1 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport following the Fare Review Exercise 2024 (a) what is the estimated financial impact on public transport operators and the overall sustainability of the public transport system from deferring the maximum allowable quantum for fares; (b) how will the deferment of the remaining quantum affect the funding available for planned service improvements or infrastructure projects; (c) what is the Ministry’s assessment of potential scenarios for fare adjustments in the next review; and (d) whether there will be a continued phased approach.
2 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the reasons that led the Public Transport Council to recommend a fare revision for bus and train fares to take effect at the end of December 2024; (b) what steps have the transport operators taken thus far to improve their service levels to commuters in light of fare revisions in the last three to five years; and (c) what are the big-ticket cost factors that the public transport operators have to watch closely in their operations.
3 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether there are projections or analyses on how the cumulative fare adjustments recommended by the Public Transport Council for the past three years and in this year's review, will impact the cost burden on average commuters compared to past adjustments for different income groups; and (b) how does the Ministry assess the value of each Public Transport Voucher (PTV) in the current and future exercises to ensure fare adjustments remain fair and manageable for all commuters, especially lower-income households.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 1 to 3 on today's Order Paper together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, go ahead.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Thank you, Sir. I will also be addressing a related question filed by Ms Poh Li San at an earlier Sitting.
Mr Speaker, in setting public transport fares, the Public Transport Council (PTC) aims to keep fares affordable for commuters, while ensuring that our public transport system remains financially sustainable. In deciding on the fare adjustment to implement each year, PTC is guided by the fare adjustment formula, while also taking into consideration economic and social factors such as fare affordability, rising costs faced by both the public and the public transport industry, and the current economic climate.
Sir, providing a safe, reliable and resilient public transport system is a key priority for the Ministry of Transport (MOT), Land Transport Authority (LTA) and PTC. This includes working with the public transport operators and unions to keep up service and reliability levels for the benefit of commuters. LTA has put in place different measures to hold the operators accountable for meeting their service and reliability standards. For example, by imposing penalties for lapses and setting incentives for good performance. So, there are carrots and sticks within the system to incentivise the rail and bus operators to maintain high service and reliability standards, without directly using the fare review exercise to achieve this outcome.
Mr Neil Parekh asked how PTC arrived at its decision for this year’s fare review exercise. For this year’s exercise, the output from the fare adjustment formula is 3.3%, driven by core inflation and wage growth in 2023 and partially moderated by a decrease in energy prices from a peak in 2022. After adding the deferred quantum of 15.6% from last year, the maximum allowable fare adjustment quantum is 18.9%.
Similar to the 2023 fare review exercise, PTC decided to raise fares by 6%, which is less than one-third of the maximum quantum, to keep fares affordable for commuters, while ensuring that the public transport system remains financially sustainable. The fare adjustment will be implemented in end December, similar to previous years.
Ms Poh Li San asked about fare increases in other cities. Different cities have different fare structures and revenue models, including having public transport operators that rely heavily on non-fare business such as property development and management of retail spaces, to supplement their income. We have seen some cities like Hong Kong and London that have adjusted their fares each year, while other cities like Seoul took a different approach, where they did not adjust fares for many years before making significant increases over the past one to two years to account for higher operating costs.
In Singapore, PTC has taken the approach of ensuring that fare adjustments are gradual so that the impact on commuters is more manageable. To Mr Saktiandi’s question on the impact of fare adjustments on affordability, PTC monitors this using the Public Transport Affordability Indicator, which measures the proportion of household income spent on public transport. For lower-income households, this proportion has fallen from 3.1% in 2014 to 2.4% in 2023. For average public transport users, the figure has also reduced from 2.2% in 2014 to 1.7% in 2023. These proportions are expected to remain similar for 2024.
The Government supports PTC’s approach. This is why we will provide about $250 million of additional subsidies in the coming year to cover the funding gap arising from the deferred fare adjustment quantum of 12.9%. This commitment by the Government gave PTC the assurance to grant a smaller fare increase to mitigate the impact on commuters, knowing that the higher costs of providing public transport has been accounted for.
The $250 million is in addition to the $2 billion annual subsidies to fund bus and train services as well as the additional funding of up to $900 million over eight years for the Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme. To Mr Saktiandi and Ms Poh Li San’s questions, these additional subsidies will ensure the financial viability of the operators, and that service standards, including any planned service improvements in response to changing demand, are not compromised. In addition, the cost of public transport infrastructure development is also fully funded by Government, so any expansion or renewal plans are not affected by PTC’s decision on fares.
While the Government has stepped in to provide additional subsidies to cover the deferred fare quantum these few years to help moderate the impact of fare increase on commuters, we need to recognise that these subsidies are ultimately borne by current and future generations of taxpayers. We should therefore gradually close the gap over time where possible, which is what PTC is doing for this year’s fare review. PTC has also signalled that it intends to continue taking a gradual approach to future adjustments, to mitigate the impact on commuters.
Mr Speaker, in years when there are fare increases, the Government makes available Public Transport Vouchers (PTVs) to help cushion the impact on lower-income households. Our principle is for PTVs to help defray a part of the fare increase for lower-income households. The Government understands Singaporeans’ concerns about costs of living. That is why we revised the income eligibility criterion this year, from monthly household income per person of $1,600 to $1,800. This allows 60,000 more households to qualify for a PTV this exercise. We have also increased the PTV amount from $50 in 2023, to $60 this year. This will cover about six months of the fare increase for lower-income households.
Over the past decade, we have steadily improved the accessibility, inclusivity and quality of our public transport system. These outcomes have been achieved through a strong tripartite partnership between the Government, operators and workers, to manage cost while enhancing service and reliability, so that fares can be kept affordable and the public transport system remains financially sustainable. Sir, this will continue to be our approach going forward.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for his answers to my Question Nos 1 and 3. I have one supplementary question. But first of all, I would like to thank the Minister for the occasional PTV help to vulnerable residents in Singapore. I note that he highlighted that the quantum of the CPI for household payments for public transport for vulnerable households has dropped from 3.2% to 2.4%, if I caught it correctly. I note also in the CPI basket, the public road transport CPI weightage is about 3%.
My question in terms of the supplementary question is, with regards to the PTVs, can I ask the Minister how is this quantum decided upon, in terms of the size and also the amount, $50 to $60, that he highlighted – and I applaud that. And thank you for increasing the income cut-off from $1,500 to $1,800.
My question is, how is the quantum decided? Whether in the future, can the PTV quantum be included within the overall Budget deliberation, rather than on an ad hoc basis?
I do note that the payment to alleviate the impact on households for public transport expenditure is a move that is much to be thanked for.
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I would like to first clarify that the PTV was adjusted, the criterion was adjusted from a per capita household income of $1,600 to $1,800. The quantum was increased from $50 last year, to $60 this year.
Mr Saktiandi asked how we size up the quantum and how we size up the criterion. This is something that we will look at from time to time. Every time we do an exercise, we will take a look and see what is the coverage and what is the amount that we can provide to help to defray and mitigate, in this case, six months of the increase in fares for lower-income households.
We also build into the application process some flexibility, because we understand there are some households where there may be more household members; so, they may need more than one PTV. We do have this flexibility. They can appeal through the grassroots network and additional PTVs can be given to help these households with more family members.
The timing that Mr Saktiandi asked about, why not do it as part of Budget? Sir, I think this depends on the timing of the two exercises because when we do the fare review, it is a little bit later. And when we decide on the PTVs, we first have to see what PTC recommends as the fare increase. Then, we can size up the PTV accordingly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Preserving Cultural Heritage of Orang Kallang and Orang Laut Communities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for National Development (a) how will the Ministry ensure that the rich cultural heritage of the Orang Kallang and Orang Laut communities is meaningfully preserved and integrated into the development plans for areas like the Kallang Basin, Greater Southern Waterfront and Pulau Brani; and (b) whether the Ministry will establish working groups involving indigenous communities to ensure their perspectives and heritage are represented in these developments.
5 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for National Development (a) what measures will the Ministry take to ensure indigenous communities, such as the Orang Laut at West Coast Park, can continue using community spaces to practice maritime crafts and traditions; and (b) whether the Ministry will explore creating similar spaces in the Kallang Basin, Greater Southern Waterfront and Pulau Brani developments.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Sir, may I take Question Nos 4 and 5 together?
\tMr Speaker: Please go ahead.
Mr Desmond Lee: Sir, as Singapore is a small city-state, we need to carefully steward our limited land resources and balance various competing needs. Wherever feasible, we will integrate elements of heritage significance into our plans and explore creative ways to recall and commemorate the heritage and identity of an area, such as through urban design, heritage storyboards, walking trails and others.
Our agencies will continue to engage local communities, as with all stakeholders, to ensure that developments are carried out sensitively and provide appropriate community spaces, where possible. For example, to support the Orang Laut community in the practice of their maritime crafts and tradition, members of the community have been granted permission to moor their boats and store fishing equipment at a site off West Coast Park, along with other licensed boatowners.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
\tMr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): I thank the Minister for his response. The Orang Laut are the seafaring indigenous people in Singapore and the Nusantara region that has thrived in Singapore even before 1819. There are many groups of Orang Laut, such as the Orang Laut Seletar, Orang Laut Selat, comprising of the seafarers from the southern islands, and Orang Laut Kalang, of which I am a descendant of.
The Orang Laut has cultures and traditions that are closely aligned to the sea. And there are advocate groups like Orang Laut SG, with founder Firdaus Sani, who is trying to keep the culture of the Orang Laut alive through workshops such as Turning Tides and Down Down di Pulau, which means \"leaves of the sea\", to create awareness of the cultures such as bubu trap weaving, launching of the boats, which Minister has shared just now, the food, and searching for gong gong, siput ranga and remis.
Can the Ministry consider having heritage trails that integrate into the development plans of the Southern Waterfront region or West Coast Park, or have markers or permanent spaces where the public can appreciate the rich culture of our indigenous Orang Laut?
\t
\t
\tMr Desmond Lee: I would like to thank the Member for his suggestions. In fact, we will engage the Member on some of the ideas he has raised. We are in touch with Orang Laut SG, as well as the other members of the community and we will consider all these ideas that have been raised.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Closure of SingPost Offices and Impact on Availability Standards for Services such as Passport Collection","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether postal services providers, including SingPost, which partner public sector agencies for services, such as ICA passport collection, are subject to service availability standards in HDB heartlands, including the requirements to ensure adequate alternatives when a post office closes down; and (b) whether IMDA has examined (i) the reasons for the closure of the Clementi Mall post office and (ii) the adequacy of the proposed alternative arrangements.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for Digital Development and Information): Sir, Government agencies must decide how best to deliver services to the public, which may include using customer touchpoints through private-sector entities like SingPost. The arrangements made by public agencies to provide Government services at post offices are bound by contractual agreements rather than availability standards under our postal regulations.
I have previously shared with this House the reasons for the rationalisation of SingPost's post office network. Agencies that provide services through post offices are actively exploring alternative arrangements.
The closure of the Clementi Central Post Office is part of SingPost's plan to optimise its post office network. Customers will continue to have access to a POPStation parcel locker at Clementi Mall and a Self-Service Automated Machine (SAM) kiosk located 300 metres away. SingPost has also said it will be adding alternative customer service touchpoints to serve residents within the vicinity.
Most Government services are already accessible through digital means. Nonetheless, residents who need assistance with Government digital transactions can walk in to ServiceSG Centres to access about 600 frequently used Government services and schemes across more than 25 public agencies. There are now seven ServiceSG Centres located around Singapore and another two to be operationalised by the end of this year.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. I have got two sets of supplementary questions.
Firstly, does the Minister agree that even though SingPost is a private listed company providing some services for Government agencies on a contractual basis, nevertheless, during COVID-19, we saw how the private firm was brought in to serve a public purpose, such as distributing the Antigen Rapid Test (ART) kits during a national crisis.
Today, does the Minister also not agree that the provision of Immigration and Checkpoints Authority passport collection services is considered a quasi-public service as well through SingPost? As such, can the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) work with other agencies, to explore ways for such postal service providers, private providers with some public service provision, for such providers to continue having a strong presence in our heartlands? For example, better access to void decks or the use of community centres or, for example, if a postal provider sets up a non-profit philanthropic arm, would they be allowed to co-locate postal services in void decks and other such areas?
Secondly, can I ask the Minister could IMDA have acted earlier and worked with SingPost to find an alternative venue, given this element of public service character or quasi-public service character for SingPost's services and could SingPost have communicated it better? Some of my residents were told that the nearest available alternative SingPost offices would be in West Coast, Teban Gardens or Ghim Moh, despite Clementi Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) being a transport node and a future MRT interchange.
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, I thank the Member for the two supplementary questions. Let me take the Member's second question first. I am happy to share with the Member that besides the nearby post office at Clementi West, there are also alternatives within the vicinity for his residents. I mentioned earlier the POPStation located at Clementi Mall, which is the same location as the original Clementi Central Post Office, and at the SAM kiosk located 300 metres away at Block 451 Clementi Avenue 3. SingPost is also looking at third party postal agents, for example, supermarkets and so on, in which these can provide services to the residents in the vicinity. And SingPost continues to look at alternative locations to provide convenient access for its customers and it is something that SingPost has committed to exploring.
On the Member's first question that during a crisis period where we tap on private sector organisations or companies to provide essential services, he mentioned about ART kits and COVID-19 test kits, he might remember that during that period of time, actually the Government agencies that were providing that essential service were leveraging multiple touchpoints. We will remember residents going to community centres (CCs) to collect the ART kits or masks and so on?
It is not just working through one single channel. So, Government agencies, as part of their operations, do plan for business continuity services during crisis periods. And this is something all Government agencies do, including some services the Member mentioned.
And if the Member has specific questions about passport collection, I would invite the Member to file a Parliamentary Question (PQ) to the relevant Ministry.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng: I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Can I further ask the Ministry, in the assessment of SAM and POPStations, will the Ministry continue giving attention to the challenges faced by seniors who may be less digitally savvy and less able to use such touchpoints? Secondly, as the Senior Minister of State has mentioned the emergence of ServiceSG Centres, would he be able to advise us where is the nearest ServiceSG Centre to Clementi? And can we have one in Clementi soon, in a substantive way, if not already on the cards?
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, we are always sympathetic to the needs of residents, especially those who are more mobility-challenged and those who may need more help. That is why we have CCs and public agency touchpoints in the community. And this is something we will continue to look at as a whole-of-Government movement.
Specifically on the Member's question around the ServiceSG Centres, unfortunately, I do not have the answer with me. It is not under my Ministry's remit. So, I would invite the Member to file a PQ to the relevant Ministry.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Help for Healthcare Workers to Stay and Build Their Careers in Public Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health whether any schemes are available to encourage administrative and support healthcare workers to stay and build their careers in the public healthcare sector.
\tThe Minister of State for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Health (MOH) actively works with the public healthcare clusters and community care organisations to ensure that they are able to recruit and retain sufficient staff to meet their needs. This includes ensuring competitive salaries, career development opportunities and safe working environments.
For administrative and support healthcare workers, we pay special attention to redesign their roles and career pathways so that they have more development and career progression opportunities. MOH has worked with the clusters to develop the Care Support Associate (CSA) and Patient Service Associate (PSA) roles, which incorporate an expanded mix of patient caregiving, administrative and operational tasks. This is currently being rolled out, with training support available, to enable existing staff to take up the expanded roles.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): I thank Minister of State for the reply. We have the Award for Nurses’ Grace, Excellence and Loyalty (ANGEL) scheme for nurses, which is a financial retention scheme, very similar to the CONNECT Plan that we use to retain teachers. That has shown to work.
So, could I ask whether we can have a similar programme or just extend the ANGEL programme to the administrative and support staff, who work alongside our nurses and should be equally valued as well?
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: I thank the Member for the question and for constantly championing the needs of the healthcare workers. I know that he has also raised this question separately. We have not extended the ANGEL scheme, which was specifically meant for nurses, because we take different approaches. There are different considerations for different healthcare workers. We do not have the same scheme for nurses and doctors, for example.
We do take into account factors, such as the strength of the recruitment pipeline, the global competition, the nature of the jobs and their career structure and looking at what is needed for that particular role and that particular healthcare group. Nurses make up a large number. There is a large number of healthcare workers. They make up a large proportion of the workforce in the public healthcare institution. Hence, it becomes necessary to have a scheme like ANGEL to retain them, very much like why teachers, when they have a whole group of workers who are in the public sector that needs to be retained. So, that scheme was specifically meant for them.
We do consider the needs of all our healthcare workers and, indeed, the administrative and support healthcare workers are as important to us, but we do it in a different way. We regularly review the salaries of all the healthcare workers in the public healthcare institutions to ensure that their salaries are fair and competitive.
And we will continue to look at various ways to attract and retain them, various measures to ensure that they are future-ready, that we are supporting mid-entry entrants, for example, into the sector, providing them with opportunities to have job redesign, career development and also ensuring that they have a conducive and age-appropriate work environment.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Updated Workplace Safety Advice and Measures in View of More Adverse Weather Events","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower in respect of the erratic weather conditions in Singapore (a) what are the workplace safety measures that the Ministry has put in place, beyond providing advisory to employers, to ensure the safety of workers in industries with high risk of exposure to erratic weather conditions and those performing outdoor work; and (b) how does the Ministry ensure compliance with these measures.
9 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Manpower in view of the advisory on preparing for adverse weather events issued by the Ministry of Manpower and Workplace Safety and Health Council (a) whether the Ministry will consider further specifying the weather conditions, such as wind intensity and outdoor temperature, under which workers should not be deployed for work; and (b) how will the Ministry collect feedback on working under adverse weather conditions, particularly from foreign workers who may face communication problems due to language barriers.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad)(for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 8 and 9 together, please?
\tMr Speaker: Please go ahead.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: Sir, given the wide range of possible weather conditions and the ways in which such weather conditions can affect the diverse range of worksite situations, it is not practical for the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) to specify thresholds for companies to stop work. Instead, as guided by MOM's advisory on preparing for adverse weather events, companies must implement relevant measures that are specific to their business and safety needs.
For example, companies are advised to prepare for potential strong wind situations by tying down essential structures or placing critical electrical equipment away from low-lying areas. Companies are also advised to subscribe to weather alerts so that they can promptly activate their contingency plans and temporarily stop outdoor work during strong wind conditions or when there is thunder or lightning. After adverse weather, companies should inspect the worksite for damage, unstable structures or safety hazards before resuming work. In addition, employers and workers may refer to the revised heat stress measures for outdoor work that MOM issued in September to protect outdoor workers against heat stress.
During MOM's regular safety inspections, companies must demonstrate that they have taken the necessary measures to mitigate workplace safety and health risks, including those arising from weather conditions. Those who have failed to do so will be subject to appropriate enforcement actions.
Workers are advised or encouraged to share their feedback and report unsafe workplace practices to MOM via SnapSAFE, which is a camera-based form. They can just take a photo and send it up. Migrant workers can also submit their feedback and concerns through MOM's FWMOMCare mobile application, which is available in their native languages and use it to reach MOM's Forward Assurance and Support Teams (FAST) and request for a call back. Additionally, they can also approach MOM's Friends of Assurance, Care and Engagement (FACE) migrant worker volunteers who serve as a bridge between their peers and MOM.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. In the past few months, we have seen a wide variation of erratic weather conditions in Singapore, from extreme heat to extreme rain. These erratic weather patterns are set to become a norm due to climate change.
First, how will MOM manage unwanted consequences due to delays from all these adverse weather conditions and to ensure that employers do not compromise on safety due to the need to then catch up and meet deadlines?
Second, does MOM have any plans for long-term measures to better protect workers against these erratic and adverse weather conditions, such as updating building codes and also other workplace protocols?
Thirdly, I would like to ask if the MOM would study the health impact of long-term exposure to such erratic weather patterns, especially for workers who are performing outdoor work?
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. In fact, MOM and the other agencies monitor this quite closely, especially with the evolving weather patterns that are ongoing. But the challenge is that it is very difficult to impose a guide on when you put in stop work orders, because the variations may be quite different for different worksites.
Some may be construction sites, for example, or both may have different types of ways in which they conduct their work. One could be more prefab, so, therefore, it is more mechanical. Others may be more physical. Therefore, it is incumbent on the employer and the site occupier to be able to make the risk assessments. This is where we put the burden on the employers and the worksite occupiers to ensure that the workplace safety guidelines are all adhered to.
This is an evolving situation, but for example, we had recently put out an advisory for preparing for adverse weather conditions. And therefore, some of the recent guides that have been given to companies – as recent as September 2024 – were to, for example, monitor weather conditions via systems and alerts. This guides them to take a risk assessment, looking at what the weather is like and looking at all worksites and see how that impacts their risk assessments and how they need to implement suitable risk controls.
At the same time, to communicate hazards to workers and train them to report to their supervisors if there are adverse conditions that affect their work or safety. Ultimately, they also need to prepare a recovery plan because post adverse weather conditions, you will have to, for example, check on the structures and integrity of affected structures and critical outdoor machinery, after any weather event.
These are quite dynamic situations across different worksites and therefore, at the moment, I think it is important that employers come train, look into the advisories and see how best these weather conditions affect their worksites and how these affect their risk assessments.
As we move on, as we have done with the heat stress advisory, the agencies and MOM will study this and see what the long-term implications are. Because many of these are constantly evolving and we have been fortunate not to have extreme weather conditions such as extreme heat waves, for example. We will continue to monitor and look at scientific evidence to determine what the course of actions would be, if there would be any.
Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Speaker. I have a supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. Can the Ministry consider introducing industry-specific best practices and training to be rolled out, in collaboration with industry associations and unions, in preparing companies to implement workplace safety measures for adverse weather conditions?
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank the Member for her question. Certainly, MOM works closely together with the Workplace Safety and Health Council, as well as our tripartite partners and the trade associations to ensure that we engage both employers and workers to make the assessments on what are the best practices. From time to time, even before incidents occur, we try to provide templates for risk assessments and how they can manage these advisories.
The information is disseminated to employers and workers to various channels, such as our websites, FWMOMCare app, unions, trade associations and social media platforms, as well as fora conducted by Workplace Safety and Health Council and seminars.
I think it is important that we continue to issue reminders to the industry on weather-related hazards through various communication channels. Some of these materials that were recently introduced would be materials, such as the heat stress management compliance checklist, the advisory for preparing for adverse weather events, guidelines on wet-bulb globe temperature, or WBGT, monitoring for outdoor work. And these are already specific guides to help them implement good practices and to protect their workers from weather related hazards.
Ultimately, I think even within Singapore, from time to time, in different locations, you will have variations in weather conditions as well, and therefore, it is hard to say a one-size-fits-all rule for everyone. All employers, as I mentioned earlier, do need to make that risk assessment based on your worksite conditions, based on the equipment that you are using, based on the structures that you have, to ensure that your workers are best protected against weather hazards. And that also includes post-weather hazard events as well, to ensure that, post-work hazards, these do not affect structures and equipment that could affect them as they operate after the weather event.
So, in short, yes, we will do that. Do look out for these advisories as they come along, as this is a situation that is still evolving and one that we are monitoring.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures in National Mental Health and Well-Being Strategy that Are Yet to Be Rolled Out and Implementation Timelines for Them","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Health in light of the Ministry's statement on 19 September 2024 that findings from the National Youth Mental Health Study affirmed the approach under the National Mental Health and Well-Being Strategy to tackling youth mental health issues and that many of the measures under the Strategy are already in place while others will be progressively rolled out across the next few years (a) what are the measures that are yet to be rolled out; and (b) what is timetable for their introduction.
Mr Speaker: Who from the Ministry of Health is taking this question?
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, we will be designating first-stop touchpoints to enable individuals to receive support early and to facilitate access to higher-tier services when needed. For instance, a new National Mental Health Helpline and Textline service will be introduced in mid-2025 to offer psychological first aid for those facing mental distress. Those who require additional support, including crisis management, will be referred to the relevant services.
Our other upcoming measures include the Positive Use Guide on Technology and Social Media, which will be ready in the first half of 2025. It will guide healthy and positive uses of technology and social media, and provide recommendations to mitigate their potential negative impact.
In addition, the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) and Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) are studying whether further requirements, such as age assurance, are needed to prevent children and youths from accessing age-inappropriate content on relevant online communication services.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Razwana.
\tAssoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): I thank the Ministry for its effort in advancing mental health support and I appreciate the response, especially on the age verification tools. I was just wondering whether there is any initiative to move forward, in terms of partnering with social media and tech companies, especially in terms of teletherapy platforms? Because there seems to be a lot of such platforms coming up as well, where you have layperson giving advice that may not be appropriate, especially for young children and young people.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Assoc Prof Razwana for the questions. Actually, her query has two different parts. Are we partnering with social media companies and tech companies? The answer is yes. As we develop our various codes of practice, as well as regulatory frameworks around various aspects of social media, we do indeed partner very closely with the social media and tech companies. This is the work on the MDDI side of the House. It is independent from the mental health strategy.
The separate issue is then the use of telemedicine and teletherapy services. Under the MOH, we are indeed studying this and looking to see how we can use these types of technologies to better reach out to persons in need and this is not just about mental health, but there are a whole variety of indications for telemedicine services and we have a framework for assessing the governance, the safety, the approach towards telemedicine.
And so, the social media companies or the tech companies may well be a platform through which telemedicine services are delivered, but actually, it is the service provider then that we need to work with for the assessment of those services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Address Durability Issues When Wind-swept Rain Enters Lift Shafts of HDB Blocks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the designs of new HDB precincts have taken into account the variability and range of inclement weather, including heavy rain and strong winds; (b) whether the assessments have considered the prospects and implications of wind-swept rain entering lift shafts and affecting lift equipment; and (c) what rectification measures have been considered by HDB for new precincts where wind-swept rain has raised concerns about lift durability.
\tThe Second Minister for National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, in Singapore's tropical climate, strong winds may cause rainwater during a heavy downpour to enter common property that is not completely enclosed. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) has employed various design strategies over the years to try to mitigate the extent of rainwater splashing into homes and common areas.
These considerations are incorporated into HDB's design requirements, to ensure that our precincts are reasonably well protected from the tropical weather even as we design for natural ventilation and ample lighting. In view of increasingly volatile weather patterns brought about by climate change, HDB has conducted wind-driven rain, or WDR, simulations for all new public housing developments since 2021.
Through the WDR simulations, the effects of rain and wind, even in more extreme conditions, are modelled to identify areas prone to rainwater splashing. This allows designers to implement mitigating measures early during the design stage.
HDB adopts design features recommended under Building and construction Authority's (BCA's) SS 550-2020 standards for lifts, such as sloped thresholds at lift doors to reduce the risk of water ingress into the lifts. HDB also installs rain screens and canopies at the lift lobby, if these are found to be necessary. These measures are generally adequate to keep rainwater out of the lift area.
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for her answer. I have been approached by residents in Clementi Peaks, a very new precinct in Clementi. My residents share that about one year after they moved in, HDB started installing rain shields at lift lobbies which blocked their view of the beautiful Clementi scenery.
We are told that the reason was to prevent rain entering the lift shafts, which would affect lift reliability and corrode the lifts. My supplementary questions are, firstly, does the Minister not agree that heavy rain and strong winds are not unknown in the West of Singapore, including in Clementi?
Secondly, can I also ask the Minister – hindsight is of course 20/20 – but in hindsight, could HDB have done an even deeper study into the climate situation in the west of Singapore before the development was being built? And if there was a discovery of rain entering lift shafts during the construction phase, whether these rain shields could have been installed earlier and incorporated into the design earlier?
Lastly, Mr Speaker, we know safety is important, especially lift safety, and if there is no other option, safety must come first. But can the Minister assure us that HDB will learn from each new development, including Clementi Peaks, so that future developments will be even better and consider climate change even more closely.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. I think he had three. The first one, he asked whether it would be possible to anticipate that there are heavy rains and strong winds, including in the Clementi area.
The answer is yes, and that is the reason why HDB has included the modelling of WDR simulations for new public housing. But in the particular case that he raised, which is I believe the case of Clementi Peaks, maybe I should explain what happened here. Before I do, let me just talk a little bit about the WDR simulations.
They are computational fluid dynamics, or CFD, for WDR simulations and they are conducted to meet the following HDB requirements: to identify and prevent rainwater from splashing to residential unit entrance gate and lift doors; to identify and minimise rainwater splashing to sheltered accessible routes, including drop-off porches, link bridges and linkways or void decks; and to demonstrate the effectiveness of mitigation measures proposed, such as modifying the corridor layout and/or design mitigation measures up front that will match the façade and meet the fire safety requirement.
In the case of Clementi Peaks, however, Clementi Peaks was completed in October 2022 and this means that the design was finalised before HDB began incorporating the CFD simulations for WDR, which was in 2021. And shortly after handover, the residents reported that there were issues of rainwater splashing into the common corridors and lift lobbies on the higher floors, and this posed a risk of seepage into the lift shafts. HDB then decided to install additional rain screens at the lift lobbies to protect the lift, as a key infrastructure in common property, from rain splashing and this was for safety reasons and to avoid disruption of lift operations, which would, of course, affect all residents.
And therefore, after consultations with HDB and the consultant, the contractor then served notice to residents of the installation of the rain screens at the affected lift lobbies in mid-August of 2024.
The first point I want to make is that for Clementi Peaks specifically, that was before the WDR simulations were put into effect. The second point I want to make is that the works that were done were primarily for safety reason. The third point I want to make, and this acknowledges what the Member brought up, which is that I think the learning lesson from this is that it is helpful to engage the residents earlier, to let them know the reason why the installation is being done, and also possibly to take feedback, because in this case, as I understand it, residents were concerned about the view being blocked.
In short, I think we would improve the engagement process where issues like these arise in future.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Recent Recall of EVs on Singapore Car Owners","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Transport in light of BYD's recall of nearly 97,000 electric vehicles (EVs) for a manufacturing fault that can lead to fire risks (a) whether LTA has been notified by BYD on the recall of EVs which are related to the affected EVs; and (b) whether LTA is conducting its own testing and inspection of the affected vehicle models.
\tThe Minister of State for Transport (Mr Murali Pillai) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, the Road Traffic Act stipulates that vehicle manufacturers or dealers must, upon becoming aware, notify the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and affected vehicle owners of any safety-related defects in vehicles manufactured or sold by them.
BYD Singapore Private Limited has informed LTA that BYD vehicles sold in Singapore, are not affected by the recent recall affecting about 97,000 BYD vehicles manufactured in China. LTA will continue to monitor the situation and will take appropriate action if any safety concerns are identified.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis.
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Minister of State. In relation to the last part of my Parliamentary Question (PQ), I understand from the Minister of State's response that the dealer will have to do its own monitoring. But on the part of LTA or the Ministry of Transport, does it also conduct its own independent checks, given that these particular models are quite popular in Singapore? And more generally, there has been various cases of such electric vehicle (EV) recalls for different brands for different models. Similarly, are there independent, random checks that are being put in place to ensure that there is a certain reliability assurance?
\tMr Murali Pillai: Sir, in response to the hon Member Mr Chua's questions, as far as reference to the last part of his PQ is concerned, he was asking the question as to whether LTA is conducting its own testing and inspection of the affected vehicle model. So, in context, that does not arise because the vehicles in Singapore are not subject of the recall.
But to his more general question as to whether LTA conducts independent testing and inspection, I would respond as follows. All vehicles, including EVs, are required to meet internationally recognised vehicle safety standards, such as the United Nations regulations, before they can be used on our roads. All vehicles are also required to undergo periodic inspections, to ensure that they meet roadworthiness requirements.
LTA does not conduct additional testing and inspection for vehicles affected in recalls, but requires motor dealers to promptly report any safety-related recalls initiated by vehicle manufacturers to LTA. Once reported, dealers are provided with the contact details of the affected vehicle owners. Motor dealers must then notify these owners and make arrangements to rectify the defects as soon as possible.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Gender Gaps in AI-adoption and Initiatives to Encourage Better AI Technologies Adoption in Educational and Workplace Settings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether any research has been done on whether there is a gender gap in the adoption rates of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in Singapore, particularly in generative AI; (b) whether any groups have been identified as being more reluctant in adopting such AI technologies; and (c) whether there will be targeted initiatives to encourage these groups to better adopt AI technologies in educational and workplace settings.
\tThe Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Digital Development and Information): Mr Speaker, international studies have highlighted a gender disparity in the adoption of artificial intelligence (AI), including generative AI (GenAI) globally. This reflects the broader trend of under-representation of women across the technology sector.
Women in Singapore are doing well compared to the global average. A study conducted by the Boston Consulting Group and the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) in May 2024 found that women make up 40% of Singapore's technological workforce, surpassing the global average of 37%. Based on web traffic data from SimilarWeb, 47% of Singapore users of GenAI tools are female, slightly higher than the global average of 43%. This demonstrates their openness to participating in the technology industry and embracing new technologies, like AI.
Initiatives, such as the Singapore Women in Tech Movement, have championed efforts to attract, retain and develop women in technology. We aim to encourage AI adoption across all groups, while providing tailored initiatives to meet the needs and varying competencies of specific groups.
For workers, we have numerous SkillsFuture AI training courses. These allow individuals to acquire new AI skills, enhance their productivity and improve their employability in a rapidly evolving job market. For students, new AI for Fun modules will be introduced under the Code for Fun programme to expose primary and secondary schools to AI. These modules allow students to explore and tinker with technology, including through the design of prototypes incorporating AI. For the general public, the National Library Board's (NLB's) public outreach programmes, such as the Be SURE Together roadshows, incorporate GenAI content to educate them on the potentials and pitfalls of GenAI.
NLB also provides free access to learning resources, like LinkedIn Learning, which contain short courses on AI and GenAI for all NLB members. By ensuring broad access to AI tools and offering tailored support for different skill levels, we aim to make AI adoption inclusive and accessible to all.
\tMr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
\tMs He Ting Ru (Sengkang): I thank the Minister of State Rahayu for the reply. I just wanted to ask some supplementary questions on this.
First is, whether or not, in the Code for Fun, have there been any attention paid to certain groups which might be found to be generally more reluctant or a little bit more afraid to engage with the topics?
And also, some of the schemes that she mentioned earlier, such as the NLB schemes, whether or not these schemes have user data or participant data tracked, not just in terms of gender, but age group and also socioeconomic background?
The thinking behind this is just to find out whether or not we need to target these groups that are generally under-represented in technology and AI.
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: I appreciate the Member's question and concern in identifying certain groups which may not be as receptive or a bit more exposed to AI. She made specific references to two of the programmes that we are working on.
The Code for Fun programme is something that we do in schools. That is something that the teachers roll out and we do, indeed, aim to encourage more students to participate in it. We definitely can always look at enhancing this and ensuring that students from all backgrounds get to benefit from this. Being in school allows for that accessibility to students from different backgrounds to have access and for teachers to identify those who, perhaps, need more support and more nudging.
The NLB programme, indeed, is also with the same thinking. It is done in a platform that is accessible for all. I believe there should be tracking of some of this participation. This is something that I will need to look into. But it is something that we are cognisant of, that there are certain groups that may not be as receptive or maybe even groups we want to reach out to share these resources and we will continue with our efforts to do so.
We continue to work also with partners through our Digital for Life programmes. Through these partners, who are working in the ground communities, they help us access different groups with different modalities. With the suite of all these efforts, we should be able to reach out to different groups. But if there are any groups that the Member has identified that needs further support, please let us know and we would be happy to reach out and extend some of these resources to them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Foster Parents Gain Access to Relevant Education Information of Children under Their Care","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Education what mechanisms are in place to ensure that foster parents are able to access all appropriate and relevant education about the children and young people under their care, including information stored on the Parents Gateway app.
\tThe Minister of State for Education (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, the circumstances related to each child or young person under foster care are complex and unique. Schools work with relevant agencies and foster parents in accordance with the Children and Young Persons Act to share all relevant education information about the child or young person under the care of foster parents. This includes information available on Parents Gateway.
Where possible, foster parents are given access to all such information through the Parents' Gateway app. However, in selected cases, such information will be conveyed through other means, including meetings, emails or hardcopy letters. The Member may wish to surface any specific case she is aware of to the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) or the Ministry of Education for assistance.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Razawa Begum.
\tAssoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): I thank the Ministry for its support of foster parents. Foster parents do face challenges, especially with limited access to the Parents' Gateway app. This is the information that I have received from foster parents themselves and this can delay crucial support for children in their care. I believe that this impacts the child's well-being and development.
I understand there are other measures as well in place, but I was wondering would the Ministry consider establishing a support programme within the school setting for foster parents, such as Foster Family Resource Hub, where foster parents can access guidance, counselling and resources?
I was also wondering whether it is possible to integrate the real-time communication tools within the app itself with school staff and, if not possible because of our data protection and all that and natural parents' power and control over their child, would it be possible to develop something else that is separate? A lot of the foster parents are not able to access the information because the natural parents are the ones who are registered under the portal.
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: Mr Speaker, I would like to clarify that when foster parents are given access to the Parents Gateway, the child's birth parents will have access to the identities of the foster parents. And because there are different types of child arrangements for foster parenting, it is important that we are sensitive to the needs and circumstances of each case.
Our schools typically will work closely with MSF and assigned social worker on the appropriate way for communication as well as support for the foster parent as well as the child.
On the suggestion to have a support network, certainly. We will look to MSF for such platforms where foster parents, as a community, can get better support and information.
On communication between the school and the foster parents, certainly, if it is in the best interest of the child and, with the support as well as endorsement from the social worker supporting the case, our schools will be most willing to work with the foster parents on that.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Lifts that Can Accommodate Baby Prams, Wheelchairs and Personal Mobility Aids in Some Public Buildings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for National Development whether the Government will consider mandating shopping malls and other public buildings to plan for and set aside lift cars that are purpose-built to accommodate more users of baby prams, wheelchairs and personal mobility aids to make these places more friendly for families.
\tThe Second Minister for National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Building and Construction Authority's (BCA's) Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment specifies that, where lifts are provided in a building, at least one lift must be made accessible for wheelchair users. These lifts are required to have sufficient manoeuvring space for wheelchairs and accessible features, such as conveniently placed lift buttons, mirrors and grab bars that would benefit other lift users including those using personal mobility aids and prams.
BCA encourages building owners and developers to tailor their accessible facilities to the profile of their users and go beyond baseline code standards, where needed, especially for places with high public footfall. This could involve providing more accessible lifts or implementing priority access arrangements that improve the lift user experience.
Creating an inclusive society extends beyond the provision of accessible facilities and features. BCA partners with the Singapore Kindness Movement to promote gracious use of accessible facilities including initiatives to encourage the public to prioritise lift access for those with greater needs.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for her answer. I just have one supplementary question. In regard to the Code of standards for the lifts that have been indicated in the BCA standards, does it include safety standards for personal mobility aid (PMA) and personal mobility devices (PMDs)? And also, have the size changes that possibly evolved over time?
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Sir, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. The current Code which is in effect would be the latest 2019 version.
It provides that where lifts are provided in a building, at least one accessible lift must be provided and it must serve all levels intended for access by persons with disabilities, has a minimum size of lift of 1,200 millimetres by 1,400 millimetres in depth, minimum lift opening of 900 millimetres and a control panel at a suitable height. The lift car of a wheelchair-accessible passenger lift must also have a side control panel to facilitate ease of access and use by wheelchair users. So, as I mentioned earlier, the current Code requirements would be large enough to benefit those using personal mobility aids (PMAs) and prams.
That said, I have one qualification. There are PMAs and there are PMAs, and we have seen some very large PMAs that are actually more like small cars rather than what you would expect of a personal mobility device. So, it may not be possible to accommodate very large PMAs in lifts, depending on the building size and configuration.
As the Code is currently under review, what we will do is to take this feedback on board and, if others have suggestions or thoughts on lifts, lift access, convenience of use of lifts, please do provide this feedback to BCA. As I said, the review of the Code is underway and a draft of the revised Code is targeted to be released for public consultation by the end of this year. So, best to get the suggestions in early.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Insurance for EV Charging Stations Against Fire Incidents and Damage to Buildings and Surrounding Vehicles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport whether there is any requirement for all EV charging stations to be insured against fire and damage to the building housing them and surrounding cars.
\tThe Minister of State for Transport (Mr Murali Pillai) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon Member Mr Lim Biow Chuan may be happy to note that the electric vehicle charging operators (EVCOs) are required to maintain a public liability insurance policy which covers personal injury, death or damage to property of third persons arising from EV charging operations, including from fire incidents, with a minimum coverage of $2 million per occurrence.
Mr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, I understand that there was some concern by drivers about the safety of EVs after the fire involving EVs in Seoul in August. Sir, may I ask the Minister of State, in addition to insurance, would there be other safety requirements like the installation of sprinklers or the provision of fire extinguishers near EV charging points, so as to give assurance to other car drivers that their vehicles parked next to an EV charging station would be safe?
The other question, if I may ask the Minister of State, is whether the insurance just covers the owners of the car park, primarily the Housing and Development Board (HDB), or would it also cover managers of the car park, like Town Councils?
\tMr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I appreciate the hon Member Mr Lim's concern about safety arising from the Seoul incident that he mentioned. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) is looking at this quite closely. From the perspective of fire incidents in Singapore, thankfully, it has remained quite low. In 2023, for a vehicle population of 16,262 EVs, there was only one fire incident. So, we will continue to look at it and then, based on the experience, we will take whatever further steps that are necessary.
In relation to the coverage of the insurance policy, as I mentioned in my answer to the hon Member Mr Lim just now, it is a third-party public liability insurance policy. So, it covers not only damage to property – and the Member mentioned HDB – it also covers personal injury and damage to other third parties as well. So, that is the ambit of the policy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allowing Seniors to Purchase Hearing Aids with MediSave","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Health in view of studies linking uncorrected hearing loss with dementia, whether the Ministry will consider allowing seniors to use MediSave for the purchase of their hearing aids.
\tThe Minister of State for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, seniors who require hearing aids can tap on the Seniors’ Mobility and Enabling Fund (SMF), which provides eligible Singaporeans with means-tested subsidies of up to 90%. Those with severe hearing loss requiring hearing implants, such as bone conduction hearing or cochlear implants, can tap on subsidies, MediSave and MediShield Life. The Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) can also provide additional support.
While it is understandable that many Singaporeans wish to use more of their MediSave, we also need to ensure that Singaporeans have adequate MediSave balances to support their medical expenses for major health episodes, which tend to happen when they are in an advanced age.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Speaker, I have one supplementary question. The SMF has got a limit consideration of $2,000 monthly income per person and that suitably limits a lot of seniors from applying for assistance. So, a lot of seniors who do not qualify under the SMF, they will have to fork out their own cash and the cost of the hearing aid is quite significant for seniors who are currently not working and they have to pay in cash.
So, I would like to ask the Ministry to reconsider whether seniors can be allowed to use part of their MediSave for the purpose of hearing aid. And this is all the more important, especially given the recent studies that have shown the connection between hearing loss and dementia.
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: I note the concern that the Member raised on the limitations of the SMF. I would say though that there are over 16,000 seniors since 2019, I believe, who have already applied for this fund and most of them will actually get subsidies; 99% of them are eligible and actually would get the subsidies. So, for those of them who cannot meet the eligibility requirement, they can go to AIC for any additional support. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Minister of State for Health\", Official Report, 16 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 144, Correction By Written Statement section.]
I note the Member's concerns, but I think it is a balancing exercise that we have to take note of. This is something that we will constantly review and assess because there is a need to also ensure that there are sufficient balances in MediSave. We take into account how we reserve this for the more severe situations and more costly items. And this is a principle that we adhere to. It is something that we will continue to assess.
As I said, if there are situations where the seniors feel that they actually cannot afford it and do not meet the SMF eligibility requirements, they can approach AIC and we can see what are some of the other ways that we can support the seniors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Licensing of Cat Breeders Since Implementation of Guidelines","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Mr Leong Mun Wai –
18 To ask the Minister for National Development (a) how many cat breeders have been licensed since implementation of the cat-breeding guidelines in 2023; (b) how many licensed cat breeders are currently renting units at The Animal Lodge; (c) how many unlicensed cat breeders has NParks identified since 2023; (d) whether measures are taken to assist unlicensed cat breeders in regularising their operations before actions are taken against them; and (e) how many cats have been seized from these unlicensed cat breeders since 2023.
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Question No 18.
The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for National Development): Sir, under the Animals and Birds (Licensing of Premises for Pet Shop and other Purposes) Rules, a valid licence is required to breed animals for commercial purposes. Since the licensing conditions for commercial breeding of pet cats were published in July 2023, the National Parks Board (NParks) has licensed three commercial cat breeders. These cat breeders are currently renting units at The Animal Lodge. NParks will continue to monitor the demand for commercial cat breeding and allocate newly available units for cat breeding, where appropriate.
NParks investigates reports of the illegal commercial breeding of cats and takes enforcement action against offenders. Between January 2023 and August 2024, NParks investigated 58 cases of illegal cat breeding and seized 91 cats from these illegal breeders. These cats remain under the care of NParks and are regularly assessed by veterinarians.
Members of the public who wish to purchase cats should only do so from licensed sources, which are subject to licensing conditions to safeguard animal health and welfare and are regularly inspected by NParks.
19 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what mechanisms are in place to ensure that foster carers are able to access all appropriate and relevant health information about the children and young people in their care; and (b) what mechanisms are in place to ensure that the birth parents do not impede access to the health information, including information stored on the Health Buddy app.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Sir, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) will request the birth parents of children taken into care to provide health-related information, including the child’s current health status and medical history, through a medical declaration form. When necessary, MSF will share this information with foster parents. If parents refuse to provide the information, MSF’s Child Protective Service can exercise powers under the Children and Young Persons Act to obtain and share medical information of the child, if needed.
Since fostering is a temporary arrangement, foster parents do not have direct access to the foster child’s health records via HealthHub or Health Buddy applications, as access remains tied to the birth parents’ Singpass. However, foster parents are issued a letter from MSF that identifies them as caregivers under the Ministry’s fostering scheme. This letter facilitates communication with healthcare professionals and ensures the child’s medical needs are properly addressed.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.
\tAssoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): Sir, I appreciate the efforts by the Ministry and the social workers for their continued support of foster parents. However, foster parents do face delays, especially in healthcare treatment, mainly because of the procedural challenges. Sometimes, it is temporary, but sometimes, foster children are in the care of the foster parents for a longer period of time. Under those circumstances, there have been situations where a child's appointment has been cancelled by the natural parents because they have access to the Health Buddy and, because of this delay, sometimes, the child needs to be prepped before he or she goes to the hospital. These are some of the challenges that are happening on the ground.
