capped at $200 so that the benefits go mostly to our middle-income workers. The rebate will cost the Government $350 million.
Currently, taxpayers may claim a range of dependant-related reliefs, if their dependants have an annual income of $4,000 or less.
We have received feedback from members of public, tax practitioners, as well as Labour Members of Parliament, to consider increasing the dependant income threshold in view of rising cost of living and wage levels. So, with effect from the Year of Assessment 2025, I will increase the annual income threshold for dependant-related reliefs from $4,000 to $8,000.
In Budget 2022, I announced a two-step increase in Property Tax rates for residential properties. This was meant as a wealth tax, targeted at all investment properties, as well as the higher-end segment of owner-occupied properties.
Prior to that Budget announcement, market rents had been relatively flat for the preceding five years. But from 2022 onwards, market rents increased significantly due to the combination of strong demand and COVID-related supply constraints. As a result, the Annual Values (AVs) also increased sharply. We had originally expected the Property Tax changes to impact mainly the top 7% of owner-occupied residential properties. The AV increases resulted in the proportion of affected owner-occupied properties nearly doubling to 13%.
In light of these market trends, I will raise all the AV bands of the owner-occupier residential Property Tax rates with effect from 1 January 2025. Currently, Property Tax is charged on the bands of AV from $8,000 to over $100,000. I will raise the lower threshold from $8,000 to $12,000 and the highest band from over $100,000 to over $140,000, and corresponding adjustments will be made to the bands in between. This will still uphold the intent of the Property Tax changes and ensure that those residing in higher-value properties continue to pay their fair share of taxes.
The Government had provided a rebate to cushion the impact of the Property Tax changes this year. We will continue to closely monitor the property market and will provide another rebate in 2025 if needed.
We recognise that there are retirees living in higher-end residential homes, who face cash flow issues when paying their Property Tax bills. To help them, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) will offer a 24-month instalment plan without any interest. They can apply for this via IRAS’ website or contact IRAS for more details.
Next, I will adjust the Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty (ABSD) for the purchase of residential properties.
Today, married couples with an existing residential property can enjoy an ABSD refund on their replacement private property under the ABSD concession for Singaporean married couples.
To better support seniors who wish to right-size, I will extend the concession to single Singapore Citizens aged 55 and above. In other words, these seniors will be able to claim a refund of ABSD paid on their replacement private property, if they sell their first property within six months after purchasing a lower-value replacement private property. This extension will take effect from today.
I will also introduce some flexibility to the ABSD regime for housing developers. Housing developers are now granted an ABSD remission, provided they sell all the units in their development within a prescribed sale timeline. But despite their best efforts, the developers sometimes face difficulties in meeting this timeline requirement. They are then subject to a full clawback of the ABSD.
I will lower the ABSD clawback rate, should developers sell at least 90% of each development within the prescribed sale timeline. This ensures that housing supply continues to be released promptly, while providing some flexibility to the developers. The details of this change will be released in a statement later today.
Next, on Corporate Income Tax – I will make significant adjustments to our tax system to take into consideration the international Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) 2.0 initiative.
To recap, BEPS comprises two pillars. Pillar 1 aims to reallocate taxing rights on profits to market jurisdictions. When implemented, it will result in revenue losses for Singapore. Pillar 1 has been delayed for now, and the implementation date remains unclear. Pillar 2 will introduce a global minimum effective tax rate of 15% for large MNE groups.
Last Budget, I announced our intention to implement Pillar 2 from 2025 and that we would monitor and adjust the timeline if needed.
Since then, several jurisdictions have moved. The European Union, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Japan and Korea are implementing Pillar 2 rules from 2024. Others, like Hong Kong and Malaysia, have announced their plans to do so from 2025.
We will therefore move ahead with two components of Pillar 2, as planned.
The first is the Income Inclusion Rule (IIR). A jurisdiction that introduces this will subject the overseas profits of MNE groups parented in that jurisdiction to a minimum effective tax rate of 15%. We will implement the IIR. In other words, MNE groups that are parented in Singapore will have to pay a minimum effective tax rate of 15% on their groups’ overseas profits, regardless of where they operate.
The second component is the Domestic Top-up Tax (DTT). This applies to the Singapore profits of MNE groups operating here. Without this tax, these MNE groups would have had to pay their parent jurisdictions the effective tax rate of 15% on their Singapore profits. Therefore, it is in our interest to implement the DTT, so that we collect the tax, rather than have it go somewhere else.