My question is: can there be more support given via MSF and the Ministry of Health (MOH) in terms of addressing these delays and maybe temporarily preventing the natural parents from having access or cancelling the appointment of their children on Health Hub or Health Buddy? So, that is one suggestion or question.
The other thing is whether it is possible to have a dedicated health liaison person that social workers can work with MOH, because some of these children do need a lot of help and foster parents can be running around. So, greater help and greater assistance will be wonderful between the two Ministries.
\tMr Eric Chua: Sir, I thank Assoc Prof Razwana for her supplementary questions. I will take the two questions together.
Every foster child is issued a medical fee exemption card (MFEC) and this covers standard medical or dental treatment charges as well as compulsory immunisations and medications. So, in terms of getting access to these standard treatments and medication, I do not think the natural parents will be an obstacle to the process.
What happens in every foster placement is that there will be a foster care worker that is assigned to support both the foster parents as well as the foster child, and they will have at least one face-to-face contact every two months. Every foster parent can raise any concerns or difficulties that they face during these sessions. What we can do is that we can continually engage foster parents. Every once in a while, I will also get feedback from foster parents as to how we can improve the process to help facilitate their work in taking care of the foster child. We will continue this engagement and make sure that, wherever support is required, we will render them as soon as possible.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of Bankruptcies due to Credit Card Debts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"
20 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in respect of the increase in the number of bankruptcies in the first half of 2024, what proportion of bankruptcies is due to credit card debts.
\tThe Minister of State for Culture, Community and Youth and Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Sir, my response to this question will also address the other written Parliamentary Question filed by Mr Derrick Goh for today's Sitting.
Not all bankruptcy applications result in bankruptcy orders as applications may be withdrawn for various reasons, such as if the debtor settles the debt or enters into a debt repayment plan with the creditors. The number of bankruptcy orders in the first half of 2024 has been stable compared to the same period in the last few years and remains below pre-COVID-19 levels. The household debt situation in Singapore also remains stable. Non-performing loans (NPLs) are less than 1% of all loans to individuals extended by financial institutions as of the second quarter of 2024. Credit card delinquency rates have also remained stable in the same period. Corporate NPLs have remained low at about 2% as of the second quarter of 2024.
Slightly over two-fifths of bankruptcy orders were due to business failures in the first half of 2024. These debtors borrowed from a range of sources, including banks, credit card issuers, licensed moneylenders and private individuals.
Borrowers who face debt repayment challenges can approach social service agencies, such as Credit Counselling Singapore, for help with debt management and restructuring or to work out appropriate debt repayment plans. Those with unsecured debt with financial institutions may sign up for a Debt Consolidation Plan to restructure their debt. When a bankruptcy application is filed as a last resort, the Ministry of Law’s (MinLaw's) Official Assignee administers a Debt Repayment Scheme to help eligible debtors manage their debt and avoid bankruptcy.
\t
It is also important to ensure that Singaporeans borrow prudently. To mitigate the risk of over-indebtedness, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) requires financial institutions to implement a range of safeguards. For example, requirements on total debt servicing and loan-to-value ratios limit the size of property loans that a borrower can take on. For credit cards, borrowers are subject to minimum income requirements, credit and income checks, and an industry-wide borrowing limit also applies.
Our national financial education programme, MoneySENSE, educates the public on money management skills as well. These include advising consumers to spend within their means, borrow prudently and manage credit card bills to avoid high interest charges.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yong.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Sir, I thank the Minister of State for his reply. According to statistics from the MAS, bad credit card debts and credit card rollover balances are increasing. While I note from Minister of State's reply that the correlation between such unsecured debt and bankruptcy remain stable and is manageable for now, I would like to highlight that it is important for us to look at the entire suite of credit card and credit card-like facilities. I would like to ask if the MAS could include debts from Buy Now Pay Later (BNPL) services into its monitoring of bad credit card debts as these services provide a line of credit to some who would otherwise not qualify for credit card. Essentially, what we deem as vulnerable consumers. We should track BNPL schemes just as closely as credit card debt, given that they provide similar credit facilities.
\t
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Mr Melvin Yong for his supplementary question. In fact, in Singapore, the BNPL sector is still relatively small and transactions now total about 1% of total credit and debit card payments in the first half of 2023.
But I would like to assure the Member that MAS continues to monitor this sector and has guided firms to establish an industry-led code of conduct to mitigate the risks of consumer over-indebtedness. This code includes safeguards, like credit assessments and limits on outstanding payments, assuring responsible lending practice. But I still also want to assure Mr Melvin Yong that MAS will consider stronger regulations if necessary, although the industry now currently relies on self-regulation, given BNPL transactions remain very small compared to other means of payment. But we are looking at this carefully. I thank the Member for his suggestion.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Derrick Goh.
\tMr Derrick Goh (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, my question to the Minister of State is on his point relating to the considerations of stronger regulations by MAS. Would those considerations include requiring BNPL players to report to the Credit Bureau for data so that all players, including banks and financial institutions, could use those data?
The second question would be, given the downtrend of the United States Federal Reserve rates and forecasted interest rates coming down, does the Minister of State see improvements in the bankruptcy orders, which he states as being stable? Over time, would he see those improvements? And for segments that he says are stable, are there any sub-segments that are of concern that he notes in his analysis, whether it relates to businesses or individuals?
\t
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Mr Derrick Goh for his supplementary questions. I will take the second question. The first one, I think I had explained to Mr Melvin Yong that currently, while regulation over BNPL is largely industry-led and driven by the code of conduct, MAS will look into this carefully. And I thank both Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Derrick Goh for their suggestions.
With regard to Mr Derrick Goh's second question, let me share just two things. One, to reiterate the point that while bankruptcy applications have picked up in the first half of 2024, not all of these bankruptcy applications result in bankruptcy orders.
If you look at the data, actually, bankruptcy orders have not increased in tandem with the higher number of applications. One of the reasons might be due to the debt repayment scheme administered by the Official Assignee from MinLaw's Insolvency Office. This is related also because of the fact that debtors, for example, can settle their debt or enter into a debt repayment plan with a creditor. So, although you see a higher number of applications, the bankruptcy orders are actually stable.
On the second point, I thought it is worth also talking about and giving some assurances to the Member that we are still monitoring this closely, but to reflect this with regard to stress tests. I mentioned earlier on that bankruptcy orders have been stable despite elevated interest rates – and I know interest rates are now moderating – and also, economic uncertainties continue to persist. But our MAS stress tests suggest that even now, most households should still be able to service their mortgage debt, even under conservative scenarios of significant income losses of around 10% and even at elevated mortgage rates of 5.5%. Of course, this would change given that interest rates are moving in a different direction now.
And even in the above stress test scenarios, at elevated interest rates, households would still be able to service their mortgages from financial institutions, although a very small segment, the one that Mr Derrick Goh mentioned, of highly leveraged borrowers with below median household incomes, could be more vulnerable to repayment risks. But such borrowers also account for less than 5% of total mortgage loans by count and comprise mostly private housing loans.
Looking ahead, given the expected decline in domestic interest rates, we think that it should ease debt repayment for borrowers. MAS will look into these and monitor these carefully.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safety Audits and Findings by SAF Inspector-General’s Office and Improvement Measures Implemented","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant –
21 To ask the Minister for Defence (a) whether the Ministry can provide details on the safety audits and review processes that are regularly conducted by the SAF Inspector-General’s Office at training camps; (b) what are the common safety lapses that continue to occur during the SAF’s training and the reasons behind such occurrences and; (c) what steps have been put in place to ensure such lapses do not recur and the quality and standard of SAF’s training is not compromised.
Mr Keith Chua (Nominated Member): Question No 21, Sir.
The Senior Minister of State for Defence (Mr Heng Chee How) (for the Minister for Defence): Mr Speaker, each year the Singapore Armed Forces' (SAF's) Inspector General's Office (IGO) conducts between 40 and 50 physical audits and reviews of safety standards and practices involving SAF Formations and units. The safety policies, management system and culture, day-to-day practices, compliance to training safety instructions and attention of commanders to safety outcomes form part of these inspections. In addition, the IGO also looks into notable safety incidents and near misses to establish their root causes, to determine if there are safety lapses and recommend corrective actions where necessary.
In carrying out its work, the IGO also taps on external experts and review panels, including the External Review Panel on SAF Safety, which provides further independent reviews, benchmarking and recommendations on the SAF's safety management systems and practices.
While there have been no significant systemic weaknesses identified, the IGO recognises that the journey to zero accidents is a continuous one that requires constant effort to improve the safety culture for all units.
From time to time, particular attention is paid to strengthen safety in specific areas. For example, the current area of focus is to reduce vehicular incidents, as the SAF operates a large number and range of vehicles, ranging from jeeps, utility vehicles and trucks, as well as armoured vehicles such as tanks. The SAF has been strengthening its training regime. Vehicle operators are trained progressively, first qualifying to drive, before gaining experience and confidence to operate larger and more complex vehicles. Simulators and driving circuits are used to increase training hours and expand the range of training scenarios, including challenging and contingency situations. On our vehicular platforms, technologies such as vehicular proximity sensors and cameras have been adopted to reduce human judgement errors.
Most recently, technologies like driver monitoring systems to detect driver fatigue, as well as sensors and video analytics to spot unsafe driving practices and safety transgressions have also been deployed. From 2021 to 2023, vehicle incident rate in the SAF decreased from 3.04 per 100,000 kilometres driven in the work year 2021, to 2.54 in work year 2023.
Another area of attention is heat injuries, given our rising ambient temperatures. The SAF has raised awareness of units, commanders and servicemen on the importance of heat acclimatisation and early identification of heat injury symptoms. More wet bulb globe temperature sensors have been installed in camps and training areas to provide real-time environmental heat measure for better work rest cycle decisions. In 2023, the SAF partnered the National University of Singapore and the DSO National Laboratories to establish the Heat Resilience and Performance Centre to conduct research and development on soldier heat resilience and adaptation. Between 2021 and 2023, the annual number of heat strokes and heat exhaustion injuries has fallen from seven to two, with no heat strokes during that period.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Suspicious Transaction Reports Linked to Rivaton Group","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"22 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether any suspicious transaction reports were filed by corporate service providers or banks in Singapore in relation to the Rivaton Group prior to the arrests of their members in Japan for money laundering (b) if so, what are the dates of such reports; (c) whether Singapore authorities have carried out any investigation after such arrests; (d) if so, whether this group was found to have laundered money or have such funds in Singapore; and (e) what is the amount.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Suspicious transaction reports were filed in relation to the Rivaton Group after reports appeared in the Japanese media in May 2024. Singapore authorities are in contact with our foreign counterparts, including rendering assistance within the ambit of our laws. We are unable to provide further details at this juncture.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Graduates who are Unable to Find Jobs within Six Months of Graduation and Assessment of Job Opportunities for Them","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"23 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry tracks the number of graduates who are unable to find jobs within six months of graduation; and (b) whether job opportunities for new graduates have reduced or improved over the last three years.
\tThe Minister of State for Manpower (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) track the employment outcomes of their respective graduates six months after graduation through the annual Graduate Employment Survey. Amongst fresh IHL graduates who are looking for jobs, the employment rate has remained high and stable over the past three years. About 90% of the 2023 cohort were employed within six months of graduation, comparable to pre-COVID-19 levels.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): May I ask the Minister of State whether she has specific statistics rather than just 90%? So, 10% cannot find jobs within six months, but how many is that in absolute terms? Does the Ministry of Manpower have the figures for 2022 and 2021, that is, last three years?
\t
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: I thank the Member for the supplementary question. They are also about 90% for the past three years. So, that variation has not been significant.
The Member might be concerned about the availability of jobs for fresh graduates. I would like to say that statistics on job roles for fresh graduates as a group, are not available as it would be in breach of workplace fairness if employers were to specify that certain job roles are intended for fresh graduates only. But a good proxy is the published ratio of job vacancies to unemployed persons as a proxy for the availability of job opportunities for all workers. This ratio has remained stable at 1.67 in June 2024 and this is an indication that our fresh graduates should still be able to find jobs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of and Occupancy Rates at Homeless Shelters","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"24 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Government can provide an update on (i) the total number of beds available in shelters for the homeless and (ii) the average occupancy rate, in the past three years; (b) what is the average length of stay in a homeless shelter; and (c) whether there are plans put in place to help the homeless transition from a shelter to a more permanent place of residence in the mid- to long-term.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Mr Speaker, there are currently seven transitional shelters for homeless persons and families in need of temporary residential support. The total capacity is about 720 beds. From 2021 to 2023, the transitional shelters had an average occupancy rate of about 60%.
Individuals stay in a transitional shelter for an average of about nine months. To help residents transit to a more permanent place of residence, social workers at the TSS work closely to address the needs of these individuals and families and support them in securing stable long-term housing such as rental flats or purchase flats.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Darryl David.
\tMr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): I would like to thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for that answer. Just one supplementary question. I think the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that the occupancy rate is 60%. This would suggest that there are vacancies in these shelters. Could the Senior Parliamentary Secretary perhaps provide some insight into the process, that is, how easy it would be, how quickly it would be for a homeless person or someone sleeping rough to get a place in these shelters?
\t
\tMr Eric Chua: Sir, with respect to the Member's supplementary question, I think there is no one answer because every case is unique by its own merits. Those of us who are involved in this piece of work would know that the situational factors and difficulties that each homeless or rough-sleeping person has to deal with are often complex and interlocking. It could be a mix of employment, family disputes, mental health – and a whole host of other issues. And oftentimes, they overlap with one another.
So, what we need to do then is to make sure that we can work with community groups, work with individual volunteers on the ground, Government agencies in the mix as well, to offer the most thoughtful as well as customised support to each of these cases. So, really, there is no one quick, textbook answer for all the cases.
\t
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Notice of Motion.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Olympic and Paralympic Achievements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That this House congratulates our Team Singapore Olympians and Paralympians, in particular our medallists Ms Jeralyn Tan, Mr Maximilian Maeder and Ms Yip Pin Xiu, for their achievements at the 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games.\"
Sir, let me start by warmly welcoming our Team Singapore Olympians and Paralympians, together with their families and their loved ones, coaches, and other sporting officials, seated here in the Chamber and also in the Gallery this afternoon. Welcome! [Applause.]
Sir, every four years, the Olympic and Paralympic Games issue a challenge to all nations to send forth their best athletes, men and women alike, to showcase the heights of human potential through the common medium of sports which transcends all creed, colour and language.
The original motto of the Olympics was adopted in 1894 and coined by the Founder of the modern Olympic Games, Pierre de Coubertin. It is \"citius\", \"altius\" and \"fortius\" in Latin – and I hope I have not butchered it. Or as we know it better in English: \"faster\", \"higher\", \"stronger\".
What is less known is that after 127 years, in 2021, the motto was slightly modified to \"citius, altius, fortius, communiter\". \"Communiter\" is Latin for \"together\". So, the current motto of the Olympics is really \"faster, higher, stronger, together\". \"Together\" is also why we are here today in this House to pass this Motion to celebrate our Olympians and Paralympians. They are with us in this House observing the proceedings. We thank them and their loved ones for their presence.
But more importantly, we thank them for bringing us together as a community, as a nation, in a way that only they can, through sports. They have engendered a sense of \"togetherness\" that is so important for a young nation like Singapore to experience as part of our nation-building. The adjectives \"faster\", \"higher\" and \"stronger\" are known as comparative adjectives in English grammar. They are commonly used to compare one person or a team against another person or another team. But there is another deeper dimension to this, especially with the addition of the word \"together\" in the motto. Let me illustrate this with an example.
Forty years ago, in the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics, American sprint legend, Carl Lewis, won the men's 100-metre sprint with a time of 9.99 seconds. In 2024, the same event was won by American sprinter, Noah Lyles, at 9.79 seconds. In fact, he won it by 5000th of a second. I am not sure the human eye or brain could process it. But more importantly, the slowest qualifying time for the men's 100-metre final at Paris 2024 was 9.91 seconds, which means if legend Carl Lewis had run the same race in 2024 as he did in 1984 to win the gold, he would not have even qualified for the Finals in Paris.
This, Sir, is progress for athletics and it is also progress for the human race. When we compete in a friendly and fair manner repeatedly over time, everyone in the field improves. Fair and friendly competition is good for everyone. We progress, together.
Sir, 33 of Singapore's best athletes competed at the 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games. They competed against the world's best, carrying the weight of our nation's hopes and dreams. They stood out, not just as individuals, but also represented Singapore's collective aspirations. I had the privilege of attending the 2024 Paris Olympics and Paralympics, where I witnessed firsthand our athletes' determination and resolve, even as they stood up against formidable opponents. Not all our Olympians and Paralympians present today won a medal in Paris. But they are all winners. They have all fought hard in the toughest of arenas and pushed themselves above and beyond their limits.
As Jesse Owens, another Olympic legend, once said, \"The only victory that counts is the one over yourself.\" And our athletes have achieved this victory. They have not just represented our nation with distinction, but they have conquered themselves. And we thank, and we honour, Team Singapore athletes for being our source of inspiration and for being our role models.
Overall, our Team Singapore Contingent had an illustrious campaign. They came home with two gold medals, a silver and a bronze, two national records and two personal bests. We also brought back our best ever medal haul at the Paralympics. And amongst our three medallists, two of them, Jeralyn and Max, made it to the podium at the first time of asking, on their debut.
Mr Speaker, allow me to say a little more about our medallists who have made us tremendously proud. What resonates with us, though, goes well beyond tangible medal achievements. More important is the resilience we saw in their attitudes and the grace with which they have conducted themselves and flown our flag so proudly.
First, we have Jeralyn Tan, our first Paralympic silver medallist for boccia. Her story is about conviction and perseverance, sticking through the tough times. In her early years of competing, she faced multiple setbacks and losses. But she pressed on. After several years of hard work and winning three editions of the World Boccia Cup in 2023 and 2024, she is now the world's top-ranked boccia player in her class. She qualified for the Paralympics this year, and as you would know, she came back with the historic first medal in boccia, winning the silver. I would add that she was a whisker away from the gold – it went down to the very last ball. But I am sure this will only inspire and motivate Jeralyn even more in future editions of the Paralympics. [Applause.]
Second, our Olympic bronze medallist, kitefoiler, Max Maeder. Max's story is about courage and sportsmanship and being an inspirational role model for our youths in Singapore. I am sure all of you will remember that Max gave Singapore a wonderful birthday present on National Day this year, winning the bronze medal. At 17 years old and making his debut at the Olympics, Max was not just the youngest Singaporean athlete to win an Olympic medal. He was also the youngest in the world to win an individual sailing medal at the Olympics ever. We saw his determination and sportsmanship when he came up against world-class opponents, older and more experienced than him. But Members, if you get a chance to have a chat with this fine young gentleman, you will be struck by his passion, his maturity, and his humility at his young age. Max's story shows that we can, and indeed, every Singaporean must dare to dream big and chase the rainbow, no matter the odds, and of course, as he has shown, no matter the age.
Third, Yip Pin Xiu – our double-gold medallist in swimming. Pin Xiu's story is familiar. It is one of consistency and longevity at the highest level, but also about selfless service to the community and to our nation. Pin Xiu is not only Singapore's most decorated Paralympian, having won double gold in the S2 Women's 50-metre and 100-metre backstroke events, over the past three editions of the Paralympics. She has effectively made these events her own – six gold medals over three editions of the Paralympics, 50 metres and 100 metres.
Remarkedly, Pin Xiu's first gold medal was won 16 years ago in 2008 in Beijing – a champion in every sense. But perhaps what is more remarkable is how she uses her standing and her sporting achievements to champion causes that she believes in. Pin Xiu has made extensive contributions to our nation, as a passionate advocate on social issues – on youths, on sports, on inclusion for persons with disabilities. In fact, just over the weekend, she was out at the Purple Parade! Her stint as a former Nominated Member of Parliament, a current National Youth Council member, and a member of the SDSC Board among others – that is a testament of her selfless service to the community in a broad and diverse range of different sectors.
I want to add my congratulations to all our medal winners. You have done us all very proud. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker, I am sure many in this House as well as fellow Singaporeans, would have watched our athletes compete on television. But we only saw the tip of the iceberg or the sharp end of the spear as it were. An event like athletics or swimming can be over in 10 seconds. But we saw Team Singapore give their all in every event they competed in, leaving nothing behind in the cauldron of competition in Paris.
But it is not just their efforts alone. Behind each of them lies an entire support system that has enabled them to be at their very best against the very best in the world. We all know the saying that it takes a village to raise a child. But I think it takes more than a village – in this case, maybe a whole town – to raise an athlete to compete and challenge at the highest levels. This includes their families, the coaches, trainers, physiotherapists, nutritionists, psychologists, sports administrators and even sport associations. All of them collectively play an important role, creating an environment that enables our athletes to thrive. This list goes on.
I would therefore like to express my deep appreciation to these people who are often unnamed, work quietly behind the scenes in the background, no fuss, to make things happen perfectly for our athletes. They are a key part of Team Singapore, and an integral part of our success at these Olympics and Paralympics. And it is indeed a victory founded on the Olympic spirit of \"togetherness\". Their collective efforts have enabled our athletes to better themselves. And I thought it would be useful to give come colour to what I am saying with some examples for Members.
First, let me talk about coach Yurnita. She is Jeralyn's coach and has has been for many years. But she is not just a coach, she is also Jeralyn's closest confidant, throughout her long journey. Their relationship spans many years, and they were involved in countless competitions – locally as well as abroad. At the Paralympics, at the end of her quarter-finals match, Jeralyn was up against the world number one in the quarter finals. We saw a very astute strategic suggestion that coach gave to Jeralyn which Jeralyn executed to perfection. From a defensive position, she pulled off a stunning shot, unerring in accuracy and perfect in weight. It completely closed off her opponent's angles and frustrated all of her opponent's remaining shots. This move, which was brilliant, won Jeralyn the match. Eventually, she made it to the finals where she won the silver.
Coach Yurnita had to judge not just what would work in the context of strategy in the match, but more importantly, whether in that situation, could Jeralyn pull it off. The coach's deep bond and understanding with Jeralyn allowed her to make the right call at the right time for the athlete. In the coach's own words, the both of them are \"not just like friends; we are like family\". I saw this myself at the Paralympics – Yurnita celebrated every success and cried every tear, along with Jeralyn. This deep connection and trust allowed them to navigate both triumphs and challenges successfully together. We are fortunate to have coaches like coach Yurnita as part of Team Singapore.
Members might not know either that we had a very strong support team for Paris but sitting in Singapore. They were not even in Paris. They worked in Singapore, operating from a different time zone. These included our sport scientists as well as our medical team. They worked off videos and live data that were sent across, sometimes overnight, from Paris. They worked round the clock to analyse the data, make suggestions to ensure that our athletes peak, stay at their peak, and were able to compete in a high-pressure and unrelenting environment – everything from sleep to nutrition, physiotherapy to psychology.
They and many more are the invaluable unseen force behind our Team Singapore. I thank all of you very much for these efforts.
Finally, I also want to thank the many Singaporeans who supported our athletes through thick and thin. Many turned up in full force to celebrate the open-top bus parades a couple of weeks ago. Some even turned up in Paris, on their own, to lend their support and voices in person. And we received many more countless messages from Singaporeans, cheering them on in spirit. I am sure our athletes appreciated every single one of these expressions of support.
Mr Speaker, Sir, as we close the chapter on Paris 2024, we have to ask: what is next for sports in Singapore? Over the past five Olympic and Paralympic campaigns, since 2008, we have been doing incrementally well. We have reached the podium at all Paralympics since 2008, winning 14 medals in total. We have also achieved podium success in four out of five editions of the Olympics.
As our Prime Minister said at the National Day Rally, we must find a way to build on these successes and for sport to be a key pathway to success. So, how do we now build on our strong foundations and strive towards our next bound of sporting excellence? For starters, we have no time to lose. Los Angeles 2028 and Brisbane 2032 will be upon us in no time. We have already started preparations.
Renowned American Car Racer Bobby Unser Jr said it well when he said: “Success is where preparation and opportunity meet”. So, what do we have to do? We have to work hard, so that when that opportunity arrives, we will be prepared to make a success of it.
Sir, in my view, the best way to honour the success of our athletes is to ensure that we build on their success today. We want today’s athletes to be the giants on whose shoulders our tomorrow's athletes stand. To reach further, faster, stronger, higher together. So that we can also achieve more, with each succeeding generation of Team Singapore athletes.
Let me therefore recap some of our key strategies to achieve this. Our first strategy starts at the base, driving keen interest and wide participation in sports. On the whole, Singaporeans have embraced the value of participating in sports. In 2015, 54% of Singaporeans participated in sports weekly. In 2023, that figure has grown to 73%. We are not yet satisfied, we will press on. Not just to broaden but to deepen participation.
Our ActiveSG academies and clubs allows youths to take part in a variety of affordable sports programmes. These programmes are held in our network of Sports Centres right across Singapore, covering 10 different sports. For those who may not be able to afford to be on these programmes, we have set up the SportCares Bursary, which covers the full cost of the participation fees for these programmes.
Key to increasing sports access to our youths is also our partnership with the Ministry of Education (MOE). For instance, MOE and SportSG run the Strategic-Partnership CCA programme, for example in sports like water polo and athletics, to allow students with otherwise no access to these co-curricular activities (CCAs) to be able to take part in and participate in these sports.
We have also opened the Sports Hub for more National School Games Finals. A record number of National School Game events, now take place at the Sports Hub. Why? We want to allow our children to experience playing in the same venue as the national team. An experience that they will not easily forget and will hopefully inspire them for years to come.
The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) is committed to working with MOE to improving our talent pathways through policies like the Direct School Admission. This must be complemented by each of our national sports associations' (NSAs’) efforts to broaden the appeal of their sport. Make it attractive and accessible, build up demand for it so that more schools will offer these sports to start with.
For the community, we have also built up a vibrant community sporting calendar with competitions like the ActiveSG Cup and Pesta Sukan. I hope some Members here have had the opportunity to take part in those events at the grassroots level. These events not just allow us to take part in a sport that is healthy, driving participation, but also helps us to bring the community together.
We have also established, over time, a network of world-class sports facilities that are located closer to all of us, in our neighbourhoods, removing that one last excuse of the centres and facilities being too far away. For example, our refreshed sports centres at Delta and Choa Chu Kang, our future developments like Toa Payoh and Punggol. We now cannot complain that the facilities are too far away.
Our second strategy is to strengthen our high-performance sport system to be athlete-focused and to give our best athletes the best preparation possible.
Our sports institutions like the Singapore Sport Institute (SSI) and National Youth Sports Institute (NYSI) work closely with our NSAs to provide our athletes with the best training environment, every day on a daily basis. We also want to give our athletes access to the best facilities, the top coaches, world-class competitions as well as to benefit from end-to-end sports science support.
Take our top athletes like Swimmer Sophie or Shooter Xiu Hong who are in the Chamber here today. The spexScholarship that they are on unlocks their potential, gives them a base, providing monthly stipends and dedicated sports science support, allowing them to be fully focused, invested in their sport, training, competing, full-time.
We also recognise that our top athletes must be constantly challenged. And so, we send our athletes to train and to compete overseas regularly, allowing our athletes to spar with some of the world's best.
Take, for example, our table tennis team. They were able to participate in a range of camps and competitions, in the lead-up to the Olympics. In fact, prior to being in Paris, they spent an extensive period in Shimada City, Japan, before the 2024 World Table Tennis Team Championships.
Sir, I mentioned the spexScholarship. This has been one of our most successful high-performance pillars. So, we extended the spex support for our athletes. The number of spexScholars has grown from 61 in 2013 to more than 100 in the last two years. So, more athletes on the programme covering a bigger range, a wider range, of different sports. Collectively, the spexScholars form the core of our Paris Olympics and Paralympics contingent.
We have also gone further upstream, recognising that sometimes we need to give support at an earlier phase in the athlete's development, supporting more promising athletes, earlier on in their sporting journey. This year, we saw our first cohort of 48 spexPotential athletes, awarded to athletes who are on the cusp of a breakthrough and who might require that additional nudge or push to help them make the leap.
Overall, Sir, an enhanced spex support, twinned with the programme at Singapore Sports School provides a comprehensive pathway for our youths to achieve their sporting programmes. Established 20 years ago now, the Singapore Sports School provides a unique educational offering, wrapping academics around sports, optimising student-athletes’ development in sports whilst at the same time ensuring that they have the best opportunity to maintain their academic pursuits.
Indeed, the Sports School’s results speak for themselves on the sporting stage. Over these two decades, they have produced 19 Olympians and 17 World Champions, some of whom are here today: Amita, Izaac and Shanti are proud alumni of the Sports School.
We also recently announced the spexEducation Undergraduate Scholarships and the Central Provident Fund (CPF) top-ups for our spexScholars. This helps take care of a very important aspect of our athlete's needs – academic qualifications and financial stability. We did so because we know how much our athletes sacrifice when they pursue their sporting ambition. These initiatives therefore provide our athletes the assurance that their education and financial needs can be supported as they journey on their sporting ambition. This helps them maintain and remain committed to sports in the long term.
Our third strategy is to enhance our institutional capabilities in every aspect of sporting support. From cutting-edge sports scientists, to world-class coaches, to technical officials, as examples. The whole sporting ecosystem must grow.
For instance, our sport scientists are playing an increasingly crucial role in preparing our athletes. I gave some examples earlier of how we operated out of Singapore, supporting our athletes in Paris. What they do off the field of play, has a very important and significant bearing on our athletes’ performances.
We also know all too well how a good coach makes all the difference. And so we support the NSA when they identify a good coach they wish to bring in and help us, overall, in our Singapore sporting system, to grow.
For instance, when Fencing Singapore wanted to bring in a world-class coach in Oleg Matshuchiek, we supported them. I have met Oleg. He is a top fencing coach. He was previously with the Japanese national team. He led them to two Olympic silver medals. Today, he is part of Team Singapore, focused on training our fencers and turning them into world-class athletes competing with the best on the world's best platforms.
We will continue working with our NSAs to develop, identify and bring in the best coaches, to benefit not just our athletes but also develop our own local coaching talent.
We must also build up sporting thought leadership. Take, for example, technical officials. We had at least 10 technical officials at the Paris Olympics, representing Singapore in sports such as hockey, gymnastics and diving. Their expertise and their know-how help us, in turn to lift our sporting standards. It also profiles Singapore sport on the world stage and positions us to host world-class sporting events in the future.
A number of our former athletes have also become our sports specialists. We tap into their experience and know-how and the fact that they are very familiar with the circuit. Former shuttler, Kelvin Ho, is now our singles head coach for our shuttlers. And our former Olympic sailor, Mr Xu Yuan Zhen, was the assistant team manager, for our sailors Ryan and Max. I watched Yuan Zhen in action – he brought all of his Olympic experience to bear, preparing, mentoring our young sailors, giving them an idea as to what is going to happen, how to take control of the situation, how to deal with the mental aspect of the sport, so that they all gain a competitive advantage.
We will therefore build up this talent, retain our ex-sportsmen and sportswomen as much as possible, keep them in this space, leverage off the experience that they have and hope to make sports a viable career for each of them.
Our fourth strategy is to bring in world-class sporting events into Singapore, where we can. Not just for sporting spectatorship value but also to provide more opportunities for our national athletes to compete and measure themselves against the world’s best, such as for Izaac Quek when he was 16 years old.
He first competed in the 2022 edition of Singapore Smash, one of the more prestigious events in the world. He lost that match in 2022, but he picked up very important big match experience which would otherwise have been difficult for a young boy about to breakthrough, to master. He came back stronger a year later, 2023, same competition, Singapore Smash. He was drawn against the reigning Commonwealth gold medallist. He was two sets down, but he came back to win 3-2 and he progressed further in Smash that year. Later that year, he won three SEA Games gold medals and this year, in July, he made his debut at the Olympics.
You can see the value of having world-class events in Singapore. We get wildcards for our athletes, they take part, they compete, they participate, they gain the experience and then, their improvement is exponential.
The Government has committed to invest $165 million, as the Prime Minister has announced, in the Major Sports Events over the next four years. In the coming years, Singaporeans can expect world-class events such as the World Chess Championships and the World Aquatics Championships, para swimming, and we will also be building a new 18,000-seater indoor arena, allowing us to host these world-class sports events and also strengthening Singapore’s position as an attractive destination for sports, entertainment and lifestyle.
Our fifth strategy is to strengthen our support for disability sports, to promote more participation and to set up a stronger pipeline for excellence. I will say more about this when we launch the Disability Sports Master Plan (DSMP) next month, but let me sketch out a few key points.
Sir, we are committed to transforming the lives of our persons with disabilities through the power of sports. We have seen that time and time again, how important how sport is to participation, uplifting morale, giving us a sense of self-worth. We will therefore progressively enhance accessibility to public sports facilities.
SportSG has already retrofitted eight swimming pools with ramps for wheelchairs, two more pools will have ramps by the end of next year. We also target to make all ActiveSG gyms inclusive by 2026. Persons with disabilities can look forward to ActiveSG gym orientation programmes that will be ready by later this year.
But, Sir, inclusivity is more than just accessibility. Since the launch of the DSMP in 2016, sport participation among persons with disabilities have increased from 28% in 2015, to 46% in 2023. More importantly, beyond just catering to accessibility, SportSG and their partners have introduced a range of programmes for persons with disabilities to themselves take part in sports. Not just be at the venues, but take part in sports. There must, therefore, be suitable programmes to encourage a stronger sense of participation and community. The ActiveSG Para Sport Academy have also started programmes to provide persons with disabilities opportunities to participate in sports such as wheelchair rugby and para canoe.
MCCY and SportSG have also embarked on efforts to step up on our plans leading into the DSMP. Since last year, my colleague, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua has led a taskforce comprising various stakeholders to listen to ideas, to take on suggestions and to push the boundary and the envelope on how we can refresh the DSMP. More than 800 stakeholders have been engaged and they have provided us with very good ideas which we will take onboard.
We will announce our recommendations to refresh the DSMP shortly. This will focus on more opportunities for persons with disabilities to participate in sports regularly, at the base level, having more participation and more opportunity. To also raise more awareness and to bring our community together, through unified participation like Play Inclusive, bringing able-bodied persons with persons with disabilities on the same team, taking part collectively. And also to have a clear pathway for sporting excellence as we nurture, cultivate and develop sporting talent for the next generation of disability sports excellence.
Sir, our sixth strategy that I will talk about today is to deepen our partnership amongst the various sporting institutions in Singapore. Sir, we are a small country, with a smaller population than most countries. But if we pull in the same direction, work collectively, united, we can turn our size into an advantage. NSAs, SportSG, SSI, NYSI, Singapore National Olympic Council (SNOC) and Singapore National Paralympics Council (SNPC) have to be cohesive and concerted in our efforts to advance sports together in Singapore.
At the same time, we will gradually step up professionalising the talent that we have in sports administration. This overall will benefit our athletes as well as the support structure for our athletes.
Sir, as I conclude, let me just recap. I have briefly outlined our key strategies. We build the base, we strengthen the pipeline, we invest in technical expertise in sports science, we professionalise our sports administration. We need to find a way to bring this all together. We have six strategies, but it is important that they work in tandem and they work cohesively.
At the National Day Rally this year, the Prime Minister announced the Kallang Alive Masterplan. It is a bold and comprehensive plan to put sports firmly at the front our agenda, to create a clear pathway for success for Singaporeans through sports. It will allow younger Singaporeans to choose sports first and be supported in their choice. The Kallang Alive plans will bring all our six strategies, coalescing them physically, literally under one roof.
We will bring together athletes, sports science, NSA, coaches, officials and Sports School into our Home of Team Singapore, which will be in the middle of our Kallang Alive Masterplan. All of these wrapped around with dedicated, world-class training facilities, a National Training Centre with facilities for Para Sports, and an expanded sport science and sport medicine centre.
We will also more closely integrate with our sporting institutions and bring everyone together to inspire one another, leverage and build on economies of scale, inspire one another and to collectively call ourselves one Team Singapore.
As the Prime Minister announced, the whole of Singapore will also be a part of this experience in the Kallang Alive Precinct, with the activation of the beautiful Kallang Alive waterfront area as well as the pedestrianising of the boulevard running through the precinct.
Mr Speaker, as I started this speech, I said that the best way to thank our athletes today is to ensure that we preserve and we build on the legacies of their successes. We also hoist in the lessons of their journeys and we do what we can to ensure that we will be better tomorrow than we were yesterday.
The Government does not have unlimited resources. No one does. But with what we have, you have our commitment that we will continue to support our athletes and their aspirations as best we can.
To our Team Singapore athletes, we know how tough it is to be an athlete at this level, to be constantly challenged, to keep yourself always at the peak of your levels. You are constantly pushing the boundaries of your potential, chasing greatness with every training, with every competition, and with every moment of preparation. The journey is filled with challenges, but then again, it is these very challenges and obstacles that will sharpen your instinct and strengthen your resolve.
Remember that excellence is not just about talent. It is equally about discipline, resilience and the ability to rise again after every fall. Stay focused, trust the process and embrace every opportunity to compete because each step forward is a victory in and of itself. More importantly, your efforts and achievements inspire and unite Singaporeans. You inspire us all to be faster, higher, stronger; to be the best, or if not, then at least the better versions of ourselves. And to do it collectively, together, as one Singapore. For this, we thank you very much. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. [Applause.]
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.
Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang): The Olympics and Paralympics are the epitome of all sporting competitions. Mr Speaker, Sir, I join Minister Edwin Tong and on behalf of all Parliamentarians, to offer our heartiest appreciation and congratulations to our Team Singapore athletes, our Chefs de mission, coaches, physiotherapists, team managers, SNOC and SportSG officials, staff and parents for their commendable participation and performance at the 2024 Olympics and Paralympics in Paris.
Amongst the 23 Olympics and 10 Paralympics athletes who competed, world champion kitefoiler, Max Maeder, six-time Paralympic gold medallist, Yip Pin Xiu, and boccia world number two, Jeralyn Tan, flew our Singapore flag high as they emerged on the podium to receive their hard-fought Olympic and Paralympic medals.
Badminton world champion, Loh Kean Yew, managed to reach the Men’s Singles quarter finals. Swimmer, Gan Ching Hwee, set her personal bests and broke the National records for 800-metre and 1,500-metre freestyle. Once again, congratulations to all. [Applause.]
Los Angeles 2028 Olympics will come around faster than we realise. To help our athletes unleash their fullest potential and excel at the Los Angeles 2028 and Brisbane 2032 Olympics, SportSG and respective NSAs must now begin to work closely with our athletes, coaches and parents.
A world-class athlete starts training from an extremely early age. Michael Phelps, the American swimmer and the most decorated Olympian of all times, with 28 Olympic medals, was only 19 when he won his first gold medals at Athens Olympics in 2004. More recently, diving sensation, Quan Hong Chan, was only 14 years old when she won a gold medal at Tokyo Olympics in 2021. At the Paris Olympics 2024, French Paddler, Felix Lebrun, 17 years old, won two bronze medals. Our very own bronze medallist, Max Maeder, is also 17. Our table tennis players, Izaac Quek and Zhou Jingyi, are respectively 18 and 19. They are also amongst the youngest Team Singapore athletes to have competed in the Paris Olympics.
The Singapore Sports School can be our critical gamechanger. This year marks its 20th anniversary. Over the years, the school has produced 19 Olympians and 17 world champions. Some of our athletes have done well to compete at the highest level while balancing their education.
However, none of our six Olympic medallists till date, Tan Howe Liang, Feng Tianwei, Li Jiawei, Wang Yuegu, Joseph Schooling and Max Maeder, is an alumnus of Singapore Sports School. From a young age, Joseph Schooling, our only Olympic gold medallist, took the non-mainstream pathway to study and train in the United States (US). Max Maeder is home-schooled and has to travel abroad very frequently to train and compete.
The question here is, even though the Sports School has managed to have churned out 19 Olympians, how soon can the school produce an Olympic medal winner? We are all aware that nothing is predictable but after 20 years of not being able to produce an Olympic medallist, we would need to take a critical look at the changes required. We must understand the unique challenges and constraints in our current system and adjust our current strategy.
Here are three unique constraints. Firstly, even though Singapore has built a world-class sporting infrastructure, we do not have a world-class competitive ecosystem. As a result, there is a shortfall of high-level competitions and our athletes would have to travel frequently or be based overseas to train and learn from the best athletes around the globe.
Secondly, it is extremely tough and tiring for students to balance competitive sports with our demanding education system. While the Sports School has a very student-centric programme that works around their competition schedules, there is not such an academic programme in the higher institutes of learning. Our national athletes would have to follow the same academic and attendance standards as their peers in our local polytechnics and universities. This stringent academic requirement becomes very challenging whenever they must travel overseas.
Thirdly, National Service (NS). Their progress and sporting performance will invariably suffer a decline over the two years as they are unable to train and compete regularly. This enlistment period will inevitably coincide with the most crucial sporting peak years.
Mr Speaker, Sir, all of us hope to see more Singaporean athletes excel and fly our Singapore flag high in Los Angeles Olympics and beyond. I would like to offer two suggestions.
First, we obviously must invest in world-class coaches with a track record of developing Olympians, be it an international or a Singaporean coach. The coach works closely with the athlete on technical aspects, physical fitness and competition strategy. The coach is the most crucial partner for an elite athlete and this is especially so during the formative years. The athlete’s mental strength is critical for any personal breakthrough and is the defining factor between winning or losing. An experienced coach, and preferably once an Olympian, can better understand the intense psychological pressures and better prepare and strengthen the athletes’ mental resilience.
Most athletes in their teenage years are not ready for the pressure and limelight thrown upon professional sportsmen and sportswomen. The coach is the mentor to guide and protect them from unnecessary pressures and distractions. One example would be athletics head coach, Luis Cunha. He helped our “sprint queen”, Shanti Pereira, make her breakthrough after a seven-year plateau. Though already at age 27, Shanti won the 200 metres gold and 100 metres silver medals at the Hangzhou Asian Games in 2023. She has broken the national record for 100 metres and 200 metres multiple times. Coach Cunha himself was a national sprinter and had represented Portugal at three Olympics Games. Shanti credited her spectacular breakthrough to her coach, Cunha.
Former Olympian swimmer, Mark Chay, coached Paralympian swimmer, Yip Pin Xiu, since 2019 and she continues to fly the Singapore flag high. Former Olympians and national table tennis head coaches Gao Ning and Jing Junhong trained Izaac Quek and Zhou Jingyi since their formative years in the Singapore Sports School.
I hope that SportSG and respective NSAs will continue to identify and attract the best coaches, especially those with Olympic experiences.
NS is mandatory for all fit and eligible male Singaporeans and Permanent Residents, and there should be no exceptions. My second suggestion is to implement a modified NS programme for a handful of athletes who have already competed in the Olympics. This suggestion requires a paradigm shift as to the way we view NS.
So far, the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) has granted deferment only to three Olympians, Joseph Schooling, Quah Zheng Wen and most recently, Max Maeder. Defence Minister, Dr Ng Eng Hen has also shared in Parliament in July 2022 that MINDEF is prepared to allow more national athletes to disrupt their full-time national service to train for international competitions.
The problem athletes face is that the deferment of NS duties till after the Olympics may in turn result in a deferment of the loss of critical training and competition window. As a result, the deferred NS duties may actually coincide with subsequent Olympics where the stakes may be even higher.
I would like to suggest a modified NS programme for athletes who have already competed at the Olympics and have the potential to excel at the next Olympics. A modified NS programme could include Basic Military Training, followed by a short specialist course, something that could be more intensive for a shorter period. Thereafter, the athlete is being seconded to SportSG to complete the remaining NS term. During this period, the athlete must focus on full-time training and competition, in preparation for next Olympics Games.
For his reservist, the athlete can also serve in SportSG if he is still actively competing. If retired, he may be posted back to the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), to be deployed to the NS reservist units as a specialist, to complete his remaining NS tenure or even serve his time as a coach.
So, I hope MCCY and MINDEF will consider this modified NS programme for Olympians. The time provided to them during the secondment period will be extremely critical for them to stay in top form, improve their international rankings needed to qualify for the next Olympic Games and hone their mental resilience for the battles ahead.
Competition at the highest level is relentless and the window of opportunity is extremely short. As a nation, we should be giving our top athletes the maximum resources and clear the roadblocks for them, so that they can go all out without reservations, to compete against their opponents on the global sporting arenas. We should not only be spending top dollars to build world-class infrastructure and sending our athletes for multiple training stints and competitions overseas. We must be laser-sharp in our focus on how our athletes may achieve their full sporting potential and help them. If our system does not provide maximum support to our top athletes, then we should not expect anything more from sports other than healthy living. I hope the MCCY and MINDEF will consider my two suggestions.
As a nation, we must be realistic and realise that our full support to all our athletes, coaches and Team Singapore officials, determines how our athletes will fare in sports.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion put forth by Minister Edwin Tong and I hope our Los Angeles 2028 Olympians will shine even brighter on the world stage and continue to fly our Singapore flag high! [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Let me begin, like others in this House, with expressing my appreciation and admiration to all our national athletes, regardless of whether they may, or may not, have medalled in the most recent Games. This extends, of course, to our most recent medallists in Paris: Jeralyn Tan and Max Maeder, as well as Yip Pin Xiu, our country's most decorated sportsperson.
All of us that have played sport will understand the enormous sacrifices and challenges that athletes had to endure to climb the pinnacle of sporting achievement. Their feats would not have been possible without years of gruelling dedication to their chosen sport, culminating in translating those countless hours into a competition-day delivery, that would have had to be one of the best in their lives.
This was undoubtedly the case for Jeralyn, Pin Xiu and Max, after which this Motion has specifically named. Jeralyn had trailed by five points at the halfway mark, but was able to muster a fierce comeback that forced a tie-breaker in the final round. It was her enormous composure and mental prowess in the face of tough odds that led us to our first Paralympic boccia medal.
Kitefoiler Max had to overcome a somewhat slow start in the first race of the final to pull into second place, but it was his steady consistency in the face of poor weather conditions during the finals that saw him ultimately snatch a place on the podium. In doing so, he tacked and jibed his way into history as our nation's youngest Olympic medallist – and of course, into our hearts.
And Pin Xiu displayed her usual fortitude, not allowing the complacency of being the world record holder or already having won gold twice in the 100-metre backstroke to faze her, as she clocked a historic three-peat that saw her taking home a gold on the second day of the Games, followed by another two days later, in the 50-metre backstroke. To them, and all the others here that have carried our flag, we celebrate and honour your immense physical and mental strength that have led to your wonderful accomplishments.
Without diminishing the passion and hard work that have driven our athletes to their sporting success, I would like to share some thoughts about how we reward them. As those in this House are aware, we currently have programmes that offer monetary rewards for medals. I had previously filed a Parliamentary Question to this House, asking the Minister for MCCY what the parameters were for determining the cash incentive rewards offered under the Major Games Award, or MGA, of the SNOC, and why a distinction existed between the SNOC's MGA and the Athletes' Achievement Awards, or AAA, of the SNPC when measured at comparable international levels.
Questions of this nature are not unique to me, of course. The People's Action Party and Workers' Party (WP) Members of Parliament had previously asked questions about the seemingly unequal rewards and recognition accorded to both athletes, with and without disabilities. This is clearly a matter of bipartisan concern.
In the Parliamentary reply by then-Minister for MCCY Grace Fu, she explained that the SNOC and SNPC were non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and that the MGA and AAA were decided by sponsors and donors. This response was essentially repeated by Minister Tong's response to previous Parliamentary Questions that have been filed.
The SNOC and SNPC are undeniably NGOs. But are they, indeed, NGOs of the same standing and milieu as, say, the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE), Sayoni, or the Humanitarian Organization for Migration Economics (HOME)? The SNOC was established to receive the official invitation by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to send Singaporean representatives to the Games. The current president of the SNOC is Minister Grace Fu, and past presidents and council members include Ministers and Members of Parliament.
And who are these sponsors and donors? The SNOC states on its website that the primary sponsor of the MGA is the Tote Board family, comprising Singapore Pools and the Singapore Turf Club. The SNPC has similar language describing the primary sponsor of the AAA. The Tote Board is a Government agency, and its activities, and those of its subsidiary entities, are regulated by various Ministries. Each year, the subsidiaries contribute hundreds of millions to nation-building efforts, and indirectly, to the budget through taxes on betting.
Hence, while it is true that the SNOC and SNPC are NGOs, and that the sponsors of the MGA and AAA are varied, it is difficult to see why the Government has decided that it cannot exercise greater influence over the amounts granted by these two sporting award programs. So, if the Government does choose to exercise greater influence over the MGA and AAA, the question that remains is whether the current amounts granted in each are reasonable from an economic and moral perspective.
What should the value of such an award be? Some have claimed that we ought to respect the economics of supply and demand. While I do not believe, ironically enough, that economics should be the basis for justifying such rewards, allow me to elaborate on why such arguments are somewhat naive.
The supply side is straightforward: this is the effort expended by our sportsmen and women that compete in major international games. But as any athlete will tell you, their driving motivation to perform at their best in the sporting arena often has very little to do with monetary gains. Indeed, most do it for their deep love for the game and would almost certainly do it for comparatively little money. And the fact that so many of our athletes do so, for generally low levels of remuneration, is a living testament to that reality. Many have put their lives on hold to bring glory to the nation.
Still, there is no denying that even our leanest and meanest athletes need to eat, drink and earn a living. At the margin, rewards for performance at the highest levels do make a difference in ensuring that our sportsmen and women are able to continue the pursuit of their passion, not least by allowing them to persist in the rigours of their training and climbing the ladder of competition during the lean years, where success is neither assured nor yet guaranteed.
In contrast, demand derives from us, the audience and supporters and lovers of a sport. Our interest – and willingness, to pay for the joy and entertainment we receive when we watch sporting events – is what allows a sport, any sport, to be viable enough that professionals can emerge. It is along these lines that some have chosen to argue that the comparative lack of demand for the Paralympics means that there is little economic justification to rewarding Paralympians with the same order of monetary compensation as our Olympians, when they medal.
Here is the problem with such an argument. While such dynamics may be true for any sport as a whole, it seldom translates into actual compensation for individual sportsmen and women. After all, raw market forces have seldom been the sole driver for monetary compensation in sport. If so, the US' women's soccer team – which both draws far larger crowds and generates significantly larger revenue, at least within the US, and has in fact, achieved much greater sporting success than the men's team – would not have filed suit against its own soccer federation for reasons of unequal pay. Nor would the athletes playing in the billion-dollar National Collegiate Athletic Association leagues continue to receive only limited compensation, in the form of tuition waivers, living expenses and endorsement rights.
Let us take such an argument to its logical conclusion. If we were to reward our athletes according to eyeballs, then surely our awards must vary by sport: differing rewards for soccer versus sepak takraw versus silat, in accordance with their popularity. But we do not, and rightly so; we recognise that we wish to support a wide range of sport, because we see the value in each one and every one of them. Rather, salaries and rewards in sport are determined as much by sponsorship interest, relative bargaining power and the institutional strictures, much like the payouts for the MGA and AAA are.
Sir, I have sketched out the case for why economics does not offer an unequivocal case for unequal treatment between the MGA and the AAA. But it is worth, perhaps, exploring the moral arguments, which I believe are even more compelling. Hence, another argument sometimes made to justify the differential rewards that Paralympians compete in finer categories; subsequently, their field of competition is correspondingly smaller and hence, they deserve less of a reward for rising to the top of that narrowed field.
To me, this is, again, a distinction without a difference. Fields widen and narrow every year, for all sorts of reasons. Birth cohorts fall in size in certain Chinese horoscope years and rise in others, but we do not tell those who were born in the year of the Dragon that their \"A\" Division golds somehow deserve more acclaim than those who had won in other years. Similarly, we do not tell our female weightlifters and bodybuilders that, because their sport is less popular among women than it is with men, or that more bodyweight categories exist in one gender versus the other, they should receive a smaller reward when they win.
Rather, our awards are simply organised by the coverage of the competition. If the rules for participation allow for global, continental or regional, we scope out award sizes accordingly, regardless of how many competitors eventually sign up. This approach is defensible, because it does not prescribe, in advance, whether any given sport or athlete should be deemed more worthy of a greater reward, based on their observable attributes. Instead, it focuses, as it should, on how many potential competitors there might be, based on the geographic scope of the competition.
This argument also glosses over the fact that what the different categories capture are disabilities. Lest we forget, Paralympians placed in these different categories are competing not on the basis of these classifications, but in spite of them. Hence, I personally find any suggestion that the athlete is somehow, even if indirectly, benefiting from this smaller field morally indefensible.
Sir, this speech has been about equal compensation. But life, of course, is about much more than that. I will conclude by explaining why equality in monetary rewards for sport implies something that goes well beyond the pecuniary. Certainly, our country recognises and celebrates the achievements of our Paralympians in many ways beyond the financial. But, in my view, not only are such accolades insufficient, they also strike me as inconsistent.
If these non-pecuniary benefits alone were sufficient, then surely no additional MGA or AAA would be necessary. Conversely, if we see the value to a monetary reward of even a single dollar, then it behoves us to explain why we are comfortable with a distinction between our able-bodied versus disabled sports people.
To put it in more concrete terms, we should be able to explain why Ms Yip Pin Xiu, our country's most successful sportsperson, has been rewarded comparatively less than others for achievements of a comparable calibre. I believe we should take the economically and ethically justifiable step of equalising the monetary awards offered to our Olympians and Paralympians in their respective award programmes.
I believe that this Government, as a key stakeholder in the IOC, as the controlling body of the Tote Board and as the elected leaders of our people and society, can make the call to do so. We should not defer the decision to other bodies with less standing.
Other countries have also taken steps to move toward parity between the two. Canada announced, at the start of this year, that medals for Paralympians would be equal to those of their Olympian counterparts. The US has done so since 2018 and even renamed their national governing body into the Olympic and Paralympic Committee. Host nation France increased funding by two and a half times, so that they would be able to reward their medallists equally.
We routinely argue in this House about ensuring equal opportunities for every Singaporean. We have repeatedly spoken about fostering a society of compassion and empathy and we await the passage in this House on the Non-Discrimination Bill, an idea that the WP has championed for a long time. Minister Edwin Tong has spoken of plans to revise and refresh the DSMP. Let us do so with the MGA and the AAA too, recognising the accomplishments of all our sportsmen and sportswomen equally, with the rewards that they so definitively deserve.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, sports has always been a cornerstone of my life. From my school days to university and beyond, it has shaped who I am. In secondary school, I was part of the school's gymnastics team. In junior college, I competed in canoeing and dragon boating. These experiences went beyond competition. They taught me resilience, teamwork and determination, values that our Team Singapore, Olympians and Paralympians embody today.
As a former sportsperson and teacher, I have had the opportunity to understand sports from the inside out. While studying sports science at Loughborough University, a leading sports institution, I saw first-hand, the grit required to compete at the very elite level. I still remember those freezing winter mornings, waking up at 4.00 am and working as a lifeguard, watching national-level swimmers push through endless laps until 8.00 am, only to head straight to class. Later, they would return for another training session in the evening. That level of commitment is something I see mirrored in our athletes back home.
In Singapore, I have had the privilege of closely observing our national canoeing team. Their schedule is just as demanding, training many times a week, often with two sessions a day. Their spirit is unyielding, their pursuit of excellence is relentless.
Our athletes possess a unique drive, persistent to a fault and talented beyond measure. Yet, success often comes with sacrifice. For many of our athletes, the pursuit of excellence means setting aside tertiary education, stable careers and even long-term financial security. These sacrifices are not always visible behind the shine of medals, but they are real and they deserve our recognition and support.
Support for our athletes has grown over the years. The Government has been a critical part of this, from launching the spex scheme 30 years ago to establishing the Sports School in 2004. We have seen milestones, like the spex grants in 2007 and spex scholarships in 2013, which have transformed the sporting landscape.
Today, organisations, like the SSI and NYSI, form the backbone in nurturing and supporting our aspiring athletes. The mental well-being of our athletes deserves our attention, not just as they strive for victory but also as they transition into their post-sport careers. This can be a particularly vulnerable time and we must ensure that support systems are in place to navigate this change.
Do we currently offer a dedicated space where athletes in their post-sport careers can connect, share experiences and contribute their insights to shape future sporting policies? Creating such a community could be invaluable, both in safeguarding their mental health and in harnessing their expertise for the betterment of sports in Singapore. This would demonstrate a genuine commitment to their overall well-being, beyond the medals and accolades.
The private sector has also played a role. Contributions from the Tote Board and sponsorships for the Major Games Awards Programmes highlight that supporting our athletes is a shared responsibility. It reminds us that our athletes are not alone on this journey.
I am heartened that Singapore has taken further steps to support our sports community. The new spexPotential scheme ensures that aspiring athletes receive support earlier in their journey, long before they compete for regional and international honours. The spexEducation Undergraduate Scholarship guarantees that their education remains a priority. CPF top-ups for spexScholars ensure their future, housing, healthcare and retirement remains secure, even as they pursue their dreams.
Initiatives to make universities and workplaces more athlete-friendly further ease their path. Additionally, we must also consider greater accessibility in training facilities for our para athletes. They face unique challenges and often have to rise above societal expectations, facing obstacles beyond those of their able-bodied peers.
Enhanced access to facilities can ensure that they too, have an environment that nurtures their talents and supports their pursuit of excellence. The establishment of the home of Team Singapore in Kallang, announced by the Prime Minister at this year's National Day Rally, is another significant milestone. It is more than a facility. It is a dedicated space where our athletes can train, study and live.
By integrating the relocated sports school into this campus, we are creating an ideal environment for our athletes to thrive. It is a commitment to their daily grind and their highest ambitions, a signal that sports can be a viable career. These efforts matter because our athletes do more than just compete. They inspire us. Their achievements unite us, reminding us of what is possible when we push beyond our limits.
They embody resilience and instill a sense of national pride that goes beyond medals. However, we must acknowledge that these initiatives require significant resources and we must be strategic with our investments. The Government should prioritise support for athletes and sports that deliver the greatest return for Singapore, whether that is through national unity or international acclaim.
This approach, while potentially leading to varying levels of support across different sports, encourages our NSAs to strive for excellence, broaden their reach and inspire greater participation. Yet, I understand that this perspective may raise concerns. Some may question if this means focusing less on sports like football, which has traditionally seen significant investment but has faced some challenges in delivering results.
But we should not overlook the deep connection many Singaporeans have with sports, like football, and its power to inspire unity and community spirit. Thus, with any approach, we must balance the goal of strategic investments with the broader value that sports bring to our society. By focusing our resources thoughtfully, we can maximise the positive impact of sports on our nation, ensuring that all Singaporeans, regardless of their sporting passion, feel a sense of pride and inspiration.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, supporting our athletes truly takes a village. It requires the entire ecosystem, from parents and coaches who nurture talent at a young age to the Government and private sector providing financial backing and to the community cheering them on at every step. This holistic support enables athletes to excel in their sporting careers and ensures that they are cared for as they transition into life beyond competition.
We have made significant progress in supporting our athletes through initiatives like the spexPotential Scheme, the spexEducation Scholarship and the CPF top-ups for spexScholars. These programmes ensure that their education and future are secure, even as they pursue excellence in sports. Equally important, we need to make training facilities more accessible for our para athletes, giving them the space to rise above unique challenges and perform at their best.
Let us also recognise the need for a dedicated community that supports athletes' mental well-being as they transition into their post-sports careers. Let us honour not just the triumphs of our Team Singapore Olympians and Paralympians, but also the sacrifices and dedication that fuel their success. Let us remember that behind every medal is a story of resilience, perseverance and national pride.
Our athletes inspire us, unite us and remind us of the power of dreams. Many of them are here today. It is our duty to stand by them, not just in moments of victory but throughout their journey. This means investing in their future, ensuring their well-being and celebrating their efforts, win or lose.
I call on this House to rally behind our athletes, not just with words of appreciation but with a sustained commitment to their growth and success. Let us build a Singapore where every aspiring athlete knows that they have a nation behind them supporting their dreams and cheering them on. With that, I wholeheartedly support this Motion and urge all of us to be unwavering champions for those who wear the flag on their chest with pride.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Progress Singapore Party, I would like to congratulate our Team Singapore Olympians and Paralympians for their outstanding achievements at the 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games.
I am sure the whole House will agree with me that success is not defined solely by the medals our athletes and para athletes have won. It is defined by their courage to step up, their tenacity to compete and their grace to both celebrate victories and confront setbacks. Our Team Singapore athletes have shown exemplary dedication, perseverance, resilience and commitment to their sports. Their participation in the Games has inspired an entire nation and showcased the best of the Singapore spirit, courage, discipline and teamwork.
This year, we are proud to recognise three medallists, Ms Jeralyn Tan, Mr Maximilian Maeder and Ms Yip Pin Xiu. Ms Jeralyn Tan became only our fourth Paralympic medallist when she clinched Singapore's first medal in boccia this year. The medal is a crowning achievement for her long career in boccia. She has worked hard at the sport since 2008 when she picked it up at the Cerebral Palsy Alliance Singapore School.
Mr Max Maeder has achieved a bronze medal in kitefoiling at just 17 years of age. He showed us skill, agility and calm under pressure against the world's best at the kitefoiling finals. These are qualities that will undoubtedly serve him well as he continues to rise in the sport. Since the Olympics, he has already gone on to clinch three championships in a row. We look forward to witnessing further sporting success from him in the coming years.
Finally, Ms Yip Pin Xiu is our most decorated Paralympian with seven gold medals and one silver medal to her name at this point. She has been a true trailblazer. Her achievements have inspired a nation and raised the profile of disabled athletes in our country. She has demonstrated that with hard work and determination, Singaporeans can excel globally and her success reminds us that there is no limit to what can be achieved when one dares to dream.
As we celebrate the achievements of our Olympians and Paralympians, I hope the House will also join me in recognising the tireless efforts of the coaches, support staff and families who have contributed to their success. Their sacrifices have helped shaped our champions. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, on behalf of PSP, I would like to congratulate our Team Singapore Olympians and Paralympians for their outstanding achievements at the 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games. They exemplify the spirit of tenacity and the grace to both celebrate victories and confront setbacks. Their participation in the Games has inspired an entire nation and showcased the best of the Singapore spirit – courage, discipline and teamwork. Here, I would like to pay my highest tribute to Team Singapore.
This year, we are also proud to recognise three medallists, Jeralyn Tan, Maximilian Maeder and Yip Pin Xiu. Ms Jeralyn Tan has devoted many years to Boccia and did very well at this year's Paralympics by clinching Singapore's first medal in Boccia. Maximilian Maeder achieved a bronze medal in kitefoiling at just 17 years of age and he will have a bright future in this sport. Yip Pin Xiu won two gold medals in the women's 50m and 100m S2 backstroke events. She is also the world record holder for both of these events, making her one of the most outstanding performers in Paralympics.
Team Singapore's success deserves our praise. Meanwhile, we also recognise the tireless efforts of the coaches, support staff and families behind the scenes, without which Team Singapore's success would not have been possible.
(In English): Sir, the 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games have left an indelible mark on our nation. Let us continue to support our athletes, nurture their talent and build a sporting culture that empowers every Singaporean to dream big and pursue excellence.
Thank you, Team Singapore, for flying our flag high. By giving your best in Paris, you have made our nation proud, and we look forward to your future endeavours with great excitement and confidence. May your success continue to inspire Singaporeans across generations. Sir, I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Ms Jean See.
Ms See Jinli Jean (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion, and in recognition of the personal and professional achievements of each and every Team Singapore Olympian and Paralympian at the 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games.
The achievements bear testament to our athletes’ dedication and hard work. As important, the achievements also bear testament to the committed long-term support for Team Singapore athletes from different quarters of society. Such committed long-term support is no different from the concept of patient capital, a transformative approach to impact investing. How so?
Jacqueline Novogratz, the founder and Chief Executive Officer of Acumen, a global non-profit venture capital fund explains that patient capital: “requires that we have incredible tolerance for risk, a long-time horizon in terms of allowing those entrepreneurs time to experiment, to use the market as the best listening device that we have, and the expectation of below-market returns, but outsized social impact.”
We used to view winning medals at the Olympic and Paralympic Games as a moonshot. This year, we join Ms Jeralyn Tan, Mr Maximillian Maeder and Ms Yip Pin Xiu to celebrate their hard-earned medals from the 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games. Their successes inspire younger Singaporeans to hold fast to sporting ambitions. As a society, how might we raise the patient capital needed to build on 2024’s achievements and to give courage to more Singaporeans to commit to representing Singapore in sports at the international level?
In response, I call on more of us to recognise that the value of sporting excellence is lasting and wide-reaching and to acknowledge that there is a price to the process of achieving sporting excellence. The former, of recognising the value of sporting excellence, manifests itself in the visible pride that we have for our Olympians and Paralympians. We followed the Games and cheered them on as they took to the stage. We are proud of our Team Singapore athletes and their efforts.
The latter, of acknowledging that there is a price to achieve sporting excellence, requires us to adopt the mindframe of patient capital: think long term and impact-seeking. The decision to invest in athlete development and, in turn, sporting excellence, should not be solely dictated by what is tangible and measurable.
The Minister shared about Sport Singapore and various NSAs making concerted efforts to spot athletes at a younger age to provide them a longer runway to train and compete at a high-performance level. Nevertheless, we must respect the fact that progress takes time, and every athlete develops and peaks at a different pace. Therein lies the need to reconcile society’s orientation on goals and medals with the long-term horizon necessary for athlete development and success. The 3Cs can help us to align.
The first C: corporates that step up to the plate. More corporates can lead the way by contributing towards the One Team Singapore Fund that provides financial support to sportspersons as well as increase sports' accessibility to vulnerable populations. To signal its support, the Government matches dollar for dollar for contributions to the Fund and provides a 250% tax deduction to corporate and individual donors. Corporates, too, can communicate their support for our athletes’ longer-term development by pledging longer-term funding to the One Team Singapore Fund. Doing so would, especially, give a leg-up to athletes from emerging sports that might be more challenged in fund-raising than established and popular sports and yet would require more support and resources to achieve breakthrough performances. Providing greater transparency in the utilisation of the One Team Singapore Fund could encourage more corporates to step up to the plate as impact outcomes become more visible. The Government could also consider extending the Fund beyond its present end date of FY2027 and for a longer term.
The second C: coaches who are committed to longer-term athlete development. I represent freelance coaches and instructors in my capacity as the Executive Secretary of the National Instructors and Coaches Association (NICA). Many of our NICA members are sports coaches who deliver sports CCAs to public schools. I have fond memories of my involvement in various sport CCAs, thanks to supportive and caring coaches who challenged me to think and go beyond my self-imposed limitations. The experience has shaped my life outlook and reinforced the grit, resilience and fortitude that I draw upon to navigate life challenges.
For our athletes to yield outsized impact, patient capital must extend to supporting those who nurture the seeds of sporting aspiration in our younger generations of Singaporeans. Many sports coaches have shared with NICA their concerns about schools reducing CCA hours and seeking to taper down the competitive element in CCAs. They have also shared concerns about the challenges of eking out a career as a professional sports coach in Singapore because of dampening school demand and increased compliance costs. Behind every successful athlete stands a committed professional sports coach. I would suggest a review of the support to coaches and coaches’ livelihood as part of strengthening the ecosystem of support for athlete development. NICA stands ready to contribute to the review.
The third C: contributions of athletes are valued by society. We live in a practical society where success is often measured by achievements. Every athlete must develop a winning mindset and approach. However, athletes might not consistently yield medal wins as the fruits of labour. The glare of the practical society can be unforgiving and beset athletes with worry and stress.
What Prime Minister Lawrence Wong shared at his speech at the Institute of Policy Studies' 35th anniversary conference in 2023 is instructive. He said: “We must provide many more ways for our diverse talents to be the best possible version of themselves, to make a difference in their own ways, all deserving of equal respect in our society”.
Athletes who have invested a significant part of their lives, and oftentimes, youth, must know that their contribution is valued by our society. Athletes who hold down jobs would feel more assured, knowing that their employers value the diverse perspectives they bring. Athletes who are self-employed would feel more empowered knowing that their livelihood is recognised and their aspirations and needs are considered in Government policy development. More can be done to communicate to our athletes that their contributions are valued, beyond the sport and as part of the larger society.
Marcel Proust, the early 20th century French novelist, wrote: “Let us be grateful to the people who make us happy; they are the charming gardeners who make our souls blossom.” There is a price to the process of achieving sporting excellence. Our athletes have given their all to their calling. Their successes and achievements at the international arenas have inspired and energised us. Through them, we are united as One Team Singapore.
It now lies upon us, as members of Team Singapore, to be the charming gardeners to our athletes. Our athletes must know that they can count on us to provide the patient capital to invest in them, to encourage them on and to give them the confidence to overcome, aspire and excel. Let us rise to the occasion.
The Chairman: Ms Usha Chandradas.
Ms Usha Chandradas (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wholeheartedly rise in support of this Motion.
Our athletes give us so much more than just medals. They show us what it is like to perform under pressure and to work hard at a goal. When they succeed, the whole country unites behind them and cheers. And when they do not, we are privileged to be able to witness a masterclass in courage, grace and strength, as we watch them recover from their setbacks.
Our medallists have done incredibly well and every single Olympian and Paralympian who made it to the Games this year is a winner in my eyes. In support of this Motion, I would like to make three points.
First, would the Government consider doing more for athletes and para athletes who are able to qualify for the Olympics and Paralympics, regardless of whether any medals are won? The Paris Olympic Games saw about 11,040 athletes from all over the world taking part in 32 sports; and the Paralympic Games saw around 4,400 athletes competing in 22 individual and team sports.
Coming from a tiny country like Singapore, the act of even qualifying for a spot in the Games is a momentous achievement. On this point, I hope that athletes and para athletes can be rewarded more for the act of qualification. This could take the form of better profiling and publicity to encourage private sponsorship, or better outright cash awards and allowances.
My second point has to do with parity in the awards for our Olympians and Paralympians. CNBC Sport recently, on 29 August, published an article entitled \"Here’s how much athletes at the Paris Paralympics earn for winning medals\". The article, which is self-explanatory from its title, set out a list of how much para athletes are awarded by different countries when they win medals. Singapore was at the top of a league table of 13 countries, which is a fantastic achievement, but the article also noted that countries like Spain, Canada, France, Australia and South Korea were offering Paralympic medallists rewards that were equal to that of their Olympic counterparts. The article continued that Hong Kong and Singapore, which award the largest payouts to their Olympic medallists, still do not give out as much to their Paralympic victors. I acknowledge that there was an increase in awards for our Paralympians in in 2021 and 2022. In fact, this was something that was covered in today's Straits Times. This is an excellent development. But the fact remains that awards for our Paralympians still lag behind those of their Olympic peers.
I know this issue has been raised multiple times in this House by many Members, as well as by activist groups outside the House, but I would nonetheless still like to add my voice to the call for parity in the awards for our Olympians and Paralympians. I understand that these are decisions made by the SNOC and SNPC. These are non-government organisations, of course, and I am also aware that there is a long history to how these monetary awards were created, developed over time and funded.
However, I would like to highlight that it is also stated on the SNOC website that the Tote Board family, comprising the Tote Board, Singapore Pools and the Singapore Turf Club, is the primary sponsor of the SNOC MAP. The Tote Board is also publicly listed as one of the two primary sponsors of the AAA. As a Statutory Board of the Ministry of Finance, I hope that the Tote Board can assist and support the SNOC and SNPC in acquiring the additional funding to ensure that our Paralympians are given similar or identical cash prizes as our Olympians.
Of course, post-podium rewards should be paired with holistic efforts to support our athletes in their journey to the podium – one should not come at the expense of the other and it should also not be the case that the two are mutually exclusive. That being said, financial awards do have an important role to play. There is plenty of data on this, I will just highlight one research study today. This was published in 2020, in the journal Frontiers in Psychology. It was found in that report that when appropriately applied, financial awards can increase confidence, achievement motivation, coachability, goal setting and mental preparation for athletes. They provide clear external incentives to succeed. In this particular study, football players who were awarded financial incentives generally showed better performance when compared to non-awarded players.
More importantly though, cash awards also have a signalling effect. In this year’s Committee of Supply (COS) debates I advocated for cash awards for our Cultural Medallion winners and there are many parallels between sports and the arts scene in Singapore. Our artists and sportspeople sacrifice a great deal to take the path less travelled. Both the arts and sports play an important role in creating national identity and in making Singapore a distinctive home for us all. In a similar vein to what I said in the COS debates, cash awards will signal accomplishment and prestige, recognising the life achievements of our country’s best sportspeople. They will inspire others to embark on similar paths, and further encourage those who are already on the journey to sporting greatness. Awarding our athletes and para athletes with the same top prizes sends a powerful message of inclusion. One that tells our society and the world that we value both sets of athletes equally.
Finally, my third point is this: I would like to ask if it is possible for the Government to consider exempting from income tax, awards granted under the MAP and AAA. At the moment, a grant may be brought to tax depending on factors such as whether the awardee is carrying on a trade, business, profession or vocation in relation to their sporting ability, or whether they are an employee of a sports body. The very guidelines issued by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore recognise that the status of an individual may change over time, for example, in one year, an athlete could be a recreational player, in the next year, he or she could be an athlete employed by a sports body or they could be an individual carrying on a trade, or similar, in relation to their sporting ability. This status can change within the course of a single year as well.
In these situations, a detailed assessment on tax liability would have to take place on a case-by-case basis. An exemption would not would only reduce administrative and compliance burdens on both the tax authority and taxpayers, but it would also send a clear message that these specific awards are granted as a pure reward for the recipients as a prize for a lifetime of their hard work. Successful professional sportspeople would still be brought to tax on their other earnings from private sponsorships and endorsements. In addition, winning athletes and para athletes are required to donate a significant part of their awards back to their NSAs or to the SNPC and Singapore Disability Sports Council or the National Disability Sports Associations. This is done in order to help fund future sports training and development, and so in other words, the award money is actually ploughed back into the sports ecosystem. It is not the case that once the funds are rewarded, that is the end of the story and there is no return to society. There is. So, we need to ask ourselves, do we really need to impose an additional layer of tax on top of these awards and winnings.
With all of this taken into consideration, I would make the argument that the risk of overall revenue leakage is arguably quite low.
I note the Minister's comment when he moved this Motion that we do not have unlimited resources in Singapore. I do that take that point. But I would, nonetheless, ask him and MOF to consider this suggestion.
I would like to conclude, Mr Speaker, by sending my heartiest congratulations to all the Team Singapore Olympians and Paralympians. Thank you for all that you have done for us and I wish you all the very best. Sir, I support this Motion. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Ong Hua Han.
Mr Ong Hua Han (Nominated Member): Today, we celebrate the successes of our national athletes, in particular Ms Jeralyn Tan, Mr Maximilian Maeder and Ms Yip Pin Xiu, who have brought immense honour to Singapore on the world stage.
To Jeralyn, Max, and Pin Xiu: your dedication, resilience, and sporting excellence were on full display in Paris. You have inspired all of us who were rooting for you at home. Thank you for flying the Singapore flag high and making us proud.
Before the Paris Games, “kitefoiling” was not a term that most Singaporeans have even heard of. Yet, after Max brought home the Olympic bronze, we have seen couch experts springing up all over the island, eager to discuss this exciting sport they have always known and loved.
Max may seem like an overnight success, but this cannot be further from the truth. It was years in the making. His well-documented story tells of a boy who started honing his skills and competing at the young age of 11. At 18, Max is already a decorated athlete and a household name. Max, you deserve all the flowers and we wish you many more fantastic years ahead.
Over to our medal-winning Paralympians. Pin Xiu and Jeralyn, I extend my heartfelt congratulations to you, on your remarkable triumph of the human spirit. In September, Jeralyn made history by claiming Singapore’s first Paralympics medal in boccia, in her Paralympic debut, no less. But many may not know, just two months before that, Jeralyn had to endure a heartbreaking quarter final elimination from the World Boccia Cup in Portugal. While others may have crumbled under a disappointment of this scale, Jeralyn demonstrated her never-say-die attitude and has now etched her name in the history books. Her strength in the face of adversity is a testament to her character and this must not go unrecognised.
As for Pin Xiu, welcome back, you are no stranger to this House and to sporting glory. You brought home not one, but two gold medals from Paris. I remember watching the 100m backstroke event and was incredulous when I realised that Pin Xiu won the event by a margin of 0.06 seconds. Even the commentators could not tell who won, in real-time. Pin Xiu, it must have been an exhilarating race for you. To perform at such elite standards, with seven golds and one silver across five Paralympic Games, is undeniable proof of your resolve and sheer willpower.
In my younger days, I took part in amateur swimming competitions run by the Singapore Disability Sports Council (SDSC). In the pool, I imagined representing and winning a medal for Singapore at the Paralympics. As you can see, that remains a dream I had not fulfilled. I chose the boring path. Thank you, Pin Xiu and Jeralyn for showing us, showing me, that dreams can come true, if you have the courage and the will to pursue it.
While we applaud our medal winners, let us not forget all our Team Singapore athletes who competed at the highest level. We see your sacrifices, your grit and your unwavering dedication to representing our nation with pride. You have given your all, and your pursuit of excellence is something we all deeply admire and respect. I hope you do not forget to celebrate as well, for you have truly earned it.
To those who supported our athletes – family and friends, performance coaches, sports scientists, psychologists, doctors and many more – your role is just as vital. We recognise you too, for your contributions behind the scenes have been crucial in unlocking the potential of our sporting champions.
Mr Speaker, sport has that unique power to bring people of all walks of life together. It is an inclusive force that can unite a nation. Our national athletes show us what is possible if you take sporting talent and ambition to the next level. But what about the rest of us, those who play sports socially, recreationally, or just to stay fit? What about those of us with disabilities? Where do we fit in?
Sports participation has countless benefits. Beyond improving one’s physical health, participating in sports also builds discipline and boosts self-confidence. It can reduce stress, prevent cognitive decline and combat depression. In short, sports participation materially improves our quality of life. This is even more so for persons with disabilities, as engaging in sports can enhance mobility, foster independence and build resilience.
Inclusive sports participation is therefore essential to ensure that persons with disabilities feel welcomed, so that they too can reap the benefits of sports. To make sports truly inclusive, it will take a whole-of-society approach. The Government, everyday Singaporeans, caregivers and persons with disabilities. All three groups have a crucial role to play.
First, it is vital for the Government to keep inclusive programming at the heart of policy-making, to encourage more to participate. For example, in mainstream schools, are we doing enough to include children with disabilities in physical education classes? Unlike their peers in SPED schools, students with disabilities in mainstream settings do not have a structured approach to sports participation. We need to do more to ensure that persons with disabilities are exposed to sports and its benefits at a young age, to give them a higher shot of sustaining sports participation later in life.
According to focus group discussions with social agencies and SPED schools conducted in the lead-up to the review of the 2016 DSMP, around 70% of non-participants said they were not interested in sports. This statistic speaks volumes. Building more accessible infrastructure alone is not enough. There is an urgent need to do much better in how we raise awareness and promote the benefits of sports. As we look forward to the update of the DSMP – and I thank Minister Edwin Tong for earlier giving us a glimpse of what to expect – it is critical to ensure that persons with disabilities and their caregivers fully embrace all that sports can offer.
Second, everyday Singaporeans have a part to play too. When you see someone who looks different from you, do you stare, or do you recognise them as part of your larger community? Simple gestures, like a warm smile, offering a seat, and other acts of kindness can go a long way. If each of us makes an effort to foster inclusive and accepting environments, more persons with disabilities will feel comfortable to show up, participate, and thrive in our shared spaces.
And third, all of this will remain an academic discussion if persons with disabilities and their caregivers do not, themselves, take the first step to participate. Change often begins with small actions. For those unsure of where to begin, setting personal goals can be a great way to get yourself motivated. These goals do not need to be grand or lofty. Sometimes, achieving the goal of being able to get out of bed independently, can be a rewarding and significant milestone. And from there, who knows where that progress will take you?
Our equestrians who are with us today – Laurentia, Hilary and Gemma – all started riding as a form of therapy. And look at where they are today. Whether you choose to turn therapy into a competitive career is completely up to you. If you have the interest and desire to challenge yourself in high performance sports, organisations like SDSC have the pathways to make your dreams possible. If not, taking part in sports simply to stay fit, make friends, and enjoy yourself is just as valuable.
Mr Speaker, a few days ago, I went for a swim, my usual routine on most weekends. Despite a fully-equipped and accessible ActiveSG Sports Centre, there was not a single wheelchair user in sight. It is my dream that one day, every sports facility will be bustling with activity, where everyone of every ability is included.
In closing, I wish to once again, extend my warmest congratulations to our Team Singapore athletes for their outstanding achievements. By carrying the torch and blazing the way forward, you set an inspiring example for us all to reach for greater heights, and shape the Singapore we want to live in. Sir, I fully support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Sir, I stand in full support of MCCY Minister Edwin Tong's Parliamentary Motion. It gives me great joy to come together to celebrate the incredible achievements of Team Singapore at the 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games. The 33 athletes who represented our nation have demonstrated the spirit of resilience, resolve and excellence, carrying our Singapore flag high on the world state. Thank you so much and congratulations to Team Singapore.
On the Paralympic front, we witnessed the legendary Yip Pin Xiu, our champion swimmer, who made history by clinching two gold medals this time. With these victories, Pin Xiu now holds a staggering total of seven Paralympic gold medals and a silver, cementing her status as Singapore's most decorated Paralympian.
Pin Xiu, serves with me in the Purple Parade movement, which sees thousands of Singaporeans coming together each year to show their support for the cause of inclusion and for the disability community. We sat in many meetings together and what impresses me most is her humility, authenticity and her willingness to constantly learn, not just in swimming, but in other things, in leadership issues and advocacy and so forth. I know Pin Xiu will go far as a woman of substance in life.
Congratulations too, to Ms Jeralyn Tan, who made her debut in boccia and for securing Singapore's first ever medal at the Paralympics.
And, of course, Olympic bronze medallist young kitefoiler, the charming Mr Max Maeder, the youngest Singaporean to ever win an Olympic medal.
But beyond the medals, it is so important that we recognise every athlete who participated in the Games, whether they reached the podium or not. They, on the road to Paris, they demonstrated the triumph of the human spirit, all 33 of you. Thank you.
None of this success would be possible without the strong support system behind each athlete. So, to the families, thank you for releasing and supporting the athletes to take this road less travelled. I salute you and you are as special as the athletes. To the coaches and the leaders and the staff of the NSAs, the Disability Sports Council, the sports institutes who tirelessly train and guide our athletes, ensuring that they perform at their best, your contributions have been invaluable. So, thank you all, members of this important support structure, for being the wind below the wings of our athletes.
I also want to express my gratitude to the Singapore Government as well and I want to give credit where it is due. Over the years, the Government has increased its investment in sports, not just in terms of infrastructure and funding, but also in terms of trying to build a more inclusive sporting culture. Our para athletes' achievements have shown us that sports is not just a domain of the so-called able-bodied.
The Government's inclusive sports investment has enabled both mainstream and Paralympic athletes to receive the support that they need to succeed on the world stage. Indeed, when I asked Pin Xiu what had been a game-changer for her swimming career, she mentioned the support she got from the support system, from being able to have access to the right coach and a high-quality sports science team. The success we are witnessing today is a direct result of this intentional upstream investment and we look forward to seeing even more growth in the years to come.
Next, let me now share a few areas I got feedback from past Olympians, their families and a few other athletes on where we feel Singapore has done well in developing sports talent and also areas that we can do even better.
What Singapore has done well in developing sports talent. The Singapore sports team has grown tremendously, especially in recent years and we have made significant progress in developing sports talent, both in mainstream and disability sports. One is in increased investments in infrastructure. The establishment of the Singapore Sports Hub and other regional training centres has provided our athletes with the platforms they need to participate and then to excel.
The announcement by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong and Minister Edwin Tong on the new home of Team Singapore in the Kallang Alive precinct presents an exciting vision. So, thank you.
The second thing we have done well, is also for support for our athlete development. Through initiatives, like spex, many of my colleagues have mentioned before, spexProgramme and so forth. We are seeing greater financial and developmental support for our athletes. SpexScholarships, in particular, have helped many of our athletes focus on their sports full-time while also pursuing their education or career.
The third is in youth development pathways. Singapore has also made great strides in identifying and nurturing young talent through schools, clubs and national age group competitions. Programmes, such as the NYSI, have played a crucial role in grooming the next generation of sporting stars by providing specialised training and education support for our student athletes.
The fourth is in inclusive sports development. One of the areas where Singapore has improved tremendously is the promotion of inclusive sports. Thanks to MCCY and the team, the introduction of more robust support structures for our Paralympic athletes, including dedicated training programmes and specialised coaching, has allowed them to compete at the highest level. Disability sports have seen greater attention, greater funding, creating more opportunities for athletes with disabilities to develop their talent.
It is, therefore, welcome news that the new home of Team Singapore, I mentioned just now, will have a dedicated training centre for para sports. I am also very pleased that a review of the 2016 DSMP, I think overdue, now led by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua, is now underway to further improve sports access for persons with disabilities, young and old, and I look forward to the Master Plans addressing ground aspirations, such as a bigger network of sports coaches, facilities and programmes also for adults with disabilities to participate and even excel in sports.
Next, on what more can be done. While we have achieved much, I think there are still areas where we need to do a little bit more. In broadening sports participation in schools and mainstream schools, although we have offered more opportunities, we should offer more opportunities for students of all skills level, not only those who are proficient.
We must also facilitate further the integration of sports into the curriculum at special schools to ensure that children with disabilities, especially those with higher support needs, are encouraged to lead healthy, active lives from a young age. Many of the special education (SPED) school graduates still do not. Not enough of them have adopted healthy lifestyles when they exit school.
This has to be intentional and has to go beyond a few lessons a week. More structured opportunities, both within the schools and out there, with the grassroots and the community, are needed. By fostering early sports participation, we can instill healthy habits that extend into adulthood, enriching the overall quality of life, reducing healthcare concerns and costs and potentially producing more elite athletes.
Next, on equalising cash rewards – it seems to be a popular topic today. Hot off the press, Paralympians Yip Pin Xiu and Jeralyn Tan have been rewarded this week for their outstanding achievements at the Paris Games. Pin Xiu received $1.5 million per gold medal and Jeralyn got $300,000 for her bronze medal.
For context, there are two distinct cash award schemes, the MAP for Olympians and the AAA for Paralympians. Both programmes have different origins, different scopes and administration managed by separate NGOs.
These awards are privately-funded as the Government focuses public funds on upstream investments for all athletes and the Government has encouraged private sponsors to support these medallists' rewards. And thanks to sponsors like DBS and Tote Board, AAA was, in recent years, enhanced from $200,000 to $500,000 for a Paralympic gold medal.
So, on this topic of parity of cash awards for both abled and disabled sports champions, I think parity is important, but I also support the Government's approach to the prudent use of public funds for sports recognition. This is because I know, for so many years, how my fellow disability advocates and I have been asking the Government and sponsors and foundations to give us more grants, more funds, for more services for the disabled, especially for the adult years from 21 to, say, 85. In lifelong learning, we need funds in job support for persons with disabilities who can take on paid jobs.
For those who cannot work or cannot take on paid jobs for care services, there is so much needed. Caregiving services as well; in housing; in healthcare; in transport; criminal justice; and, for example, beefing up the Police force who are supporting our possible criminals with special needs; in mental wellness; in Healthier SG for all. These are all services and areas that we need a lot more support and the needs are many. I urge the Government to look into these needs and I know that MSF and MCCY are looking into this and to allocate more resources too.
Therefore, on the topic of equalising or the parity of awards, I do call on the Government and the rest of Singapore to join me also in calling upon and, also Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, to call upon the current and potential private sponsors to please also, support us to equalise these cash awards for both para athletes and also able-bodied athletes, so that more resources, including by the Government, can be also spread out to the other very critical and urgent needs.
Together, we can send a powerful and progressive message that Singapore is truly inclusive and we offer equal opportunities to all regardless of background. So, those are my views on parity of awards. I know it is important in today's topic context to fight for parity. But I also want to express that in the larger context, there are also many, many needs and I do want the Government to look at these needs as well and to spend as prudently as possible to ensure that more needs for more for the disabled can be looked into.
The next is on sports science and technology. One area that we can improve on is by increasing investment in sports science and technology to help athletes maximise their performance through improved training methodologies and performance analytics. And also mentorship of athletes. Surely, younger athletes can be also connected with experienced mentors and even former Olympians to provide guidance, provide motivation and practical advice to them.
And finally, a very important area or topic. As I speak to past Olympian athletes, whether able-bodied or Paralympians, many of them have mentioned the area of post-career support for athletes. The transition from a sports career to life after competition can be daunting for many athletes, particularly for those who have devoted their youth to training. For our medallists and sportsmen, securing stable post-sports career should be a priority. So, programmes that focus on educational opportunities, career guidance and even entrepreneurship for retired athletes should be bolstered to ensure that they thrive beyond their sporting competition years, beyond the sports arena.
And we can actually take reference from the very robust pre-retirement development plans that MINDEF is conducting for its officers. I studied it and I hear very good things about it and the sports fraternity can take a leaf from MINDEF on this area as well.
So, various areas in post-career support, in calling for all to ensure that parity for cash awards is realised, for more investments in sports science and technology, for ensuring greater school participation and developing on sports talents. These are the few areas that I would like MCCY to consider further.
And lastly, I just want to, again, congratulate all our remarkable athletes who represented Singapore at the 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games. You have made us so proud, not only with your victories but inspired, like what Minister Edwin Tong has said, your passion, your determination and the grit you have shown in every step of the way.
A special congratulations and big thanks, too, to the incredible families, coaches, professionals who form the backbone of support. Your unwavering belief in our athletes made all the difference.
As we look to the future, let us dream even bigger. May the Singapore sports fraternity continue to grow from strength to strength. May you forge new paths of success, not just on the world stage but in every school, every neighbourhood, every community across our nation. May we build on this powerful legacy and create a future where sports is not just a field of competition but a celebration of Singapore's spirit of excellence, inclusivity and unity. Let the world see what a great country we are and what we are further capable of. So, Majulah Singapura, thank you very much and congratulations. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Keith Chua.
Mr Keith Chua (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in full support of this Motion. And along with my fellow Members, I would also like to add my congratulations to Team Singapore at the recent Olympics and the recent Paralympics. Your collective performance encourages all of us to pursue excellence in sports as a national agenda.
Speaking as a volunteer in the social service sector for many years, I would like to say a bit more in the encouragement of expanding and extending sports for those amongst us with disabilities and special needs, that is, those who will potentially participate in future Paralympics and similar sporting events.
Firstly, I hope, at a national level and across all sectors, we will begin and continue to deepen and encourage sports at the earliest possible ages. These would begin at our special needs education institutions and schools, and services for persons with disabilities. Our current curriculum may need to be expanded to facilitate, encourage and broaden interest and participation in sports. My colleagues, Mr Ong Hua Han and Ms Denise Phua have already spoken on this.
Secondly, I would encourage parents of children with special needs or early diagnosed disability to consider intentional guidance towards sporting development where these are available. Selection of the type of sports will require appropriate counsel. We already have many helpful lessons from our Paralympians and their families.
Thirdly, we have many established social service providers who are providing support for persons with special needs and disabilities. Many of our social service providers, though, focus on support that helps achieve basic levels of independence, including employment options when reaching adulthood. However, given the organisational support mechanisms in the hands of these organisations and having these in place, enhancing participation in sports for these organisations could be an added focus.
To achieve this may need allocation of more funding and I do urge the appropriate Ministries to consider this as we prepare for the upcoming and future Budgets. In addition, larger funders, such as Tote Board – I know they are already helping in a great way – can help to supplement public funding, as will the private and people philanthropic and business communities.
In a conversation I had with one of our Paralympians, he called for more private sector sponsorship and support. I can certainly relate to this call. Compared to our successful Olympians, where commercial sponsorship is often widely promoted and available, we can do more for our Paralympians. I hope more companies will see this as an avenue to support, thus enabling our current para athletes and future Paralympians to excel both locally and internationally.
Mr Speaker, we can and should do progressively more in the area of sports at the national level and I thank the Minister for his assurance on this and also the plans that have been outlined. As we head towards a more inclusive society, let us also intentionally allocate increased public, private and people resources to strengthen and support our para athletes, current and future Paralympians, making suitable sports options more widely available and accessible.
Congratulations again to our Team Singapore Olympians and Paralympians!
Mr Speaker: Mr Mark Lee.
Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, we gather today in this House with immense pride and admiration to recognise and congratulate our Team Singapore Olympians and Paralympians for their outstanding achievements at the 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralymic Games. Our medallists have shown us what it means to embody the spirit of perseverance, passion and determination. Their victories are not just personal triumphs, but also testaments to the values we hold dear as a nation – resilience, hard work and the will to rise above challenges. Their success is not only a reflection of their talent and dedication, but also speaks of an unwavering support system that surrounds them, a system that embraces the individual while fostering a deep sense of collective identity and purpose.
Even as we celebrate their victories today, we must not lose sight of the work that lies ahead. This is why the new Home of Team Singapore and its accompanying improvements at the Kallang Alive precinct is so crucial. It is not just a place. It is a vision, a vision of universal support, a vision of unity and a vision where every Singaporean, whether an aspiring Olympian or a weekend athlete, can find their potential fully realised.
Izaac Quek, Singapore's youngest local-born table tennis player to qualify for the Olympics, provides a glimpse of how Home of Team Singapore is already taking shape. His Olympic quest in table tennis is supported by a personal education pathway at the Singapore Sports School, in close partnership with the Singapore Table Tennis Association. This athlete-centric approach ensures he does not have to choose between academic success and sporting excellence.
Zhou Jingyi, a fellow paddler at Paris 2024, also highlights the critical support system that Home of Team Singapore aims to provide. Jingyi has decided to take her GCE \"O\" level examinations with support from Singapore Sports School while she recovers from her injuries post-Olympics. It is crucial that Home of Team Singapore formalises and expands such support in close partnership with the respective NSAs.
By integrating educational support with world-class training facilities and programmes for all athletes, we can ensure that young athletes like Izaac and Jingyi can continue to develop while balancing the demands of training, recovery and education at appropriate phases of their lives.
Similarly, Amita Berthier was able to return home to her alma mater at the Singapore Sports School in the final months leading up to the Paris Games, leveraging its boarding and training facilities as well as the tutelage of Oleg Matseichuk, the national team's foil head coach under Fencing Singapore.
These kinds of partnerships allow our athletes to train at the highest level while having access to resources that enable them to grow mentally, physically and emotionally. In the spirit of celebrating sporting excellence in Singapore, it is important to recognise that many of our national athletes do not have full-time sporting careers. They are often modern supermen, superwomen, daytime students and workers and night-time athletes.
Still, they continue to achieve outstanding results, on par with many international teams, many of whom are full-time athletes. One example is our national Dragon Boat team, which consists entirely of part-time athletes and coaches. After work on weekdays, five days a week, they hold three-hour practices at the Kallang. On weekends, they even train more vigorously with double two-hour sessions per day.
Their hard work is evident from the impressive results in the international arena. In the recent 2024 Hong Kong International Dragon Boat Race, our women's team was placed first runner-up and the men's team placing second and third runner-up against competitors with full-time athletes from China, Thailand and Myanmar.
As we look forward to the next major sporting platform, the Asian Games, we must continue to support the plethora of teams that represent our nation. These teams deserve our support, too. The waters at Kallang and our new Home of Team Singapore, together with the various national training centres around Singapore, will be crucial in supporting these teams in their sporting endeavours.
Sir, the Kallang Alive precinct with the Sports Hub and the new Home of Team Singapore is about more than just elite athletes. It is not just about medals. It is inspiring the next generation of Singaporeans to embrace sports as a way of life, not just as spectators but as active participants, starting from our schools. Much of our talent acquisition happens within the schools.
Since the Government took back the Sports Hub, it has offered its comprehensive facilities to host inter-school competitions at the primary and secondary school level, promoting sporting excellence at the highest level and encouraging a select few to further their potential in the international arena. In doing so, we can capture the imagination of our youths so that they are able to compete regularly in our own National Stadium and to hope that, one day, they will represent Singapore on the world stage. Our Olympians will also continue to play an important role in building the next generation of athletes through school visits, mentorship programmes and public engagement.
We hope that these collective efforts will push for the next bound of sporting excellence for Singapore and ensure that they become role models, inspiring children across the island to pick up a racket, a ball or a bow and arrow and to believe that they, too, can reach the top. The Home of Team Singapore will also be well-placed to provide the space for coaches, parents and support staff to be equipped with the tools they need to nurture athletes.
As parents and coaches form the backbone of an athlete's support system, Home of Team Singapore could offer parenting workshops, coaching seminars and wellness resources so that no one in an athlete's life is left unsupported. New sports science and sports medicine facilities will also help on this.
Sir, as the old saying goes, the future of Singapore sports is so bright I have to wear shades, just like when Max Maeder is training. And the Home of Team Singapore is at the very heart of its future. To our athletes, thank you for reminding us that, in the face of adversity, there is always greatness within us. Your victories inspire us all to strive for better, to work harder and to unite as a nation in the pursuit of excellence. Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.
Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I stand today to wholeheartedly support this Motion and to extend my personal congratulations to our Olympic and Paralympic athletes. I would also like to extend a warm welcome to you at Parliament House, a place that serves as a home away from home for all of us fortunate to represent the people of Singapore. As athletes, you have proudly represented our nation on the global stage. I hope you feel a strong sense of belonging here, knowing that your contributions, just like ours, are valued and celebrated in this place.
Your participation in the 2024 Summer Olympics brought immense pride and joy to our little nation. In particular, we celebrate Ms Jeralyn Tan, Mr Maximilian Maeder and Ms Yip Pin Xiu, whose medal-winning performances have earned them a place of honour in Singaporean sports history. All of you have demonstrated remarkable physical, mental and emotional strength and determination throughout your journeys to Olympic and Paralympic success. Your path has been marked by years of rigorous training. Your resilience, commitment and ability to overcome challenges and excel under pressure are a testament to the power of human determination. As role models, you inspire others with your achievements and dedication.
Mr Speaker, the Olympic Games, with their rich history spanning over a century, embody international unity, athletic excellence and the potential of the human spirit. The Games transcend borders, cultures and politics and inspire billions of people across the globe with their message of friendship, solidarity and fair play. In Singapore's diverse and multicultural society, these values of unity, mutual respect and peaceful competition resonate deeply. The Olympics remind us that despite our differences, we can come together as citizens of the world and not citizens defined by abstract borders.
Mr Speaker, Muhammad Ali, the legendary boxer and Olympic gold medallist, famously said: \"He who is not courageous enough to take risks will accomplish nothing in life\". Our athletes, through their courage and commitment to take risks, push limits and strive for greatness, are an embodiment of Ali's wisdom.
Mr Speaker, the significance of the Olympic Games extends far beyond medals. Singapore's participation in the Games is a testament to our ongoing commitment to fostering athletic talent, promoting a healthy lifestyle and showcasing our nation's progress. Our athletes have become national heroes, inspiring new generations to embrace sports and strive for greatness. Their success demonstrates the power of sports to transform lives, foster national pride and unite us in celebrating excellence.
The Motion also recognises the family members, coaches and other support staff. Mr Speaker, behind every athlete stands a dedicated team of individuals who have made significant sacrifices. They have spent many hours training, advising and supporting our athletes, often in the background and without recognition. Their belief and support are frequently the bedrock upon which our athletes have built their success. It is, therefore, only right that we shine a light on their contribution and acknowledge the indispensable role they play in our sporting ecosystem.
Mr Speaker, as we congratulate our athletes, let us also reaffirm our commitment to investing in grassroots programmes that encourage children and young people to take up a sport at an early age for fun and not simply to win.
Mr Speaker, not all children who play sport can be elite athletes and not all children who play sport want to be elite athletes. Some just want to keep fit, hang out with their friends or just give it a try because it is enjoyable.
While we absolutely need to have systems in place to identify and support potential or future Olympians, we do not want to inadvertently drive children and young people away from sport because of pressure to always be faster, stronger, better. Sport, no matter the level, should always be fun, not a burden.
The recently announced Kallang Alive Masterplan and associated relocation of the Singapore Sports School is consistent with this approach. As noted by Prime Minister Wong in his maiden National Day Rally speech on 18 August 2024, the Masterplan will, and I quote, \"assist to strengthen the sporting culture in Singapore and to support all Singaporeans in realising their sporting dreams.\"
Prime Minister Wong went on to say, and I quote, \"You don't need to be an elite athlete to enjoy the facilities at Kallang. You may be a weekend player or a beginner or someone trying to pick up a new sport. Whatever your level, so long as you have interest in sports, there will be something for you here\".
Mr Speaker, we also need to do more to safeguard our athletes. The Singapore Safe Sport Commission continues to do commendable work in this area through policy, training and education, complaints handling and accreditation. However, evidence-based safeguarding needs to be embedded across all sports and at all levels and this is lacking. We need to be able to do this and for this to be accepted as the norm by players and athletes, parents and coaches. Doing so will not only reduce the risk of harm to children and young people playing sport, but importantly, will improve both their enjoyment of sport and their performance.
Mr Speaker, I conclude by congratulating once again our Olympic and Paralympic athletes. You have done us proud, but more importantly, you have done yourself proud.
Mr Speaker, it is not easy to become an Olympian. As one sports commentator noted, only one in 500,000, or 0.000017% of the world's population ever make it to Olympics. So, your achievements are by definition extraordinary. You are the elite in your field and I hope that you will remember Paris 2024 with delight and satisfaction, and more importantly, I hope you had fun.
Mr Speaker, with that, I support the Motion. I also wish all our athletes the very best for whatever comes next on their remarkable journey. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Sitoh Yih Pin.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. There is an old Chinese saying that goes “文无第一 , 武无第二”. Loosely translated and interpreted, it means that there is no absolute number one in the arts and literary world, while being first is all that matters in the pugilistic or martial arts world.
Today, not many engage in martial arts fights and competitions anymore. The second part of this phrase is often used to apply to the world of sports and to sportsmen and sportswomen.
It is nice to win, but there is more to sports than being first or winning medals. Sports is also about forging our spirits in the crucible of competition and yes, defeat as well.
Let me quote what champion bodybuilder, movie superstar and California Governor, Mr Arnold Schwarzenegger said, “Strength does not come from winning. Your struggles develop your strengths. When you go through hardships and decide not to surrender, that is strength”.
Let us give pause to what the “Governator” said here, which is almost counter-intuitive, “Strength does not come from winning”.
Everyone loves a winner and everyone loves to see the athletes achieve victory and the celebration that ensues. Our celebration often centres around victories and talent.
But as Mr Schwarzeneggar said the athlete does not get stronger in victory. They do not even get stronger because they have talent. He said that one gets stronger when one struggles and go through hardships and not surrender.
Sir, I think these struggles and the indomitable spirit of not surrendering are also worth celebrating, and it is the reason why we are here today as well. On one hand, we are here to celebrate our Olympians and Paralympians’ successes and victories in Paris, but on the other hand, we are also here to give praise to them for overcoming hardships and struggles and not surrendering, and in the process develop strength in body, soul and spirit.
This is especially true for our Paralympians, who despite facing challenges in life, choose to take the bull by its horns and face life with positive energy and become a Paralympian in the process. They have decided triumphantly that they will overcome all odds with verve and spirit. Which is why I suppose the motto of the Paralympics is “spirit in motion”.
Jeralyn Tan embodies this. Her achievement at the Paralympics showcased the “spirit” of her journey of growing up with cerebral palsy, picking up boccia as a co-curricular activity, competing at the national, regional and eventually on the international stage, at the Paralympics. Very importantly, her family who have been supporting her throughout this journey, played a vital role in her quest to overcome all odds and succeed.
Mr Speaker, there is another Chinese saying by the Confucian philosopher Mencius, who lived around 2,300 years ago. The saying loosely translated into English is as follows: \"When Heaven is about to confer a great responsibility on a person, it will first make the person endure hardship in spirit, exhaust his muscles and bones and experience hunger. This is so that this person can cultivate a resilient spirit and enhance his capabilities.\"
It is a more poetic and detailed way of expressing what the \"Governator\" has said. It can also be used to describe what every successful athlete knows – the road to sporting success is paved with pain, deprivation, suffering and yes, even defeat. Because no one wins all the time.
What is important is the will to get up and try again and again, to compete again and again, and eventually achieve success from the ashes of defeat. It is the spirit of resilience and not giving in to defeatism, of not surrendering, but to rise from defeat, that is worthy of our celebration and honour.
And it is also this spirit of resilience that Singapore has as well, that has made Singapore what it is today. Sports is a microcosm of life and sports holds many lessons for us, for every generation of Singaporeans.
This is why it is important that we inculcate the qualities that are to be found in great sportsmen and sportswomen into the fabric of our society; that of fair play, resilience, guts and teamwork.
Aside from learning from our defeats and rising up again, there are also lessons to be learnt from winning. In this context, we can learn from Yip Pin Xiu. Pin Xiu is a veritable Singapore sporting legend at the age of 32.
She has won five Paralympic gold medals over three Games and numerous other medals at other international competitions. Despite having a hereditary neurological disorder called Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease or CMT disease, Pin Xiu has managed to win again and again over the years. I understand CMT disease leads to progressive muscle and sensory loss. I think Pin Xiu has probably lost muscle mass and strength over the editions of Paralympics that she has won gold medals in. Yet, she continues to defy the odds with the strength of her will and her discipline and dedication to training.
As Singaporeans, we can all learn from Pin Xiu. As a country, Singapore has serious limitations of space and lack of natural resources. No matter what we do, these limitations remain with us. But that does not mean our fates need to be determined by these limitations. With the same discipline and determination as Pin Xiu, Singapore can continue to come up tops in many ways in these uncertain times. We can continue to meet challenges that come our way with positivity and overcome them by the strength of our collective will.
Sir, next, I would like to talk about how we can learn from someone who is not as experienced as Pin Xiu but just starting out in his Olympic journey – Max Maeder. At this juncture, I like to declare that I was a director of Yeo Hiap Seng Limited when the company started to sponsor Max in his sports activities. I played a role in that sponsorship.
At 17 years of age, Max cannot even legally order a can of beer at the neighbourhood coffee shop in Singapore when he won his bronze medal. But everyone who has met him has described him as being level-headed and mature beyond his years. With the energy and fearlessness of youth, he is already charting new paths and peaks in his sporting career. I am very confident that he will achieve more sporting glory for himself and Singapore in the years to come.
Like Max Maeder, Singapore is a young country. Being a young country, we should not fear going into uncharted waters at high speeds, as long as we keep our heads level and our sight on what is important and what is the final goal.
Yes, there will be choppy waves along the way and sometimes we can even lose a bit of speed and direction, but as long as we have the wherewithal to stay the course and if necessary, to make adjustments along the way, we will get to where we need to be, where we want to be. Just like Max!
Sir, at this juncture, I would like to respond to what the hon Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim said. He spoke about the differences and maybe the disparity in the incentive schemes. Mr Speaker, Sir, I take it that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's intentions are good. I respect what he said and today is a happy occasion. I do not hope to get into an intense and heated debate.
But let me respond by way of a tennis match. In the early part of this year, I think in early February or late January, there was the Australian Open tennis final. Jannik Sinner, the Italian tennis player, won the Australian Open. He was the first Italian to have won an Australian Open and currently the first Italian to be ranked number one in the world. During that game, Jannik Sinner was playing Daniel McDevitt. He was lost the first two sets, 3-6, 3-6. I watched that game. In the third set, at one point, it looked like he was gone, finished. He was going to lose the third set and it was game over. But then his coach shouted from the stands, \"Weather the storm! Weather the storm!\"
That was when Jannik Sinner's game changed. He came back. He was a different person and then he went on to win the next three sets, 6-4, 6-4, 6-3. And therefore, became the first Italian to win the Australian Open.
Why do I relate this story? Because I have learned from that tennis game that in sports, you always have two opponents. One is the opponent across the court. In sports, you compete. That is inevitable. That is unavoidable. The second opponent is yourself.
You have to overcome what is inside yourself. My message, Mr Speaker, Sir, to Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, is that as much as your intentions may be good, please do not create that storm. Because we are one Team Singapore. I am sure Minister Edwin Tong will respond later about the incentives, but I think there is no need to try to create any division amongst any one of us, amongst the strong and resilient team Singapore. Sir, please allow me to speak in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The topic of sports is a significant one, a topic for the entire nation. We must approach it carefully and thoughtfully, always prioritising the interests of the athletes and the people. Within the sports family, there is no 'I' or 'you', only 'we', because we are a team. The performance of our athletes this time has brought great joy, sunshine and new hopes to the people. Therefore, I want to express my gratitude for our athletes' dedication, because you have brought new hope and insiprations.
For your toil, your spirit, and your contributions, I extend my deepest gratitude to all of you.
I believe that your spirit is not just for the present, nor for 10 years, nor even for 100 years; it is eternal, and will last for generations to come.
(In English): Sir, in conclusion, I would like to share a song. I was just driving the other day and this song came on the radio and I thought maybe I will use it today. For those of us old enough, I think you will know this song. It is a song by Simon and Garfunkel. It was very popular in the early 1970s. It is a Spanish song titled, \"El Condo Pasa\". For those of us old enough, you will know this song.
But the lyrics of the song are very interesting. It goes something like, \"I would rather be a sparrow than a snail. I would rather be a hammer than a nail. I would rather be a forest than a street\" and I was thinking of today's Motion because, I am certain, hand on heart, for every athlete here, for every sports official here, for every family here, they can put hand on heart that they would rather be competing in the red and white colours of Team Singapore. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: For a moment, I thought you were going to sing, Mr Sitoh. [Laughter.] Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, go ahead.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Just a quick response, Sir. Far from it being my intention to — firstly, I do struggle to grasp the logic in linking my call for equal rewards between our athletes with creating a storm, but I would only add that if, indeed, calling for equality between our para athletes and athletes constitutes stirring up a storm, then I am happy to be stirring up the storm. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Minister Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, Sir, and I would like to thank all our colleagues, Members in this House, for being united in your support for this Motion and also support for sports in Singapore as we look at the next bound and steps that we can take collectively together to get us to the next bound.
I thank the various Members for their impassioned speeches. Mr Yip Hong Wing, Ms Poh Li San, for your thoughtful sporting suggestions. Assoc Prof Razwana, for reminding us that sports should always be fun. Ms Jean See, Ms Hazel Pua, for your support. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, for your impassioned interventions. And of course, Ms Denise Phua, who not just was passionate in her speech, but she is so passionate that she came in Team Singapore colours as well today.
These are all great suggestions which my team and I will take back and we will consider thoughtfully and take on board in the course of looking at the proposals and policies that we will have to advance sports. I thought I would take up a response on two points which most of the Members have spoken about.
And the first is on our disability sports landscape. Ms Denise Phua and Mr Keith Chua, in particular, noted that it is important to encourage children in our SPED schools to take up sports from a young age. We agree. Mr Ong Hua Han also suggested adopting a more structured approach to encouraging children with disabilities in mainstream schools to do sports. We agree.
In addition, I think Mr Ong Hua Han also mentioned that we have to raise awareness and understanding. And I can see why, because our children do not have, from a young age, a bias. And I think what is needed for them is to gain greater understanding and empathy, and also being able to be equipped with how to deal with a situation when they see a person with disability, how do you interact, how do you make the first move, how do you break the ice and how do you come together and socialise and form a community. I think these are important steps that we will take and we believe that the platform of sports provides us a great way in which we can do this.
Mr Keith Chua also noted that we can do more for persons with disabilities in the community. To this end, along with helping children, MOE has introduced a new SPED Physical Education teaching and learning syllabus earlier this month. It focuses on preparing SPED students for good health and life outcomes through lifelong sports participation. This early intervention can ensure that these children can access sports from a young age, cultivate a good habit and cultivate a culture for sustained and lifelong sports participation.
Indeed, over the years, we have made good progress, introducing a range of disability sport programmes and initiatives. These have reached out to close to 20,000 persons with disabilities to date. They include the Learn to Play programme, the annual Play Inclusive campaign that I spoke about, the Inclusive Sport Festival, which has itself also been integrated into the mainstream Get Active Singapore. So, it is no longer just about normal ability sports, but also special ability sports within our mainstream programmes like Get Active Singapore, which is a very popular programme. We also have, as you heard me say in my speech earlier, launched the Parasport Academy. This was done in March 2022. And so far, there have been more than 400 participants across 10 sports today. And as I said earlier, as we look forward towards the launch of the DSMP, we will make further announcements on what else we are doing to enhance the disability sport landscape.
The second point I would like to respond to would be the incentive awards. Let me explain this with some context so that Members can understand.
First of all, as Ms Usha Chandradas pointed out, this is put up by non-government entities. It is decided by them. They decide on the funding, the appropriate level, the structures and the terms on which this is done. Between the Olympic and the Paralympic structure, there are differences. But these differences do not mean one is necessarily better than the other.
Let me explain. In the Olympics, for example, the first and only gold that is rewarded under the incentive programme is the first gold for $1 million. Under the Paralympic programme, it is $500,000 for each gold, but it goes up to three golds. So, it is different, not necessarily comparable in the same way.
These are also decided by the private sector on a range of different considerations. They have to think in terms of whether this is sustainable, is this an incentive programme that drives the right behaviour and how long term can this be? Bearing in mind, for example, that if you compare the Paralympics with the Olympics, just in swimming alone, there are 141 Paralympic swimming events for which medals are awarded, as opposed to 37 in the Olympics. So, when the private sector, as well as Tote Board, looks at this, these are amongst the considerations that they have in mind.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also spoke about equalising, and I think several other Members as well. With reference to some data, I think there was an article cited by Ms Usha Chandradas. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim spoke about the experience in Canada. Let us not also forget that even as we look at trying to find parity, let us not forget where we start and where we are today in Singapore. Like Ms Chandradas says, Singapore is amongst the highest, if not the highest, in terms of the incentive scheme amounts in absolute terms. Assoc Prof Lim spoke about Canada, but I think Assoc Prof Lim would know that Canada's incentive for a Paralympic gold is $20,000. We are at $500,000. I am not sure whether Canada looks at the second or third golds as we do. Other countries, like in Japan, mentioned by Ms Chandradas, their gold is at $20,000; Korea is at $50,000; France is at $100,000; and Australia is at $15,000.
So, let us not also miss the wood for the trees. We have been pushing the amounts up over the years. I can understand and appreciate entirely why Members have said let us find parity. Because there is, in fact, no difference between the way in which our para athletes train, put effort, make sacrifices as well as our Olympic athletes. But let us not also lose sight of the amounts in absolute terms and how much we support our athletes.
I also want to explain why we have taken the position that we have left the incentive schemes to the private sector and to the Tote Board to handle. These awards, based on each major game, are set up and, as Members know, the games are cyclical. At each game, like the Olympics, there might be a gold medallist or there might not be a gold medallist. But the amounts that are committed will have to be put aside and have to be provided for, and you cannot use them, and because you cannot use them, you cannot deploy the funds elsewhere.
In contrast, what the Government does is we look at a year-on-year, long-term master plan, like the DSMP, as an example. We cater for infrastructure upgrades, development. We look at facilities. We look at building up the academies, like ActiveSG Academies, the Para Sport Academy, the coaches, the specialist physiotherapists that we employ for para athletes, sports science, the programmes that I spoke about earlier in my speech, the various bursaries that we put together, like in SportCares bursaries, as I spoke about in my opening speech as well, to support the lower-income; and, of course, the spex programme, amongst others. These are all spendings that are committed and that, every year, are spent to improve the infrastructure and landscape for both para and disability sports as well as able-bodied sports. This is an investment that the Government is committed to. It is not if you win an award, not whether; but it is a commitment that we make.
If you put aside sums and think about whether or not I need to provide for \"x\" number of gold medals each cycle, these are sums that will not be able to be deployed. So, we look at it differently. We decide that we want to invest these amounts, spend them, make a commitment and ensure that we have efficiency for the spend that we make. It is an assured amount every year, year-on-year, on a long-term masterplan.
And more importantly, we also take the approach that when you have an incentive programme, it is good, and we applaud the various supporters and corporates who come forward to help us in this effort. It is very good. But it is also rewarding people who are more or less at the end of the journey winning a gold medal. It does not directly go towards helping those in development, which is what we want to do with a broader spend, so that we can reach and target a broader base mass appeal and developing a pipeline so that more athletes, para as well as able-bodied athletes, can reach the apex of their sport and reach their aspiration. That is the thinking that we have in the Government on why we leave the private sector and Tote Board to deal with the incentives while we make commitments here and now and in the long-term on facilities that overall lift the base of sports entirely. So, I hope that clarifies the position on the incentive schemes.
Finally, as I conclude, Mr Speaker, Sir, the programmes that we have spoken about, that I have outlined in my earlier speech, they show us that there is a very clear commitment towards a comprehensive plan that is bold, ambitious and, in some cases, also unprecedented, in the context of Home of Team Singapore. These plans, we believe, will help us lift the entire base altogether. We will find a new baseline and in order to do this, we want to permanently shift the baseline so that we are no longer looking at vagaries or depending on each year, whether there are certain sports that may be in major games or otherwise, performances may then vary. We want to permanently shift the baseline upwards.
My colleagues and I at MCCY are convinced that the best years of sports lie ahead of us. I thank everyone for supporting this Motion today, for believing in our athletes and, in particular, I thank all our athletes for allowing us to believe, through you, that dreams can come true.
Mr Ong Hua Han, in his speech earlier, spoke about how we have not even heard about kitefoiling until some months ago, before the Olympics. Most of you know that I look after a constituency at Marine Parade. One day, when I was there a couple of months ago, after the Olympics, I saw a young boy. He tied a string to a plastic bag and he was running up and down the beach with the plastic bag. And I asked him what he was doing and he said, \"I am kitefoiling.\" [Laughter.]
So, it has that power to engender, to inspire and to break new ground. And I think that is the power of sports. It is something that the medium of sports is uniquely positioned to give us and we thank our athletes and all of the supporters, the many stakeholders in this room, in this Chamber today – family, friends, officials, coaches – everyone in that village or town that I spoke about. We thank all of you very much for being here, for being part of this journey and we look forward to working with you even more, even further, as we take Singapore sports further forward. Thank you very much, Sir. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Any clarifications for the Minister? Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa: Earlier, the Minister mentioned that the percentage of Singaporeans engaged in sports at least once a week has improved significantly. I believe it was from over 50% to over 70%. I would like to ask the Minister whether our sports facilities have been increased proportionately. For example, I have heard from many friends and relatives that it is practically impossible to book a badminton court under ActiveSG.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: To Ms Poa's point, yes, we are working towards refurbishing old ones to build more courts, build more facilities and also having newer ones. I mentioned Toa Payoh, there is one in Punggol, Sengkang and various places. So, we are doing that. But obviously, you can almost never cater enough because each time you look at a badminton court – four persons on the court. So, I can understand the demand.
I, as the Minister looking after sports, amongst the number one emails I get is precisely in the vein of what Ms Poa is asking for. Can we have more tennis courts? Can we have more facilities for badminton, for floorball, for tchoukball, and so on? In a sense, I look at it as a good thing – that we have been quite successful in encouraging Singaporeans to be active in sport and want to take part in sports.
We will do our best to catch up in terms of facilities, but we are defined by a finite set of resources on this. So, I am sure Ms Poa understands. Nonetheless, we will work with facilities; we will work with schools to ensure that on the weekends at least, dual-use facilities are made available as much as possible to the public and in this way satisfy the demand that is building up. And that is a positive sign.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you, Speaker. Just a very quick clarification from me. I appreciate that the amounts we offer are indeed comparatively higher relative to the other nations that Minister Tong mentioned. I will only add a few points.
First, it is also true that we are both richer and win less medals overall, unfortunately, than these nations. And so, in absolute terms, this should make the burden just somewhat more affordable.
To be clear, I am not innocent of the very real budgetary constraints that we face in raising and implications of raising the amounts. I will only ask Minister Tong if he would at least agree with the principle of equalising awards. If he does, then it comes down to, I think, the Government working in tandem with the Tote Board as well as other private donors to try to realise that aspiration.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sir, I would agree with the principle that we equalise our support for all athletes regardless of whether they are para athletes or able-bodied athletes and regardless of whether they take part in major games or otherwise across the entire spectrum. That has been our approach. That is why our ActiveSG academies now have the Para Sports Academy as well, and to the extent possible, we have NSAs where the para sports take part in the sport side by side with the able-bodied athletes.
So, these are steps that we are taking to bridge the gap if there is one, but I would not necessarily say that our focus is only on making sure that the incentives are equalised because there is a danger in that which is the point I was making to you earlier, Prof Lim, that in trying to strive towards equality, you have missed the woods for the trees – which is where we are already today. Would you rather have equality or would you rather want substantive support that is being given to para athletes? I think the answer is pretty clear.
Mr Speaker: Ms Usha Chandradas.
Ms Usha Chandradas: I thank the Minister for his response and his clarifications. I just have one further clarification. Would the Minister be able to comment on my suggestion on whether MCCY can advocate for a tax exemption for the awards that are granted to our athletes and para athletes?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I will have to check that with the relevant Ministry which is behind me. I will have a word and see whether that is possible, but I also want to make the point. You made the point earlier that we should consider the tax exemption because there are a variety of different sharing proportions for the incentive.
I think the sharing incentive proportion is designed to reflect the fact that, precisely as I have said today, we have a village behind every athlete and the support structures are something that we value and the split formula that Ms Chandradas spoke about reflects that value – that everyone plays a part in the success of the athlete. It is not just a single source of success every time a medal is won.
Mr Speaker: As the Speaker, I cannot join the debate, but I just want to say to our Olympians and Paralympians, your family and support team, I salute you, this House salutes you and Singapore salutes you. [Applause.]
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That this House congratulates our Team Singapore Olympians and Paralympians, in particular our medallists Ms Jeralyn Tan, Mr Maximilian Maeder and Ms Yip Pin Xiu, for their achievements at the 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Order. I think we deserve a longer break now. So, I propose to take a break now and I will suspend the Sitting and will take Chair at 3.50 pm. Order. Order.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.22 pm until 3.50 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.50 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Insurance (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Second Minister for Finance.
The Second Minister for Finance (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of Mr Gan Kim Yong, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry, and Minister-in-charge of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
Sir, in his Ministerial Statement on Monday, Minister Edwin Tong spoke about the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth's (MCCY's) concerns on the proposed transaction between Allianz Europe BV or Allianz, and NTUC Enterprise or NE, to enable Allianz to acquire a majority stake in Income Insurance Limited or Income, and the reasons why it would not be in the public interest for the transaction, in its current form, to proceed.
Minister Edwin Tong had explained that when Income proposed the transaction with Allianz, it was to find a strong partner that can complement NE in strengthening Income, so that Income can sustain its social mission. It is important to recognise that NE and Income had acted in good faith and their objective of wanting to go into this deal was to do the right thing, which is to strengthen Income, so that it could do well to continue to do good.
I would also like to reiterate that the Government does not have concerns over Allianz's standing or suitability to acquire a majority stake in Income. The concern is over the terms and structure of this specific transaction, particularly as seen in the context of the preceding corporatisation exercise. The Government remains supportive of NE's and Income's efforts to find a strong partner, with Allianz or other partners, to strengthen Income's capital base and market position.
As Income is now a corporate entity, it is no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, or co-ops for short. The deal is still subject to MAS' approval under the Insurance Act for Allianz to become a substantial or controlling shareholder.
However, the Insurance Act does not expressly provide for MAS to consider MCCY's views in applications where the insurer is either a co-op or linked to a co-op. We, therefore, propose to amend the Insurance Act to provide a clear statutory basis for MCCY's views to be considered in any approval involving such applications.
Sir, please allow me to explain the key features of the Bill. Under the Insurance Act, sections 26 and 27 require a person to seek the prior written approval of MAS to obtain effective control or become a substantial shareholder of a licensed insurer incorporated in Singapore.
When assessing an application under section 26 or 27, MAS considers a range of criteria on prudential grounds, such as the financial strength and track record of the applicant, and whether it is fit and proper. This assessment is focused primarily on the suitability of the proposed substantial shareholder or person obtaining effective control.
Given that insurance co-ops are a special category of insurers with a social mission, we are proposing to amend the Insurance Act to provide for the Minister-in-charge of MAS to consider the views of the Minister responsible for the administration of the Co-operative Societies Act (CSA), to withhold approval involving such applications if the Minister-in-charge of MAS considers that it is in the public interest to do so. The Minister-in-charge of MAS will also take into account prudential considerations under the Insurance Act in making his decision.
The Bill applies specifically to a licensed insurer that is the subject of an application under section 26 or 27 of the Insurance Act, where: (a) the licensed insurer is a co-op; (b) the licensed insurer has acquired the principal business or undertaking of a co-op; or (c) a co-op is a substantial shareholder or has effective control of the licensed insurer. The second and third limbs will apply to Income as it took on the assets of Income co-op when the latter corporatised, and NE, as a co-op, is currently Income's majority shareholder.
The Bill will allow the Minister-in-charge of MAS to impose conditions to an approval involving such applications. It also provides that there will be no avenue for appeals to the Minister in respect of MAS' decision not to approve an application on the basis that the Minister has withheld approval.
We are making the amendments on an urgent basis because the proposed transaction is under active consideration by Income's shareholders. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me, first, declare my interest that I work in a financial institution. Sir, in the August Parliament Sitting, I filed a Parliamentary Question on the Income-Allianz deal when I read the public announcement in the newspaper.
Among my concerns then were whether with NE ceding majority control of Income, would Income still be able to do the social good, as what they have done before all these years, which is to provide affordable essential insurance products, particularly to the underserved. I also asked if there is social value in NE retaining control of Income Insurance.
In his reply, Minister of State Alvin Tan shared that the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and Income has given assurance to keep the premiums affordable for Income's low-cost schemes for its members and that they reiterated its commitment to its social mission, post-acquisition. Minister of State Alvin Tan also mentioned that Allianz has represented that it would honour Income's existing policies, participate in the national insurance programmes and continue its charity commitments.
In the same session in August, in the replies to related questions on behalf of MAS, Minister Chee Hong Tat also shared with the House then that MAS is still in the midst of assessing the application. He said that MAS would consider a range of criteria in assessing the deal, such as its track record, fitness, reputation, propriety, including the financial capacity of the proposed shareholder to support the insurer when needed.
Sir, when Minister Chee Hong Tat and Minister of State Alvin Tan addressed the House in August on the questions that were raised by Members, I must say that they were both non-committal as to whether the deal would be approved. But I must admit that, in my heart, I thought it is a done deal in due course. So, it came as a surprise to hear the Ministerial Statement by Minister Edwin Tong on Monday that the deal would be blocked on grounds of public interest.
In Monday's Ministerial Statement, a critical piece of information was disclosed where, under the proposed transaction, there would be a substantial capital reduction exercise which would entail a cash transfer of S$1.85 billion from Income to the proposed shareholders within three years upon completion of the transaction.
While such capital reduction exercises are not uncommon in corporate mergers and acquisitions transactions, it would not be acceptable in this context. And the reason is that at the time of corporatisation in 2022, Income enjoyed an exemption from section 88 of the CSA, where they were allowed to carry over the S$2 billion of surplus capital into the corporate entity, rather than transfer it to the Co-operatives Societies Liquidation Account (CSLA) to benefit the wider co-op sector.
MCCY has allowed this exemption then on the basis that Income will continue with its social mission and as a company it would build up its capital resources and enhance its financial strength. So, this capital extraction exercise of S$1.85 billion appears to run counter to the basis in which the Ministerial exemption was granted.
This, to me, is a deal breaker. Clearly, with the cash extraction, the capital position of the new entity would not be accretive and hence, also put into question how the company can continue to fulfil its social mission.
In a way, I am glad that the Government, both MCCY and MAS, through its detailed assessments and due diligence, picked up this serious implication and intervened to halt this proposed transaction. I support this Bill to allow the Minister in-charge of MAS to withhold the approval, based on the advice of MCCY, in which the considerations may be non-prudential in nature. It is the right thing to do.
Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding my support, I have two related asks from the Government.
Firstly, I urge the Government to continue preserving our current social-economic landscape, where social enterprises including NTUC co-operatives operate alongside businesses in a competitive yet socially inclusive business environment.
Social co-operatives and the not-for-profit enterprises play an indispensable role to help keep essential products and services affordable and accessible; and also, importantly, plug the gaps for those areas not covered by commercial enterprises.
In Singapore's context, entities that are run as social co-operatives, such as those like NTUC, have always been a useful instrument for the Government to do some of the public good, such as helping to stabilise inflation, to manage cost of living, to provide more affordable, inclusive products, whether it is healthcare, eldercare, childcare, groceries or insurance. I remembered during the early days of COVID-19, NTUC Fairprice and its pharmacy arm, Unity, were at the forefront of managing the distribution of masks and sanitisers and also helping to keep prices steady and to curb profiteering. Social co-operatives do help to strengthen our social and economic resilience.
In the case of corporatised insurance, where it enjoys the exemption of section 88 of the CSA, I would argue that the Government should requires NE to remain as the majority shareholder of Income for a prescribed number of years so that it can continue to steward Income to carry out its social mission. They may have made undertakings, but it is important to have the majority control. Both form and substance are both important.
I also hope that the Government and the NTUC can align and reaffirm its social missions of with regard to co-operatives and refresh an updated roadmap on the roles of our major social co-operatives in our economy and our society.
Sir, to my next point. Singapore has always been an attractive destination for foreign direct investments. Inward investments have helped to build our economic capabilities, brings in the needed capital to fuel growth, create good paying jobs. Our openness to foreign investments is one of our key success factors for our economic progress and it brings in exciting opportunities for Singaporeans.
Hence, my other concerns would be whether the rejection of the Allianz transaction on grounds of public interest would have any impact on our reputation as a global centre that welcome international investments, which is my second ask. That is, to call on the Government to reaffirm this long-standing policy, to position Singapore as an investment friendly global hub that welcome value adding economic investments.
The point is, we have never been averse to foreign investors acquiring Singapore companies. Over the years, we seen foreign acquisition of local companies, including iconic ones that today, still continues to be foreign owned like NOL, Raffles Hotel, our three large generation companies, SPC, CPG, among others.
It is inconceivable for Singapore as a global business hub to prevent or resist any change of ownerships of companies as these are all part and parcel of the market realisation and maximisation of enterprise value.
I am glad that the Government handled this matter in an open and transparent manner, with the Ministerial Statement on Monday to explain the Government's position and considerations and thereafter tabled this amendment to the Insurance Act so that we can have this debate.
Mr Speaker, since our Independence, Singapore has always pursued pragmatic pathways in our nation building journey. We want to be an appealing global economic hub where as far as possible free market principles prevails. We will leave it to the invisible hand of the market to sort things out, but we are also fully cognisant that there may be pitfalls and areas where unfettered free market may not always serve us well.
And that is why we do see, from time to time, the Government’s visible hands in action, to rectify a situation or to plug a service gap when necessary. This is the uniqueness of the Singapore model, what we call \"same-same but different\". We want to be a vibrant economy but we want to have the social safeguard. This is to borrow the words of Mr Lim Swee Say, the former Secretary-General of NTUC.
Sir, social co-operatives can play an instrumental role in how we build a functioning and robust social compact, helping to give Singaporeans the needed assurances in this uncertain and volatile world, even as Singapore move forward to embrace the exciting opportunities ahead. Sir, with that, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Deputy Speaker, in light of the emerging information on the Allianz-Income deal, the Workers' Party (WP) believes that it is a sound decision to withhold approval, at least in its current form. If the deal is bad for Singapore and its public interest, it should be blocked.
That said, I will make two key arguments. I shall begin by documenting a troubling sequence of events in the run-up to the public announcement on the Allianz-Income deal and its aftermath, involving what appears to be multiple sources of information failures within Government, and between the Government and the public. Next, I will offer some thoughts on guiding principles for how we may wish to proceed.
Let me begin by sketching out what appears to be a puzzling set of events that has been presented to us as an \"information gap\" between MAS and MCCY. I will explain why this is not merely a mild oversight in informational exchange, but a communication breakdown that may reveal some troubling pathologies with how the Government conveys information within itself and with the public.
First, it will be useful to understand just how much MAS knew about Allianz's capital extraction plan. Minister Edwin Tong explained on Monday that MAS had evaluated the offer on prudential grounds, consistent with its regulatory mandate and on that basis, it saw no reason for concern. But MAS' oversight functions extend beyond prudential regulation. Its mandate includes the supervision of domestic systemically important insurers (DSIIs), of which Income Insurance is one.
Besides capital requirements, which is of course central to macro prudential supervision, a holistic assessment, risk assessment, would also entail the evaluation of, and I quote, from the MAS' own published framework on risk assessments, \"qualitative criteria such as brand value and strategic importance\".
Did MAS not believe that a capital extraction plan, contrary to Income's historical mission, would not potentially contribute to elevated post-acquisition risk? After all, if there were to be a sudden exit of Income policy-holders resulting from the deal, surely this would give rise to undesirable financial instability. Could such a holistic assessment be completed in the brief period between mid-July and the time of the public announcement?
Second, on Monday, Minister Chee Hong Tat also indicated that MAS was: \"not aware of MCCY's considerations when MCCY issued the section 88 exemption, and hence did not link the proposal from Allianz to the exemption that MCCY had provided earlier\".
This begs the question of why this link was not made, given how the exemption is in the public records, and surely a S$2 billion surplus would be material to the sort of prudential considerations that MAS concerns itself with in its supervision.
Third, it was revealed on Monday that MAS had belatedly shared information with MCCY only in early August, after many Members of Parliament had raised questions related to the proposed transaction during the 6 August Sitting. Apparently, it was then that MAS recognised that there could be larger considerations beyond just prudential ones and hence, only then did the Government began the process of working together in a whole-of-Government manner.
I wonder if it is only me who finds it troubling that there was no coordinated discussion between the two major relevant regulators, MAS and MCCY, in advance of the proposed deal. Has our civil service become sufficiently siloed in their treatment of what falls under which agency or Ministry's purview that even for transactions of such prominence, no joint working group was convened to ensure sufficient information exchange in advance? Could we be assured that this is a one-off occurrence, or is this a canary in a coal mine that is telling us that we need to look more carefully at how well our Government departments exchange relevant data and information?
Fourth, in September, I had filed a Parliamentary Question asking if MAS had required a commitment from Allianz to provide a capital adequacy injection to grow Income Insurance Limited across its business lines, beyond the S$2.2 billion that Allianz would pay. At the time, I, like many others, were unaware of the proposed capital extraction plan.
Presumably, however, the Government was, but in the terse response received from Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong, it was only suggested that MAS would \"assess Income Insurance's business strategy and capital management plan after Allianz submits its application to obtain effective control and be a substantial shareholder of Income\".
No reference was made to the capital extraction plan, yet as shared by the Ministers on Monday, these concerns were already conveyed to MCCY by then. So, why was the same information not shared as a response to my Parliamentary Question? Perhaps more important, why was so much of the debate in the House two months ago and the constant refrain by NE itself so fixated on capital injections when in reality, Income was much more likely to be facing capital extraction?
Taken together, I am left to conclude that on the assumption that the Government was neither wilfully withholding information from one governmental agency to another, nor to a direct question posed by a Member of Parliament, then at the least, there appears to have been multiple breakdowns of communication between different governmental entities in the exchange of pertinent information over the transaction.
What should we expect now? Given the objection to the original deal, it is natural for us to ask what is next. I do not propose to be speculative given how we do not even have the contours of a potential revised deal.
But given how NE and Income Insurance have publicly stated that they will work closely with the relevant stakeholders to decide on next steps and how market motivations that led to the original deal indeed remain, it would not be a stretch to imagine that there will be a revised effort to raise capital for Income. What have we learned from public feedback over this episode?
For starters, it is clear that there is strong public sentiment that values the historical social objectives of Income Insurance. Notwithstanding how Income is already a corporate entity ultimately answerable to its shareholders, the boards of Income Insurance as well as NE do need to be more sensitive to how their stewardship should reflect the concerns of stakeholders as well and to render appropriate consideration to its social mission.
The need to be cognisant of social objectives notwithstanding, the minority shareholders of Income, many of whom are aged and have sought liquidity for years, should be allowed to exit with a fair value for their holdings.
If Allianz's capital injection cannot be obtained with an assurance that it will not excessively dilute Income's brand equity, perhaps we can look to other homegrown sources such as a syndicate of institutional investors or even to our Sovereign Wealth Funds such as Temasek as alternative sources of patient capital.
Furthermore, future transactions of such importance should, right at the outset, involve the establishment of a multi-Ministry task force with representatives from all the relevant bodies to ensure that the sorts of communication breakdowns that occurred this round do not recur. It is not difficult to see how, depending on the sector, not only MAS and MCCY but also the Ministry of Manpower, Ministry of Digital Development and Information and Ministry of Trade and Industry may be involved. Traditionally, such whole-of-Government efforts would be coordinated via the Prime Minister's Office. This may well be called for in future such transactions.
To this end, one is also left to wonder why the Significant Investments Review Act, or SIRA, was not triggered in this case, given Income's status as a DSII. The simplistic answer, of course, is simply that income does not fall within the existing gazetted list of designated entities under SIRA.
Indeed, what does appear on the list all seem to be related in some form or fashion with security and the military-industrial complex.
But given how we have six whole pillars for Total Defence in Singapore, including economic, social and digital, it seems somewhat inconsistent with our own characterisation of defence that systematically important financial institutions such as DBS or digital assets such as Singtel could be sold without similar protections.
Doing so may open the door to determining whether SIRA-style restrictions or other measures are necessary for future transactions of this nature, thereby ensuring that future transactions are evaluated not purely on a commercial basis but also for their broad alignment with Singapore's interests.
This will lend further credence to the transparency and predictability of our regulatory approach and will go some way toward restoring our nation's reputation as a reliable institutional partner. In the long run, this will benefit both local and foreign stakeholders in our financial sector.
Sir, the Bill is a good faith effort at redressing some of the problematic issues arising from the first pass of the Allianz-Income deal. If this were the reason alone, the WP would have no objection to the Bill, beyond clarifications to the points that I have raised. That said, the Bill does raise other legal and procedural considerations which I will leave my Sengkang colleague, He Ting Ru, to elaborate.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill, in view of the information shared with the House on Monday. The Income-Allianz deal is one which has drawn a high level of public interest. The majority of Singaporean households have insurance policies with NTUC Income or Income Insurance.
Due to the nature and the valuation of this deal, one would expect close coordination among the relevant authorities, such as MCCY and MAS, at all stages during the process of evaluation. I hope that the whole-of-Government way of doing things will continue to be a mainstay and strength of the Singapore Civil Service.