The IIR and the DTT will take effect for businesses’ financial years starting on or after 1 January 2025 and will apply to large MNE groups with global revenue of at least €750 million annually.
There is another component of Pillar 2: the Undertaxed Profits Rule. This is effectively a backstop, as it will allow Singapore to collect a share of the top-up tax on any MNE with operations here, if any portion of its income overseas has not been subject to the minimum tax.
We will consider this at a later stage. With the DTT and IIR, we are already making major changes to our corporate tax regime. We will focus on implementing these changes first, and ensure a smooth rollout for the affected companies.
In the short term, the implementation of Pillar 2 will provide additional revenues. But it is uncertain how much this will be and how long it will last. We may even see a reduction in our tax base, should MNEs shift some of their activities to other jurisdictions in response to the new business environment.
In any case, whatever additional revenues we obtain from Pillar 2 will need to be reinvested for Singapore to stay competitive in a post-BEPS world.
MNEs are now re-evaluating their plans and strategies. Other governments are also enhancing and refreshing their investment promotion toolkits.
That is why we are introducing the Refundable Investment Credit, which I mentioned earlier. We will also have to spend more to support new investments, research and innovation activities, and to sustain our economic competitiveness.
Overall, given the significant spending required to stay competitive, at this point, I do not expect the new moves to generate net revenue gains for Singapore on a sustained basis.
I will also make some further tax adjustments, to ensure our tax system remains fair and competitive. Details of the tax changes are in the Annex to the Budget. [Please refer to Annex H-1.]
Sir, last year, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) released a set of projections of our medium-term fiscal outlook. These showed that Government spending has been rising steadily over the years. Our spending in the late 2000s was around 15% of GDP. Over the span of ten years, it has grown by three percentage points of GDP, to around 18% of GDP.
We expect spending to continue rising in this decade. Healthcare is one key driver for the increase. But there are additional spending needs, fuelling the increase. We will have to spend more for the major moves to decarbonise our economy, as I explained earlier.
As part of Forward Singapore, we are making significant policy shifts to strengthen our social safety nets and provide more assurance to Singaporeans. I have just introduced some of these measures in this year’s Budget. We will spend around $5 billion on Forward Singapore policy moves in FY2024 and close to $40 billion in total by the end of this decade.
In our projections, MOF had assessed that Government spending will increase to around 20% of GDP by 2030. For now, that remains our assessment. Assuming we stay within this range of spending increase, we should have sufficient revenues to maintain a balanced budget over the coming years.
But the medium-term fiscal position is tight. Because there are so many pressures for us to spend more, be it on healthcare, social needs, or the energy transition, and these are all big-ticket items. We will have to manage these expenditures carefully, or we will end up with a significant funding gap.
We can already see this happening in many other advanced economies where public finances are on an unsustainable path, and the fiscal systems are at risk of breaking. We must never allow this to happen in Singapore. Instead, let us uphold the ethos of fiscal discipline and responsibility that has served us well, and ensure that our fiscal position always remains balanced, sound and sustainable.
Sir, let me now summarise our fiscal position for both FY2023 and FY2024. For FY2023, our revenue collections were better than expected. This was mainly due to higher Corporate Income Tax collections.
The additional revenue will allow us to pay for new spending, including the $7.5 billion injection to the Majulah Package Fund.
Accounting for both our revenue upside and higher spending, we expect to end FY2023 with a deficit of $3.6 billion, or 0.5% of GDP.
For FY2024, we are budgeting a small surplus of $0.8 billion, or 0.1% of GDP, which is essentially a balanced fiscal position. The overall stance is appropriate, as we are providing targeted support for households and businesses, even as the economy is projected to operate at around potential. [Please refer to Annex H-2.]
Mr Speaker, let me conclude.
We are living in a world which will become more violent, more fragmented, and more unpredictable in the years to come. We wish this were not so. We will try our best, working with others in the international community, to shape better global outcomes.
But we also have to be realistic. Great catastrophes often seem unthinkable until they happen. Things may well get worse before they get better. So, we must be mentally prepared and take steps now to adapt to this messy world.