I had raised this issue in Parliament two days ago and we had since have more clarity on how the MAS team had been assessing the deal on prudential grounds. I appreciate that MAS shared information, which they assessed to be relevant to MCCY. It is comforting to know that we continue to have good officers in MAS and even the Civil Service, who are alert and can pick out issues beyond their scope. However, could this information not have been shared earlier with the House when the topic was heavily debated in Parliament back in August?
This is a high-profile, cross-border deal. While I fully support the amendments in the interests of the public, would we be setting a precedent where investors need to factor in potentially unexpected changes to regulations?
On one hand, I am heartened that our Government is open to feedback even as it strives to balance different priorities and competing demands. On the other hand, we must uphold Singapore's reputation as an open, transparent and rules-based city which is pro-business and welcomes foreign investments.
I am heartened that the Government has confirmed that it will be open to new proposals if the concerns are addressed.
Finally, my last question. Would there be other businesses, which are organised as co-operatives, institutions of public charter or critical infrastructure operators, such as telecommunications companies, water desalination plants or oil refineries, which may require similar legislative amendments in order to prevent something similar from taking place?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Deputy Speaker, passing legislation which has or is seen to have retrospective effect must not be taken lightly. This is especially so when it adversely affects the rights and interests of persons and has the potential to hurt Singapore's reputation for certainty, stability and predictability of our commercial laws.
It should not be taken lightly and the WP's position when the Constitution was amended a year ago as a precautionary measure, reflects our general concern over retrospective amendments.
In this case, while it is true that MAS’ approval of Allianz's proposed acquisition of 51% of Income remains pending, we note that the transaction had previously been signed and announced, albeit conditional upon receiving regulatory approval amongst others. It can thus be seen to be a live transaction.
Thus, I believe that there is a risk that the amendments proposed in this Bill, along with their urgent nature, would be seen to be retrospective by players in our corporate finance landscape.
For this, I specifically refer to clause 2 of the Bill which contains the proposed section 33A subsection 9 of the Act which states that, quote, this section also applies to a relevant application received by the authority before the commencement of the Insurance (Amendment) Act 2024 that is still pending as of that date.
Even if some were to argue that this Bill's acts do not fall within the realm of having retrospective effect, there is a second principle of legal and regulatory certainty in the context of Singapore's corporate finance landscape to consider. This was also alluded to by Members Liang Eng Hwa and Joan Pereira in their speeches.
Having worked on a number of highly complex multi-billion-dollar mergers and acquisitions, and structured finance transactions across multiple jurisdictions spanning the globe, I know how invaluable it is to have certainty. In such deals, there are many moving parts and a number of complicated regulatory regimes ranging from takeover codes, listing rules, merger control, catch all laws governing natural and national interests, and also financial rules for lawyers and other financial advisors to consider.
It is also why it is also standard practice for parties to engage with regulators early on in the preparatory process long before any public announcements are made so that parties can understand potential impediments to their transactions, assess the risk of a regulator blocking the transaction and to address these through their structuring of the transaction, including on occasion giving irrevocable and legally binding undertakings to do or not do certain things for a fixed time period post-completion.
This is also the case here in Singapore.
It is fair that we ask whether the amendments proposed in this Bill, especially under a Certificate of Urgency, which was last used during COVID-19, are in fact strictly necessary to provide the Government through MAS the legal power to block the Allianz’s acquisition of Income. After all, according to the offering circular, the long stop date was actually nine months after the announcement date, which would actually have taken us until sometime next year.
MAS' powers are contained in sections 26 and 27 of the Insurance Act 1966. These sections provide the MAS may approve an application to obtain effective control or become a substantial shareholder of a licensed insurance company if MAS is satisfied that: first, the applicant is a fit and proper person; and second, that having regard to the likely influence of the person, the licensed insurer concerned will or will continue to conduct its business prudently and comply with the provisions of this Act.
The Act also does not say that MAS cannot take into account other factors relevant to its mission, which would include the overall health of Singapore's financial sector as a whole, for example, including the provision of insurance services to the public, and whether the people's interests in having access to affordable and reliable insurance policies and products are served.
Additionally, I note that although Income is said to have a social mission, it is also clear that its mission is to provide insurance, which is most definitely a financial service. Thus, whether Income in whatever form it morphs into in the future conducts its financial services business in a manner that benefits the people of Singapore on the whole, is something that MAS can already take into account in considering whether to give approval under sections 26 and 27 of the existing Insurance Act.
Therefore, I hope that the Government can address legitimate concerns raised about how this Bill and its passage may be perceived as harmful retrospective legislation and rushed as legislation, with its attendant negative impact on our reputation as a financial and corporate hub with certainty over laws and regulations.
How specifically does the Government hope to address concerns that future parties may have about the risk that their live transactions may suddenly find themselves blocked by urgent retrospective legislation being passed in the middle of a live transaction after an announcement is made in accordance with applicable listing rules and takeover codes and is just pending regulatory approvals?
I would now like to turn to some questions arising from the proposed Allianz-Income transaction which provided impetus for this Bill. Some of the points will be matters that fall within the domain of MCCY, but I believe it is impossible to disentangle MCCY's role in this matter from MAS' role as the approving authority for the transaction. Indeed, the very purpose of the Bill is to enable MAS to consider the view of the MCCY Minister.
First, from the MCCY Minister's Statement, it is evident that one important consideration behind the Government's decision to block the transaction as currently structured, was based on representations that Income made at the time of its corporatisation as to why it should be allowed to keep a substantial surplus of some S$2 billion. Would the Government therefore clarify four points about this?
First, the retention of surplus due to legal form change. Given that Income was not being dissolved but merely changing its legal structure, would this fact alone have been sufficient for MCCY to grant Income's request to keep the surplus?
Second, the justification provided by Income. If the above reason was not sufficient, what specific representations did Income make to MCCY that justified allowing it to retain the surplus? Did Income detail any new business lines or initiatives it planned to pursue, that would require significant capital thereby justifying the need to keep the surplus?
Third, the link between surplus and social mission. Was there an understanding between MCCY and Income that retaining the S$2 billion surplus was tied to Income's commitment to its social mission? If so, could the Government provide more details on this agreement and how the surplus was intended to support that mission?
Fourth, future restrictions on returning surplus to shareholders. Can the Government clarify if its position is that because of the circumstances under which Income was originally allowed to keep the surplus, the company is now restricted indefinitely from returning any part of that surplus to its shareholders?
The philosophical question underlying these four specific questions is, what really is Income's social mission?
During Monday's Ministerial Statement, the MCCY Minister also referred to a lack of assurance that Income would preserve its social mission post completion should Allianz become its majority shareholder. Could the Government elaborate on this and articulate again what it sees as Income's social mission now and going forward into the future? After all, the landscape has changed dramatically since its founding over 50 years ago in 1970.
Specifically, would Income's social mission lie in the areas of life insurance policies, or whether other areas such as health insurance may be more important and the focus of a socially-oriented Income? It is important that this issue be viewed looking at the overall big picture.
We can point to Allianz's offer document, which mentions that it would continue to honour Income's participation in national-level insurance programmes, continuing its charity commitments, providing low-cost schemes to union members, pledging $100 million over 10 years from 2021 to promote social mobility and support the well-being of seniors, are worthy moves to be sure.
However, if we leave the question of what is its social mission unanswered, it risks presenting these specific and perhaps narrow matters as central, while missing the wider picture of how Income is fundamentally able to fulfil its social mission as an insurer.
To conclude, WP supports the Government's blocking of the proposed acquisition in its current form on public interest grounds based on publicly available information, especially given the concerns that my colleagues and I had raised in this Chamber in August.
Therefore, we will not be rejecting the Bill. However, we believe that the downsides to whether this Bill will be seen to be rushed and retrospective legislation-making, and this assault on legal and regulatory certainty that changing legislation in the middle of a major live transaction means that we would need to register our abstention on this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Jean See.
Ms See Jinli Jean (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I declare my interest as a Labour Movement representative and a long-standing policy-holder of Income Insurance, a corporate under the governance of holding entity, NE. Like many Singaporeans of a certain vintage, Income is intertwined with memorable chapters of my life – when my parents first took out insurance savings plans for my sibling and me, when I took on travel insurance for my first trip overseas, and later, when I enrolled my parents and myself in Income’s Shield Plans after I started working.
To my fellow unionists and me, Income, together with the social enterprises under NE’s purview, are consistent partners that our unions and associations have counted on to reinforce NTUC’s social mission of helping workers to earn a better living and live a better life. I have assisted members who found their lives suddenly upended by severe injury or illness or in some cases, death. Because Income made members’ well-being its focus, I have counted on its insurances to provide much needed financial relief to members who were hit by these life catastrophes and as important, to communicate our care for our members and their families.
Fast-forward to July this year, Income Insurance announced its decision to form a partnership with global insurer, Allianz, to strengthen its finances and financial sustainability to serve the longer-term needs of its customers. Both Income and its holding entity, NE, have been consistent in communicating Income Insurance's steadfast commitment and responsibility towards delivering social good on a lasting basis while charting a durable path to financial sustainability through the proposed partnership with Allianz.
I note the developments which MAS had surfaced when it evaluated the proposed partnership between Income and Allianz, and that these developments had prompted the Government to recommend expanding the MAS’ diligence process to also include consultation with the Minister overseeing co-operatives.
The Insurance (Amendment) Bill would thus apply an expanded diligence process on applications to the MAS where the licensed insurer in the application falls under one of three categories: it is a co-operative; or it has acquired the principal business of a co-operative; or it has a substantial shareholder or effective controller which is a co-operative.
Specifically, the new section 33A in the Bill would empower the Minister to withhold approval of application from the above categories of licensed insurers on grounds of public interest. Section 33A also empowers the Minister to attach conditions to the approval and allows the Minister to add to, vary or revoke any of these conditions.
In this regard, I would like to seek clarification on three areas outlined under section 33A. First, could the Minister advise what is defined as “in the public interest” for the purposes of section 33A? Second, what type of conditions could the Minister attach to the approval and what are the considerations guiding how these conditions are determined? Third, under what circumstances would the Minister make changes to the conditions and on the same basis, under what circumstances could the licensed insurer apply for a review of the conditions?
Because insurance is most valuable when we are most vulnerable, I can appreciate and understand why the Government is seeking to apply both prudential and social perspectives to its evaluation of the proposed partnership between Income and Allianz.
The uncertainties felt by our unionists brought about by the halting of the deal are also understandable. My fellow unionists and I do understand and appreciate the reasons why the deal cannot proceed in its current form, as articulated by the Minister of MCCY. Income must find new ways to navigate the Bill, alongside existential challenges such as insuring an ageing base and expanding cover to include more complex and varied health conditions. As the saying goes, charity begins at home. It remains a fact that Income must do well in business to be in the position to do social good.
The Bill thus places the ball back in Income’s court, to consider the implications of the Bill in respect of Income's plans to chart a durable path to long-term financial viability.
In summary, the Bill presents an opportunity for Income and Allianz to articulate how the proposed partnership can do well and do good. Doing well translates to safeguarding the best interests of stakeholders, including policy-holders and shareholders, while doing good is about creating an impact footprint that is purposeful, meaningful and lasting in outcomes for workers and the social good. Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) is heartened that the Government has intervened to stop the proposed deal to sell a majority stake in Income Insurance to Allianz. PSP had not been in favour of this deal. In July, Dr Tan Cheng Bock had written on his Facebook page asking for the reasons for breaking a promise. And in a Facebook post after the 6 August Sitting, my colleague, Mr Leong Mun Wai, had expressed his hope that the deal would be restructured.
While we support the decision to stop this deal, we have concerns about the act of amending the Insurance Act in a hurry in order to block it. This approach sets a somewhat unsettling precedent.
Sir, as far as possible, the Government should rely on existing laws when assessing deals for regulatory approval. This provides confidence to investors, here and abroad, that our regulatory framework is stable. Even though the Bill we are debating today is tightly scoped, the fact that we are amending the law today so that a specific pending acquisition application can be blocked may be unsettling to investors.
Under existing law, sections 26 and 27 of the Insurance Act 1966 require the approval of MAS for any application to obtain effective control or become a substantial shareholder of a licensed insurer. Some conditions were listed under which MAS may grant approval. As the words used in sections 26 and 27 is “may approve” and not “shall approve”, it appears to us MAS already has the discretion not to approve the application.
Can the Government clarify why it is necessary to amend the Insurance Act to stop this transaction instead of relying on existing provisions?
On 14 October, during clarification time after the Ministerial Statement on this issue, Members were assured that we would have time for further debate on the sale of Income Insurance during the Second Reading of the Insurance (Amendment) Bill. I shall now proceed to do that.
I had during that session raised the point that communications on the reasons for the sale of Income Insurance to Allianz had been misleading. Minister Edwin Tong disagreed and said there was no misleading.
Let me explain why I felt it had been misleading. In a joint statement from NE and Income Insurance dated 4 August 2024 to explain the need for the sale of Income Insurance, paragraphs 7 and 8 of the executive summary stated that, “In terms of NTUC Enterprise upholding Income Insurance’s social mission, capital resilience is necessary to provide affordable, inclusive insurance on a sustained basis...The circumstances between when Income Insurance was founded and today are vastly different. While the goal of providing affordable insurance remains, the competitive landscape has changed with more than 40 global, regional and local insurers vying for growth in a mature Singapore insurance market. This also makes strong and continuous capital resilience a pre-requisite for growth, which a social enterprise model alone cannot shoulder.”
Does this not create the perception that the sale is necessary due to the need of Income Insurance for more capital? How can we reconcile this statement with the fact that by the time this statement was issued on 4 August, an application had already been made to MAS in July to reduce capital by S$1.85 billion and distribute this amount to the shareholders? Would not this capital reduction reduce capital resilience?
At the Parliamentary Sitting on 6 August 2024, Minister of State Alvin Tan while answering Parliamentary Questions on this deal repeated the need for capital a few times. He said: “NTUC has explained the reasons for the deal with Allianz. Let me briefly reiterate the points that NTUC has made. The current situation for Income cannot be sustained and Income's capital buffers have repeatedly come under pressure.”
In response to Mr Liang Eng Hwa’s supplementary question, he again said: “I think if we take a step back, the reasons why Income has gone into this proposed deal is well laid out. There are realities on the ground – competitive, Government stepping in to provide that social assurance, as well as the capital requirements. The capital buffers, for example, were under pressure. So, that is the first principle.”
In response to Mr Leong Mun Wai’s supplementary question, he said: “Time is the best judge, but let me again put it out very clearly, that number one, Income’s capital buffers have been under pressure. There is no doubt about this.”
He also said: “Then, it also begs the question, could Income and NTUC Enterprise then have looked for other funding sources, which is the question on the ground. They have. In their statements, said that they have. They have looked at financial institutions and non-financial institutions, locally and foreign.”
All these statements contribute to the perception that the need for more capital is the number one reason for the sale of Income Insurance. However, the plan to reduce capital by S$1.85 billion totally contradicts this argument. MAS has assessed that even after this huge capital reduction, it is still meeting capital adequacy requirements.
Does this not show that the public and the Government have been misled? If Minister Edwin Tong still feels that there has been no misleading, I think we will have to agree to disagree and let the public form their own opinion.
If, however, the Government agrees that the communications have been misleading, I hope it will send a message that this is not acceptable by holding those responsible to account.
This episode has thrown up another issue of concern. The ties between NTUC and the PAP Government are very strong. In the past, many Secretary-Generals of NTUC are concurrently Cabinet Ministers. Minister of State Alvin Tan himself said so on 6 August, \"many of us here are advisors to NTUC unions, we have worked very closely with them. I work very closely with my unions, Singapore Industrial and Services Employees' Union (SISEU). I work very closely with the co-ops under SNCF. I meet them very regularly.\"
This close relationship is a double-edged sword. While there are circumstances when this is an advantage, I believe this episode has reminded us to be careful lest the close relationship affect the Government in its regulatory role. Deputy Speaker, Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Deputy Speaker, PSP is relieved that the Government has blocked the acquisition of Income by Allianz. Right from the beginning, PSP has not been in favour of this deal.
However, we also have some reservations about amedning the Bill in a hurry in order to block the deal, because this sets an unsettling precedent. We believe that the Government should, as much as possible, use the existing provisions and laws to assess whether or not a transaction can be approved. Only then can both investors from Singapore and abroad have confidence in the stability of our regulatory framework.
In our view, sections 26 and 27 of the Insurance Act already gives the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) sufficient discretion to reject this deal based on factors beyond financial prudence. Therefore, PSP hopes that the Government can provide a more detailed explanation of the necessairty of this Bill today.
(In English): In closing, PSP agrees with the Government that it would be in the public interest to stop the deal from proceeding in its current form. Therefore, despite our reservations about this urgent Bill, we will support this Bill if it is necessary to stop the deal.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Neil Parekh.
Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Insurance (Amendment) Bill.
This Bill is being proposed in light of the Income-Allianz deal which has raised important questions regarding public interest, corporate governance and the preservation of social missions within insurance entities, especially those transitioning from co-operative models.
I would like to commend the efforts of MAS and MCCY for their excellent collaboration. Their joint review of the Income-Allianz transaction, announced on 17 July, revealed concerns that went beyond a typical business deal. It cast doubts on whether Income, after being acquired by Allianz, could fulfil its social mission.
However, it is important to note that this deal is still only proposed. The door remains open for further negotiations, provided that any future proposal addresses the concerns raised by MCCY and MAS.
The events of the last few months have brought to light a few important issues, with the most important one being how we deal with our national treasures such as Income Insurance. In my view, control of such carefully nurtured national treasures should never be passed on to foreigners. The majority of the Board as well as the seat of the Chairman should always be in control of Singaporeans.
While such a strong view coming from someone like me who has spent over 30 years in international finance, where cross-border mergers are commonplace may surprise a few, my view is based on what I believe, that national treasures should be treated as what they are – national treasures – companies that, for generations to come, will provide world-class products and services to Singaporeans.
To be clear, I do not advocate such a Singapore First policy for companies that do not have a social mission to fulfil nor are they considered national treasures. My years in international finance have also taught me that the minor criticism we may face in the short term for a strong Singapore First policy will dissipate away quickly. Nor will such a strong, clear policy discourage foreign capital from buying controlling stakes in our companies that do not have a social mission to fulfil.
Many countries have allowed control of their national treasures to be sold to foreigners now regret it today. Just ask the many citizens and residents of New Zealand, where all the major banks are controlled by foreigners.
As I had mentioned during the debate in January this year on the Significant Investments Review Bill, perhaps the time has come for us to have a comprehensive all sector approach to review all large foreign investments in entities significant to the daily lives of most Singaporeans. Such a comprehensive all sector approach will make sure no important large deal slips through the cracks.
With the unique brand that it has, I fail to understand how Income Insurance does not have a larger market share and greater pricing power in our domestic market. Why has Income’s relevance in the insurance market just decrease over the years? That leads me to agree with the view expressed by many that Income Insurance clearly requires strengthening. But, in my view, such a strengthening exercise does not mean ceding control to foreigners.
Perhaps what is needed is a new Singaporean controlled Board of Directors with real talent, real experience and a real vision to come up with a coherent seven-year business plan to make Income Insurance a world-class company, operating profitably not only in Singapore but also in other countries in Asia, ex-Japan. There are plenty of providers of growth equity capital focused on the insurance business that would be willing to take a minority stake in Income Insurance if a coherent, realistic five-year business plan for growth and development would be presented to them. We have accomplished that in other sectors and I see no reason why we cannot accomplish the same for our insurance business.
This new Board should be given the complete authority as well as full responsibility for recruiting experienced talent from international insurers, who can help develop the right products and services and execute this five- to seven-year business plan that, while protecting Singaporeans first, can also develop a world-class insurance company headquartered in Singapore.
While I have shared my views on what I consider is the best strategy for Income Insurance, I would like to seek clarifications from the Minister on the Bill.
One, what kind of a deal with a new investor would satisfy the Government? Two, what guardrails would be established to ensure that Income will continue to meet its obligations to society? Three, how can we ensure that any future financial partner can contribute to the financial strength of Income while still preserving its social mission? Four, how can we ensure that any new financial investor in Income does not make a quick buck by selling out their stake in a very short period of time or taking a large dividend payment?
In conclusion, I believe the proposed Insurance (Amendment) Bill is a good step towards greater accountability. I also commend the Government, especially the Second Minister of Finance Chee Hong Tat for his strong leadership and moving quickly to bring this Bill for a vote to Parliament. This Bill will allow MAS to facilitate the right discussions while maintaining the highest standards of governance.
While we must remain an attractive and competitive market to attract global capital, we must do everything possible to protect the long-term interests of Singaporeans by continuing to careful nurture national treasures such as Income Insurance. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, this Bill has my full support.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will first declare my interest as an independent director of a life insurance company registered and operating in Singapore. As my colleague Ms Hazel Poa has said PSP will support the Bill if it is necessary to block the Allianz-Income deal. For the sake of Singapore and the 1.7 million policy-holders of Income, it is important that we stop this deal in its current form.
After we discussed the deal in this House on 6 August, I expressed my hope that this deal will be restructured so that NE remains as the majority shareholder. I am personally very glad that the Government has listened to the concerns expressed by Mr Tommy Koh, the two former CEOs of Income, Mr Tan Suee Chieh and Mr Tan Kin Lian, and many Income policy-holders, and decided to block the deal. I would like to acknowledge the efforts put in by MCCY and MAS to scrutinise the transaction and come out with this Bill.
However, I am seriously concerned at the process by which we arrived at the conclusion to block the deal. We learned on Monday that MCCY had no prior knowledge of Allianz's offer for Income before it was publicly announced in July. Furthermore, it was only after the 6 August Parliamentary Sitting that MAS shared the terms of the proposed transaction and Income's capital reduction plan with MCCY. But why did MAS wait?
I accept that sometimes, because of market sensitive information, it may not be possible to publicly disclose the full details of a proposed transaction. But in this case, we are talking about information being shared within the Government, between agencies. All the agencies knew that this issue would be debated in August, because they received notice of our Parliamentary Questions. Why is this information that is highly relevant to the proposed transaction being gatekept at different agencies within the Government? Throughout this whole affair, it seems that every gatekeeper is concerned only about the part of the process owned by them and no one is keeping an eye on the overall outcome.
In our system, the buck stops with Cabinet. On a major financial transaction involving a national icon like Income that requires regulatory approval, it is Cabinet that must make a final decision. Why does it seem like there was no coordination within Cabinet on the exchange of important information relevant to the transaction before the August Sitting, so that the Government can take a more informed view and we could have had a more productive discussion in August?
On Monday, Minister Chee Hong Tat said that at the time, MAS was still doing technical assessments and did not surface the details of the transaction to the MAS Board before the 6 August Parliamentary Sitting. But Minister Chee Hong Tat and Minister of State Alvin Tan are both members of the MAS Board and would have been in a position to proactively question MAS officials for the full details of the transaction, which would have included the capital reduction plan before they answered questions in this House on 6 August. Why was this not done?
On 6 August, the officeholders rehashed again and again how Income's capital buffers have come under pressure. Minister of State Alvin Tan also emphasised how Allianz has committed to continue Income's pledge of S$100 million over 10 years from 2021, to provide social mobility among the lower income and support the well-being of seniors. But now we know that Income and Allianz had all along planned to return about S$1.85 billion in cash to its shareholders within the first three years of completing the transaction. So, were all these discussions on Income's social mission and capital buffers on 6 August meaningful?
With the knowledge of the capital extraction, we can see that this deal was essentially an asset-stripping exercise in favour of the shareholders, especially NE and Allianz, with little consideration for the social mission and the interest of the 1.7 million policy-holders. Had the deal gone through, NE would have relinquished control over Income while unlocking hundreds of millions of dollars from the capital reduction exercise.
In my view, this would have been another sad case of Singapore losing control over a key strategic company for cash, instead of maintaining these companies for our economic development and security.
Since the Global Financial Crisis, capital adequacy standards have been increased significantly. In my view a capital reduction exercise should have raised alarm bells in MAS even from a prudential standpoint, especially given that NE has had to put in capital injections of about up to S$630 million over the years. I was ever surprised to hear Minister Chee Hong Tat disclosed on Monday that based on the plans submitted, MAS did not have reason for concern as Income was projected to continue to meet regulatory capital requirements with a healthy margin even with a capital reduction.
While we trust that MAS officers are highly professional and have conducted a thorough review of the deal from a prudential point of view, can the Minister further explain why MAS does not have any further prudential concerns over the capital reduction plan, especially considering NE's history of having to inject capital into Income over the years?
Sir, earlier, my colleague Ms Hazel Poa had provided her view on why she felt the communications of the reasons for the sale of Income to Allianz have been misleading. NE and Income Insurance need to come out to explain why they agreed to a capital reduction plan when both parties had in their joint statements on 4 August 2024 stated explicitly that capital resilience is necessary to provide affordable, inclusive insurance on a sustained basis.
Explanations are also needed from NTUC Secretary-General Ng Chee Meng for the joint statement he made with the President of NTUC on 5 August 2024 which said, \"The NTUC Central Committee was briefed, and after full and serious consideration, the NTUC Central Committee decided to support NTUC Enterprise's consideration of the offer from Allianz\". They added, \"We believe the offer is good for Income, good for its policy holders and will enable us to fulfil our mission from a stronger position\".
But now we know that the proposed transaction includes a capital reduction plan and MCCY, I quote, \"is not confident that the proposed transaction would not affect the ability of the co-op movement as a whole or of Income itself to carry out its social mission\".
So, when the NTUC Central Committee was briefed on the offer, were they briefed on the full details of the transaction, including the capital reduction plan? And if so, did the NTUC leaders believe in good faith that the offer would enable NTUC and Income to fulfil its social mission from a stronger position? And what were the reasons that led them to reach such a different conclusion from MCCY?
If the NTUC Central Committee did not know the full details, then why did NE and Income not brief them on the full details of the transaction? And if NE had agreed so easily to relinquish control of Income to Allianz with so little assurance about the ability of Income to carry out its social mission, it is arguably justifiable for policy-holders to be concerned whether in a future deal there will be safeguards to protect the surpluses in the policy funds accruing to the policy-holders.
Hence, contrary to what the NTUC leaders have represented to Singaporeans, we can say that this transaction is not good for Income, not good for its policy-holders and will not allow Income to continue to fulfil its social mission. The leaders of NTUC, NE and Income owe the public a more substantial explanation to this.
Finally, before the Ministerial Statement on Monday, did MAS and MCCY brief or explain to Allianz and Income that this deal is against our public interest? If yes, I would like to ask what was Allianz's response? Did Allianz offer to withdraw the current deal so that today we do not have to go through this debate?
Sir, we urge the Government to take lessons from this incident. We can do more to improve whole-of-Government coordination when making major decisions that impact areas governed by multiple agencies. The debate over the Income-Allianz deal this week has reminded me of another instance during this term of Government when we had to debate a Bill on the Certificate of Urgency in 2021 to restrict the use of TraceTogether and SafeEntry data to only serious crimes.
In June 2020, Minister Vivian Balakrishnan had assured the public that TraceTogether data will be used only for contact tracing. Then, in January 2021, another agency, the Ministry of Home Affairs revealed something different, that the police could access TraceTogether data under the Criminal Procedural Code. Then as it is now, the public has been left with the impression that our government agencies are siloed and coordination within the Government is poor. Or to put it simply, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.
It is the responsibility of Cabinet Ministers to ensure that they are apprised of all relevant and important information and to consider that fully before making decisions and making public pronouncements. We cannot fall into the trap of minding the process and missing out the outcome.
Deputy Speaker, Sir, PSP is raising all these questions with only one objective and that is so that we can ensure that our institutions and processes are always aligned and working well to protect the interests of Singapore and Singaporeans. We almost made a grave mistake here.
Fortunately, there is a silver lining in this whole saga. It has highlighted the important role played by Singaporeans in checking the decisions of our public institutions. In particular, we saw Singaporeans with expertise and social repute speaking out and helping the public understand complex issues. This has helped Parliamentarians, like myself, to voice out more effectively for Singaporeans. We hope that they will continue to do so. Majulah Singapura.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Mark Lee.
Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Bill before us today, while primarily concerning co-operatives, has significant implications for the wider business community. It grants the Minister the authority to withhold approval of transactions involving co-operative-owned insurers where the Minster deems it necessary in the public interest.
While I support the intent behind safeguarding public interest, this raises important questions about the broader regulatory framework we are fostering. We must strike a careful balance between necessary Government intervention and maintaining business transparency, ensuring that regulations do not unintentionally hinder legitimate business activities or innovation.
According to the Ministerial Statement on Monday, the Government has acknowledged that Income complied with regulatory obligations by disclosing their plans fully. This includes the details of a potential future capital optimisation by Allianz submitted by them to MAS and was consequently met with intervention, which has created significant uncertainty.
Businesses are watching closely to see how this Bill and similar regulatory actions will impact their ability to operate. I would like to raise three key areas of concern.
First, transparency forms the foundation of trust between businesses and regulators. If businesses comply with full transparency, yet still face intervention, what incentive is there for them to continue being transparent in future dealings, especially disclosure or future projection, plans that may or may not come to fruition. Will businesses feel secure enough to openly share their plans, especially those involving sensitive or confidential decisions?
Second, the ambiguity of this Bill surrounding the term \"public interest\". While it is the Government's prerogative to define public interest and ensure the protection of society, it is important to clarify upfront what specifically constitutes public interest in transactions of this nature. Without a clear definition, businesses face uncertainty about what actions may trigger intervention, which introduces commercial risks into the regulatory process.
In this case, while MAS oversees insurers from a financial perspective, ensuring they are prudently managed on a capital footing, it does not regulate their social mission. In practical terms, insurers can focus on financial solvency while customer welfare may not always be prioritised, so long as financial regulations are not breached.
There remains uncertainty around the Government's expectations regarding Income's social mission. This raises a key question: how far does the Government expect these social obligations to extend?
This leads to my third point. Without clear markers, it becomes difficult for any organisation to construct a deal that aligns with both financial and social responsibilities. When these boundaries are not well-defined, businesses face unpredictability, complicating long-term planning and strategic decision-making.
It is therefore essential that we continue building on our commitment to transparency, and the trust between businesses and regulators that have allowed Singapore to remain a competitive global hub. I would like to offer four suggestions to do this.
First, establishing clear markers at the outset of any major transaction is essential, especially when significant public interest is involved. Defining these boundaries from the start allows businesses and regulators to engage with a shared understanding, minimising the risk of misinterpretation, delays, or wasted resources. For businesses, the last thing they want is to dedicate months, or even years, of resources only to find out late in the process that their plans do not meet regulatory expectations. For regulators, addressing concerns earlier in the process would make interventions smoother, less contentious and more transparent. Early clarity ensures that both sides can operate efficiently, reducing friction and improving overall outcomes for all stakeholders involved.
Second, the Ministerial Statement also highlighted a delay in MCCY's involvement. Perhaps, earlier involvement of relevant agencies could have flagged potential deal breakers sooner, enabling businesses to address concerns early and avoid public intervention.
Third, I recommend that businesses be given an opportunity to address and correct draft plans before final decisions or interventions are made. In this case, had Income and Allianz been given the opportunity to address the Government's concerns earlier, before public announcements or interventions, many of the uncertainties and tensions may have been avoided.
Providing this opportunity would ensure that businesses and regulators work together more constructively. If businesses are not given a chance to resolve issues privately, it may lead to perceptions of unfair treatment or unpredictability, which could affect investors' confidence.
Finally, if deal breakers and resolution mechanisms are not clearly outlined from the outset, potential investors may apply a risk premium or discount when valuing businesses operating in Singapore. This uncertainty could deter future suitors or investors and affect our global standing.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am not suggesting that we compromise on public interest. The Government must retain the power to act in the public interest, when necessary, particularly those that will affect the lower-income segments of society. However, we must ensure that this power is exercised fairly and predictably, with transparency on both sides.
The Ministerial Statement on Monday highlighted that MCCY may consider future legislative amendments to give the Government stronger levers over co-ops that may wish to be corporatised. With even more oversight in future, we need a regulatory environment where businesses understand their obligations with clarity and where the Government can protect public interest without being seen as overreaching. This balance is critical to maintain trust between businesses and regulators.
In conclusion, I support the Bill, and appreciate MCCY and MAS for their prudence and commend the Government's efforts to safeguard the public interest. At the same time, we must be cautious about the signals we send to the business community. Clear definitions of public interest, guidelines, early discussions on deal-breaking concerns and the protection of confidentiality are essential to fostering an environment of trust and cooperation. I thank the Government for the hard work to continuously refine the regulatory framework to ensure it remains predictable, transparent and balanced. With that, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Usha Chandradas.
Ms Usha Chandradas (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, first, let me begin by thanking the Ministers Mr Edwin Tong and Mr Chee Hong Tat for their Ministerial Statements and clarifications that were delivered on Monday. I support this Bill on the basis that it serves the larger public interest of protecting Income's social mission. Notwithstanding my support, I have three brief clarifications that I hope the Minister will be able to address.
First, has the Minister considered the impact that the enactment of this legislation will have on business certainty and the regulatory environment in Singapore? When Income and Allianz BV entered into this deal, the present law that we are debating today was not in existence. The deal might well have been structured differently if it were. The Government has been courageous enough to take a step back and re-evaluate the situation, when new facts were revealed – this is something that is admirable – and it is important to acknowledge the relevance of this and the fact that this was done quickly when the Government realised that new information was in its hands.
However, we need to be careful that we are not inadvertently sending a message to the world at large, that it is possible for corporate deals to be suddenly overturned by the Government, for legislation to be rushed through and for carefully planned corporate negotiations to be disrupted.
And so, my first question is this, how would the Government propose to mitigate the impact of such conclusions being drawn by investors and businesses, both in Singapore and outside Singapore?
My second question is on the history of corporate deals being overturned or blocked by the Government and the enactment of legislation contemporaneously to effect this. Has this happened in the past, and if so, what are these instances? Are there any defining factors that the Government can share with us, on when the \"public interest\" is deemed to be significant enough for interventions like this? I think more detailed explanations here will go some way towards assuring businesses and the general public, that this is not something that Singapore does regularly or on a whim.
My third question has to do with the applications of sections 26 and 27 of the Insurance Act. Minister Chee Hong Tat explained on Monday, and earlier today as well, that on an application of sections 26 and 27 of the Insurance Act, MAS had reviewed the high-level submitted information from Allianz based on prudential grounds. This involved focusing on whether Allianz was fit and proper, looking at its financial strength and track record, and looking at the interests of Income's policy-holders to ensure that these would be safeguarded with a new, strong, substantial shareholder.
The requirement in sections 26(2)(b) and 27(3)(b) of the Insurance Act is that a licensed insurer should continue to \"conduct its business prudently\", and that MAS' approval may be given if the Authority is satisfied that conditions are met. I note the Minister's view that there is no explicit provision in the Insurance Act for MAS to consider non-prudential-related factors in assessing such applications.
Just based on the literal wording of the Act though, MAS' approval is not automatic even if the conditions in sections 26(2) and 27(3) are met. I wonder if it could also have been possible to take a more expansive view of the word \"prudent\", given Income's activities as a co-operative which provides financial services to the underserved and given the special circumstances behind its journey to corporatisation? Would the Minister be able to explain further MAS' understanding and interpretation of the term \"conduct its business prudently\", as it is set out in sections 26(2)(b) and 27(3)(b) of the Insurance Act?
I believe a more detailed explanation on the present limitations of the Insurance Act will help us in this House to understand why these new, very specific amendments are being debated today and why they are required on an urgent basis. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Ong Hua Han.
Mr Ong Hua Han (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, let me first declare that I work in a financial institution. Two months ago, at least in the eyes of the public, the proposed transaction at the centre of our debate today was defended quite robustly in Parliament.
Income's track record and the many assurances from Income and NE were repeatedly referenced, to justify that Income's social mission will continue to be fulfilled, even after a foreign company acquires a majority stake in it. On Monday, it therefore came as a surprise to many Singaporeans that the Government had intervened to stop the deal.
I note in MCCY's assessment, as articulated by Minister Edwin Tong, that one of the two key reasons why the deal was not approved in its current form, was because there were, and I quote, \"no clear binding provisions or structural protections in the deal to ensure that Income's social mission will be discharged.\" It is now clear that the promises around Income's commitment to maintaining its social mission are not legally binding. In the absence of written or legally binding provisions, one cannot draw sufficient comfort or be reasonably confident that such assurances can be upheld, especially when the ownership structure becomes markedly different post-acquisition, and I agree.
The other key reason why the proposed transaction was blocked, pertains to the proposed capital extraction plan, a substantial amount of about S$1.85 billion over three years. To MCCY, this proposal materially changes the complexion of this transaction since the original intentions of the deal on the grounds of capital adequacy can no longer be defended. And I agree with this judgement as well.
I would therefore like to ask the Minister, were it not for the issue of capital extraction, would the Government still see fit to accept the assurances of Income and NE regarding its social mission in good faith? Or would the lack of clear, binding provisions or structural protections alone be sufficient grounds to merit the blocking of this deal? I hope the Minister could address this point with clarity and transparency, so that Singaporeans can better understand and fully appreciate the deliberations of the Government, especially when it concerns national assets to which Singaporeans have deep emotional ties. This is important in the context of this Bill, as the amendment introducing section 33(a) into the Insurance Act will now require the Minister's approval before the MAS may approve an application by a person to obtain effective control of or become a substantial shareholder of certain licensed insurers.
Sir, while the passing of this Bill runs the risk of appearing rushed, it will nonetheless enable the Government to uphold public interest in these pressing circumstances. Therefore, notwithstanding my clarification above, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on the Insurance (Amendment) Bill 2024. While I understand the need for regulatory oversights, there are important clarifications I would like to raise.
First, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill introduces a new section that allows the Minister to approve or reject applications involving co-operative insurers based on what is considered \"public interest\". While this power can be necessary, it raises questions about accountability and transparency. What exactly does \"public interest\" mean in this context? Will there be clear guidelines to ensure decisions are made transparently and not subject to varying interpretations? Transparency is key when invoking public interest. How can we ensure that those affected have a clear understanding of the reasoning behind these decisions?
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, public interest must be more than just a catchphrase. It should come with clarity and accountability. Every decision should be transparent, especially when it directly impacts our people.
Second, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I seek clarifications about the extent of the Minister's powers. The Bill grants the Minister authority to decide or veto sales or acquisitions. This raises a critical question: will there be a set of guiding principles for such decisions? Singaporeans deserve to know that decisions affecting them are made with their best interests in mind, free from undue influence. Clear guidelines can provide that assurance and help maintain trust in the decision-making process.
Third, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we must consider the implications of this Bill for global insurers. How we wield these powers could send a strong message to international businesses. Will this Bill create uncertainty for global insurers looking to enter Singapore? How can we ensure that our regulatory environment remains predictable and welcoming for foreign investments? Singapore has built a strong reputation as a pro-business destination. Could this discretionary power be perceived as a barrier, making global insurers hesitant to invest here? Might it also discourage entities from collaborating with our co-operatives, fearing heightened Ministerial scrutiny?
We need to find a balance, one that protects our social objectives while preserving Singapore's status as a regional insurance hub. What assurances can we provide to international insurers that decisions will be made fairly and transparently? If we want to keep Singapore competitive, we cannot afford to close the door on international insurers.
Fourth, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Bill provides for an appeals process. But how exactly will this process function? Who will hear these appeals? Will it be the same Minister who initially rejected the application, or will there be an independent committee? For the appeal process to be truly fair, it must be impartial. If the same person makes the decision and hears the appeal, how can we be confident that justice will be served? An independent appeals process would instill greater confidence in those affected by these decisions.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill is an important step in strengthening our insurance sector. But we must ensure that our approach is balanced and transparent. First, we need clear definitions of what \"public interest\" is to avoid ambiguity and ensure accountability. Second, we must establish guiding principles for the Minister's decision-making to ensure consistency and maintain public trust. Third, we need to strike the right balance between protecting our social interests and maintaining Singapore's attractiveness to global insurers. And fourth, we should implement an impartial appeals process to ensure that decisions are fair and inspire confidence.
I am also glad to see that it was reported that Allianz has agreed to consider revising its offer to Income after the current deal was prevented by the Singapore Government. This demonstrates a willingness to work within our regulatory framework. This also underscores a critical point: mutual respect between private companies and the Government is critical for maintaining a healthy business environment. It ensures that while we protect the interests of our people, we remain open to constructive dialogue with global investors.
Let us ensure that this Bill positions us for growth while safeguarding the interests of all stakeholders, both local and international. Let us keep the process clear, fair and consistent. This is not just about regulatory oversight. It is about protecting our reputation as a trusted financial hub and, most importantly, prioritising the well-being of Singaporeans.
Let us support the amendments with these considerations in mind, so that we can build a stronger, more resilient insurance sector. With this, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.
Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): Sir, first, may I commend MCCY and MAS for taking this step to intervene in the Allianz-Income deal on the grounds stated by Minister Edwin Tong in his Ministerial Statement on Monday. The Government has chosen to do the right thing despite it being inconvenient and potentially politically inexpedient.
I have closely read Minister Edwin Tong’s Statement and cross-referenced it with Minister Chee Hong Tat's and Minister of State Alvin Tan’s responses to Parliamentary Questions on the deal at the August Sitting. I set out the relevant facts as the basis for my questions later.
In his August speech, Minister of State Alvin Tan said: “NTUC has explained the reasons for the deal with Allianz. Let me briefly reiterate the points that NTUC has made. The current situation for Income cannot be sustained and Income’s capital buffers have repeatedly come under pressure. NTUC Enterprise has supported Income with capital injections and will continue to do so. But NTUC Enterprise cannot do this on its own. That is why Income sought to corporatise in 2022, so that it could consider more options to access more capital”. In other words, as far as Minister of State Alvin Tan and MCCY were aware at that point, the deal would have put in more capital so that Income would be able to continue to fulfil its social mission.
This is borne out in Minister Edwin Tong’s Statement. Minister Edwin Tong said: “MCCY had no prior knowledge of the proposed transaction before the public announcements. When we first saw the announcements, we accepted the intent of the transactions, which is to strengthen Income. We saw that Income would be engaged in a strategic partnership with a major reputable player in the industry. This would strengthen Income’s capital base and allow it to have more access to capital. This is consistent with the representation that Income had made to MCCY at the point of corporatisation.”
The Allianz-Income deal, however, in its filings with MAS, proposed instead to extract capital from Income, by way of reducing share capital and returning it to Income’s shareholders. Income’s shareholders, of which Allianz would be the majority amongst, would receive some S$1.85 billion. MCCY was alerted to Income and Allianz’s filings by MAS, because MAS had assessed after the August Sitting that it would be relevant to MCCY to look at the proposed reduction of share capital.
The above having been said, I note that in his August speech, Minister of State Alvin Tan had said: “It is still a proposed deal, yet to be approved”. I also note that Minister Chee Hong Tat and Minister of State Alvin Tan were speaking in different capacities and, in fact, on different points. Minister Chee Hong Tat speaking on MAS’ role as regulator and the criteria that MAS looks at in approving such a deal, and Minister of State Alvin Tan addressing concerns as to whether Income would be able to continue to serve its social mission after the deal. I further note that Minister Edwin Tong said in his Ministerial Statement that MCCY had continued to do its due diligence on the deal after the August Sitting. To my mind, this would naturally be so, since as Minister of State Alvin Tan had stated the deal had not yet been approved. It was precisely in this exercise that MCCY’s concerns were piqued.
I can understand the regulatory process. Minister Chee Hong Tat has emphasised that MAS looks at the prudential aspect of a deal. Regulators look at specific criteria that are set out by statute or regulations. It is simply not possible for regulators to look at all and sundry and everything under the sun when considering a specific application or filing before it. As Minister Edwin Tong pointed out, the viability of this particular deal went beyond prudential considerations alone. It is, therefore, commendable that MAS, having heard Minister of State Alvin Tan’s speech in August, realised that this could be an issue and shared the filings with MCCY.
Sir, keeping in mind that this exchange of information had occurred before approval had been granted, I do wonder whether this would present itself as a breakdown of the sharing of information, as had been previously suggested, or is it instead evidence of the sharing of information that has now allowed and enabled the Government to make the correct decision.
But this having been said, given the factual matrix that I have outlined above, and having had regard to Minister Chee Hong Tat's Statement earlier that parties had entered into the transaction in good faith, I still have a nagging feeling that someone was perhaps trying to pull the wool over the Government’s eyes and that it was lucky that this inconsistency was caught out and this deal blocked. In this regard, Sir, I have several questions.
First, has the Government ascertained, or will it be taking steps to ascertain how is it that Income could negotiate, agree and attempt to execute a deal with Allianz that included initiatives that would have resulted in share capital reduction, the opposite of its representations to MCCY at the time of corporatisation. This is not a private matter in a private company. It is a matter of public interest because, along with the corporatisation, the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth had also granted an exemption to Income under section 88 of the CSA. This allowed Income to carry over approximately S$2 billion of surplus to the new entity, instead of it being distributed to members and, importantly, the surplus being transferred to the CSLA, which is applied for the benefit of the co-op sector generally. This means that monies that ought to have gone to a public fund have been denied.
In this regard, I set out some questions that the Ministries should ask Income, and I would further suggest that Income's responses should be made public.
I note that the Chairman and CEO of Income at the time of corporatisation and at the time of the announcement of the proposed deal with Allianz were the same persons. How involved were they and the senior management of Income in, on the one hand, making representations to MCCY and, on the other, arranging the deal with Allianz? Did they not see the contradictions?
I note, in particular, that Income made the following representation to MCCY in June 2022 that: “We believe that, pursuant to corporatisation, the Co-op\", that is, Income, \"will be regarded to offer a more attractive proposition to investors and strategic partners. This would, in turn, allow Co-op to raise capital more easily and thereby grow and unlock value for existing and new shareholders and policy-holders and further its social mission through a sustainability agenda”.
In contrast, a joint statement issued by NE and Income on 4 August 2024 was of a different tenor. There was no mention of raising capital. As such, does this elicit that Income and NE were cognisant that the Income-Allianz deal did not live up to the commitments that Income had made to MCCY? Furthermore, did Income approach MCCY after Minister of State Alvin Tan’s speech to own up that the deal contradicted its original representations to MCCY?
As raised in the August Sitting, the Chairman of Income is also the Chairman of the deal’s financial advisor. Did the financial advisor point out to Income the potential conflict between the planned initiatives and Income’s representations to MCCY? Furthermore, was legal advice sought on the potential conflict, and did the legal advice point out this contradiction?
I also note that the NTUC President and Secretary-General issued a statement on 5 August 2024 stating, amongst other things, that: “In this fiercely competitive environment, it became plain that Income can only continue to fulfil its social mission if it has access to additional resources and the ability to scale”. So, this begs the question, whether Income had briefed the NTUC leadership of the proposed initiative to reduce share capital?
Second, Sir, given that Income’s move to corporatise which included the exemption under section 88 was premised on it finding it difficult to compete and to fulfil its social mission, I think it is important that the Government require Income to explain how it is going to leverage on its current corporate structure to do so, given that the Allianz deal may be off. So, Sir, I think that Income has quite a bit of explaining to do.
Finally, Sir, I note that Minister Edwin Tong said that the Government has made a decision to intervene. This does not appear to mean that the Government has actually blocked the deal. I ask this because there are news reports that the deal is already off. But the reason for today’s Bill is precisely because MAS does not have a basis to reject the deal for reasons other than prudential aspects.
I would just like to ask the Minister for clarity on the process. Would it be that, after the passing of this Bill, that the Income-Allianz deal would be subject to the Minister’s approval and that the Minister would then not approve? If this is the process, as had been raised by the hon Member Ms He Ting Ru earlier as well, would there be any issues of retroactive or retrospective application of the law, given that the filings were done prior to the enactment of the relevant statutory provisions? Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Keith Chua.
Mr Keith Chua (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I stand to speak in support of the Bill.
As a concerned citizen, I had my share of questions when the announcement was made in July for Allianz to acquire a majority stake in Income. From a purely commercial perspective, the proposal may have made good business sense. Respected voices supported the proposal. Equally, there were some who raised valid questions and concerns with the limited information available at that time.
I am, therefore, pleased to note that we have in place checks and balances from the Ministerial Statement on Monday by Minister Edwin Tong, supported by Minister Chee Hong Tat, and, with this Bill, added measures to protect the interests of Singaporeans.
Having been engaged with both the social sector and the business sector, I have seen and continue to see, the constant challenges of balancing doing well commercially with doing good.
In efforts to better understand social enterprises in Singapore, the former Asia Centre for Social Entrepreneurship and Philanthropy at the National University of Singapore studied the NTUC social enterprise model along with several other social enterprises. Mr Deputy Speaker, may I mention that, at that point in time, I was the Centre’s Advisory Board Chair when several research and working papers were published during that period.
Allow me to quote from one of the working papers: \"A genuine social mission is one that is defined at the founding of the organisation and hard-coded in its DNA through the by-laws, constitution, articles of incorporation or term sheets signed with the investor. When this is the case, there is less concern of mission drift or false marketing, that is, an organisation using a social mission as a branding spin when its intentions are purely financial. However, an organisation could outgrow its social mission or evolve over time as social norms and the landscape change and/or when its management changes. A social enterprise needs to be dynamic and alter its mission, vision and values to continue to stay relevant and the term 'rebirth' was proposed to acknowledge and articulate this characteristic.
A characteristic of a social enterprise is that the organisation is addressing through business processes a clearly articulated and institutionalised social mission that is contextually relevant to the community it supports. A second characteristic speaks to the integration of the business process with the social mission. A social enterprise is an organisation whose social mission is evident not only through the products and services it offers, but also in the way it operates and the impact it achieves on the ground. A third characteristic of social enterprises is that its social mission is evident throughout its operations, products, services and its impact on the communities it serves. Unlike traditional businesses conducting projects as part of corporate social responsibility (CSR), the social good done by a social enterprise is a part of the core business of the company. Even if delivering the social good is not its sole core business, it can be considered a social enterprise as long as its social mission is visible in every aspect of its work.
A fourth characteristic suggests that a social enterprise should have an intention and roadmap to sustainable financial performance. Even if it relies on multiple revenue streams, it should not be operated purely on a charity-buying model and should, over time, transition to generating increasing amounts of its revenue from earned income.
A fifth characteristic is that a social enterprise runs on strong business fundamentals designed to address the social objective with the attendant measurement of outcomes falling within the constraints of the legal registration form chosen.
Finally, a sixth characteristic of social enterprises is that they are continuously balancing the tensions between their financial and social objectives to meet their social purpose while remaining financially stable and sustainable.\"
I will just mention that this came from a working paper called \"Finding a common language for Social Enterprises in Singapore\".
The proposal for the divestment of a majority stake in Income will now be off the table with the passage of this Bill. So, what next for NE and Income?
Details that surfaced on Monday disclosed that NE would receive both the proceeds from the proposed divestment and a subsequent capital extraction, thus freeing up funds which could be deployed for continuing the broader social mission, presumably beyond Income.
As Income is profitable and currently financially viable, the Board and shareholders may not need to be in a hurry to find another option. Allianz has also indicated that it will review the proposal and the Government's concerns.
I may be repeating options that NE and Income may already have considered.
One, consider the option of a public listing of Income as a profitable and socially responsible business. Today, there is increased interest in social investing, and increasing amounts of capital are looking for suitable investments in this class. The current investment options on our own stock exchange, for example, for profitable companies with clear social mission, are extremely limited. A public listing would both bring in fresh capital and enable NE to free up a portion of the Income investments.
Alternatively, if it is decided that Income remains wholly owned and remains private under NE, the Board and Management could look into steps that would have been taken with the proposed transaction with Allianz to achieve capital extraction over time while keeping Income sustainable. This could result in releasing resources for the broader social mission.
This House may continue to debate and discuss what has happened. And from that, there may well be useful lessons. However, we must be forward looking and find appropriate solutions as there would seem to be significant opportunities to enhance the social mission. Doing well for a socially driven enterprise needs its own definition, just as we are now embarking on a refreshed definition of personal success.
We have a national benchmark in Temasek as a national commercially-driven organisation that also does amazing good from the commercially-driven financial returns. NE can be the national benchmark for a model socially-driven organisation. Doing well is relative. Doing well can, therefore, be more clearly articulated for NE, which, going by the latest annual report, demonstrates a healthy financial state and a commendable list of impactful social initiatives for Singaporeans.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, this urgent Bill was tabled two days ago to provide \"clear statutory basis\" for MCCY's concerns to be taken into account in the consideration of the Allianz-Income transaction.
One thing we should not miss is that I do not think there are many countries, if any, which can do what we have done in Singapore. First, for me and my various colleagues to be able to file Parliamentary Questions on an ongoing regulatory application during the 6 August 2024 Sitting and invite the Government to scrutinise the deal and ask for more information in the public interest. And two, for the Government to be open, transparent and adjust its stance based on the new information obtained.
But there are always two sides to the same coin, and I have some clarifications to raise as I am concerned about how this urgent Bill may be perceived by others outside of this House.
As we are well aware, the Allianz-Income proposed transaction is still under regulatory review. While Minister Edwin Tong has announced the Government's view that it would not be in the public interest for the transaction to proceed in its current form, the fact remains that the requisite MAS approval has not yet been given for the deal to proceed.
How do we ensure the Government's ability to enact laws to block commercial transactions do not negatively impact on local and foreign investors’ confidence in Singapore’s legal and business environment? Should such laws only operate prospectively, instead of retrospectively to affect commercial parties who could not have reasonably accounted for the change in laws? And I believe some other Members in this Chamber have actually raised those questions.
It is heartening that the fallout has been limited at least for this particular proposed deal. Allianz released a statement late on Monday that it will consider revisions to the proposed transaction structure, when it could have walked away altogether. May I ask the Minister whether and what steps have been taken to engage Allianz, as opposed to Income and NE? If no steps have been taken so far, is any engagement being planned?
As with any potential purchaser, Allianz would have incurred time and expense, alongside its legal and other advisors, to study and prepare for the deal before submitting the application to MAS for approval. It could only have done so on the basis of the prevailing laws, and these amendments in this Bill would not have been in its contemplation then.
Investor concern is not just on the buy-side; the uncertainty extends to the sell-side as well, where investors cannot be certain whether their investments will suddenly become illiquid or considerably less liquid as a result of subsequent Government intervention.
Sir, what message does this Bill send to prospective investors considering investments into Singapore? Will this Bill affect, for example, existing free trade agreements (FTA) on activities in the financial services sector, including the EU-Singapore FTA? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Public interest. What exacerbates this concern is the lack of clarity around the basis that approval for a proposed transaction may be withheld. \"Public interest\" is one of those things where it is difficult to define, even though you probably know it when you see it. What we do know is that it is a lower bar than the \"national security interests\" protected under the Significant Investments Review Act (SIRA), when Minister of State Alvin Tan replied to me that Income’s \"social purpose\" is unlikely to meet the high bar to be protected under SIRA.
Given that the proposed new section 33A(3) specifically identifies consultation with the Minister responsible for the Co-operative Societies Act 1979, is \"public interest\" under that subsection only to be assessed from that Ministry's mission and objectives? That seems to cut against \"whole-of-Government\" approach that Minister Chee spoke about on Monday.
I am conscious that it is difficult, if not impossible, to set out an exhaustive definition of \"public interest\". However, given the use of the term across other legislation requiring Government approval for changes in control, such as the Transport Sector (Critical Firms) Act 2024, perhaps it would be more reassuring to foreign investors for there to be a one-stop summary of the various classes of target companies and the specific regulatory clearances that are required prior to investment. I hope the Government can consider that suggestion.
(In English): Existing powers. One issue that was also raised on Monday was whether the amendment in this Bill is necessary in light of the existing legislative powers. Sections 26 and 27 of the Insurance Act 1966 provide that the \"MAS 'may' approve an application to take over or control substantial shareholdings in licensed insurers if the applicant meets the prudential requirements\". The use of the word \"may\", instead of \"shall\", seems to suggest that there could be other considerations beyond the prudential requirements.
The explicit mention that MCCY's views should also be considered in this Bill could set a worrying precedent. What if, for a future transaction, public interest considerations of other Ministries become relevant? Would we have to separately legislate on an urgent basis again? Instead, reading sections 26 and 27 in the inclusive manner that I have suggested above, potentially allows new considerations from being taken into account at a whole-of-Government level.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill should also not be for the purpose of ensuring information flows between different Government arms. Following the Allianz-Income episode, I am sure MAS is now aware of the potential interests that other Ministries or Government agencies might have in the regulatory applications that it processes.
Minister Chee Hong Tat explained that it did not occur to MAS to consult with MCCY, particularly on Income's previous exemption from section 88 of the CSA, before the Parliamentary Questions of 6 August 2024. This is understandable because it is not an issue that would arise in most applications made to MAS for approval, which would not relate to co-ops.
However, my question is whether any conditions were attached to the exemption for Income to carry over S$2 billion of accumulated surplus to its new corporate form. What were those conditions?
Instead of enacting the amendment in this proposed Bill, would MCCY not be able to exercise effective regulation by imposing relevant conditions in the exemption that was given, for example, that any subsequent change of ownership must be cleared with MCCY, or that the carried-over surplus of S$2 billion had to be returned to the CSLA if certain prescribed events occurred? On that note, can MCCY still vary the conditions of that exemption today?
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, ultimately, it is a strength that our Parliamentarians in Singapore can raise issues and have the Government table and pass legislation in less than three months. For this instance, it is even less than a week. But it is a power that we must exercise extremely sparingly, lest our legal and business environments are perceived to be uncertain and unpredictable.
Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support the Bill and the Government’s decision to block the Allianz-Income deal in its current form.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to declare that I am Advisor to the Singapore Insurance Employees' Union.
Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate on the Insurance (Amendment) Bill. The proposed amendment will allow MAS to consider the views of the Minister charged with the responsibility for co-ops to withhold approval for an application to obtain effective control or to become a substantial shareholder of an insurer that is a co-op or linked to a co-op, if it is in the public interest to do so.
For the reasons set out in the Ministerial Statement by Minister Edwin Tong on 14 October 2024, I support the Government’s decision that it is not in the public interest for the Income-Allianz deal in its current form to proceed.
The amendment is required if Minister Edwin Tong, as Minister in charge of CSA, views on the deal are to be considered, as Income is not a co-op but a corporation. As a corporation, the approval for the deal rests with MAS under the Insurance Act.
There are a few points I wish to touch on in my speech. One is the effectiveness of the due process for review and approval of the deal, and that the interest of Singapore and Singaporeans is protected. Two, that the amendment proposed is targeted and scoped to address the co-op. This upholds the stability of Singapore as a key financial services hub, which includes insurance, a key asset class for businesses that invest in Singapore.
Let me now touch on due process. The hon Member Mr Saktiandi had also mentioned this, that the process that we are currently going through has allowed the decision to halt the deal and the fact that we are here today to debate and approve the amendments to the Insurance Act for MAS to consider the views of the Minister-in-charge of co-operatives, demonstrates that due process works and that it supports the making of sound and the right decisions.
I want to commend the work of the officers from both MAS and MCCY. There has been some questions on the silos. We have got to be fair to our officers. They are doing their work. I am glad that when they spot an important information that is required, they have the courage to speak up and bring it up; and the process allows for that. So, let us not put too much criticism on this process because it might instill an opposite behaviour. We need to protect this as well.
When Allianz announced the offer to buy 51% stake in Income in July this year, Members of Parliament, from both sides of the House, filed Parliamentary Questions. This allowed for clarifications, even as the relevant agencies, in this case MAS and MCCY, were reviewing the deal.
Work to assess the details of the deal and the due diligence on the deal by MAS and MCCY continued, even after the clarifications in Parliament. This has allowed Minister Edwin Tong to be appraised of the right information and, therefore, inform us that given the context of the exemption from section 88 of the CSA granted to Income when it was incorporated in 2023, there were concerns that these terms and the structure of the deal and the ability of Income to fulfil its social mission would be impacted.
Hence, the decision not to approve the deal in its current form and the Ministerial Statement made in Parliament on Monday this week, to inform Parliament of the decision. And it is the right decision.
Let me talk about the proposed amendments to the Insurance Act. Like many, I am also very concerned because Singapore is a recognised financial hub with many financial institutions operating in Singapore. Businesses invest in Singapore because of the confidence in Singapore and our regulatory process and the certainty and predictability of the environment.
The role that MAS plays in the supervision and the development of Singapore's financial services sector, providing stability for businesses. The life insurance market in Singapore and the insurance market, as a whole, is active and competitive with numerous players vying for market share. The industry is regulated by stringent requirements under the Insurance Act and regulatory capital requirements.
So, as this is an urgent Bill, it is appropriate that the proposed amendments are scoped and not broad-based so as not to impact the larger insurance market in Singapore or cause undue anxiety amongst insurers in an already regulated sector.
I support that the amendment is specific and applies only to a licensed insurer that is the subject of an application under sections 26 and 27 of the Insurance Act and where the licensed insurer is a co-operative or linked to a co-operative. This calibrated approach makes it clear on the reasons for taking such an approach and, therefore, to some extent will give some assurance to the business community.
As explained by Minister Edwin Tong in his Ministerial Statement and as shared by Minister Chee Hong Tat in his speech earlier, the Government recognises that insurance co-operatives are a special category of insurers with a social mission and the proposed amendments to the Insurance Act are necessary to allow MAS to consider the views of the Minister overseeing co-operatives and for the Minister-in-charge of MAS to withhold approval for the deal, if it is in the public interest to do so and for the reasons that Minister Edwin Tong had explained in his Ministerial Statement on Monday. So, I believe that the decision taken and the proposed amendment to the Insurance Act is a balanced one.
It is a balanced approach to preserve the unique role of co-operatives and their social mission in Singapore while staying open to the appropriate structures that will allow the strengthening of co-operatives or entities linked to co-operatives, to enable them to continue to meet its social mission in a sustainable manner.
I must say that co-operatives operate in a very unique way in Singapore and the very reason why we are taking the measures that we are taking today and we are here to debate this is because of their special nature and the recognition of that. So, I do believe that it is a calibrated approach and it is a balanced one. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State, Desmond Tan.
The Senior Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Desmond Tan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to declare first, that I am serving as a labour Member of Parliament in NTUC. The genesis of today's Bill is because of the proposed transaction between Allianz and Income Insurance.
Specifically, today, it is about amending the Insurance Act to provide a clear statutory basis for MCCY's views to be considered in any approval under sections 26 and 27 of the Insurance Act in such applications related to insurance that are either co-operative or linked to a co-operative. Minister Edwin Tong, on Monday, has shared MCCY's concerns over the terms and the structure of the proposed transaction.
So, please allow me to take the House through the key considerations why NTUC supported the proposed deal and our commitment to the larger social mission.
Let me start by saying that Income is no ordinary insurer. It holds special significance for the Labour Movement as our first social enterprise. Income has played an important role in providing affordable insurance for workers and Singaporeans at large. When NE briefed the NTUC Central Committee (CC) about the proposal, it was, therefore, difficult for the unions to learn that NE was planning to sell a majority stake in Income to Allianz.
But we understood the challenges that Income faced. To do good, it must also do well. We knew this has become even harder amidst a more competitive and tightly-regulated insurance landscape. NE went into this deal to strengthen Income in the longer run and the NTUC CC agreed with the strategic intent and approached it in good faith.
I hear and understand from various Members in the House that there were many questions and points that were raised by Members but today's session is focused on the amendment Bill. There are questions that are posed to NTUC and, especially so, there are many questions that were posed to Income and NE. I will take these comments, questions back and, of course, to the relevant entities so that they can find a suitable occasion to address them.
But specific to a question that was raised by both Mr Leong Mun Wai as well as Mr Raj Joshua Thomas, I thought maybe I should address the question about whether the NTUC CC was informed of the capital reduction. First, let me just briefly explain the structure and the relationship between NTUC and NE. NTUC is a major shareholder of NE, which is the holding entity of the social enterprises, which includes Income.
In the prevailing governance model, NTUC, as a shareholder of NE, has delegated to NE Board to make decisions pertaining to all businesses and do not get involved in the day-to-day running. Specific to this transaction, NTUC CC was briefed by NE and Income on the strategic imperatives for the deal and did not highlight to CC, the capital reduction plan.
In fact, CC and myself only knew of this on Monday at the Ministerial Statement. As I am made aware now, from the clarifications with NE and Income, Income as a non-listed public company would have to comply with the legal responsibility of non-disclosure of commercially sensitive information on the Allianz plans post-acquisition, a point that Mr Leong Mun Wai also brought up, because as a non-listed public company, NTUC and Income are subject to the Singapore Code of Takeover and Mergers.
Let me talk about the social mission of Income, NE and NTUC. Income had also committed to its social mission, which included providing low-cost insurance schemes for union members and keeping premiums affordable for workers in the lower-income and the marginalised segment.
Income pledged $100 million over the next 10 years from 2021 to provide social mobility among the low-income and support the well-being of our seniors. I would add that the NTUC social mission goes beyond insurance.
Over the past 10 years, NTUC social enterprises, including Income, did much for the social good of Singapore through donating nearly $300 million to support the charitable works of NTUC Foundation, Bright Horizons Fund, Health for Life Fund, NTUC Education and Training Fund, NTUC-U Care Fund and Income Orange Aid.
The proceeds from this transaction would also enable NTUC and NE to continue doing good in other areas, such as in elder care, as our population ages, to continue our social mission as we have done for the last 50 years.
We appreciate that Minister for MCCY, in his Statement, acknowledged that Income, with NE's support, has grown through the years to serve Singaporeans' needs. He also mentioned that the Government understands and accepts the strategic purpose behind Income's corporatisation and the subsequent exercise to form a partnership with Allianz: to strengthen Income and to make it more financially viable in the longer term.
Minister Chee Hong Tat has also acknowledged that NTUC had acted in good faith and in the interests of workers and members. So, in fact, if you look at it, the Government and NTUC share the same strategic intent and broader objectives for Income and the co-operative movement.
But as far as the specifics of this transaction is concerned, there is now, perhaps, a difference in view, as Minister for MCCY has clearly laid out the concerns over circumstances behind Income's corporatisation and the Ministerial exemption given as well as the terms and structure of the proposed transaction.
NTUC has reviewed the matter and accepts the Government's considerations and decisions on the proposed transaction. We also support the Bill to amend the Insurance Act to provide a clear statutory basis to provide for MCCY's view to be considered in applications related to insurance that are either co-operative or related to co-operative. We note that the Government remains open to any arrangement that Income may wish to pursue, whether with Allianz or any other partners, so long as the concerns highlighted are fully addressed. Income has committed to study carefully, the implications of the Ministerial Statement by Minister for MCCY and the amendments of the Insurance Act and will work closely with the relevant stakeholders to decide on the next course of action.
From the outset, NTUC's objective was to build a stronger Income so that it can do well and it can do good. The Labour Movement, which includes NTUC and the enterprises, are united in our purpose and we will continue to do right by our people and what is necessary for the longer-term interest to serve workers and the people of Singapore. [Applause.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Edwin Tong.
The Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, on Monday, I made a Ministerial Statement, raising a number of points and explanations, which I do not propose to go back into. This afternoon, there have been a number of contentions concerning various parties and suggestions as to who knows what and at what stage and which party.
Let me just be clear that I am not privy to any of Income or Allianz's thinking about the transaction or its deliberation and the views that they may have taken, in relation to or arising from the transaction. As I have explained on Monday, MCCY was given information, which it reviewed, looked at carefully and decided that it would not be in the public interest to allow this transaction to proceed.
Thereafter, we discussed and proposed for this Bill to take effect so that MAS and the Minister overseeing MAS would have the ability to take on board MCCY's views in relation to this particular transaction. So, I hope that makes it quite clear as to where I am coming from when I give my answers today.
There were also a number of Members who asked what happened behind the scenes, what steps were taken and whether or not some parties were approached.
Let me first start by saying that the decision to take this step was not one that was taken lightly. It was after very careful, deliberate consideration and even after that, it was decided that we ought to do this in as narrow a way as possible, as I had explained in Parliament on Monday. In addition, the Government decided to act after we came to this conclusion and to do it in as transparent and as forthright a manner as possible. Let me explain.
First, we decided to give a complete account of the basis of our objections and our views right here in Parliament. As I have explained, there are considerations because it is a live deal. There is price-sensitive information, market-sensitive information, but the moment we were aware as to what steps we were going to take, how we proposed to take them, we came here, made a Ministerial Statement and explained fully, and then tabled the Bill.
We have made it clear that the Government does not have concerns over Allianz's standing or suitability to acquire a majority stake in Income. Allianz is a major global insurance company and asset manager, and we acknowledge that it can bring financial strength and expertise to Income. Our objections were to the structuring of the transaction and some of the terms of the deal, as I had explained on Monday.
Second, we framed this Bill because we acknowledge that under the Insurance Act today, there is no provision explicitly which allows MAS to consider the views of MCCY in the case of an application relating to an insurer that is either a co-op or linked to a co-op. Therefore, we tabled the Bill, as I mentioned, narrowly to amend the Insurance Act to provide a clear statutory basis for MCCY's views to be taken into account.
Third, as I mentioned, the amendments are scoped specifically to only apply to a licensed insurer that is subject to an application under sections 26 and 27 of the Insurance Act and where the licensed insurer is a co-op, has acquired the business of a co-op, or as substantial shareholder or effective controller which is a co-op. We are not seeking broad powers that cover general insurance transactions or of a broad remit in nature.
Sir, we have chosen to act in this way because we feel that that is the most transparent and above-board manner. It will uphold rather than diminish Singapore's consistent reputation as a hub for business that is open, transparent and rules-based.
Mr Saktiandi asked whether and what steps have been taken to engage Allianz and if any engagement had been planned. Sir, MAS and MCCY, as I had explained, we sought to understand the plans and the proposed transactions. So, we obtained information, we studied them, and once we assessed and decided that it is not in the public interest to proceed with the deal, we thought it is better to take an open and transparent approach in the manner that I have outlined.
Mr Neil Parekh and Mr Mark Lee raised some questions around social mission. I think Mr Chua, in particular, has related his own experience. Sir, it is very broad and I think Mr Chua's speech does acknowledge that it is sometimes in the nature of the way in which social mission has to be carried out and it also has to evolve to match the aspirations and the needs of each generation.
So, by definition, there has got to be a level of flexibility, malleability, which allows the parties charged with their social mission to adjust and to take steps to adjust. In this case, parties would have heard from my Ministerial Statement that Income – and I think earlier on, Members heard Senior Minister of State Desmond Tan speak to that as well – had reiterated that it would discharge its social mission at the point of corporatisation and exemption and also at the point of this transaction.
Specifically, in the case of Income, it has over the years been very clear in seeking to expand its social mission such as providing for the needs of persons with disability, migrant workers, low-income workers. This is how it looks at its social mission portfolio and I am not saying that it may not change down the road. Depending on the needs of society, that may well need to change.
So, in some ways, you have got to give flexibility to the manner in which a social enterprise looks at its mission in the context of the industry that it is in and decides what specific products to raise. I think Ms He also asked whether one day it could become health insurance. I, as I said, I am not speaking for Income, but I would not see that it is so unconnected from its current life insurance business that it may well be covered. But it is something that I express no view on, save to say that I think we need to give some degree of flexibility and malleability to the concept.
I want to also say that the point of applying for exemption from section 88, a point I alluded to earlier, Income did emphasise that it continues to remain strongly committed to its social mission of providing affordable, accessible and sustainable insurance to the underserved communities. In relation to what Mr Chua said, what Mr Parekh said, that definition by Income itself gives you some indication as to how they see the social mission and how they see themselves discharging that social mission.
Whilst I am on the point about the exemption, Ms He raised a couple of points on the exemption and I would like to address them.
To recap, I had explained previously the circumstances in which Income, the co-op, proposed to convert its legal status from a co-op into a corporate status. There were advantages that it felt it could avail themselves of, such as, for instance, there were limitations on the extent to which dividends could be declared by a co-op and that itself made it less attractive for investors, for strategic partners to come in to work with Income. It also needed the ability to broaden its capital base. I think there are some debates about what we mean by capital buffers, capital resiliency. I will address that in a moment.
But what is important to bear in mind in relation to Ms He's question on representations and what was discussed in the context of the corporatisation and the exemption, Income said very clearly it wanted to do better in the insurance business. It emphasised that it would continue to do its social mission as before, based on a quote I read earlier, and that it would only change its legal form as far as its business was concerned.
What is also important to bear in mind in the context of the exemption is that section 88 applies, as I explained, in the context of a social co-op seeking to wind up its business, to cease its business, stop altogether and then after paying off its debts and accounting for other charges, it will have surplus or it may have surpluses, which then comes into the consolidated fund. That is the raison d'etre behind section 88.
In the context of Income, the co-operative, the raison d'etre, or purpose, is quite different. First, it was being liquidated and wound up, it was not ceasing its business. In fact, on the contrary, it was trying to do its business better in a corporate vehicle that would allow it to reach out to strategic partners, access capital and so on, to do its business better. It was fundamentally not winding up its business, not stopping. And therefore, on that basis, it needed to then say, I would also have these surpluses, which I had accumulated before, brought into the new entity. It was on that basis that we granted the exemption for the surpluses to also flow through into the new corporate entity.
Ms He also asked whether there is a link between surpluses and social mission. As I had explained earlier, I think we have to give a degree of flexibility to the entity charged with that social mission to decide how to apply it. In the context of Income, as it stood post-corporatisation, its majority shareholder was NE, also a co-operative. It also had a number of other smaller minority shareholders, amongst which were also co-operatives.
In that context, we left it to them to decide how you want to carry out your social mission, how you would deploy the surpluses. You may offer migrant workers insurance; you might offer mental wellness insurance and so on. It is something that I think we need to give them a broad remit over, given especially that they have converted into a corporate entity, a point that I made on Monday as well. You cannot, on the one hand, say you can corporatise, but on the other hand, you still have to behave as if you are a co-operative entity.
Sir, I hope that answers Ms He's questions around the surpluses and the link to the social mission. I would add, Sir, that it is not for me to say how Income ought to have structured its transactions with Allianz or with any other party.
What we do know is, in this present arrangement, for the reasons I have set out, which I will briefly summarise in a moment, we were not comfortable that after this transaction, given the context in which it was done, that Income would be able to carry on with its social mission. The reasons we came round to this view, if I may reiterate, were the capital reduction occurring so soon after the exemption, the amount that was involved, the fact that there was no arrangement within the terms of the present transaction which would safeguard or ring-fence the advancement of Income's social mission, nor were there any structural protections in the terms of the proposed transaction that would allow us to have comfort that its social mission would be protected. We were also not clear what other adjustments or changes Income might be able to make thereafter to its portfolio, whether it would serve this area of underserved in the insurance business, trim its portfolio, change it altogether or reduce. There were also no controls there.
So, cumulatively, these factors, taken in the context of this transaction, where Income would cede majority control, were the reasons why we felt in this case this was not acceptable.
As to what is acceptable, it is not for us to speculate, and if the parties, as they have indicated publicly, wish to re-evaluate, reconsider, we will consider that when they have structured any new arrangements.
Sir, finally, I want to address Ms Hazel Poa's speech. She makes the case that the 4 August 2024 statement by Income is misleading. I think the Member quoted the words \"capital resilience\" which I think it is paragraph 7 of the statement that she was reading from. Am I right?
Ms Hazel Poa: Yes.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Yes. Paragraph 7 talks about the need for the transaction to take place so that Income could build up capital resilience.
The Member also spoke about capital buffers coming under pressure and questioned whether that statement is true. The Member also made the point, effectively, that the Member is not able to reconcile the capital reduction with the need for the proposed transaction to seek capital resiliency. Would I have accurately summarised the Member's contention?
Ms Hazel Poa: Yes.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Yes. Sir, the transaction is between two insurance companies and part of the arrangement following the transaction was a capital optimisation exercise. In the context of an insurance company, I think Members would understand that there is a need to maintain a capital adequacy ratio. The ratio is determined either by reference to the assets you have or the liabilities you carry. Either one of them can affect your capital adequacy ratio. And consequently, either one of them can affect your capital resiliency. If you increase capital, you can have a better capital adequacy ratio. Similarly, if you decrease your liabilities, you can also increase your capital resiliency and ratio.
On that basis, this arrangement allows for Income to reinsure part of its portfolio of risk. And the moment it is able to reinsure that portfolio of risk, it would not have to maintain that level of capital to meet the capital adequacy ratio.
So, in that context, even in the proposed plan for a capital reduction to take place, if you have a portion of the portfolio that has been reinsured and taken off your liability books, that will contribute towards a more healthy and positive capital adequacy ratio.
I do not have details and specifics of the numbers and the plans, but that is the principle on which this was done. That is why we are able to say, as I did on Monday, that after evaluating the capital optimisation plan, MAS was satisfied that despite the capital reduction taking place, Income, the new entity, would still be projected to meet all its capital adequacy ratios with a healthy margin. I hope that explains. And that is why on Monday I said this statement is not misleading.
Mr Deputy Speaker: I think we will take clarifications after the political office holders (POHs) have provided their statements. Minister Chee Hong Tat is next. But first, Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":"Business Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Insurance (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Chee Hong Tat.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank hon Members who have supported the Bill. I note that the WP plans to abstain and is not supporting the Bill.
Members have raised several important considerations relating to the Bill and I will summarise into three categories: first, how to strike a balance between regulations to protect public interest and maintain investor confidence; second, how does the Government ensure that inter-agency information exchange and coordination does not compromise on commercial confidentiality; and finally, clarifications on the capital reduction plan, Bill parameters and coverage.
Sir, please allow me to address the key points and the questions that Members have raised. Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Neil Parekh, Mr Mark Lee, Ms Usha Chandradas and Mr Yip Hon Weng have recognised the merits of the Government's intervention in this deal, while raising questions about its impact on business confidence and Singapore's role as an international insurance hub. They also asked about the likelihood of future Government interventions and how transparency can be maintained to preserve trust in our system.
I would like to assure the House that Singapore remains committed to upholding our status as an open, rules-based and pro-enterprise business hub. The same applies to MAS as the financial sector regulator. There is no change in this regard. We will continue to welcome investors with our business-friendly operating environment. When legislative amendments are proposed, the Bills are presented and debated in Parliament in an open and transparent manner. We would explain the rationale for the proposed changes, just like what we are doing now for this Bill.
MAS maintains a regulatory approach that is consultative and provides stability and predictability for industry players. As a standard practice, MAS consults on major policy and legislative changes. For complex policies, there could be a series of consultation papers to obtain feedback from stakeholders over an extended period. During these consultations, MAS would incorporate relevant feedback and address concerns that arise.
This Bill is an exception due to its urgency, because the deal with Allianz is under consideration by shareholders, and it is tightly scoped to co-operative insurers, insurers that have assumed the business of a co-op, or have a substantial shareholder or effective controller that is a co-op. This recognises that insurance co-ops are a special category of insurers with a social mission. As there is currently no provision in the Insurance Act which allows MAS to consider the views of MCCY in the case of an application relating to an insurer that is either a co-op or linked to a co-op, the proposed amendments would allow the Minister-in-charge of MAS to consider the views of the Minister responsible for the administration of the CSA and to withhold approval involving such applications if the Minister-in-charge of MAS considers that it is in the public interest to do so. The Bill does not affect any other insurer or the financial industry at large.
Mr Saktiandi asked about the Bill's impact on existing free trade agreements for activities in the financial services sector. It does not impact our free trade agreements. As I have explained earlier, we do not have concerns with the suitability of Allianz to be a majority shareholder of Income. Our concerns lie in the terms and structure of this particular deal, and such concerns would apply whether the acquiror is Allianz or any other entity, and whether the acquiror is local or foreign.
To Mr Neil Parekh's comment that control of Income should not be ceded to foreigners, I would reiterate that the Government agrees with NE's intention and Income's intention to find a strategic partner to strengthen its competitiveness and capital base in the long term so that it can continue to do well to do good. If the concerns of MCCY can be addressed in a future deal, the Government is open to consider such a proposal, whether it is from a foreign or local entity. The most important consideration is the outcome – that Income becomes a stronger entity that is able to serve its policy-holders well and fulfil its social mission effectively.
To Mr Saktiandi's question and also Mr Leong Mun Wai's question on whether we have engaged Allianz, the answer is yes, and they have indicated that they understood the reasons for the Government's decision. Mr Leong can have a look at their public statement.
Mr Neil Parekh asked how the Government will ensure that any future partner can contribute to the financial strength of Income, while still preserving its social mission. MAS has regulatory requirements and guidance in place for insurers to maintain sufficient capital reserves to meet policy-holder claims, including under adverse conditions, and for insurers to have robust risk management frameworks in place. As an insurer, Income continues to meet these requirements. With the Bill, the Minister-in-charge of MAS can, in giving his approval for an entity to obtain effective control or substantial shareholding in Income, impose conditions to ensure Income's commitments to its social mission are upheld post-transaction.
We agree with Mr Mark Lee that businesses should be given an opportunity to address and correct draft plans before final decisions or interventions are made, and this is, in fact, what MAS has done for the proposed transaction. As highlighted in Minster Edwin Tong's Ministerial Statement, while the Government has decided that it would not be in the public interest for the transaction, in its current form, to proceed, we are open for NE to work out a new deal, whether with Allianz or another entity, which can address MCCY's concerns.
Sir, there is a balance to be struck between effective Government functioning through information sharing and preserving commercial confidentiality to maintain investor confidence. Several Members spoke about this. And as I explained in the House on Monday, information provided to MAS as part of its supervisory dealings with financial institutions, including Income and Allianz, is confidential and not normally shared with other Government agencies. We recognise that companies submit such information for a specific regulatory purpose and not to enable general Government evaluation. And as Mr Mark Lee correctly pointed out, some of this information may involve sensitive decisions.
In this particular instance, Income had special characteristics. As a former co-op, it had previously been under the regulation of MCCY before its corporatisation. MCCY maintains an interest in whether Income continues to perform its social mission, as this was the representation given when Income was allowed to corporatise. Hence, while conducting its assessment, MAS considered that it was in the public interest to share the information with MCCY.
Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Mark Lee asked whether the information sharing and coordination among agencies could have been done earlier. MAS received business projections of the cash remittance in mid-July and was reviewing the information. As the MAS team was still assessing the proposal, they did not surface this information to the MAS Board before the 6 August Parliament Sitting. I had explained this on Monday. After the Parliamentary Sitting on 6 August, MAS saw that Income's planned capital optimisation and cash remittance could be relevant to MCCY's views on the proposed transaction and shared the information with MCCY. The Government then reached a view that it was not in the public interest for the deal in its current form to proceed.
Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Saktiandi and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas explained this well. The decision to halt the deal in its current form and the fact that we are here today to debate and approve the amendments to the Insurance Act demonstrate that due process works. It is about coming to Parliament after putting together the full picture, working across the whole-of-Government to see what is the overall assessment of how to move forward on this important issue, and then coming to Parliament to present the information and proposals for Parliament's approval.
I wish to thank Ms Tan, Mr Saktiandi and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas, and also other Members for their support in clarifying the facts and, importantly, for showing appreciation to our public officers in MAS and MCCY. As Ms Tan said, they were working hard and they were doing their jobs.
In contrast, WP's Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Leong Mun Wai from PSP took a different approach. The Members made serious allegations regarding our public officers, regarding our agencies. I do not know why the Members have to take this approach, especially after I had explained what happened on Monday. I had clarified the facts on Monday. Why is it necessary for Mr Leong and Assoc Prof Lim to still want to throw our public officers under the bus? Why is that necessary, Sir?
Sir, I have explained earlier why MAS, when they received the capital reduction plan, needed time to assess, and this was only in mid of July. The officers needed time to go through this plan and because they were not aware of the undertakings and the details of MCCY's exemption that was given earlier. The exemption was gazetted, but the details and the conditions and the undertakings, those were not made public. So, I do not think it is fair for Mr Leong to expect that the MAS team would automatically know what those details are, when those details are not made public.
It was only after we had a fuller understanding of the set of issues after the 6 August Parliament Sitting that the MAS team saw that there could be a connection to what MCCY was looking at. And then they surfaced this to the Board and then we shared it with MCCY.
So, I hope that Mr Leong and Assoc Prof Lim could give our officers some credit, could understand what they were going through and also look at it from their perspective, from their point of view. They were not trying to do something wrong or, as Assoc Prof Lim mentioned, \"to lead to multiple breakdowns of communications\", or \"to work in a siloed manner\". That is certainly not what they were trying to do. They were trying their very best to do their work. And when they saw that there was a link, they shared the information. They surfaced it to the Board and then we shared the information with MCCY.
And this is how the Government then came together, across different parts of the Government, taking a whole-of-Government approach, coming to Parliament with this Bill, to seek Parliament's approval. This is the outcome of a whole-of-Government effort.
Mr Leong asked who should be in charge? Should the Cabinet not be in charge? I would like to ask Mr Leong, who do you think made the decision to take this Bill to Parliament, to come to Parliament? It is the Cabinet that decided that we could not allow the deal, in its current form, to proceed and that is why we are bringing this Bill to Parliament for approval.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would also like to address two other points that Assoc Prof Lim mentioned in his speech earlier. First, he talked about SIRA, or the Significant Investments Review Act. Sir, we have explained this previously – I think Mr Saktiandi mentioned it earlier in his speech – that the purpose of SIRA is to look at Singapore's national security interests. And we will look at whether an entity is a key provider of security-related functions, especially when there are a few or no alternatives and whether it is adequately covered by existing sectorial legislation.
So, there is a rigorous process to decide what goes into SIRA and I hope Assoc Prof Jamus Lim understands that if we are too quick to put many entities under SIRA, that will go against what many other Members have spoken about earlier, that how then do you maintain investor confidence and have a pro-business operating environment? So, we must have a good basis, a good reason, before we decide that something needs to be designated under SIRA.
Assoc Prof Lim was also incorrect to point out that there are no controls if companies, like DBS and Singtel, were to sell their shares. I would urge\tAssoc Prof Lim to check his facts. MAS would have to approve any changes in significant shareholding for banks, including DBS, and IMDA would have to approve any changes in significant shareholding for telcos like Singtel.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Yip Hong Weng, Mr Raj Joshua Thomas and Ms Usha Chandradas sought clarifications on the parameters of the proposed Bill. Mr Saktiandi and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas and, I believe, also Ms He Ting Ru, asked if the Bill only operates prospectively instead of retrospectively and if there would be any issues of retrospective application of the law.
Sir, the Bill does not affect any completed transaction and I would like to clarify that there is no formal application yet by Allianz to obtain effective control and become a substantial shareholder of Income. The contractual terms of the transaction clearly state that it is subject to regulatory approval by MAS. There is, therefore, no retrospective application of the law.
Mr Saktiandi, Ms He Ting Ru, Ms Hazel Poa and Ms Usha asked if the existing sections 26 and 27 of the Insurance Act would already allow whole-of-Government considerations to be taken into account, since the sections provide that MAS may approve an application, if the Authority is satisfied that the criteria are met.
To clarify, MAS takes into account all relevant considerations within the objects of the Insurance Act. There is currently no explicit provision under the Insurance Act for MAS to take into account the views of MCCY, which include questions relating to social mission, in assessing a proposed acquisition of an insurer with co-operative links. The proposed amendment will provide for that. MAS did not expand the scope of sections 26 and 27, as MCCY's views would not be relevant for insurers that are not linked to co-operatives.
And this is important, going back to the earlier point that Mr Mark Lee, Mr Neil Parekh and a few others mentioned, which is, we need to make sure that we still keep our operating environment one that is business-friendly and that investors will have confidence to continue to want to invest in Singapore. I think that is important and that is why we wanted to scope it tightly for this purpose and not have a general clause.
Ms Usha Chandradas also sought clarification on the interpretation of \"conduct its business prudently\" in the context of Income. Sir, this entails whether such an insurer will continue to be run in a safe and sound manner and safeguard policy-holder interests, consistent with MAS' prudential considerations under the Insurance Act.
To Mr Saktiandi's question on whether there should be a comprehensive summary of various classes and target companies, we do not think it is necessary. The current case involving Income is unique due to its co-operative history and social mission, setting it apart from typical insurers. For standard scenarios, the Insurance Act already clearly outlines the specific regulatory approvals required for such transactions.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked whether the proposed capital optimisation measures would weaken the capital adequacy of Income. I would like to first assure Members that MAS requires insurers to maintain, on an ongoing basis, adequate capital to address the risk of its insurance business and activities. As the capital required will increase as business risks increase, insurers may undertake capital optimisation measures, such as reinsurance to reduce the risk retained within the insurer, without shrinking its business or weakening it. This would, then, reduce the regulatory capital required to support the same business.
These measures that free up capital to be returned to shareholders is not an uncommon commercial practice, as Mr Liang has pointed out. And to be clear, in the case of Allianz, they had provided a preliminary business plan to MAS in mid-July regarding the capital reduction. There was no application from Allianz for capital reduction.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would also like to address a comment that Mr Leong Mun Wai made earlier with regard to the capital reduction plan.
First, I think I have clarified that there was no application from Allianz. They only provided a preliminary business plan to MAS in mid-July. I also clarified on Monday and also today and a few Members have mentioned it as well, that the deal is still subject to MAS regulatory approval. I hope those facts are clear.
I do have an issue with how Mr Leong has described the capital reduction plan as an asset stripping exercise. And I do not think that is a fair description. I think Mr Leong deliberately chose that term and this is not the first time I have heard Mr Leong make unkind remarks towards NTUC.
Sir, NTUC has explained, the Members heard from Senior Minister of State Desmond Tan earlier and also other colleagues from the Labour Movement, that they are entering into this deal with the right intent. They acted in good faith. They wanted to do the right thing. They wanted to strengthen Income, so that Income is in a stronger position to serve its policy-holders and also to fulfil its social mission, because to do good, you must first do well. That was the intent.
We may have differences in views, as Minister Edwin Tong mentioned earlier, with regard to this deal, whether this deal is something that the Government would allow to proceed and we have come to the conclusion that we would not allow this deal to proceed. So, yes, there is a difference in views between what NTUC, NE, Income have put up and what the Government feels is the right way forward, but we do not disagree with the objectives of why we are doing this or why Income is doing this. The purpose of doing this is the right one. It is to strengthen Income and to do well, so that it can do good.
The Members of the Opposition often remind us that just because there are differences in views, it does not mean that we should automatically jump to the conclusion that you have a bad intention. I respect that view, Sir, so I would like to seek their agreement that, in this case, please also apply that consistently; that just because there is a difference in views, in terms of how the proposal is structured, it does not mean that you should conclude that NTUC and NE were doing this without a good intent. That would not be fair to our sisters and brothers from NTUC and NE. [Applause.]
Sir, Minister Edwin Tong has explained why we need this Bill, to give the Government the powers so that our view will prevail. And we do not want the deal in its current form to go through. However, we remain open to Income entering into a new deal, whether with Allianz or with another entity, if the outcome is that this can help to strengthen Income.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill is being tabled and read on a Certificate of Urgency because the proposed deal by Allianz is under active consideration by Income's shareholders. The Bill will allow the Minister-in-charge of MAS to consider the views of the Minister charged with the responsibility of the CSA in applications to obtain effective control or become a substantial shareholder of a licensed insurer that is a co-op, has acquired the business of a co-op or has a substantial shareholder or effective controller that is a co-operative. The Minister-in-charge of MAS can then withhold approval if he considers it in the public interest to do so. The Minister-in-charge of MAS will also take into account prudential considerations under the Insurance Act in making his decision.
The Government has determined that this proposed transaction cannot proceed in its current form. However, we remain supportive of NE's and Income's efforts to look for a strong partner, including with Allianz or another entity, to strengthen Income's capital base and market position. The Government recognises and agrees that Income must do well before it is able to continue doing good on a sustained basis.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Members, once again, for their support for the Bill. I hope I have clarified the concerns raised by Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Ms He Ting Ru, and I sincerely hope that the WP can support this Bill. [Applause.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: We have had a thorough debate. We have had 19 speakers and the debate has lasted over three hours. Minister Chee Hong Tat, Minister Edwin Tong and Senior Minister of State Desmond Tan have responded, to all, if not the majority of the questions raised.
Be that as it may, given the urgency of this Bill and it being read the Second and Third time today, I will allow clarifications, but I seek the understanding of Members to keep the clarifications succinct and clear; and that be reciprocated by the front bench in targeted and accurate responses. So, I will do my best to allow as much clarification time as I am able to. Any clarifications? Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Let me start by stating unequivocally that I have deep respect for the hard work that our civil servants put in, often involving long hours and comparatively lower pay than they could have commanded in the private sector. But I feel that it is nevertheless imperative for me to highlight instances where the system that the civil service operates under, which is, to be clear, overseen by this Government, is problematic because our civil servants can only do the best they can within the constraints that they face from the Government of the day.
So, once again, to reiterate, I am critiquing the system, not the civil servants. I do not think it is useful to bring in the civil servants as pawns to a political argument.