This is not the first time that we’ve found ourselves in such a situation. Since our Independence, we have had to adjust to all sorts of external disruptions and shocks.
The British deciding to withdraw troops from Singapore in 1967; the global oil crises in 1973 and 1979; the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997; the dot-com bust in the early 2000s; 9/11; SARS; the Global Financial Crisis of 2008; and of course, more recently the COVID-19 pandemic.
Each time, we were able to weather the storms and emerge stronger.
I believe we can do so again in our road ahead – so long as we stay united, work together, and continue to keep faith in one another.
Budget 2024 is about acting on this belief. We are helping Singaporeans with their cost-of-living concerns. We are taking major steps to advance our Forward Singapore agenda.
We will grow the economy. We must. For growth is the pre-requisite to create better jobs and raise living standards for all.
We will equip everyone to realise their potential and ensure that everyone benefits from our nation’s progress.
We will strengthen our system of risk pooling and social support, so that Singaporeans can be better assured through every life stage, and better equipped to bounce back from every setback.
We will fortify our resilience, solidarity and unity, so that we remain strong and effective against any challenges or threats.
We are not the only country adapting to a different world. Countries everywhere are searching for solutions too. Many find it hard to implement bold and long-term plans.
But we can make it happen in Singapore. We are able to do so because: (a) our fiscal position is healthy and sustainable; (b) our Government has the trust of Singaporeans; (c) our people are united, and (d) our social compact is strong.
These are the critical ingredients behind the Singapore story. What we have today is rare, remarkable and unique. Let us cherish it, treasure it and harness these strengths to remain a shining red dot in a troubled world.
During the dark days of COVID-19, which feels like a bad dream to all of us now, I visited Riverside Secondary School. The teacher had asked the students to imagine what they would be doing in 10 years’ time and to write a letter to their future selves.
One student – Levin Ong – wrote, and I quote: “Dear future Levin, I hope you have been well in these past ten years. I am grateful for how Singapore is dealing with COVID-19… the challenges I face are small compared to others during this difficult time. I want the world to be a better place and contribute back to society to the best of my ability. I hope, by 2030, I have made a better world for everyone.”
Hope for the future. Giving back to society. Each one of us doing our best to make this a better place for all. That is what this is about.
Mr Speaker, let us draw inspiration from young Singaporeans like Levin, move forward with confidence and build our shared future together. Sir, I beg to move. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: The Question is, \"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the Financial Year 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025.\"
In accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order No 89, the debate now stands adjourned. Debate to be resumed on what day?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Monday, 26 February 2024, Sir.
Mr Speaker: So be it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to Monday, 26 February 2024.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 5.11 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics for Road Accidents Involving Injuries or Deaths of Children Below Age 18","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Home Affairs with regard to road accidents involving injuries or deaths of children below the age of 18 (a) how many of such accidents were there respectively in each year of the last four years; (b) what are the main causes; and (c) in how many areas have improved road safety features been installed after reviews conducted by the Ministry following these accidents.
Mr K Shanmugam: The figures that the Member requested are in Table 1 below. We have also provided figures between 2017 and 2019, in Table 2 below, to show a longer time trend.
While the total number of injury and fatal accidents involving children below the age of 18 increased in 2023, it was lower compared to pre-pandemic figures in 2017, 2018 and 2019.
The main causes of the accidents were motorist faults, such as failure to keep a proper lookout of the road situation; failure to have proper control of the vehicle; and failure to give way to other traffic which has the right of way.
The Land Transport Authority had done an assessment of the fatal accident locations between 2020 and 2023. Seven of them were further enhanced with road safety features such as installing a hump, warning signs and road markings to slow down and alert road users to look out for pedestrians. The other locations were assessed to be adequately safe or the accidents at these locations were attributed to human behaviour.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Community Dispute Resolution Tribunal Orders in Resolving Neighbour Disputes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Law (a) whether the Ministry continues to monitor the effectiveness of Community Dispute Resolution Tribunal (CDRT) orders issued in resolving neighbour disputes; and (b) if yes, how does the Ministry determine whether a CDRT order has been effective in resolving a dispute.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (for the Minister for Law): The Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) were established in 2015 to create a specialised process to resolve community disputes. Disputes are managed by CDRT with an adjudicatory process. We encourage parties to first try to settle matters amicably, including through mediation; and only turn to the CDRT as a measure of last resort. Resolving disputes amicably through mediation presents the best chance to preserve neighbourly relations in the long term.