To further clarify, I did not say that there are no protections for the sale of significant assets, like Singtel or DBS, but that additional protections are granted by SIRA. Accepting that we do not wish to list every possible Singapore firm under SIRA, I still have not heard a satisfactory reason as to why the designated entities are limited to only those within the military, industrial complex, whereas our Total Defence pillars clearly go into financial and digital elements.
Let me put this another way. Could I confirm with the Minister that this Government will never consider listing assets, such as DBS or Singtel, under SIRA?
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to start by first requesting Assoc Prof Jamus Lim not to put words into my mouth. I did not refer to our public officers as pawns and I do not think he should too. We have deep respect for our public officers. We know that they work hard, they do their work well and it was not so clear earlier when Assoc Prof Lim was making all the criticisms of working in silos and having breakdowns of communications, that he was referring to the system.
If his concern is about the system, I have also explained on Monday and earlier, what happened and why it was not in the ordinary course of operations for MAS, when they are assessing information from a financial institution, to share that with another Government agency. If Assoc Prof Lim considers that as a failure, a systems failure, then I presume, maybe he could let me know what his counterproposal is.
Is he then suggesting – and I am not trying to put words in his mouth, I am only asking – that anytime MAS receives information, whether there is a reason or not, we should then share it with all other Government agencies? I hope that is not what Assoc Prof Lim is proposing. I think that will have an impact on investor confidence and it will affect our pro-business operating environment.
So, I have explained what happened with this particular case and I have also reiterated the chronology of what happened. I hope Assoc Prof Lim can accept that account of what happened and not keep repeating unfounded allegations about the public service officers in our system facing constraints from the Government of the day when it comes to sharing of information. I do not think there is any evidence, unless Assoc Prof Lim can produce evidence; otherwise, I would like him to please withdraw that rather serious allegation.
With regard to SIRA, I have already explained earlier that this has to do with national security and I also mentioned in my reply that we will also look at whether there are other Acts that cover some of these entities; and if there are, then there is no need to replicate this with SIRA.
So, the two examples that Assoc Prof Lim kept raising, DBS and Singtel, I have already explained that there are sectoral regulators – in the case of DBS, it will be MAS; in the case of Singtel, it will be IMDA – that would play the role of the gatekeeper. And if you want to acquire shares in DBS or in Singtel that goes beyond a certain percentage, you do need the regulator's approval before you are allowed to do so. So, in a way that is already covered.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Edwin Tong, anything to add? No. Mr Leong Mun Wai. Succinct and straightforward, please. No, I have called you.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Allow me to do two responses to what the Minister had directed towards me during his speech. My first point is also about civil servants, something similar to what Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim had just said. Today, I have not said anything about civil servants. What I have said is, I would like to acknowledge the effort put in by MCCY and MAS to scrutinise the transaction and come up with this Bill. So, this is an appreciation of the work done by MCCY and MAS.
But I have directed at the Ministers — it is the responsibility of the Cabinet Minister to ensure that they are appraised of all relevant and important information, and to consider them fully before making decisions and public pronouncements. I am saying that because on 6 August, we spent more than one hour clarifying during Question Time about this whole deal without complete information. So, we are running parallel all the time and you can also say that it was quite a waste of time. But what happened now is that now, with more information, we know that the Ministers and the NTUC CC, actually, they do not have the information on the capital reduction. So, we understand that point.
But still, we are concerned about the coordination and how things are being presented before the information is complete. So, that is one point. I want to respond to the Minister when he said that I am bringing in the civil servants and all that, a point that is similar to what Assoc Pro Jamus Lim has said.
The second point that the Minister has said is about my characterising the exercise as asset stripping. In finance, nobody with some knowledge about finance would disagree with me. It is a fact. It has nothing to do with the intent. You can intend. Your intentions can be good. But the plan that you put up, is actually not so good. You can even say detrimental. That is why the Government now is coming back after more work and saying, \"Oh, this plan cannot go through\". The plan is not a good plan, from the point of view of continuing with the social mission.
And I have got one more point to raise afterwards. It is that it is also not a plan that provides enough protection to policy-holders. I, myself, am a policy-holder. So, it is not fair for the Minister to say that I am trying to characterise the deal in bad light. I am just stating the fact. Anyone with basic financial knowledge would not disagree with me. This is an asset stripping exercise.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Deputy Speaker, I was quite dismayed to hear Mr Leong Mun Wai describe the 6 August discussion in Parliament as, in his words, \"a waste of time\". It provided the opportunity for Members to ask questions, and for MCCY and MAS to clarify what is the status of the situation at that time; and then, to hear the concerns of the Members. I think it is not correct and I hope Mr Leong could withdraw that comment too, to describe that process as a waste of time.
The point about whether information should be made known during a discussion, I had clarified repeatedly that when we came to Parliament on 6 August, both Minister of State Alvin Tan and I made it clear that there was no regulatory approval given to the deal. It is something that is still being evaluated, considered and, therefore, in response to Mr Leong's point about how before we make any decision or pronouncement, we should have the full set of information. Indeed, that is why, after the 6 August Sitting, when MCCY received the information from MAS, the agencies then got together, the Ministers then got together and discussed, and eventually, Cabinet made a decision to bring this Bill to Parliament. This is the decision that we are seeking approval from Parliament.
So, I do not think there is any departure from what Mr Leong described as what he expects the Government to do. But on 6 August, there were Parliamentary Questions filed. Unless Mr Leong is suggesting that we do not answer Parliamentary Questions? If not, at that point in time, because the deal is still being considered, no approval was given yet, I think it was only correct that we gave replies based on information that we had at that point in time. But because there was no regulatory approval given, there was no decision or pronouncement by the Government.
The second point that Mr Leong raised, Mr Deputy Speaker – I find it quite odd that Mr Leong on one hand would say he is not trying to characterise it negatively and, on the other hand, he has made it quite clear that this is a bad deal.
We have explained why the capital reduction plan on its own would not be something that is uncommon. An entity, whether Income or another insurer, another financial institution, to do capital optimisation, I think Minister Edwin Tong explained this, I explained this as well and Mr Leong, I am sure, understands. Financial optimisation is something that entities, companies do regularly. So, this, by itself, is not wrong.
When MAS was looking at this initially, they were looking at it from a prudential point of view to see – if you do this, would Income still have the necessary capital to meet its capital adequacy ratio? From a prudential point of view, is this something that we would be prepared to consider?
But as I mentioned earlier in my closing speech, there was no application by Allianz on the capital reduction. They only submitted a preliminary business plan in mid-July. So, I would like to suggest that, perhaps, it is not very useful and productive for us to argue about different adjectives being used. But as Ms Hazel Poa said earlier, we let the public decide which phrase was used by Mr Leong and which phrase was used by me to describe this exercise. And the Hansard will reflect that Mr Leong did, indeed, say it is an asset stripping exercise.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Ong Hua Han. Go ahead.
Mr Ong Hua Han: For Minister Edwin Tong, it has been a long day so I apologise if I failed to hear this in his response. I do understand that the factors were being looked at cumulatively. But referencing my speech, can the Minister clarify whether the lack of clear binding provisions or structural protection around Income's social mission alone is sufficient reason to merit the blocking of this deal?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, Mr Ong. I had mentioned a series of factors that we looked at, one of which is the lack of structural protection. So, this is taken in the context of the suite of terms as well as the circumstances in which the capital reduction was done and the amount, were cumulatively the factors that we took into account, not any one single factor on its own.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I have two clarifications. First, I do not seem to recall either of the Ministers clarifying the questions raised by Ms He Ting Ru and Ms Hazel Poa about whether MAS needs this Bill. In other words, does MAS not have sufficient power within its current jurisdiction to take into account the public interest in having affordable financial products and, therefore, is this Bill really necessary? I do not recall either Minister touching on this point.
[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]
Second, as a clarification for Minister Chee Hong Tat, would he at least acknowledge that what Parliament is being asked to do today is to pass this legislation that is targeted at a live transaction, a particular one, to introduce a legislative change that would affect that live transaction? And does he not acknowledge that this sends a very bad signal to the business community about business certainty?
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I had actually covered both points in my closing speech earlier. But Ms Sylvia Lim may have missed it. So, with your permission, Madam, can I just read those sections again?
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Please proceed.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Thank you. So, this is what I said earlier, that the Bill does not affect any completed transaction because there is no formal application yet by Allianz to obtain effective control and become a substantial shareholder of Income. And, therefore, there is no retrospective application of the law. So, that is what I have said. There is no formal application yet by Allianz.
Second, the point about why MAS does not have the powers, I have also explained this, that in the existing sections 26 and 27 of the Insurance Act, there is not an explicit provision under the Insurance Act for MAS to take into account the views of MCCY, which will include questions relating to social mission in assessing a proposed acquisition of an insurer with co-operative links.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
So, we cannot rely on the existing provisions without this set of amendments. And because it is a proposal that is under consideration by shareholders, there is urgency. So, yes, we do not disagree that there is a deal that is being considered. But it is a fact, Sir, that there is no formal application by Allianz to MAS.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa: I thank Minister Chee Hong Tat for his reply on sections 26 and 27. I agree that there are no specific provisions at the moment to take into account MCCY's views, but at the same time, the existing legislation does not prohibit MAS from taking into account those views. It is actually left open. So, why are sections 26 and 27 not sufficient?
My second clarification is referring to Minister Edwin Tong's reply that the capital resilience can be improved by re-insuring. My point was that the reason for this sale of Income Insurance was presented as the need to improve capital resilience. But if the capital resilience is actually improved through re-insurance, then it has nothing to do with this acquisition by Allianz. So, why is that presented as the reason?
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Ms Hazel Poa for acknowledging my explanation that there is no explicit provision under the Insurance Act for MAS to take into account the views of MCCY relating to social mission.
Sir, if we depart from what MAS has been doing all these years as a prudential regulator under sections 26 and 27, where we assess applications from financial institutions, to suddenly say that we now will take into account social mission because we interpret this very broadly. First, that itself could lead to more uncertainty for the industry players because they will be wondering, the next time, would you then change the interpretation to something else again without being clear about the reasons why you are doing it and being transparent about how you are doing it.
That is why, as Ms Jessica Tan mentioned earlier, we prefer to take a more open and transparent approach of coming to Parliament to seek Parliament's approval for this change, to address the concerns that we have but to do so in a tightly-scoped manner so that the rest of the industry who are not co-operatives or who have no links to co-operatives need not worry that this new provision taking into account social mission will also apply to them.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru. Oh, Minister Edwin Tong, do you want to add to Minister Chee's reply?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Yes, I was going to respond to Ms Hazel Poa's second question. Again, as I said just now, I am not able to and I am not going to speak on behalf of Income. But the Member did make a point and she suggested in her speech that the statement, which I got her to confirm earlier, that capital resiliency following the transaction was misleading. That is the point I was trying to make. Earlier on, we agreed that that is the reference that the Member was making in paragraph 7.
So, the point really is this, Ms Poa. The transaction is contemplated between an insurer, Income; and another insurer, Allianz. It is also proposed that following the transaction, the plan was to optimise capital. One of the ways in which it was going to be done was to re-insure a portion or a portfolio of Income's risk.
Taken together, the statement, therefore, that after the transaction is carried out, its capital resiliency would be improved is, in my view, not misleading. That was the explanation I gave to the Member. I also explained to the Member that we could improve capital resiliency in a number of different ways such that even after capital reduction, we could still have an adequate capital adequacy ratio.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru: Thank you, Sir. I have two clarifications for the Minister-in-charge of MAS and one clarification for the Minister for MCCY.
In relation to my clarification for the Minister-in-charge of MAS, I think the Minister mentioned twice that there was no formal application made by Allianz in relation to this proposed acquisition of the majority stake in Income. I just wanted to ask some clarification because in the proposed new section 33A of the Act, in subsection 9, it states, and I quoted this in my speech actually, \"This section applies also to a relevant application received by the authority before the date of commencement of the Insurance Amendment Act 2024 that is still pending as of that date.\" Can the Minister clarify whether this refers to this transaction or another transaction? That is my first clarification.
My second clarification relates to the points I made about why the urgency of this Bill, such that within three days, this needs to be passed, going through a Second and Third Reading. The question here is that the Minister mentioned earlier the reason why we are rushing through this Bill under a Certificate of Urgency is because this deal is under active consideration by shareholders.
From my understanding of this, shareholders can vote however they want, they can consider however they want. But honestly, the offer is ultimately subject to regulatory approval and this is why it is called a pre-conditional offer on the offer document. I am just wondering, I also mentioned in my speech, given that the long-stop date is nine months from the date of announcement, why is there this rush to do this? That is my second clarification.
My clarification for the Minister for MCCY is in relation to the exemption granted to the 2023 gazetted Exemption Order. I believe the Minister mentioned that there is some flexibility needed to allow the use of the surplus to achieve the mission. I just wanted the Minister to clarify that no conditions were imposed on the use of the surplus in that respect.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I had answered Ms He's question and when I used the word flexible. It was in the context of my answer to Mr Keith Chua's query about the extent to which social mission might evolve. That was when I used the word flexible. But in the context of the exemption, there was a series of discussions. I mentioned in my speech on Monday that we engaged with Income over a period of time. We exchanged views. They sent various letters representing their position. It was on this basis that the corporatisation and the exemption was granted.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to confirm that there is no formal application from Allianz to MAS. The provision that Ms He mentioned, that is inserted more for avoidance of doubt.
The second point that Ms He raised, this Bill is urgent. We need a Certificate of Urgency because the deal is under consideration by shareholders. So, to have a long period between the First Reading and the Second Reading before the amended law takes effect, will actually give rise to more uncertainty in the market and for the parties concerned. That is why we are putting forth this Bill for Parliament's consideration and for approval.
Mr Deputy Speaker: We are at the three-and-a-half-hour mark. We started this debate at 3.50 pm. It is now coming to 7.25 pm. I see the hands are really hands of Members who have already asked questions. I will allow there to be a second round of clarifications.
Just to confirm, I see the hands of Ms He Ting Ru, Ms Hazel Poa, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Leong Mun Wai. Are there any more clarifications beyond these hon Members?
None. So, I invite the four hon Members to keep their clarifications succinct and clear. We will start with Ms He Ting Ru, followed by Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, Mr Leong Mun Wai and then Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms He Ting Ru: Thank you, Sir. I am still a bit confused because, as I mentioned earlier, the deal is a pre-conditional offer. It is always subject to regulatory approval. Again, the shareholders can consider that. We have a nine-month-long stop-date. I do not really understand why the Minister is saying that, given that it is under consideration by the shareholders, we have to rush through. Because shareholders know that regulatory approvals take a certain amount of time and they know that all these are actually being debated and then the amendments are being proposed. I am not entirely sure that the two are necessarily connected.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Deputy Speaker, I have already explained the reasons from the Government's point of view. I accept that Ms He Ting Ru may have a different view, but I have explained why we want to provide greater certainty on the decision and on the changes to the legislation for the different stakeholders, including the shareholders but also other parties who are involved in this deal. That is the reason why we are doing it with a Certificate of Urgency, but, it is, of course, subject to Parliament's approval.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you, Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence. I do not plan to prolong this, but Minister Chee Hong Tat had requested that I withdraw an allegation, if I am correct, that there was a communication breakdown between different arms of the Civil Service. I am happy to make this withdrawal, but I am a little puzzled because it is actually in his words that there was an information gap, this was presented on Monday, between MAS and MCCY. I understand I characterised this as a communication breakdown instead, but perhaps Minister Chee Hong Tat is triggered by the word \"breakdown\". Again, I am happy to withdraw the statement if he thinks it is a matter of terminology.
The second point is that he had asked me to make a suggestion and I did so in my speech, for how I think we should go forward. This is the constructive part and that is that future transactions of such strategic importance should at the outset involve the establishment of a multi-Ministry task force.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Deputy Speaker, I also do not want to prolong this debate, but just to clarify, I was not asking Assoc Prof Jamus Lim to withdraw his comment about the communication breakdown. He is entitled to use that phrase if he prefers to. I was referring to his comment that the public officers are unable to share information due to constraints imposed by the government of the day.
That was what I would like to request that Assoc Prof Lim to withdraw, that comment, because that is not true. We do not put barriers to prevent our public service officers to share information. In fact, in this case, the decision to share information was proposed by the public officers and supported by the political office holders on the MAS Board.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have two questions for the Minister. One is that he did not quite answer what I have asked in the speech. Did the Government or MCCY make an effort to ask Allianz whether there is a way that this deal can be aborted without us having to come and debate a new law and introduce a new law for this? That is maybe one way of doing it.
Well, I heard some laughter in the Chamber, but this is very common. I am in the finance industry for a long time. If the regulator comes to you and says, \"I think, your deal, maybe you can consider this and that.\" Then, there will be negotiation going on. So, that should be something — If you did not do anything on that, then it is okay. I am just seeking an answer whether you did ask Allianz for that.
Secondly, and it is a wish on the part of policy-holders – and I have repeated many times that I myself am an Income policy-holder – we have supported Income all these years. There is a lot of trust because Income is a company that is under the NTUC and we Singaporeans have a lot of trust in Income.
Over the years, because of our support, there is a lot of surpluses built up in terms of the policies, in the policy funds they are accruing to the policy-holders. So, can I ask the Minister whether the Government can do something to remind NTUC that in the future, when they sell the company, if they have a new deal, their social responsibility will also cover their responsibility to the policy-holders. It is not just the responsibility of the social mission that the Government is talking about.
Because it really worries me that you get an acquiror, potentially, and I am not referring to anybody that comes in and what they are interested in is capital restructuring. When you restructure the capital, you go and find all kinds of surpluses in the company, you know. And another surplus that an insurance company potentially has is in the policy fund of the policy-holders.
What I am saying is that I was wondering whether I can get assurance from the Minister that this message will be passed on to NTUC.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Deputy Speaker, I will address the first question that Mr Leong raised. I have explained earlier that we have engaged Allianz and what their response is. Along the way, because they were submitting business plans, there were certainly discussions between MAS and Allianz on what they have submitted.
I do want to make a point, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Government, when it comes to dealing with our licensees and with industry players, we would like to take the approach of being open and transparent, and that if we have concerns with the deal, we have our reasons, we would rather do it in a manner like what we are doing now, come to Parliament with the proposed Bill, explain why we are doing it, rather than — and I hope that is not what Mr Leong is suggesting, because to go to the company and say, as a regulator, \"I don't think you should be doing this and I think you should be backing off.\"
I think if you do that, you may actually send more uncertainty and create more worries in the industry. Mr Leong is shaking his head. I do not know whether that means he agrees with me that that is not what we should do, or he thinks that that is what we should do. If he thinks that that is what we should do, then I would say that we have to disagree, because we believe that as the regulator, to uphold the reputation of our regulatory system and the transparency of our financial sector, to be able to continue to attract investors, as what several Members had spoken about, I think it is important that we deal with our licensees in a manner which is above board and that they understand.
So, if you look at the reaction from Allianz, they said they understood the Government's decision and I think that is important because we want to continue to be a place that foreign investors, companies want to come to, create more good jobs for our people. I think that is important.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Edwin Tong
Mr Edwin Tong: Mr Leong, I said earlier that it is not for us to tell Income or indeed any party what to do and how to run their business. You also mentioned that as a policy-holder yourself and you sort of conflated that point with surpluses, and suggested that there might be some risk to the surpluses, these are all subject to capital adequacy ratios that Income is complying with, and in fact, they will be required to comply with. So, from that perspective, I think you do not have to worry.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa
Ms Hazel Poa: I would just like to clarify that my point was not that the capital resilience after the sale is misleading. If I misunderstood the Minister earlier, I apologise.
My point has always been that presenting improving capital resilience as the reason for the sale is misleading, because we now see that the capital resilience is improved through re-insurance, not through the sale to Allianz.
Mr Edwin Tong: I thank Ms Poa for clarifying, but I think when I first answered the Member's question, I quoted the Member, and I asked her whether that is what she meant and the Member said yes. So, that is how I answered her question.
But be that as it may, the point is, in this transaction, they were entering into a transaction with an insurer and had plans to re-insure part of their portfolio of risk. And so, the simple point really is, in that context, the statement that was made in the reference the Member gave, paragraph 7, is not misleading, because there will be improvement to capital resiliency after the transaction.
Mr Deputy Speaker: I think we have respected the importance of this Bill through a close to four-hour debate. And I think it is timely to put the question to the House.
The question is, that the Bill be now read a Second time. As many as are of that opinion, say \"Aye\".
[(proc text) Hon Members said \"Aye\" (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: To the contrary say \"No\".
Ms Sylvia Lim: Mr Deputy Speaker, Members from the WP would like our abstention recorded.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, I listened carefully to Ms He Ting Ru who, if I am not mistaken, said, \"We need to register our abstention on this Bill.\" So, does that apply to just Ms He Ting Ru or all of WP?
Ms Sylvia Lim: The party, Sir.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Are you abstaining or are you objecting?
Ms Sylvia Lim: Abstaining.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Could you stand up, please, so that we can record your abstentions?
[(proc text) Hon Members Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Ms He Ting Ru, Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong rose in their place for their abstention to be recorded. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: There are seven abstentions. Less those seven abstentions, everybody else has voted \"Aye\".
Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Sir.
Mr Deputy Speaker: I declare that the \"Ayes\" have it, the \"Ayes\" have it.
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: At this point, I wish to state my opinion that the Bill is a Hybrid Bill. Although the provisions of the Bill are drafted in general terms, it is clear from the Ministerial Statement by the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth on 14 October 2024 and from the Second Reading debate today, that the Bill is in substance, aimed at the proposed acquisition of the Income Insurance Limited by Allianz Europe BV.
Consequently, under the provisions of Standing Order No 68, the Bill should ordinarily after the Second Reading, be referred to a Select Committee. However, Standing Order 86 provides that notwithstanding the provisions of any Standing Order, when a Certificate of Urgency signed by the President of the Republic of Singapore, has been laid on the table, the Bill to which the Certificate relates, may be proceeded with throughout all its stages until such Bill has been read the Third time.
Standing Order No 86, therefore, takes an urgent Bill outside the ambit of Standing Order No 68. The Bill before the House today can therefore be committed to a Committee of the whole House, despite Standing Order No 68.
Therefore, I ask, Committee stage, what day?
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Now, Sir, I beg to move that Parliament will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (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 and reported without amendment. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: The question posed by the Minister is, that the Bill be now read a Third time. As many as are of that opinion, say \"Aye\".
[(proc text) Hon Members said \"Aye\". (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: To the contrary say \"No\".
Ms Sylvia Lim: Mr Deputy Speaker, again, the Members of the WP would like our abstention recorded.
Mr Deputy Speaker: So, you are abstaining and not objecting?
Ms Sylvia Lim: Abstaining.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Could I ask all those who are seeking to abstain to stand up in front of your seats?
[(proc text) Hon Members Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Ms He Ting Ru, Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong rose in their place for their abstention to be recorded. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: There being seven abstentions, and notwithstanding the seven, everyone else in the Chamber has voted \"Aye\". I think the \"Ayes\" have it, the \"Ayes\" have it.
[(proc text) Bill read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.
Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand today to discuss a fairly specific topic, menopause and perimenopause.
The purpose of my speech is, however, not to deliver a lesson in biology. The purpose is to outline the consequences that menopause and perimenopause can have on women, and to suggest some strategies to enable our existing systems to more effectively respond to these consequences.
Mr Deputy Speaker, my speech is also about gender equality. Some of you may recall that earlier this year I spoke in Parliament about the importance of building a culture of gender equality. In my speech today, I will continue this theme and will discuss the disproportionate impact that menopause and perimenopause have on women and the importance of applying a gender informed approach to better understand and remedy this imbalance.
Mr Deputy Speaker, before I continue, I should declare that I am an educator with the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) and I work with many different groups of students on community engagement projects related to gender equality, safety and well-being.
I am also the President of the Singapore Muslim Women’s Association, or PPIS; a non-profit organisation focused on women empowerment. Notably, PPIS is part of the Singapore Alliance for Women in Ageing (SAWA), together with Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE), the Singapore Council of Women’s Organisations (SCWO) and the Tsao Foundation.
Mr Deputy Speaker, before I go further, I will clarify some of the terminology associated with menopause and perimenopause. I am doing so not on the assumption that people are unfamiliar with the terms I will be using, but because it is important that we have a common understanding.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the word \"menopause\" originates from the Greek words \"meno\", meaning month, and \"pausia\", meaning stop or halt.
Menopause refers to a woman’s final menstrual period, most commonly only identifiable after one year without menstruation. It is only after one year without a period, that we can safely say that a women is in menopause. Perimenopause refers to the phase prior to menopause when a women’s normal menstrual cycle of approximately 28 days starts to vary in length by seven or more days, but also includes the year after the final menstrual period. The average length of perimenopause is about four years, but it can last up to 10 years.
Mr Deputy Speaker, findings from a study undertaken between 2014 and 2016 by the Integrated Women’s Health Programme and published in 2023, show that menopause for women in Singapore typically occurs anywhere between the ages of 45 and 55, with an average age of 49. This is slightly lower than in so-called \"western\" countries, where the average age is 51.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in November 2023 at the Singapore’s Women’s Conference, the Leader of the House, Minister Indranee Rajah, noted, and I quote: “Women face distinct health challenges at different stages of life. From youth to senior years, women experience unique events – such as menstruation, menopause and for some, conception and childbirth.\"
For many women menopause and perimenopause are just routine stages in life, with the only physical manifestation being the absence, or a reduction in, menstruation. However, for some women it is a completely different story.
While every woman’s experience is different, menopause can have a sometimes severe and debilitating impact on a woman’s: physical and mental health; her overall enjoyment of life; the quality of her relationships with her partner, children and family; her ability to take part in social, recreational and professional activities; and her participation in the work force.
For example, for some women menopause and perimenopause can be accompanied by: irregular, or unusually light or heavy, menstrual periods; hot flushes, night sweats and sleep problems, including fatigue and insomnia; mood changes, including anxiety, anger, grief and depression; urinary tract infections and urinary incontinence; loss of bone density and an increased risk of osteoporosis and stress fractures; rapid weight change; an increase in LDL cholesterol and a decrease in HDL cholesterol; heart disease, hypertension and heart palpitations; muscular and joint pain; itchy skin; dry mouth and trouble concentrating or remembering words or facts, or \"brain fog\".
Mr Deputy Speaker, these side effects are more common than many people think. As reported in the Integrated Women’s Health Programme, 62.6% of 1,054 Singaporean women experienced at least one moderate to extremely severe symptom. The study also noted that the most commonly reported symptoms included muscular and joint pain, sleep disturbances, physical and mental exhaustion and hot flushes.
Mr Deputy Speaker, on 10 October 2024, just last week, we observed World Mental Health Day, with this year's theme focusing on \"Mental Health at Work\". It is encouraging to see that Singapore has already introduced several initiatives to support individuals facing mental health challenges, including the People's Action Party Mental Health Group.
An often-overlooked aspect of mental health is, however, the impact of menopause and perimenopause. A February 2024 study from Cardiff University found that women undergoing perimenopause often experience a wide range of neurological and psychiatric symptoms, yet these issues remain trivialised and misunderstood in both medical and workplace settings. The same study reported that the connection between menopause and mental health challenges is frequently under-recognised and insufficiently addressed.
Sir, it is important that we expand our understanding of mental health to include menopause-related challenges.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the impact of menopause and perimenopause extends beyond the physical and emotional. Menopause and perimenopause can also have a significant impact on a women’s workforce participation, productivity and retirement planning.
A 2024 Australian Senate standing committee inquiry into issues related to menopause and perimenopause reported that menopause and perimenopause contribute to a reduction in performance at work; hesitancy or inability to take on additional or higher roles and responsibilities; working part-time or less hours than preferred; leaving the workforce earlier than planned; concerns about future career goals and prospects; reduced personal savings, including superannuation; increased financial stress and distress; and increased financial reliance on partners or family members.
Results of a 2018 survey by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions showed that while many women faced significant workplace challenges due to menopause, there was little support available to address these issues.
Sir, in addition to the emotional burden of the above, there are also significant economic and social consequences. A 2023 study by the Mayo Clinic found that menopause costs the United States (US) economy an estimated US$25 billion annually, including US$1.8 billion in lost working days alone. In a 2019 study, Bloomberg estimated that global productivity losses related to menopause exceed US$150 billion. And Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows that 45% of women retiring under the age of 55 do so due to sickness, injury or disability and that women retire, on average, 7.4 years earlier than their male counterparts. While it is difficult to know the proportion of these women that are retiring due specifically to the impacts of menopause, anecdotal evidence presented at a recent Australian Senate Inquiry into menopause suggests a strong link.
Sir, closer to home, in 2022, SCWO published a report titled \"Tomorrow's New Old – Singapore's Future Cohort of Aging\". The report showed that approximately 50% of Singaporean women would not have enough savings for retirement. And in 2023, the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board data showed that the average total balance of CPF funds held by women aged 50 to 65 years was 13% lower than that held by men.
Sir, a survey conducted on menopause and work in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2023 showed that 25% of women are likely to experience difficulties at work because of symptoms associated with menopause. Another study by the UK Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development found that two-thirds, or 67% of working women between the ages of 40 and 60 with menopausal symptoms said the symptoms had a mostly negative impact on them at work.
Sir, mechanisms to proactively support women in the Singaporean workforce who are living with the consequences of menopause or perimenopause are currently limited. I expect that it would be unusual for a woman in Singapore or, indeed, anywhere in the world to comfortably disclose to her employer that is struggling emotionally or physically due to menopause or perimenopause. A survey of 302 women carried out by Surety, a local Singaporean startup, established by two undergraduate students from SUSS, showed that 87% of the women felt that they could not speak out about their symptoms of menopause or perimenopause in the workplace. Additionally, 68% felt that their workplace could have better policies to help women going through menopause.
Sir, I expect that it would also be unusual for an employer in Singapore to offer paid leave to women, specifically for menopause or perimenopause-related issues. This contrasts with several international jurisdictions, including Australia and the UK, that offer reproductive leave or menstrual and menopause leave, to cover issues associated with menopause and perimenopause, menstruation, medical conditions such as endometriosis and accessing reproductive healthcare services such as in-vitro fertilisation.
Sir, I am aware of the arguments that women in Singapore have access to medical leave and that there is no reason that women cannot access this leave for reasons to do with menopause or perimenopause. My concern with this argument is that if we know that menopause and perimenopause increase the number of days that women may require medical leave, then it seems inequitable to offer women the same number of days of medical leave as men. Menopause and perimenopause are uniquely female-only issues and, just as women require more restrooms in the workplace than men, perhaps they also need more leave.
Close the Gap Scotland highlighted the correlation between menopause and workplace equality, and I quote, \"The impact of menopause at work is interwoven with the impact of workplace gender inequality, and the power imbalance between women and men in the workplace. As men age in the workplace, this is associated with perceived increased status and credibility, however it is the opposite for women. This is a result of gender norms and inequality. Older women in the workplace also face an increasing challenge of ‘sandwich caring’ – providing care for both elderly parents and grandchildren\".
Mr Deputy Speaker, the arrival of perimenopause and menopause often coincides with other challenging events that affect women during midlife, including caring responsibilities for children, family and dependant parents; reaching a career peak, with enhanced work responsibilities and pressures; increased financial obligations or commitments and the emergence of other regular midlife health difficulties. Dealing with these events can, at the best of times, be stressful. However, the addition of even one or two of the more common side effects of menopause and perimenopause can make coping with some of the more routine or predictable aspects of life substantially harder.
Mr Deputy Speaker, despite menopause and perimenopause being a universal experience for women globally, taboos and stigma associated with the reproductive and sexual health of women contribute to significant misunderstanding and miscommunication about what is a natural transition point in a woman’s life. Talking openly about menopause is often associated with shame, embarrassment and misunderstanding, making it difficult for women to comfortably seek reliable and accurate information and support. Menopause is also tied to gendered ageism, as it is often seen as a negative bodily process that reflects societal and organisational attitudes toward ageing and mature women.
Mr Deputy Speaker, when researching this speech, I struggled to find any contemporary and detailed data about women’s experience of menopause in Singapore. This position is echoed by Prof Susan Davis, Director of the Monash University Women’s Health Research Programme in Australia, who, in June 2024, commented, and I quote, “There has been no quality, cross-sectional data about menopause collected in the last 10 years in any country in the world. We are walking blind. We do not really know collectively the voice of women.” Without reliable data, understanding the health, social and professional impacts of menopause in Singapore will remain difficult.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the lack of informed awareness and misunderstanding about menopause and perimenopause is not just a personal and community phenomena, it is also a professional phenomenon. In the Senate inquiry I referenced earlier, women spoke about medical practitioners having a limited understanding of the symptoms of menopause and perimenopause and the associated difficulty in getting a reliable diagnosis. Some women also spoke about the lack of awareness among medical practitioners as leading to symptoms of menopause and perimenopause, particularly in younger women, being diagnosed as being stress related.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as noted in June 2024 by Dr Christina Jang, President of the Australasian Menopause Society, and I quote, “Research has shown that many healthcare professionals have significant gaps in their knowledge and training in menopause such as failure to recognise symptoms of menopause and lack of confidence to counsel women about the benefits and risks of menopausal hormone therapy.”
Sir, women from different cultural, social and religious backgrounds experience menopause and perimenopause differently. This includes not only biological differences, such as age of onset of symptoms, but also community perceptions and responses. Ethnographies of menopause have shown that all cultures attach both positive and negative meanings to ageing and menopause, demonstrating the need for a more nuanced and empathetic approach to this stage in a woman's life.
As noted by Prof Gita Mishra from the School of Public Health, University of Queensland, in some cultures, menopause is simply not spoken about publicly, whereas in others, reaching menopause is, and I quote, \"Associated with an experience of enhanced wisdom or becoming more revered.\"
Regardless of the pros and cons of such differences, there is little available data on culturally sensitive and relevant approaches to understanding and responding to menopause and perimenopause.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as an educator and social worker, it would be remiss of me not to comment on the lack of education about menopause and perimenopause in schools. Sir, we talk with older school-aged children about subjects such as menstruation, sexual health, contraception and childbirth, yet as far as I am aware, we do not talk with school children about menopause or perimenopause.
Sir, I understand that many may claim that such topics are unnecessary for children so young. However, including information about menopause and perimenopause in the health or science health curriculum would assist to normalise the subject and prepare girls for this inevitable life stage. It may also assist to increase awareness and understanding among boys and young men and to break down existing gender-based misunderstandings and stereotypes. Sir, I understand that the UK has recently added menopause as a topic in their high school reproductive health curriculum.
Mr Deputy Speaker, before I conclude, I would like to acknowledge some of the excellent initiatives that are already taking place in Singapore to progress an understanding of menopause and perimenopause.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we have the KK Women's and Children Hospital (KKH), which provides specialist services for women, including the KK Menopause Centre that, since October 2023, has provided comprehensive health care for menopausal women, and women experiencing menopausal symptoms are being actively encouraged to participate in Healthier SG and to discuss their health needs with their primary care doctors.
I would also like to acknowledge the excellent work being done by several local social service agencies, with a special mention to Surety Singapore who inform and support women navigating menopause and, in November 2024, will be hosting Menopause Festival 2024. Sir, finally, I would also like to note that this Friday, 18 October, is World Menopause Day, an international annual event to raise awareness about menopause and the support options available for improving women’s reproductive health and well-being.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, it is important that we recognise and support the unique challenges that women face throughout their lives, particularly during menopause and perimenopause, and I will now outline some potential ways forward.
In doing so, I need to acknowledge that I drew inspiration from several initiatives either in place or currently under consideration across the globe, most notably Australia and the UK, both of whom have taken considerable steps in progressing systemic understanding and response to menopause and perimenopause. I also took into consideration the White Paper on Singapore Women's Development, published by SAWA, in collaboration with PPIS, AWARE, SCWO and Tsao Foundation.
Mr Deputy Speaker, my suggestions focus on three areas: health and well-being; workplace and economic empowerment and education and awareness for future generations.
First on health and well-being, I recommend that the Ministry of Health (MOH) commissions research to establish a comprehensive evidence base about the impacts of menopause and perimenopause on women in Singapore; launches a national menopause and perimenopause awareness campaign, providing information and resources for women and girls across Singapore; works with the Singapore Medical Council and relevant universities to ensure that menopause and perimenopause modules are included in all medical university curricula; and works with the Singapore Medical Council to facilitate continuing professional development and education on menopause and perimenopause for general practitioners working in Singapore.
Second, workplace and economic empowerment. I recommend that the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) commissions research on the economic impacts of menopause, including workforce participation, income and CPF savings; commission research on the feasibility of paid gender-inclusive reproductive leave; encourages Singaporean workplaces to develop gender-sensitive menopause and perimenopause workplace policies.
Finally, education and awareness for future generations, I recommend that the Ministry of Education (MOE) investigates how menopause and perimenopause can be included in the national curriculum for secondary schools.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will end with a quote by Oprah Winfrey, taken from the recently published Longevity Imperative, by Andrew John Scott, professor of Economics at the London Business School. Oprah says, and I quote: \"So many women I've talked to see menopause as an ending, but I've discovered this is your moment to reinvent yourself after years of focusing on the needs of everyone else.\"
Mr Deputy Speaker, by adopting a holistic approach to menopause and perimenopause that spans health, the workplace and education, and by building a more gender-equitable and forward-thinking society, we can create a Singapore where all women are supported and empowered to thrive, to participate, to succeed – to be themselves.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Rahayu Mahzam.
The Minister of State for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam): Mr Deputy Speaker, the hon Member Assoc Prof Razwana spoke about enhancing the well-being of women going through perimenopause or menopause and gave suggestions that MOH, MOM and MOE could consider to better support women through this critical phase in their lives. I thank her for her speech and suggestions. I agree with many of the points raised by Assoc Prof Razwana. She shared about the health impact of menopause on women and how we can address this impact with training of healthcare providers, research into contributing factors and management, public education and social support. I will now address her points in my speech.
Every woman's experience during menopause is different. Some may experience significant impact to their health and well-being, beyond the more common symptoms, such as hot flushes, night sweats and insomnia. For example, cardiovascular health may be affected. This is because as the protective effects of oestrogen on the heart diminish, this can potentially lead to an increased risk of heart disease and stroke. Changes in metabolism during menopause can also result in weight gain, particularly around the abdomen, which may increase the risk of diabetes and other metabolic disorders.
Assoc Prof Razwana also highlighted that women undergoing menopause can experience changes in mood, which can impact their mental well-being.
It is important to note that while these health impacts of concern, they can be managed. Regular check-ups, a healthy lifestyle, including exercise, eating well and finding ways to relax can help. Simple things like using moisturisers for dryness and choosing appropriate clothing to manage hot flushes can also make a difference. For significant symptoms impacting quality of life, women should see their doctor to explore suitable interventions to manage the impact on both physical and mental health.
We agree that educating our medical students and medical practitioners on menopause is important and we have been doing so. In our three local medical schools, knowledge of symptoms, diagnosis and management of menstrual disorders, including menopause, is one of the core learning outcomes for the medical students. Postgraduate family medicine programmes, such as the Family Medicine residency programme and the Graduate Diploma in Family Medicine include training on common women's health conditions, including menopause, in the curriculum. Professional bodies, such as the College of Family Physicians Singapore also run skills courses on a variety of topics relevant to primary care practice.
These efforts enable our primary care doctors to be a source of support to women in managing the health issues that may arise during this life transition. Under Healthier SG, the relationship between the primary care doctor and enrollee is central. Women who are experiencing menopausal symptoms can inform their primary care doctor, who would be well placed to assess the symptoms, the patient's needs and make recommendations on further management. The Member also mentioned KKH and the KK Menopause Centre. This multi-specialty practice comprising of gynaecology, family medicine, dermatology and mental health specialists, has been trained to support a range of needs of women with menopausal-related health issues. Mental health services are also available in various care settings to identify women who may be experiencing psychological symptoms and provide interventions when required.
Research into menopause would provide more insight into how it affects women's overall health and well-being, and enable better ways to manage menopause symptoms and its impact. The National University Hospital currently conducts the Integrated Women's Health Programme (IWHP) which is a cohort study looking at health issues experienced by Singaporean women. Issues studied include the associations between menopause and age-related health issues, such as osteoporosis and sleep disturbances. The research team plans to conduct follow-up studies and we look forward to further insights that the IWHP and other researchers can provide on women's health in general, as well as menopause specifically.
Women should not feel ashamed, embarrassed or misunderstood to speak openly about menopause. As a society, we should work to remove the stigma surrounding menopause, and we are already taking steps to educate the public. Reliable information on menopause can be found on HealthHub and the websites of our public healthcare institutions. KKH has also launched the Women In all Stages Empowered, or WISE, Health Guide, which highlights important health advice for women, including advice on menopause. Education about menopause is important to help women understand what to expect and how to manage the changes to their body. We will continue to empower women to approach menopause with confidence and make informed decisions about their health and well-being.
To truly enhance women's well-being during menopause, we must address not only the physical symptoms, but also the psychological and social impacts. This includes combating stigma, promoting open dialogue and ensuring that women have access to accurate information and supportive resources. Civil society and community organisations are well-placed to participate in this effort. They can play a critical role in providing support for women and creating platforms for the public in general to discuss and better understand issues surrounding menopause. MOH is supportive of such efforts.
In addition, many women who are going through menopause are concurrently taking on caregiving responsibilities. We support caregivers to balance caregiving while pursuing their aspirations and caring for their own health. We are enhancing options to make childcare and eldercare more accessible, affordable and available, for example, by scaling up childcare and eldercare capacity, and providing multiple layers of financial support. These, in tandem with other moves to support women at work, will support women to better balance their responsibilities, and their own health and well-being.
Assoc Prof Razwana also spoke about suggestions for MOE and MOM, touching on educating people about menopause in schools and workplace policies that better support women with menopause. In MOE's Sexuality Education and Science curriculum, students learn about menstrual health in women. Primary 5 students learn about the physiological changes that occur during puberty, such as menstruation. Students are also educated on human reproduction and issues related to menstrual health in Lower Secondary Science and Upper Secondary Biology. In Upper Secondary Biology, students will also learn about changes to the menstrual cycle as a female ages, leading to menopause.
On workplace policies, women who experience severe menopausal symptoms can already seek subsidised medical treatment at Public Healthcare Institutions, and take sick leave to rest and recover, just like any other medical need. There have been calls for menopause leave or reproductive leave in other countries. Most recently in the UK, the government rejected a call by the Women and Equalities Committee to conduct a trial of menopause leave last year. Like the UK, our preferred approach is to support women to remain in the workforce and be well-supported at work. Introducing specific menopause leave may inadvertently negatively impact the employability of women in this age group rather than helping them, which we should be careful to avoid.
In addition, flexible work arrangements (FWAs) can help employees with other medical conditions to balance the care needs for their condition with work responsibilities, including women experiencing perimenopause or menopause. The upcoming Tripartite Guidelines on FWA Requests, which will take effect on 1 December this year, aim to cultivate a norm where employees feel it is acceptable to request for and use FWAs. We encourage employers to use these Guidelines to engage their employees in conversations and find mutually beneficial arrangements.
The Government will continue to work with tripartite partners to foster supportive workplaces, so that all employees can participate fully at work while managing their own personal needs, such as family responsibilities and medical conditions.
In conclusion, supporting women through menopause is not just a medical issue, it is also about awareness and empowerment. The Government is committed to building a society where all Singaporeans have full and equal opportunities to flourish and achieve their aspirations. Civil society and community organisations have an important part to play as well. Together, by providing education and support, we hope to take a whole of society approach to enable women to navigate this transition with confidence, maintaining their well-being and full participation in all aspects of life.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 8.11 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":"Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion","questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rate of Childcare Sick Leave Usage by Public Servants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance for each year from 2021 to 2023, what is the take-up rate of childcare sick leave by public servants.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): \t\tIn the past three years, about half of the eligible officers in the Civil Service took up Childcare Leave that was supported by a Medical Certificate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Definition of Cyberbullying That Can Be Reported and Enforcement Proceeded With","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Ministry can provide greater clarity on what constitutes cyberbullying and what can be reported for action to be taken; (b) what avenues do victims have to report such activities and how are they assured that their reports are taken seriously; (c) what action can be enforced on underaged cyberbullying perpetrators; and (d) what are the available tools that the Government has to uncover anonymous bullies.
Mrs Josephine Teo: My response will also address a similar Question for Written Answer raised by Dr Wan Rizal for this Sitting.
The Singapore Government takes a serious view on online harms, including cyberbullying. We have introduced a range of measures and are continuing efforts to strengthen online safety.
Under the Broadcasting Act, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) has designated six Social Media Services (SMSs) with significant reach or impact in Singapore. They are Facebook, HardwareZone, Instagram, TikTok, X (formerly Twitter), and YouTube. These SMSs must comply with the Code of Practice for Online Safety (Online Safety Code), which took effect on 18 July 2023. They must have additional measures to enhance the online safety of children, which include: (a) ensuring that children are not targeted to receive content that SMSs are reasonably aware to be detrimental to their physical or mental well-being, such as cyberbullying content; (b) having in place more restrictive account settings for children; and (c) providing tools for children or their parents to manage their safety.
IMDA closely monitors the designated SMSs’ compliance throughout the year and will engage them if it detects systemic lapses that impact online safety for Singapore end-users. Designated SMSs are required to submit annual reports about measures, systems and processes that they have put in place to combat harmful content. IMDA is currently reviewing the first set of reports and will publish the outcome of its review in due course.
These SMSs also have their own community guidelines against harmful content and provide tools for users to report such content. Singaporeans who encounter cyberbullying on SMSs should report these incidents. Under the Online Safety Code, designated SMSs must assess these reports and take appropriate actions in a timely and diligent manner. If the report is not frivolous or vexatious, these SMSs must inform the user who submitted the report of their decision and actions taken.
Where criminal offences are disclosed, acts of cyberbullying may be also investigated by the Police. These include offences under the Protection from Harassment Act and the Penal Code, such as distribution of voyeuristic images or recordings.
Under the Protection from Harassment Act, victims of cyberbullying can apply for a Protection Order to direct an individual or an entity to take down published images that cause harassment, alarm or distress. Offenders who breach the Protection Order would be liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding $5,000, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both.