We track the number of enforcement orders made by the CDRT as one indicator of its effectiveness. From January 2021 to December 2023, the CDRT issued 126 CDRT orders; that is, first instance orders. In the same period, the CDRT made 14 enforcement orders, comprising 13 Special Directions and one Exclusion Order.
The relatively low number of enforcement orders suggests that there is a low rate of non-compliance with CDRT orders.
Nonetheless, we are mindful that this gives one indicator. It is possible that residents might not have chosen to pursue enforcement proceedings, leading to low numbers of enforcement orders.
As part of our ongoing efforts to improve the management of neighbour disputes, an inter-agency committee has been reviewing the Community Dispute Management Framework. This will include enhancements to be made to the CDRT processes and the effectiveness of CDRT orders. More details will be shared in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Anchor and Growth Funds in Attracting High-growth Companies to List on SGX","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how effective are the $1.5 billion Anchor Fund @ 65 and $500 million EDBI Growth IPO Fund in attracting high-growth companies to list on the Singapore Exchange (SGX); (b) whether these funds can be further optimised to incentivise early-stage listings and boost SGX's IPO appeal; and (c) how will the Ministry overcome current challenges and global competition to foster collaboration and drive innovation within our broader financial ecosystem for a more vibrant financial hub.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Singapore is doing well as a financial hub. We remain the largest Foreign Exchange (FX) centre in Asia and a key regional gateway in asset management. Major players in banking, insurance, capital markets and asset management continue to expand here, bringing with them new capabilities and product innovation. At the same time, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) is actively collaborating with the industry players to capture new growth opportunities in fintech, artificial intelligence (AI) and sustainable finance.
However, the last two years have been more challenging for equity markets globally as a result of inflationary pressures and the high interest rate environment. In 2023, the total number of initial public offerings (IPOs) and IPO proceeds globally declined to 1,298 IPOs and US$123.2 billion raised, from the 2021 peak of 2,436 IPOs and US$459.9 billion raised1. The equity markets in Singapore and the region have been similarly affected.
Since their establishment in 2022, the Anchor Fund @ 65 and Growth IPO Fund have invested in a total of nine companies. Both funds are working closely with their portfolio companies to prepare them for IPO when the opportunity arises. This includes, advising the companies on the listing requirements of the Singapore Exchange (SGX), driving growth and profitability and facilitating engagements with investment banks and market makers.
The efforts of the funds complement a broader suite of initiatives to improve the attractiveness of SGX for IPOs. This includes MAS' Grant for Equity Market Singapore (GEMS) scheme, which helps to defray listing costs and increase research coverage of SGX-listed stocks. SGX has also improved access to regional capital markets, such as through the recent Memorandum of Understanding with the Indonesia Stock Exchange, to explore collaborative opportunities, while providing bespoke capital market solutions to support the needs of our high-growth companies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : EY Global IPO Trends 2023."],"footNoteQuestions":["3"],"questionNo":"3"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tracking Buildings and Facilities to Keep Indoor Temperatures at 25 Degrees Celsius","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry tracks the number of buildings and facilities that commit to keeping indoor temperatures at 25 degrees Celsius; and (b) how does the Ministry plan to encourage collective action by individuals and organisations to address Singapore’s urban heat island effect.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Government does not track the indoor temperature settings of buildings and facilities in Singapore.
The Member may refer to the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment's response to the Adjournment Motion on \"Building a Heat-resilient Singapore\", delivered on 7 February 2024, for more information on Singapore's plans for heat resilience, including efforts to deal with the urban heat island effect. [Please refer to \"Building a Heat-resilient Singapore\", Official Report, 7 February 2024, Vol 95, Issue 122, Matter raised on Adjournment Motion section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Project Wolbachia Phase 5 to Curb Dengue","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) with regard to Project Wolbachia Phase 5 to curb dengue, whether there are (i) any indicators used to ascertain its effectiveness beyond the number of dengue cases and the size of the mosquito population and (ii) any unintended consequences and trade-offs discovered; and (b) whether there are plans for additional phases of Project Wolbachia in (i) housing estates and (ii) industrial estates.\n\n
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency (NEA)'s Project Wolbachia field studies in the initial four sites, including the expansions in 2020, had achieved more than 90% reduction of the local Aedes aegypti mosquito population. Data from 2019 to 2022 also indicates that residents living in areas with at least one year of releases were up to 77% less likely to be infected with dengue. In addition to monitoring the impact of Project Wolbachia on the Aedes aegypti mosquito population and dengue cases, community surveys revealed strong support for Project Wolbachia, with 96% of residents being accepting of releases in their neighbourhoods.
Following positive results, NEA will expand Project Wolbachia to five additional residential areas in the first quarter of 2024, bringing the coverage of male Wolbachia-Aedes releases from 26% to 35% of all households in Singapore. NEA does not have any plans to expand Project Wolbachia to industrial estates at the moment and will focus on residential estates where dengue clusters are most prevalent.
NEA has not observed any negative impact from Project Wolbachia from its trials. Prior to carrying out the trials, NEA had carried out risk assessments and deemed the technology safe, posing no risk to human health and an insignificant risk to the ecology, including to other mosquito species. NEA's observations are also consistent with other research findings from around the world. We will continue to conduct field studies to further understand the environmental factors affecting the efficacy of Project Wolbachia, improve our deployment strategy and enhance its cost-effectiveness.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Headcount Trends at Family Service Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in the past five years, whether there is an increasing or decreasing trend in Family Service Centres with a headcount dedicated to community work.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Family Service Centres (FSCs) hire staff to carry out their core functions, which include case work, group work and community work. FSCs can choose whether to have dedicated staff for each function or to have some of their staff cover multiple functions, based on what they assess to be a better use of their manpower resources and what would better meet the needs of the community. We do not track the number of staff recruited by FSCs solely to do community work.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Penalties and Measures against Sale of Illegal Health Products","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will consider increased penalties for offences related to the sale of illegal health products; (b) whether the Ministry is deploying technology to ensure effective identification of and enforcement against illegal health product sales; (c) what percentage of the illegal health products are offered by sellers based overseas; (d) what challenges do our authorities face in taking enforcement actions on these sellers; and (e) whether there are plans for more collaboration with international counterparts to improve enforcement effectiveness. \n
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The current penalties for sellers of illegal products are a fine of up to $100,000 and/or up to three years imprisonment under the Health Products Act. This is higher than previous penalties of up to $5,000 and/or up to two years imprisonment under the Medicines Act back in 2007.
To enforce against such violations, the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) conducts surveillance, collects intelligence on illegal activities and employs an e-commerce surveillance tool to proactively scan listings on major local e-commerce platforms to detect and remove illegal health products from online marketplaces.
In 2023, approximately 14% of illegal health product listings on major local e-commerce platforms were by overseas sellers. While HSA does not have extra-territorial powers, it works closely with the local platforms to remove these product listings. HSA also actively participates in international operations and exchanges information with overseas enforcement counterparts for them to take actions. In 2023, HSA participated in two international operations led by INTERPOL targeting illegal health product sales and removed a total of over 7,000 online listings.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Conditions for Approval for Use of Skip Tanks by Private Contractors to Clear Renovation Debris","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the conditions required for HDB’s approval of the usage of skip tanks by private residential contractors for clearing renovation debris; (b) where is the recommended location(s) for the placement of such tanks; and (c) how long are such permits typically issued for.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) requires renovation contractors to properly dispose of renovation debris at disposal sites approved by the National Environment Agency at the end of every workday. Some contractors deploy skip tanks for the disposal of renovation debris.
Town Councils (TCs) are responsible for managing and maintaining the common properties in HDB estates. This includes the regulation of proper disposal of renovation debris and bulky items. Contractors who intend to place skip tanks on common property, are required to seek approval from the TCs and are subject to the TCs' terms and conditions.