The Government plans to introduce new legislation and measures to provide stronger support and assurance to victims of online harms, such as cyberbullying. This will include the setting up of a dedicated agency to help secure timely relief from perpetrators as well as the social media platforms. More details will be shared when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Positive Use Guide on Technology and Social Media in Addressing Mental Health Issues in Youths","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health with regard to the upcoming Positive Use Guide on Technology and Social Media (a) how will the Ministry assess its effectiveness in addressing mental health issues among youth; and (b) what plans are there to extend these efforts to foster mental resilience in young adults who have left school.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Positive Use Guide on Technology and Social Media will be introduced in the first half of 2025 to help individuals identify potential harms of technology and social media and learn to use them appropriately. Like many preventive health measures, effects take time and will show up in disease prevalence data.
The Guide is targeted at youths, including those not in school. Outreach efforts by various societal stakeholders will be needed to reach individuals of different age groups.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Rent-to-own Housing Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB has considered a rent-to-own model, notwithstanding the availability of various grant schemes like the Step-Up CPF Housing Grants or Fresh Start Housing Scheme that are designed to help rental tenants progress towards eventual home ownership; and (b) if not, why not.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) used to have a Rent and Purchase Scheme. Introduced in 1999, the scheme allowed lower-income households to rent a flat from HDB and then purchase it when their financial situation improved.
After we resumed the building of 3-room sold flats in 2004 and 2-room sold flats in 2006, as well as introduced substantial Central Provident Fund (CPF) housing grants to help low-income working households own their first home, the demand for the Rent and Purchase Scheme dropped significantly. For instance, in 2008, there were only two applications. The scheme was, therefore, suspended in 2009.
While we have no plans to revive the scheme at this point, supporting public rental households to achieve home ownership remains a priority and we have strengthened our measures over the years.
HDB prices new flats with significant market discounts, and we offer substantial housing grants to lower-income families. First-timers can receive up to $120,000 of the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant, while second-timers can tap on the $15,000 Step-Up CPF Housing Grant. Second-timer families with children can also tap on the Fresh Start Housing Scheme, to buy a 2- or 3-room flat on a shorter lease, with a $50,000 grant.
Home ownership is a long-term financial commitment and the process of buying a home may be daunting for some. This is why HDB has a dedicated team of officers in the Home ownership Support Team, or HST, that provides personalised guidance to public rental households on their home ownership options. For those who are ready to work towards buying a flat, HST will guide them throughout their homebuying journey, from budgeting to key collection. For the rest, HDB works closely with other agencies and community partners to support them holistically towards financial stability, through employment support and social assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans for Rooftop Urban Farms and Lease Durations to be Offered in Tenders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether there are further plans to offer more rooftop urban farms for tender; and (b) whether there are plans to offer a longer lease period of beyond three years for such farms.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: As part of greenery intensification under the Housing and Development Board (HDB) Green Towns Programme, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) and HDB tendered out 16 multi-storey car park (MSCP) sites in 2020 and 2021 to pilot commercial urban farming. All sites were awarded on three-year tenancies renewable for up to two additional terms of three years each. Although the production volume is relatively small, it brings local production closer to the community, thereby raising awareness and support for local produce.
SFA and HDB consider multiple factors when identifying suitable MSCP sites for commercial urban farming. These include the utilisation rate of the MSCPs, the loading which the rooftops at each site can bear, the availability of water and electricity supply, waste discharge facilities, as well as the current and future development plans for the surrounding HDB blocks.
SFA is monitoring the progress of the existing commercial MSCP farms before deciding on future tenders and whether to extend the tenancy duration. There are currently no immediate plans to launch new tenders for commercial farming at MSCP sites. In the meantime, entities that wish to take up longer-term commercial farming can consider participating in SFA’s land and sea space tenders which offer more space and longer leases to contribute to local production and food security.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Wrongful PayNow Transfers to Phone Numbers Belonging to Previous Subscriber","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Ministry monitors the number of cases where payment have been wrongly credited to the previous subscriber of a mobile phone number via PayNow; (b) if so, in 2023, how many cases of payment have been wrongly credited after the mobile phone number has been recycled for use; and (c) whether the Ministry will require PayNow accounts linked to mobile phone numbers to be unlinked once there is a change of the mobile phone subscriber.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) does not collect data on the number of cases where PayNow transfers are wrongly made to the previous user of a mobile number. However, MAS has set out guidance for financial institutions (FIs) to follow, where funds are erroneously transferred to an unintended recipient. In such instances, the sender’s FI should engage the recipient’s FI to inform the unintended recipient, so that a refund can be initiated.
The Member also asked if the Government would require PayNow accounts linked to mobile phone numbers to be unlinked whenever a customer changes his mobile number. Banks will not be aware of any change in their customers’ mobile numbers linked to their bank accounts through PayNow, unless notified by the previous or new user of the mobile number. This is similar to the update of addresses or other contact details of a customer.
However, banks have processes in place to deal with a situation where a mobile number has been “recycled” and subscribed to by a new user, while the previous user has not delinked the number from his bank account. Because a given mobile number can only be linked to one bank account through PayNow at any point, a new user of the number who tries to register the number for PayNow will then realise that the number is still registered by the previous user for PayNow purposes. The new user should notify his bank immediately and the bank will reach out to the previous user’s bank expeditiously to initiate the delinking of the number from the previous user’s account.
In the meantime, the new user should not use this mobile number to initiate or receive PayNow transfers. Customers who have changed their mobile numbers, including the numbers used for PayNow, are also encouraged to update their banks without delay.
MAS will monitor the issue and assess if enhancements to the process for linking and delinking new phone numbers are needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Feasibility of Public Flat Rental Scheme for Households with One Non-Singaporean PR Member","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB will consider expanding the Public Rental Scheme to accommodate a family nucleus household comprising one Singaporean and one non-Singaporean who is not a Singapore Permanent Resident.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Housing and Development Board's (HDB's) public rental flats are heavily subsidised and limited in supply. They are, therefore, prioritised for citizen households that include a Singapore Citizen (SC) applicant and at least one other SC or Singapore Permanent Resident who could be the spouse, parent or child.
For exceptional cases involving families that are ineligible for public rental but have urgent housing needs, HDB refers them to social service agencies for assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Educate Students and Engage Parents on Bullying Given Recent Incidents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Education in view of the recent visibility of bullying incidents, whether the current approach and measures to educate and inculcate in all students against all types of bullying as well the engagement of the parents need to be reviewed holistically.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: This question has been answered as part of the Minister for Education’s oral reply to Parliamentary Questions for the 14 October 2024 Sitting. The Member may refer to the transcript for the reply. [Please refer to \"Review of Measures and Help Provided in Student Bullying Incidents\", Official Report, 14 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 142, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Widening Conflict in the Middle East on Energy Prices and Inflation in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the impact on energy prices and inflation in Singapore will be significant following the escalation of conflicts between Israel, Lebanon and Iran; and (b) whether the Singapore economy will be severely affected by the widening conflict in the Middle East.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Thus far, the direct impact of the widening conflict in the Middle East on the Singapore economy has been limited. The countries involved in the conflict are not Singapore’s major trading partners. The Brent crude oil price has risen to US$79 per barrel as of 11 October 2024, from US$74 per barrel in the month before, but it remains lower than the average price of US$89 per barrel in September 2023, just before the start of the Israel-Hamas conflict.
Nonetheless, the conflict in the Middle East, as well as the war in Ukraine, remain volatile. Further escalations in these conflicts could lead to a spike in oil prices, with wider repercussions on global growth and inflation and, in turn, the Singapore economy.
We will continue to closely monitor developments in the Middle East and the potential impact on the Singapore economy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Population Projection of 6.9 Million People and Steps to Reconcile or Revise Figure Given Lower Actual Number","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) in view that Singapore’s total population is now expected to be significantly below the 6.9 million projected in the 2013 Population White Paper, how does the Government reconcile the 2013 projection with the current outlook; and (b) what is the revised projected resident population, consisting of Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents, for 2030.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister): The 2013 Population White Paper had stated that Singapore’s total population could range between 6.5 million and 6.9 million by 2030. However, the White Paper also stated that there is a wider band of uncertainty and that the actual population would depend on factors, such as fertility and life expectancy trends, the global and regional environment, our economic structure and social needs. The current figure of 6.04 million as of June 2024 is congruous with the qualifications in the White Paper.
Our resident population, consisting of Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents, could range from 4.3 million to 4.4 million by 2030 but, again, the actual figures will depend on various factors, such as actual fertility rates and immigration trends.
We update our population projections based on the latest assessment of relevant factors, to develop a range of possible outcomes, instead of planning based on a single number.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Concerns with Provision of Identity and Bank Details to Overseas Entities When Applying for Malaysia's Vehicle Entry Permit","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport whether the Government has any concerns with the requirements for Singaporeans to provide all their passport, NRIC and bank details, with copies of the actual documents, to overseas entities in their applications for Malaysia's Vehicle Entry Permit and the required Touch 'n Go e-Wallet account.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Malaysia Vehicle Entry Permit is a requirement which falls under the jurisdiction of the Malaysian Road Transport Department.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safe Channels for Reporting Bullying in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Education (a) how are victims of bullying supported in schools; (b) while there are safe channels to report bullying in schools, how does the Ministry ensure that these channels are effectively utilised; and (c) how many of the bullying cases in the past two years involved physical or mental abuse requiring police or medical assistance.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: This question has been answered as part of the Minister for Education’s oral reply to Parliamentary Questions for the 14 October 2024 Sitting. The Member may refer to the transcript for the reply. [Please refer to \"Review of Measures and Help Provided in Student Bullying Incidents\", Official Report, 14 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 142, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification from Malaysia on Obtaining Vehicle Entry Permits for Singapore Vehicles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Transport with regard to Malaysia’s Road Transport Department’s (JPJ) statement on 27 September 2024 that Singapore private vehicle owners will be issued a warning for not having obtained a Vehicle Entry Permit before leaving Malaysia from 1 October 2024, whether the Ministry has engaged the Malaysian authorities to ensure Singapore’s private vehicle owners do not get unduly penalised for travelling into Malaysia.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Malaysia Vehicle Entry Permit is a requirement which falls under the jurisdiction of the Malaysian Road Transport Department.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Pharmacists and Allied Healthcare Workers to Ease into Industry","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Health what more can be done to support pharmacists and other allied healthcare workers to ease the demanding nature of the industry.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: We have increased the number of pharmacists and allied healthcare professionals (AHPs) over the years. From 2019 to 2023, the number of registered pharmacists increased by 20%, from approximately 3,400 to approximately 4,100. Registered AHPs increased by 25%, from approximately 6,000 in 2019 to approximately 7,500.
Within the public healthcare clusters, we are also innovating and streamlining processes to manage the workload of pharmacists and AHPs. For instance, the National Central Fill Pharmacy system resulted in the redesigning of the supply chain and the roles of pharmacy staff, with routine non-clinical and logistical processing outsourced to a third-party vendor.
We have also developed the National One-Rehab Framework to provide clearer protocols for care delivery by AHPs, including resource allocation and tracking of common end-to-end rehabilitation clinical outcomes.
Most importantly, we will continue to work with the pharmacy and AHP leadership to find ways to make careers in healthcare attractive and meaningful. With rising healthcare needs and the growth in the community care sector, there are many opportunities to develop an exciting professional development strategy for pharmacists and AHPs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Installation of Wheelchair-accessible Lifts at Key Communal Spaces with Significant Senior Populations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for National Development whether a survey can be conducted to pinpoint key communal spaces within neighbourhoods with significant senior citizen populations for the installation of lifts to aid wheelchair users and other individuals with mobility difficulties.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) has adopted Universal Design and barrier-free design principles in all new HDB developments since 2006, as well as various upgrading programmes. All of these provisions comply with Building and Construction Authority's Code of Accessibility and the Universal Design principles to ensure that the communal spaces within HDB estates are senior-friendly and inclusive.
In addition, HDB has recently launched the Silver Upgrading Programme (SUP) to introduce senior-friendly enhancements for older HDB precincts with higher densities of seniors. Under SUP, Community Improvement Walks will be organised to allow seniors to share their feedback on the senior-friendly enhancements they hope to see within their precincts, which could include making pathways safer and wheelchair-friendly.
HDB will continue to enhance the inclusivity and accessibility of our HDB estates and blocks.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Problems Experienced by Singapore Motorists following Implementation of Vehicle Entry Permit","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry keeps track of the problems faced by Singapore motorists when they cross the Causeway after the implementation of Vehicle Entry Permit (VEP) scheme by Malaysia, especially when there are difficulties obtaining VEP; and (b) whether the Ministry can engage the Malaysian authorities to open up more VEP centres in Johor Bahru and Singapore.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Malaysia Vehicle Entry Permit (MVEP) is a requirement from the Malaysian Road Transport Department. The Land Transport Authority has shared with its Malaysian counterparts the feedback received from Singapore motorists on the MVEP.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Preventing Future MRT Service Disruptions Due to Train Maintenance Issues","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Transport with regard to the six-day shutdown of the East-West MRT Line in September 2024 (a) whether the service standards of normal bus services were affected; (b) whether the shutdown could have been prevented; and (c) what lessons have been drawn to ensure better maintenance and service reliability in the future.
42 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Transport whether an extensive review will be done to consider how the train operators can prevent exceptional circumstances where components of a train fall off or wear out and cause damage to the train tracks and cables.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: These questions have been answered in the Ministerial Statement at the Sitting on 15 October 2024. [Please refer to \"A Safe, Reliable, and Resilient Rail System\", Official Report, 15 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 143, Ministerial Statements section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Amending Wildlife Act to Make Advertising for Sale of Wildlife an Offence","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider amending the Wildlife Act 1965 to make it an offence for anyone to advertise for sale of any wildlife, whether alive or dead, or any part of a wildlife.
Mr Desmond Lee: Under the Wildlife Act, it is an offence to offer for sale, sell or export any wildlife, whether alive or dead, or any part of a wildlife, without the Director-General’s written approval.
The existing provisions have been sufficient to support our enforcement efforts against illegal wildlife import and sale, and the National Parks Board has prosecuted individuals who offered wildlife for sale through advertisements in previous cases.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Guidelines to Permit Stateless Persons Holding Special Passes to Open Bank Accounts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether MAS can issue guidelines to permit stateless persons holding Special Passes in Singapore to open bank accounts and, if not, why not.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): The Monetary Authority of Singapore does not prohibit banks from opening bank accounts for stateless persons holding a Special Pass issued by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority.
As with all account opening applications, banks will conduct their own assessment on each case to decide whether to open bank accounts for stateless persons holding Special Passes and some banks have opened accounts for these persons.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Singapore's Projected Total Population by 2030","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance given that Singapore’s total population has now exceeded six million, whether the total population is still projected to reach 6.5 million by 2030 as an infrastructure planning parameter stated in the Population White Paper released in 2013, notwithstanding previous clarifications that Singapore’s total population is likely to be significantly below 6.9 million by 2030.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister): \tThe infrastructure planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper was 6.9 million by 2030. Based on current trends and the various scenarios we use to plan for the long term, our total population is expected to remain significantly below 6.9 million by 2030, as stated at the Committee of Supply this year.
3 Mr Derrick Goh asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is the Government’s assessment of the root causes of the rise in bankruptcies in the first half of 2024 amid an improving economic climate; (b) whether there is a cause for concern that bankruptcy has increased when the economy is supposedly improving; and (c) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the plans to further strengthen the measures for promoting financial prudence and counselling.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): My response to this question will also address the other written Parliamentary Question filed by Mr Derrick Goh for today's Sitting.
Not all bankruptcy applications result in bankruptcy orders as applications may be withdrawn for various reasons, such as if the debtor settles the debt or enters into a debt repayment plan with the creditors. The number of bankruptcy orders in the first half of 2024 has been stable compared to the same period in the last few years and remains below pre-COVID-19 levels. The household debt situation in Singapore also remains stable. Non-performing loans (NPLs) are less than 1% of all loans to individuals extended by financial institutions as of the second quarter of 2024. Credit card delinquency rates have also remained stable in the same period. Corporate NPLs have remained low at about 2% as of the second quarter of 2024.
Slightly over two-fifths of bankruptcy orders were due to business failures in the first half of 2024. These debtors borrowed from a range of sources, including banks, credit card issuers, licensed moneylenders and private individuals.
Borrowers who face debt repayment challenges can approach social service agencies, such as Credit Counselling Singapore, for help with debt management and restructuring, or to work out appropriate debt repayment plans. Those with unsecured debt with financial institutions may sign up for a Debt Consolidation Plan to restructure their debt. When a bankruptcy application is filed as a last resort, the Ministry of Law’s Official Assignee administers a Debt Repayment Scheme to help eligible debtors manage their debt and avoid bankruptcy.
It is also important to ensure that Singaporeans borrow prudently. To mitigate the risk of over-indebtedness, the Monetary Authority of Singapore requires financial institutions to implement a range of safeguards. For example, requirements on total debt servicing and loan-to-value ratios limit the size of property loans that a borrower can take on. For credit cards, borrowers are subject to minimum income requirements, credit and income checks and an industry-wide borrowing limit. Our national financial education programme, MoneySENSE, educates the public on money management skills. These include advising consumers to spend within their means, borrow prudently and manage credit card bills to avoid high interest charges.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Development of Expertise in Research Funding Administration","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what specific steps have the relevant agencies taken to develop expert programme managers for research funding administration; (b) what percentage of current programme managers have personally led research projects resulting in peer-reviewed publications or patents in the last five years; and (c) what percentage of evaluators for Statutory Board-administered research grant calls have held senior technical roles in industry directly related to the proposals they evaluate.
Mr Heng Swee Keat (for the Prime Minister): Agencies decide whether to fund research projects based on the evaluation criteria specified according to the agencies’ needs. The evaluation is conducted by persons with relevant experience, who could be from academia or industry. Project administration, which covers activities, including grant administration and reporting, project lifecycle management and strategic planning, is done by programme managers.
Good programme management and a healthy research, innovation and enterprise ecosystem require a combination of skills, competencies and talents, including deep scientific expertise, strong project management skills and administration capabilities and experience. These capabilities are developed and maintained through specialised training, learning on the job and other professional development activities.
Projects that are Statutory Board-administered have to be aligned with the broader development plans of the Statutory Board. Project evaluation is based on the criteria specified by the Statutory Board. The composition of evaluation panels is aligned with the nature of the research grant calls. Where appropriate, these panels would include reviewers with relevant industry experience so as to enable rigorous evaluation of research proposals for both scientific merit and potential industry impact.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trend of Single Family Offices from Emerging Markets Setting Up in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether there is a recent trend of single family offices (SFOs) from emerging markets, such as the Middle East and China, being set up in Singapore; (b) if so, whether an update can be provided on the trend; and (c) whether there are specific considerations in ensuring the transparency and legitimacy of funds from these SFOs.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): While many of the Single Family Offices (SFOs) awarded tax incentives1 are from emerging markets, their proportion among all SFOs awarded tax incentives has been relatively stable over the last few years.
All SFOs applying for the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) tax incentives are required to open accounts with financial institutions (FIs) in Singapore and are subject to the FIs’ due diligence checks. In addition, MAS screens the tax incentive applicants for adverse reports and money laundering or terrorism financing risks.
MAS issued a consultation paper in July last year proposing to require all SFOs incorporated in Singapore, regardless of whether they have applied for an MAS tax incentive, to establish and maintain business relations with an MAS-regulated FI. This would subject all of them to anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism checks by the FIs. A response to this consultation paper will be published soon.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : These are the tax incentive schemes for funds under sections 13O and 13U of the Income Tax Act."],"footNoteQuestions":["5"],"questionNo":"5"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Single Family Offices as Continuing Growth Sector in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"
6 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Ministry views the single family office (SFO) sector as a continuing growth area for Singapore; (b) if so, what steps are being taken to prepare the local workforce with the specialised skills and expertise needed to effectively service this sector; and (c) what is the estimated number of Singaporean Citizens currently employed within the SFO sector.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): The Single Family Office (SFO) sector in Singapore is expected to continue to grow, given that Singapore is a trusted and well-regarded centre for asset and wealth management.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), the Institute of Banking and Finance Singapore (IBF) and the Wealth Management Institute have worked together over the past few years to support the talent needs of the family office ecosystem. In 2020 and 2021, skills maps for family office executives and private banking professionals advising family offices were launched to highlight the technical skills and competencies that such professionals will need to acquire. Training providers took reference from these skills maps to develop relevant courses. Today, there are more than 60 such courses offered by established training providers. MAS, through the Financial Sector Development Fund, provides course fee subsidies for locals attending training programmes that are accredited by IBF under these skills maps.
As of 31 December 2023, more than 1,700 locals were directly employed by SFOs awarded MAS tax incentives1. Beyond direct employment, SFOs contribute to the growth of ancillary services as they engage local service providers, such as private banks, law firms, tax advisers, fund administrators and custodians.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : These are the tax incentive schemes for funds under sections 13O and 13U of the Income Tax Act."],"footNoteQuestions":["6"],"questionNo":"6"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Root Causes of Increase in Tax Recoveries of $857 Million and Measures to Promote Better Tax Compliance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Derrick Goh asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance given the reported increase in tax recoveries of $857 million as compared to about $500 million in the financial year ending March 2024 (a) what had driven the increase in tax recoveries; (b) what is the Government’s assessment of the root causes of the increase in tax recoveries and whether there are areas of concern; and (c) whether there are plans to further strengthen measures so as to promote better tax compliance.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) adopts a risk-based approach to select higher-risk cases for targeted audit and investigation. It leverages data analytics and artificial intelligence models, as well as information from members of the public.
The amount of tax recovered fluctuates from year to year depending on the value of tax adjustments made for the cases completed in that year. In financial year (FY) 2023, IRAS recovered about $857 million in taxes and penalties, a 72% increase compared to FY2022, through its audit and investigation efforts. This was largely due to an increase in the amount of taxes and penalties collected from a handful of high-value outlier cases involving corporate income tax and Goods and Services Tax (GST).
The Government takes a serious view of non-compliance. There are stringent penalties to deter non-compliance. IRAS’ powers of enforcement have also been enhanced in recent years. For example, the recently operationalised section 62C of the GST Act allows IRAS to more comprehensively target the various parties involved in complex fraud cases. IRAS also collaborates with law enforcement agencies, such as the Singapore Police Force, to counter tax crime. Prosecution cases are also publicised regularly.
In addition, IRAS continually enhances its capabilities by upskilling its tax officers to strengthen their audit skills, tax expertise and use of technology. It also develops staff competencies to handle complex investigations into sophisticated fraud schemes.
Besides educating taxpayers on their tax obligations, IRAS will continue to monitor tax compliance performance, identify emerging compliance risk areas and refine existing audit and investigation methods.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rules Governing Change of Race and Its Application to Foreign Pass Holders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the rules governing a change of race for Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents also apply to foreign pass holders; and (b) whether ICA verifies the race declared by foreign pass holders and, if so, how.
Mr K Shanmugam: Foreigners applying for long-term immigration passes, such as the Long-Term Visit Pass and Student’s Pass, must declare their race to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA). ICA may seek supporting documents where necessary.
Subsequently, however, we do not require them to come to ICA to change their registered race, if they change their views about the race under which they should be registered. This is for practical reasons, because their presence in Singapore is transient, and we have no policy need for them to do so.
On the other hand, Permanent Residents, like Singapore Citizens, are required to register a change of race with ICA.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Number of Arrests and Police Reports Made for Violent Offences by Minors and Non-minors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Home Affairs in the last five years and with a breakdown by minors and non-minors respectively (a) what is the annual number of arrests for violent offences, such as causing hurt, assault or rioting; and (b) what is the annual number of Police reports made concerning violent actions, such as causing hurt, assault or rioting.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police define violent offences as the commission of: (i) rioting-related offences under sections 146 to 148 of the Penal Code; and (ii) serious hurt offences under section 323A and 324 to 326 of the Penal Code. In the following, “minors” are defined as persons below the age of 18, while “non-minors” are those of or above the age of 18.
Table 1 below shows the number of arrests of minors and non-minors for violent offences from 2019 to 2023.
Table 2 below shows the number of Police reports made concerning violent offences from 2019 to 2023 resulting in the arrest of at least one minor or where only non-minors were arrested, respectively.
The number of arrests for violent offences, whether for minors or non-minors, has been steadily decreasing since 2019.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Student Pass Holders Granted Permanent Residency and Guardians Granted Long-Term Visit Pass","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Home Affairs for each year since 2020 (a) what is the number, average age and median age of Student Pass holders who have applied for and been granted Permanent Resident status respectively; and (b) what is the number of guardians who applied for and received a Long-Term Visit Pass to accompany and look after a foreign student holding a Student Pass respectively.
Mr K Shanmugam: Between 2020 and 2023, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) processed an average of about 4,500 Permanent Residence (PR) applications from Student Pass (STP) holders each year, including those who applied for PR together with their family. An average of around 1,100 applications were approved per year. The average and median ages of STP holders whose PR applications were processed, as well as those who had their PR applications approved, ranged between 12 and 14.
In the same period, ICA processed an average of 4,300 Long-Term Visit Pass applications each year from parents and grandparents who wished to accompany the STP holders. An average of around 4,100 applications were approved per year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applications for Permanent Residency and Citizenship from Stateless Persons in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Home Affairs in each year of the last five years (a) how many applications for permanent residency and citizenship are received from stateless persons, respectively; (b) what percentage of these applications are successful; and (c) whether the Government will consider expediting these applications, especially for those who have family ties to Singaporeans or many years of residency in Singapore.
Mr K Shanmugam: From 2019 to 2023, an average of 17 applications for Permanent Residency (PR) and 60 applications for Singapore Citizenship (SC) from stateless persons were processed each year. Of these, on average, 35% of the PR applications and 60% of the SC applications were approved.
Applications for PR and SC, including those submitted by stateless individuals, are evaluated on a range of criteria. These include the conduct and contributions of the applicant, links to Singapore, including if they have family members who are Singaporeans, and how long they have been in Singapore. The circumstances under which the person became stateless would also be taken into consideration.
As to the Member’s question on whether the applications can be expedited, the Member appears to be, in effect, asking whether these applications can be approved, without going through the assessments that are currently made. This will not be the right thing to do. The applications will have to be assessed fairly, based on the applicable criteria.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Upstream Actions against Illegal Moneylenders Targeting Foreign Domestic Workers and Recourse for Affected Singaporeans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Home Affairs in view of the rise in illegal moneylending cases concerning foreign domestic workers who borrow funds (a) what upstream action is being taken against illegal moneylenders to tackle such issues; and (b) what recourse is in place to help Singaporeans who are affected by such cases and continue to be harassed.
Mr K Shanmugam: We had answered a Parliamentary Question on our efforts to tackle unlicensed moneylending involving foreign domestic workers in May 2024. [Please refer to \"Harassment of Migrant Domestic Workers' Employers by Moneylenders\", Official Report, 7 May 2024, Vol 95, Issue 135, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
A person who is harassed by unlicensed moneylenders should make a Police report or call 999 for cases requiring immediate Police assistance. The Police will not hesitate to take firm enforcement action against unlicensed moneylenders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Offenders of Road Traffic (Pedestrian Crossings) Rules and Punishments Received","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Home Affairs in each year of the last five years (a) how many people have been punished for breaches of Rules 6, 9, 10 and 11 of the Road Traffic (Pedestrian Crossings) Rules; and (b) what has been the range of punishments they received.
Mr K Shanmugam: The figures requested by the Member are in Table 1 below.
A motorist caught for any of the above offences will either be issued a warning or offered a composition sum ranging between $100 and $250, depending on the offence type. A motorist who has committed a Rule 6 offence will, in addition, receive four or six demerit points, depending on the type of the offending vehicle.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Database of Locations of Reported Road Traffic Accidents for Research and Advocacy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Ministry tracks the location of all reported road traffic accidents in Singapore; and (b) if so, whether the Ministry will consider publishing a database of accidents with location data for research and advocacy purposes.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Traffic Police (TP) has records of the location of reported road traffic accidents that involve injuries and fatalities. This data is used by TP for enforcement, and also by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to assess potential road infrastructure enhancements.
LTA already publishes a list of locations with high incidence of traffic accidents under the Black Spot Programme. These locations are closely monitored and treated with appropriate road safety engineering measures.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria for Environmental Sustainability Considerations in Tender Evaluation Process","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment what are the criteria that the Government uses to evaluate environmental sustainability considerations in the tender evaluation process for tenders involving (i) large constructions and (ii) information and communications technology (ICT), respectively. \n
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Government Procurement Entities (GPEs) have adopted evaluation criteria to differentiate solutions or suppliers that are more environmentally sustainable.
For large construction tenders, the criteria include suppliers’ climate-related disclosures, level or extent of decarbonisation practices in intended construction work processes and relevant certifications to demonstrate that the supplier is environmentally sustainable.
For information and communications technology hardware tenders, the evaluation criteria include suppliers’ climate-related disclosures, environmental sustainability certifications for supplied products, and level or extent of sustainable packaging utilised.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inclusion of Singapore's Share of International Transport Emissions in Carbon Budget","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Government has plans to include Singapore’s share of international transport emissions in its carbon budget; and (b) whether it is planning to set carbon emission targets for such emissions.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Singapore reports our greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory in accordance with the reporting requirements for Parties under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Based on the UNFCCC reporting requirements, emissions from international transport (aviation and marine bunkers) do not accrue to the national GHG inventory of the countries providing bunkering but are reported separately as an information item.
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) lead the efforts on setting emissions targets for and decarbonising international transport. These organisations have set for their respective sectors a global ambition of achieving net-zero GHG emissions by or around 2050. As a member state of both ICAO and IMO, Singapore participates actively in discussions at the ICAO and IMO to decarbonise the civil aviation and maritime sectors. We are committed to contributing to these global ambitions collectively with other ICAO and IMO members.
The Maritime Singapore Decarbonisation Blueprint, launched by the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore in 2022, sets out our focus areas in driving the decarbonisation of the maritime industry. The strategies and initiatives will be reviewed and refined to respond to the dynamic developments in the global maritime decarbonisation landscape. The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore also published the Singapore Sustainable Air Hub Blueprint in February this year, outlining our initiatives to achieve net-zero for domestic and international aviation emissions by 2050.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recourse Available to Parents of Affected Students in Recent Bullying Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education with regard to the recent slate of bullying incidents involving students from Bukit View Secondary School and Qihua Primary School and at the Institute of Technical Education, what recourse is available to aggrieved parents of the victims involved, apart from reporting to the school principal and lodging a Police report.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: This question has been answered as part of the Minister for Education’s oral reply to Parliamentary Questions for the 14 October 2024 Sitting. The Member may refer to the transcript for the reply. [Please refer to \"Review of Measures and Help Provided in Student Bullying Incidents\", Official Report, 14 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 142, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government-Paid Childcare Leave Usage between 2021 and 2023","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development for each year from 2021 to 2023 (a) how many and what percentage of mothers took Government-Paid Childcare Leave (GPCL); (b) what is the average and median number of days of GPCL taken by mothers; (c) how many and what percentage of fathers took GPCL; and (d) what is the average and median number of days of GPCL taken by fathers.\n
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: As mentioned in a reply to a similar question by the Member of Parliament in March 2023, the Ministry of Social and Family Development only tracks the number of parents who took more than three days of Government-Paid Childcare Leave (GPCL), as employers only claim for reimbursement for this group. [Please refer to \"Take-up of Government-Paid Childcare Leave by Parents\", Official Report, 6 March 2023, Vol 95, Issue 92, Written Answers to Questions section.]
In 2021 and 2022, an average of 74,000, or 60% of eligible working mothers took more than three days of GPCL1 each year. During the same period, an average of 77,000, or 50% of eligible working fathers, took more than three days of GPCL each year. Of this group, the average and median amount of leave taken was six days in 2021 and 2022 for both mothers and fathers. Data for 2023 is not yet available.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : As employers only claim reimbursement from the Government for employees who take more than three days of GPCL, we do not require them to submit information for employees who took three days or less. These figures are rounded to the nearest thousand, and nearest 5%."],"footNoteQuestions":["18"],"questionNo":"18"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Youths Supported under CREST-Youth and YIT Programmes and Average Engagement Durations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the average age of youths who are supported by the (i) Youth Community Outreach Team (CREST-Youth) and (ii) Youth Integrated Team (YIT), respectively; (b) what is the average duration which a youth is supported for; and (c) how many touchpoints does a mental healthcare worker has with (i) the youths and (ii) their caregivers, respectively, during that period.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Details of Youth Community Outreach Team (CREST-Youth) and Youth Integrated Team (YIT) services are shown in Table 1 below. The Ministry of Health does not track the number of sessions CREST-Youth and YIT service providers have with caregivers.
20 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there are any subsidised eye-related screenings under the Healthier SG programme; (b) if so, what are the available screenings and the amount of the associated subsidies; and c) if not, whether the Ministry has any plans to introduce subsidised eye-related screenings, given the prevalence of eye-related issues among the elderly.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: There are different types of eye screenings.
For seniors, subsidised screening for visual acuity is available under Project Silver Screen (PSS), a community functional assessment programme. This does not require a visit to the doctor. Eligible seniors pay a nominal fee when they attend the first PSS session, that is, $0 for Pioneer Generation (PG) card holders, $2 for Community Health Assistance Scheme (CHAS) Blue/Orange and Merdeka Generation (MG) card holders, and $5 for all other Singapore Citizens.
For individuals with diabetes, diabetic retinal photography (DRP) is subsidised at polyclinics. Patients can receive subsidised DRP screenings at various participating general practitioner (GP) clinics based on their CHAS, PG and MG card status. DRP is currently also included under a Healthier SG care protocol for chronic disease management.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Graduands of Diploma in Nursing Programmes and NUS Alice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies Not Registering as Nurses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Health (a) from 2019 to 2024, what is the annual (i) percentage and (ii) number of graduands of Diploma in Nursing programmes who do not register to be nurses after completing their courses, factoring in those who enlist for National Service or enrol in the NUS Alice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies; and (b) whether the Ministry has data of the same from graduands of NUS Alice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Singapore Nursing Board does not capture the data of graduands who graduated from our Institutes of Higher Learning but do not register to be nurses.
Based on the 2022 Graduate Employment Survey conducted by the schools, approximately 90% of the Diploma and Degree nursing graduates who were in full-time permanent employment within six months of graduation practised nursing.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strategies to Combat Cyberbullying Among Youths","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what specific measures are being taken to address cyberbullying among youths, given its strong association with mental health symptoms; and (b) how will the Ministry work with digital platforms to provide a safer online environment for youths.
Mrs Josephine Teo: My response will also address a similar Parliamentary Question for Written Answer raised by Mr Yip Hon Weng for this Sitting.
The Singapore Government takes a serious view on online harms, including cyberbullying. We have introduced a range of measures and are continuing efforts to strengthen online safety.
Under the Broadcasting Act, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) has designated six Social Media Services (SMSs) with significant reach or impact in Singapore. They are Facebook, HardwareZone, Instagram, TikTok, X (formerly Twitter) and YouTube. These SMSs must comply with the Code of Practice for Online Safety (Online Safety Code), which took effect on 18 July 2023. They must have additional measures to enhance the online safety of children, which include: (a) ensuring that children are not targeted to receive content that SMSs are reasonably aware to be detrimental to their physical or mental well-being, such as cyberbullying content; (b) having in place more restrictive account settings for children; and (c) providing tools for children or their parents to manage their safety.
IMDA closely monitors the designated SMSs’ compliance throughout the year and will engage them if it detects systemic lapses that impact online safety for Singapore end-users. Designated SMSs are required to submit annual reports about measures, systems and processes that they have put in place to combat harmful content. IMDA is currently reviewing the first set of reports and will publish the outcome of its review in due course.
These SMSs also have their own community guidelines against harmful content and provide tools for users to report such content. Singaporeans who encounter cyberbullying on SMSs should report these incidents. Under the Online Safety Code, designated SMSs must assess these reports and take appropriate actions in a timely and diligent manner. If the report is not frivolous or vexatious, these SMSs must inform the user who submitted the report of their decision and actions taken.
Where criminal offences are disclosed, acts of cyberbullying may be also investigated by the Police. These include offences under the Protection from Harassment Act and the Penal Code, such as distribution of voyeuristic images or recordings.
Under the Protection from Harassment Act, victims of cyberbullying can apply for a Protection Order to direct an individual or an entity to take down published images that cause harassment, alarm or distress. Offenders who breach the Protection Order would be liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding $5,000, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both.
The Government plans to introduce new legislation and measures to provide stronger support and assurance to victims of online harms, such as cyberbullying. This will include the setting up of a dedicated agency to help secure timely relief from perpetrators as well as the social media platforms. More details will be shared when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of HDB Blocks Reaching Non-citizen Quota for Renting out of Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for National Development since 2021 (a) what percentage of HDB blocks have reached the Non-Citizen Quota for renting out of flats; and (b) which neighbourhood have reached the Non-Citizen Quota for renting out of flats.
Mr Desmond Lee: As of September 2024, around 1% of Housing and Development Board (HDB) blocks and 1% of neighbourhoods have reached the Non-Citizen (NC) Quota. These proportions have remained relatively stable since 2021, while the specific blocks and neighbourhoods that have reached the NC Quota have changed over time.
Flat owners or potential tenants can visit https://go.gov.sg/nc-quota to check if a specific HDB unit is affected by the NC Quota.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Unoccupied and Total Rental Units under Public Rental Scheme and Interim Rental Housing in Sengkang and Punggol","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for National Development for the past six months, what is the number of unoccupied and total rental housing units under the (i) Public Rental Scheme and (ii) Interim Rental Housing in the Sengkang and Punggol areas respectively.
Mr Desmond Lee: The same pool of flats is used for both the Public Rental Scheme and Interim Rental Housing.
On average, 13% of about 4,000 rental flats in Sengkang and Punggol were unoccupied in the last six months. Of these unoccupied rental flats, the majority are not available for allocation to new tenants as they are reserved for tenants affected by relocation exercises in other parts of the island or are being progressively spruced up for allocation to new tenants after the previous tenant moved out.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Number of HDB BTO Ballot Errors and Actions Taken","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for National Development (a) for each year of the last five years, how many HDB BTO applications were allocated a wrong ballot number due to the system categorising applicants in the wrong priority category; (b) how many flat bookings were allocated to such applicants; (c) how many of such flat bookings were subsequently cancelled; and (d) what recourse or assistance was made available to applicants who were affected and find themselves having to re-ballot for flats in later BTO exercises although it was not their mistake.
Mr Desmond Lee: Over the past five years, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) processed and balloted close to 370,000 Build-To-Order flat applications. Of these, less than 0.1% had their balloted queue positions subsequently revised. These revisions typically arose from the applicants' request, such as withdrawals from priority schemes, or when applicants were found to be ineligible for the priority schemes that they had applied for based on the documents subsequently submitted to HDB.
Only a very small fraction of revisions was due to erroneous processing. Since the implementation of the HDB Flat Eligibility letter process in May 2023, 23 cases out of approximately 55,000 applications balloted fell into this category. In such instances, HDB corrected the queue positions to ensure fairness to all applicants. Of the 23 cases, one applicant had already booked a flat when the error was identified during HDB’s counter-checking process. HDB subsequently sought the applicant’s’ understanding, cancelled the booking and refunded the option fee.
Despite the low incidence of such cases, HDB treats these matters seriously. To minimise future occurrences, HDB has implemented additional safeguards, including system enhancements and reviews of operating procedures. These measures are part of HDB’s ongoing commitment to ensure a fair and accurate allocation process for all applicants.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Living Space Per Child in 1-room and 2-room Rental Flats and Minimum Required for Healthy Growth","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the average living space per child for children living in (i) 1-room and (ii) 2-room rental flats currently; and (b) what is the Ministry's assessment of the minimum living space required for children to grow up in a healthy environment.
Mr Desmond Lee: \tWe do not impose requirements on minimum living space for each household as circumstances, including family planning and needs, differ across households. This applies to public rental flats as well as to HDB flats purchased or rented on the open market. As such, we do not actively track the average living space per child for children in public rental flats.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Implementing Distinct Quantitative Noise Thresholds for Evening Period in Residential Areas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for National Development as part of the review of recommendations made by the Community Advisory Panel on Neighbourhood Noise, whether the Ministry can consider implementing distinct quantitative noise thresholds for the evening period between 7.00 pm and 10.00 pm, with these limits being lower than daytime thresholds but higher than those set for quiet hours.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Ministry of National Development has accepted most of the six recommendations by the Community Advisory Panel (CAP) on Neighbourhood Noise. These include setting norms on considerate behaviours to manage neighbourhood noise, designating an agency empowered to enforce against unacceptable neighbour noise and reviewing the mediation process to better manage community disputes over neighbourhood noise.
On CAP’s recommendation to adopt a quantitative noise threshold to assess egregious cases of neighbourhood noise, the Ministry has no plans to set such thresholds during the quiet hours from 10.30 pm to 7.00 am, or during the period from 7.00 pm to 10.00 pm suggested by the Member. This is following consultations with external experts, who shared that there could be operational challenges in setting absolute, across-the-board noise thresholds, as residents would respond to noise differently and have subjective perceptions of severe noise disturbances of varying duration. Neighbourhoods could also have different perceptions of acceptable ambient noise levels, depending on location.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recourse under TAFEP Framework for Workers Facing Tattoo Discrimination","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Manpower whether workers who have experienced employment discrimination because of their tattoos can seek recourse under the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices framework.
Dr Tan See Leng: Such workers can, indeed, contact the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices for advice and assistance. Employers are required to abide by the principles of fair employment practices set out in the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices, which include recruiting employees on the basis of merit. Employers are also permitted to consider in recruitment genuine and reasonable occupational requirements that make it difficult for those with tattoos to perform the job function.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Decrease in Number of PEP Holders after Increase in Minimum Fixed Monthly Salary Threshold","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the number of Personalised Employment Pass (PEP) holders has decreased since the minimum fixed monthly salary eligibility threshold was raised to $22,500 from 1 September 2023; and (b) if so, by how many.
Dr Tan See Leng: \tThe number of Personalised Employment Passes (PEP) applications approved in the past 12 months has decreased by about half, from 3,200 over September 2022 to August 2023, to 1,400 over September 2023 to August 2024.
30 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Transport (a) what have been the average time intervals during peak hours and non-peak hours respectively for feeder Bus Service 944 in 2023; and (b) whether these increased after feeder Bus Service 944 was extended to Tengah New Town and renumbered to Bus Service 992.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Service 992, formerly known as Service 944, was extended from Bukit Batok West to serve Tengah in September 2023. As residents progressively moved into Tengah, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) improved the peak and off-peak frequencies of Service 992 in 2024.
As of August 2024, Service 992 operated at an average frequency of about four minutes during peak hours and about eight minutes during off-peak hours on weekdays. This is an improvement compared to the average frequency of about eight minutes and 14 minutes during peak and off-peak hours respectively for the former Service 944 in August 2023. LTA will continue to monitor ridership and work with the bus operator to make necessary adjustments.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Introducing Regulations for Seamless Refunds for Significant Flight Delays Based on International Norms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport in respect of the plan by a neighbouring country to require airlines to provide full refunds to passengers of flights delayed by at least five hours (a) whether the Ministry will consider introducing regulations to facilitate hassle-free refunds by airlines to passengers for significant flight delays; and (b) what is the international norm for compensation and refunds for flight delays.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: There is no international norm for compensation and refunds for flight delays, as different countries adopt different approaches.
In Singapore, passenger interests are safeguarded under the national-level consumer protection framework through the Consumers Association of Singapore or the Small Claims Tribunal as set out under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act. Passengers who experienced flight delays can pursue claims through these channels against the airlines involved.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of Predictive Maintenance Systems to Prevent Train Failures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the use of predictive maintenance systems by MRT rail operators has helped to prevent any occurrence of train failures in the past; (b) whether the system is able to detect the risk that led to the recent disruption in train service in September 2024; (c) when will LTA and SMRT complete the investigation into the cause of the incident and share the findings; and (d) what interim steps are being taken to prevent similar disruptions from recurring.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: This question has been answered in the Ministerial Statement at the Sitting on 15 October 2024. [Please refer to \"A Safe, Reliable, and Resilient Rail System\", Official Report, 15 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 143, Ministerial Statements section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulatory Supervision over Rail Operators' Decisions in Areas Such As Maintenance Procedures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the extent of regulatory supervision exercised by the Ministry over the rail operators' operational decisions in areas, such as train and rail maintenance procedures; (b) how have the train and rail maintenance procedures been enhanced for service reliability since the serious disruptions of MRT train services in 2011 and 2017; and (c) how is the balance struck between the costs of over-maintenance and the prevention of avoidable disruption incidents.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: This question has been answered in the Ministerial Statement at the Sitting on 15 October 2024. [Please refer to \"A Safe, Reliable, and Resilient Rail System\", Official Report, 15 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 143, Ministerial Statements section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Minister of State for Health","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following statement was made by Minister of State for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) during the reply for Question No 17 at the Sitting of 16 October 2024: (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam): I note the concern that the Member raised on the limitations of the SMF. I would say though that there are over 16,000 seniors since 2019, I believe, who have already applied for this fund, and most of them will actually get subsidies; 99% of them are eligible and actually would get the subsidies. So, for those of them who cannot meet the eligibility requirement, they can go to AIC for any additional support. [Please refer to \"Allowing Seniors to Purchase Hearing Aids with MediSave\", Official Report, 16 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 144, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Ms Rahayu Mahzam circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual correction to the reply given for Question No 17 at the Sitting of 16 October 2024. My reply should be read as follows:
The Minister of State for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam): I note the concern that the Member raised on the limitations of the SMF. I would say though that there are over 16,000 seniors per year since 2019, I believe, who have already applied for this fund for assistive devices, and most of them will actually get subsidies; 99% of them are eligible and actually would get the subsidies. So, for those of them who cannot meet the eligibility requirement, they can go to AIC for any additional support.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":6631,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Hazel Poa","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20241016/vernacular-Hazel Poa Olympic 16Oct2024 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Hazel Poa Olympic 16Oct2024 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6632,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Sitoh Yih Pin","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20241016/vernacular-Sitoh Yihpin Olympic 16Oct2024-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Sitoh Yihpin Olympic 16Oct2024-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6633,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Hazel Poa","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20241016/vernacular-Hazel Poa Insurance 16Oct2024 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Hazel Poa Insurance 16Oct2024 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6634,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Saktiandi Supaat","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20241016/vernacular-16 Oct 2024 - Mr Saktiandi Supaat - Insurance (A) Bill.pdf","fileName":"16 Oct 2024 - Mr Saktiandi Supaat - Insurance (A) Bill.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}