Contractors who intend to place skip tanks outside of common property are required to seek HDB's approval. From the applications that HDB received, contractors typically apply to deploy their skip tanks over one to three days. Contractors must ensure that the skip tanks do not cause disamenities and safety hazards to residents and members of the public.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Electric Vehicle Chargers for Active Mobility Devices in HDB Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry will consider installing electric vehicle chargers for active mobility devices in HDB estates; and (b) if such plans are in the pipeline, when does the Ministry anticipate to roll out and complete islandwide installation.\n\n
Mr Chee Hong Tat: We currently have no plans to install public charging points for active mobility devices in Housing and Development Board estates. Active mobility devices which comply with EN15194 or UL2272 standards do not require special charging infrastructure and can be charged using standard wall sockets found at homes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Publicising of Rationalisation of Bus Services That Run Parallel to New MRT Lines","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"
10 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport for future openings of new MRT lines, whether LTA will immediately announce (i) the planned rationalisation of bus services running parallel to the new lines (ii) the cost savings to be obtained from the rationalisation and (iii) the plans on using these cost savings to directly benefit commuters, for example in the form of reduced fares.\n\n\n
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) does not make decisions to change bus services immediately after a new Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) line is opened. Commuters need time to adjust to the new travel options. LTA will monitor the situation and assess possible changes to a bus service if there is a significant reduction in its ridership.
The Government is currently providing more than $2 billion of subsidies for public transport every year, including about $1 billion for trains and $1 billion for buses. As we had explained previously, it is necessary to make changes to bus services from time to time to match the evolving needs of commuters, while keeping our public transport system sustainable. The affected buses and bus captains will be redeployed to serve new estates and new routes with greater demand from commuters.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"
[(proc text) The following statements were made as part of the Annual Budget Statement by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong) at the Sitting of 16 February 2024: (proc text)]
(a) The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): All local employees at companies that hire foreign workers must be paid the LQS. [Please refer to \"Annual Budget Statement\", Official Report, 16 February 2024, Vol 95, Issue 123, Budget section.]
(b) Mr Lawrence Wong: The Matched Retirement Savings Scheme (MRSS) helps Singaporeans aged 55 to 75 with less CPF savings to save more, by providing dollar-for-dollar matching for cash top-ups to their CPF accounts. [Please refer to \"Annual Budget Statement\", Official Report, 16 February 2024, Vol 95, Issue 123, Budget section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Mr Lawrence Wong circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual corrections to the Annual Budget Statement. The statements above should respectively be read as follows:
(a) The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): All local employees at companies that hire foreign workers must be paid at least the LQS.
(b) Mr Lawrence Wong: The Matched Retirement Savings Scheme (MRSS) helps Singaporeans aged 55 to 70 with less CPF savings to save more, by providing dollar-for-dollar matching for cash top-ups to their CPF accounts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":2616,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex B-1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240216/annex-Annex B-1.pdf","fileName":"Annex B-1.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":2617,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex B-2","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240216/annex-Annex B-2.pdf","fileName":"Annex B-2.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":2618,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex C-1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240216/annex-Annex C-1.pdf","fileName":"Annex C-1.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":2619,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex C-2","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240216/annex-Annex C-2.pdf","fileName":"Annex C-2.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":2620,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex D-1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240216/annex-Annex D-1.pdf","fileName":"Annex D-1.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":2621,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex E-1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240216/annex-Annex E-1.pdf","fileName":"Annex E-1.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":2622,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex E-2","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240216/annex-Annex E-2.pdf","fileName":"Annex E-2.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":2623,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex F-1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240216/annex-Annex F-1.pdf","fileName":"Annex F-1.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":2624,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex F-2","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240216/annex-Annex F-2.pdf","fileName":"Annex F-2.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":2625,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex F-3","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240216/annex-Annex F-3.pdf","fileName":"Annex F-3.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":2626,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex F-4","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240216/annex-Annex F-4.pdf","fileName":"Annex F-4.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":2627,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex G-1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240216/annex-Annex G-1.pdf","fileName":"Annex G-1.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":2628,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex G-2","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240216/annex-Annex G-2.pdf","fileName":"Annex G-2.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":2629,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex H-1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240216/annex-Annex H-1.pdf","fileName":"Annex H-1.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":2630,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex H-2","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240216/annex-Annex H-2.pdf","fileName":"Annex H-2.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null}],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":6120,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Don Wee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240216/vernacular-Mr Don Wee IRAS 16 Feb 2024 - Mandarin.pdf","fileName":"Mr Don Wee IRAS 16 Feb 2024 - Mandarin.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6121,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Don Wee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240216/vernacular-Mr Don Wee Enlistment 16 Feb 2024 - Mandarin.pdf","fileName":"Mr Don Wee Enlistment 16 Feb 2024 - Mandarin.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}